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] He
makes a strong point regarding the impasse of historical-critical scholarship in
understanding this poem, which has failed to provide acceptable solutions for
the enigmas of the poem[34] and suggests the use of the new hermeneutic
approach which puts focus on the text in itself and takes language as
event.[35] The
language creates an alternative world which invites the reader to enter.[36]
We share his dissatisfaction with the
historical-critical approach for studying the letters, and especially because,
with this approach, the problematic mirror-reading method could not be avoided.[37] Since by nature a letter is dialogical,
both inside the text and between the text and the readers in the historical
context,[38] we
find that Clines= study of personae could be applied to the study
of letters. This is especially
appropriate, because letters are not simply a source of information, but
usually aims at performing a process of persuasion to win the readers to the
position of the authors, usually related to actions.
Clines=
purpose in applying this approach is to show Athe
legitimacy of multiple meanings@ of a text, especially in reading
a poem.[39] Our
purpose is different from his; the genre
of a poem is very different from that of a letter. The purpose of our study is
to show how this approach could help us to understand the characteristics of
different identities, the relationship between them, and the operation of
persuasion among them in the text, as well as to relate these findings to the
historical contexts of the author and the intended readers, so that we could
have a better framework to study Paul=s purpose and arguments in
writing the text. In this way, we are not replacing the historical-critical
method by this new hermeneutic method, but using both to complement each other
in studying Paul=s letter to the Romans in
general,[40] and
Rom. 14: 1-15: 13 in particular.
We borrow Clines= ideas
and name this approach personae analysis.[41] Since
the first person (singular and plural) and second person (plural and singular)
form the basic framework of interaction in the letter, our personae analysis
will focus on studying the occurrences of the first and second person (singular
and plural) pronouns and verbs. If the context requires us to pay attention to
the third person as well, we will do so accordingly. While we accept the
assumption that Romans was a letter addressed to the situation of Roman
Christians, we will focus our enquiry on. the persuasion in the letter
on how Paul as the author provide solutions to the controversy faced by his
audience. We hope that by using the interaction between the first person and
the second person within the text as the framework for our study, we can
also have a better approach to understanding how Paul addresses the concrete
situation of Roman Christians.[42]
J.
Personae
analysis of Rm. 14:1 B 15:13
In Rm.
14:1-15:13, first person and second person pronouns (singular and plural) occur
twenty-five times.[43] First person singular verbs[44] and second person singular verbs[45] occur four times each; second person plural verbs
occur twice[46] and the first person plural verbs occur eleven times.[47] We may say that the occurrence of the first and
second persons in this passage is quite frequent.[48] It is helpful to pay attention to Paul's change from
one person to another when he uses these pronouns and verbs in this passage.[49]
In the
following analysis, we divide 14:1-15:13 into five sections according to the
content and the characteristics of these 'persons'.
(11) Paul Admonishes the Jewish and the Gentile Christians
not to Pass Judgement on One Another (14:1 -13a)
In this passage, there are one first person singular
verb and one first person pronoun in v. 11, both of which are part of the OT
quotations; two first person plural pronouns in vv.7, 12 and remarkably nine
first person plural verbs in vv. 8, 10, 13, of which seven occur in v.8.
Furthermore there are five second person singular pronouns in vv.4, and 10, of
which four occur in v.10; and there is only one second person plural verb,
which occurs in the first verse.
Naturally, we start our analysis from v.1. Paul starts
his exhortation by using the second person plural imperative[50] proslambanesthe which most probably refers to
the 'strong' mentioned later in 15:1.[51] If this is the case, Paul starts his admonition
explicitly towards the Gentile Christians in Rome requesting them to welcome a
Jewish Christian[52] who participates in the fellowship of their house
churches,[53] even though the Jewish Christian only eats vegetables
when participating in the communal meal with them (v.2). As we have mentioned
above, this could have happened when the Jewish Christians returned to Rome
after the death of Claudius and participated in the existing Gentile Christian
house churches. This evidence does not imply that Jewish Christians were truly
vegetarian. Abstaining from meat was
probably because of doubts as to whether the meat provided by the Gentile
Christians was prepared according to the Jewish food laws.
Thus in 14:1f., Paul presupposed that there were cases
of individual Jewish Christians who had participated in the communal meals of
the Gentile Christian house churches. As they ate only vegetables and abstained
from all meat provided by the Gentile Christians, they had dispute with the
Gentile Christians over their doubt and were not welcomed by them.[54]
The conflict was not only on the Jewish food laws but
also the observance of special days according to the OT ceremonial law (cf. 14:
5-6).[55] However, it is significant that the issue of
circumcision is not raised in this setting. This could have two explanations:
(1) Paul expects that the issue of circumcision had been settled in his
discussion in the earlier part of the letter (Rm. 2-4); (2) the issue of
circumcision was not related to the conflict about the observance of food laws
and special days among the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome. In view of
the fact that circumcision is not a controversial issue in Romans,[56] both explanations seem to be probable. If this is the
case, the Jewish Christians in Rome might have accepted the principle that it
was not necessary for the Gentile Christians to be circumcised;[57] the issues still at stake are the observance of the
food laws and possibly also the special days.[58] This possibly reflects the consequence of the
'Jerusalem council'.[59]
In dealing with the conflict in Rome, Paul laid down
two principles for both the Jewish and the Gentile Christians:
(1) Do not
despise (exoutheneô) or pass judgement (krinô) upon one another
(14: 3f, 10, 13a).[60]
(2) Let each
person be fully convinced in his/her own mind about his/her own practice
(14:5).[61]
The grounds for supporting these two principles are
based on:
(1) God has welcomed the one who is different in
practising the Jewish ceremonial laws (v.3c);[62]
(2) no one has the right to pass judgement on another
person's household slave (v.4a);[63]
(3) the Lord is able to make one stand without
regarding whether he/she practised the Jewish ceremonial laws or not (v.4c);
(4) those who are different in practising the Jewish
ceremonial laws can be the same in their desire to serve the Lord and to give
thanks to God (v.6); and
(5) we all belong to the same Lord who is Christ
(vv.7- 9).[64]
Paul's argument clearly tried to persuade neither the
Gentile Christians to observe the Jewish ceremonial laws nor the Jewish
Christians to abandon them, but both to accept the diversified practices. What
Paul demanded from them was a change of their attitude towards one another. Furthermore, Paul asked them to recognize that the
only essential unity among them was to serve the one Lord and to live and die
to the same Lord who is Christ.
Paul's argument is summarized in vv.10-13a, which
includes an OT quotation from the later part of the LXX text of Is. 45:23 and
an introductory formula legei kurios which is probably from Is. 49:18
(cf. Num. 14:28; Jer. 22:24; Ezek. 5:11).[65] As we mentioned above, the quotation is related to the setting of
worship. If we set this quotation against the context of Rm. 14:10c which is
talking about the final judgement of all Christians before God (cf. II Cor.
5:10), we can see that Paul probably uses this quotation to show that both
Jewish and Gentile Christians will worship together in the eschaton and
that they should acknowledge God as Lord and the final judge of the world in
their worship now (cf. v.12). Therefore, they should not judge one another when
they worship together.
In applying his arguments to this OT quotation, Paul
certainly indicates to those Jewish Christians that his exhortation is in
continuity with the Jewish tradition. However, there is also a message to the
Gentile Christians: the inclusion of the Gentiles in the worship of God is
based on the foretelling of the Jewish Scriptures. Thus on the one hand, Paul
encourages the Jewish Christians to worship God with the Gentiles; on the other
hand, he reminds the Gentile Christians that their participation in the worship
of God is dependent on the promise of the OT.
As far as the 'persons' in this passage are concerned,
the Gentile Christians are directly addressed in v.1. The second person
singular pronoun which occurs five times in the questions asked in diatribal
style (v.4, 10, 10, 10, 10) is probably identified with individuals who are
among the Jewish and the Gentile Christians of Paul's addressees[66] and who despise or pass judgement upon other
Christians who are different in their practice of Jewish ceremonial laws.
It is significant that Paul uses su twice in
v.10 in connection with the word adelphos, which he has not used since
12:1. Paul obviously intends to remind the one who despises or passes judgement
that the one who is despised or judged is his brother, one who belongs to the
same Lord.[67] In the same verse, Paul strengthens his appeal for
unity by using the first person plural verb parastesometha to indicate
that they will stand before the judgement seat of God together. In fact, Paul
has forcefully demonstrated his appeal for unity already by using hêmeis
once in v.7 and the first person plural verbs zômen and apothneskômen
three times each, together with the emphatic esmen once in v.8 to
indicate that the unity between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians and Paul
himself is a unity in life and death and to the Lord.
At the end of this passage, Paul continues to use the
first person plural pronoun (hêmôn) and the first person plural
imperative verb (krinômen) to denote this unity. Thus we can see the
changing pattern of the 'persons' in this passage. Paul admonishes the Gentile
Christians as a group first in vv.1, 2 and then changes to address the Jewish
and the Gentile Christians as individuals in vv.3-6. The climax of this passage
occurs in vv.7-9 when Paul uses the first person plural to identify himself
with the Jewish and the Gentile Christians in Rome as a whole. In fact it has
an overtone that 'Christians' as a whole are in view.[68] The change from first person plural to second person
singular again in v.10a is so forceful that if there are still individuals in
the Roman Christian community who continue to despise or pass judgement on
other members of the church, they will find it very difficult to retain this
position. In vv. 10c-13a, Paul drives his argument home by using the first
person plural again to conclude his exhortation in this section.
From this passage, we gather the following findings:
(1) Paul directs his exhortation explicitly to the
Gentile Christians, while the Jewish Christians are not referred to as a group.
The Jewish Christians are addressed as individuals among the Roman Christians
or as part of the Roman Christian community as a whole.
(2) Paul has in mind that the Gentile Christians
should welcome the Jewish Christians to participate in their communal meal. In
other words, he expects that the Jewish and the Gentile Christians could
worship together as well.[69]
(3) Paul admonishes the Jewish and the Gentile
Christians to change their attitude towards one another. However, Paul does not
try to persuade them to change their different practices in relation to Jewish
ceremonial laws but asks them to accept their differences.
(4) Paul emphasizes that they are united in God in
their service to the Lord, under the Lordship of Christ, and in their
eschatological destiny. They are brothers one to another.
The above findings give us quite a clear picture of
the situation of the Roman Christian community. Paul's argument obviously
shows that he does not aim at bringing the Jewish and the Gentile Christians
together into one congregation in which uniformity of practice in the communal
meal and observance of days would be expected. What Paul presupposes is the
existence of a number of house churches alongside each other, which belong to
Jewish and Gentile Christians. This is consistent with our previous
understanding of the situation of the Roman Christian community.
In 14: 1-13a, Paul probably wishes to restore a
situation in which Jewish Christians can participate in the worship held at a
Gentile Christian house church. They could eat vegetables in the communal meal
with no need to dispute with the Gentile Christians.[70] In this situation, the Jewish and the Gentile Christians
should not pass judgement on one another.
However, if this is the way in which Jewish Christians
can participate in worship held in a Gentile Christian house church, then
another issue arises: how can Gentile Christians participate in the worship
held in a Jewish Christian house church? It is quite obvious that this
cannot happen unless either Jewish or Gentile Christians are willing to change
their practice in eating meal. Paul goes on to deal with this issue in the
following passages.
(12) Paul admonishes the Gentile Christians not to put a
stumbling-block or
hindrance in the way of building up a Roman Christian community net-work
(14: 13b-23)
In this passage, there are two first person singular
verbs in v.14 and one first person plural verb in v.19. However, there are four
second person singular pronouns in vv.15, 15, 21, 22 and three second person
singular verbs in vv.15, 15, 20. Furthermore, there is one second person plural
pronoun in v.16 and a second person plural verb in v.13b.
We start this section from v.13b because v.13a is
better understood as the conclusion of 14: 1-13a.[71] Paul changes the 'persons' from first person plural
in v.13a to second person plural in v.13b, and the fact that he uses the word proskomma
in vv.13b and 20 (cf. v.21) suggests that v.13b belongs to 14: 14-23 rather
than 14: 1-13a.
In v.13b, Paul uses the second person plural
imperative krinate to direct his exhortation explicitly to the strong,[72] that is the Gentile Christians. Paul admonishes them
not to place a stumbling-block (proskomma) or hindrance (skandalon)
in the way of a brother. In the context of 14:1-15:13, the brother is a Jewish
Christian. It is noteworthy that in the NT, proskomma and skandalon
are linked together only in three cases (Rm. 9:33; here and I Peter 2:8).[73]
As far as these three cases are concerned, we have
three observations:
(13) In the context of both Rm. 9:33 and 14:13, proskomma
and skandalon are related to
diôkô (cf. 9:30, 31 and 14:19f.).[74]
14)
(In Rm. 9:33 and
I Peter 2:8, they are part of the quotation from Is. 8:14.[75] In its
original
context, "the stone of stumbling and rock of offence" are concerned
with a
lack of
faith.[76] However, in Rm. 9:33 and I Peter 2:8, the
"stone' which represents
Christ, to
whom Christians have faith,[77] is the crucial test between belonging to the
people of
God or being excluded from it.[78]
(3) In Romans 9:33, the context is the controversy
between Jew and Gentile.[79]
These observations are most significant to Rm. 14:13b
in the following ways:
15)
(As proskomma
and skandalon are not part of a quotation,[80] Paul probably uses these
two words
deliberately in the context of controversy betweeen Jewish and Gentile
Christians.
(2) The words "stone" and "rock"
are missing here.
16)
(In Rm. 9:33 and
I Peter 2:8, the "stumbling" and "offence" are inevitable,[81] but in
Rm.
14:13b, they are avoidable and should not be put in the way of a brother.[82]
The absence of the "stone" and the
"rock" is certainly due to the different issues at stake. In Rm.
14:13b, the issue is obviously concerned with the observance of Jewish food
laws (cf. vv.14f., 17, 20f., 23) but not faith in Christ. To Paul, these two
issues are not at the same level of importance. Whether to observe the Jewish
law or not is not an essential for salvation. Therefore, it is neither
necessary for the Jewish Christians to ask the Gentile Christians to observe
the Jewish food laws nor for the Gentile Christians to request the Jewish
Christians to abandon them. The observance of Jewish food laws is optional for
the Gentile Christians, although it is essential for the Jewish Christians to
keep their Jewish identity. However, faith in Christ is essential to both Jew
and Gentile in order that they may be justified (cf. 3:21f.).
Thus in Rm. 14:13b, the message of Paul's admonition
to the Gentile Christians in the context of the controversy between the Jewish
and the Gentile Christians is as follows:
(1) faith in Christ and observance of Jewish food laws
are not of the same level of importance and they are not incompatible.
(2) Do not make the issue of the observance of the
Jewish food laws a test of faith for the Jewish Christians.
(3) While the issue of the observance of the Jewish
food laws is essential to Jewish identity, it can be a stumbling-block and
hindrance to Jewish Christians. If the Gentile Christians put the issue as a
test of faith for the Jewish Christians, it will force the Jewish Christians
either to abandon their faith in Christ or to become apostates from the Jewish
community.[83] This choice is not necessary. A Jewish Christian
can simultaneously be a Jew and a Christian.
After Paul has directed the serious exhortation in
v.13b to the Gentile Christians, he immediately uses two strong first person
singular verbs (oida and pepeismai) to express his conviction and
he also appeals to the authority of the Lord Jesus[84] to confirm the understanding of the Gentile
Christians about the invalidity of the Jewish food laws. However, Paul wants to
make clear that the heart of the matter is not about the practice of eating
which is related to a certain ethnic-religio-culture but the relationship among
people of God composed of different ethnic-cultural groups. The principle is
simple: "Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God"
(v.20a).[85] In order to make it crystal clear, Paul defines it in
both negative and positive ways:
(1) Everything is indeed clean,[86] but it is wrong for anyone to make others fall
(proskommatos, cf. v.13b) by what he eats (v.20).
(2) It is good not to eat (phagein) meat or to
drink (piein) wine on specific occasions[87] or to do anything by which your brother stumbles (proskoptei),
(v.21, NASB).
In vv.22, 23,[88] Paul further explains the principle with reference to
how the strong should regard his own faith[89] and the situation of the weak.[90] Nevertheless, the reasons supporting the principle
are set forth in vv.15-18: (i) because of love (v.15a);[91] (ii) the fact that Christ has died for the brother
whom one may ruin spiritually by reason of the food one eats (v.15b); (iii)
because of not letting what is good[92] be spoken of as evil (v.16); (iv) because of the fact
that the kingdom of God does not mean food and drink but righteousness and
peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (v.17); (v) the fact that this is a service to
Christ which is acceptable to God and approved by men (v.18).
As far as these reasons are concerned, there are two
observations which are most relevant to our discussion:
(1) The danger of spiritual ruin (v.15b)
The verb apollumi
is here probably used to denote the bringing about of someone's ultimate
(eschatological) ruin, his loss of his share in eternal life (cf. I Cor. 8:11).[93] If this is the case, it probably also refers to the
danger of apostasy[94] by the Jewish Christians on the issue of observance
of the Jewish food laws, as implied in Paul's use of the words proskomma
and skandalon in v.13b. In this case, it is the danger of becoming an
apostate from Christian faith. Thus in v.15b Paul reinforces his exhortation of
v.13b and admonishes the Gentile Christians not to put the Jewish Christians in
danger of becoming apostates from Christ on account of the food they eat.
(2) The identity of the one who 'speaks the evil'
(v.16)
The identity of the one who 'speaks the evil' (blasphêmeisthw)
is not clear. Kaesemann suggests that usually in the NT those who do the evil
speaking are non- Christians.[95] However, the use of the same word in I Cor. 10:30
seems to indicate that the occasion for evil speaking can be within the church.[96] Some scholars suggest that this is also the case
here, and that it is the 'weak' who speak the evil.[97] Since we suggest that this verse is addressed to the
'strong' alone and humwn to agathon refers to their freedom in
the gospel,[98] it is reasonable to suggest that Paul might have in
mind both the 'weak' and the non-Christian.[99] In other words, when Paul admonishes the Gentile
Christians in 14:16, he possibly has in mind that the conduct of the Gentile
Christians could force the Jewish Christians to take the same position as that
of those non-Christian Jews, and in consequence be more united with the
non-Christian Jews than with the Gentile Christians.
In 14: 13b-16, on the one hand, Paul tries to prevent
the Jewish Christians becoming apostates from the Jewish or the Christian
community; on the other hand, he tries to prevent their identifying with the
position of the non- Christian Jews against the Gentile Christians. He hopes
that the Jewish Christians will balance their position within both the Jewish
and the Christian communities.
Since Paul directs his exhortation to the Gentile
Christians from 14:13b, the principles and the reasons as discussed above are
also given to them. Thus as far as the 'persons' in this passage are concerned,
the second person singular pronouns in vv.15, 21, the second person singular
verb in vv.15, 20 and the second person plural pronouns in v.16, most probably
all refer to the Gentile Christians.
In this context, it is more natural for the hortatory
first person plural subjunctive in v.19 to refer to Paul and the Gentile
Christians. Paul not only admonishes the Gentile Christians negatively that
they should not put a stumbling-block or hindrance in the way of a brother
(v.13b; cf. vv.15, 16) but he also admonishes them positively to pursue what
makes for peace (tês eirênês) and for mutual upbuilding (tês
oikodomws tês eis allêlous). By using first person plural, Paul identifies
himself with the Gentile Christians in this pursuit.
In fact, Paul's use of ara oun to introduce
this positive exhortation in v.19 suggests that the preceding verses
(vv.13b-18) have been preparing the way for it.[100] The objective of not putting a stumbling-block or
hindrance in the way of a brother is to pursue (diwkw)[101] what makes for peace (eirênê) and for mutual
upbuilding (oikodomê). The words "peace" (eirênê) and
"upbuilding" (oikodomê) used here are most significant. In
this context, eirênê probably denotes peace with one's fellow-Christians[102] and oikodomê denotes the building up of the
Christian community in Rome.[103] If we take the situation in Rome into account,
they (eirênê and oikodomê) denote Paul's wish to build up a peaceful and close
relationship between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians who belong to
different house churches, that is a net-work of Christian house churches in
Rome probably similar to that of the net-work of Jewish synagogues [104]
This goal is so important to Paul that he describes it
as the "work of God" which surely should not be destroyed because of
the issue of food (v.20). The case is so serious that Paul has to appeal to the
teaching of love (v.15a), the death of Christ (v.15b), the need to avoid
causing spiritual ruin of a brother (v.15c) and the nature of the kingdom of
God (v.17). Furthermore, Paul has to demand that the Gentile Christians should
be aware of the limit of their freedom in the Gospel (v.16). As will be shown
below, 15: 7-13 relates this issue of the relationship between the Jewish and
Gentile Christians with the covenant faithfulness and the mercy of God as well
as the content of the Gospel which are the issues discussed by Paul in Rm. 1-
11. This evidence shows that the goal of building up a peaceful and close
net-work among the Jewish and the Gentile house churches in Rome is very
important in Paul's mind.
Thus in 14: 13b-23, Paul explicitly directs his
exhortation only to the Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians are hidden in
the background. Paul brings the discussion of the observance of the Jewish food
laws to a different dimension. He asks the Gentile Christians not to make this
issue a test of faith for the Jewish Christians. A Jew can become a
Christian and maintain his observance of the Jewish food laws. In other words,
Paul admonishes the Gentile Christians not to put the Jewish Christians in danger
of becoming either Jewish or Christian apostates.
Furthermore, although Paul endorses the Gentile
Christians' understanding of the lacking of final validity of the Jewish food
laws, he admonishes them to restrict their freedom in eating meat and drinking
wine for the sake of building up a peaceful and close relationship with the
Jewish Christians in Rome. Paul probably even suggests that it would be good if
the Gentile Christians could change their practice of eating and drinking
probably on specific occasions when they have a communal meal with the
Jewish Christians. This would mean that when the Jewish Christians participate
in the communal meal held at a Gentile Christian house church, not only the
Jewish Christians would eat solely vegetables, but the Gentile Christians may
also do the same. Cranfield rightly describes the situation as "the strong
Christian who 'has the faith to eat any food' has more room in which to
manoeuvre than the weak Christian who 'eats only vegetables'. He has the inner
freedom not only to eat flesh but also equally to refrain from eating it. So
for him to refrain for his weak brother's sake is assuredly good"[105]
Therefore, if the Gentile Christians are willing to
change their practice when eating in the presence of Jewish Christians in their
own house church, it would open up the chance for the Gentile Christians to
follow the practice of the Jewish Christians on specific occasions when they participate in a
communal meal held at the house church of the Jewish Christians. As will be
shown below, this seems to be the issue discussed in 15: 1-4.
Nevertheless, although in 14: 13b-23 only the Gentile
Christians are addressed, the message is surely overheard by the Jewish
Christians as well. On the one hand, they also have to understand the
observance of the Jewish food laws from the perspective of Jesus Christ, the
principle of love and the kingdom of God; on the other hand, they should know
that Paul understands their dilemma and sympathizes with them. However, as
for Paul, the most important thing is not to let the issue of practicing Jewish
food laws, which is related to an ethnic-religio-cultural practice, become a
stumbling block or hindrance in building up a peaceful and close relationship
between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians in Rome. This is an
exhortation that Paul wishes to direct to both groups.
(14) Paul admonishes the Gentile Christians to please the
Jewish Christians (15: 1-4)
This
section is the climax of Paul's exhortation directed to the strong which starts
from 14:1.[106] The
terms dunatos and adunatos occur for the first time (15:1) to
identify explicitly those who should welcome "the man who is weak in
faith" (14:1) and the person so far referred to as ho asthenwn
(14: 1, 2) respectively.
The
other most significant point is that Paul uses the clause hêmeis hoi dunatoi
to identify himself most explicitly with the 'strong'. In fact, in this
passage, the first person singular verb, second person singular verb and the
second person plural pronouns and verbs are all missing. The only occurrence of
the first person singular pronoun and the second person singular pronoun are in
an OT quotation (v.3). However, the first person plural pronoun occurs twice in
vv.1, 2[107] and
two first person plural verbs occur in vv. 1 and 4. Thus the only 'person' that
occurs in this passage is 'we' which denotes Paul and the strong.
Furthermore,
Paul uses the emphatic verb opheilw to denote that the 'strong' have an
"inescapable obligation"[108] to
help to carry the burden (bastazein)[109] of the
'weak'. With such an explicit identification of Paul and the 'strong', Paul
forcefully admonishes the Gentile Christians not to please themselves
regardless of the effects that their pleasing themselves would have on 'others'
(v.1b), but asks them to take more active steps to please their 'neighbour'(v.2a).
In this context, the 'others' and the 'neighbour' of the Gentile Christians are
most probably the Jewish Christians in Rome who belong to other house churches.[110]
In v.3,
Paul appeals to the example of Christ Himself and gives an exact quotation from
LXX Ps. 68:10 to support his exhortation.[111]
Kaesemann rightly points out that "this admonition is so important for
Paul that he derives it christologically".[112] In
justifying his appeal to the OT quotation as an indication of the lengths to
which for our sake Christ was willing to go in not pleasing Himself, Paul
asserts the authority of the Scriptures in instruction not only for the Jewish
Christians but also the Gentile Christians (v.4).[113]
However,
we have to ask the question: "In what way could the Gentile Christians
carry the burden of the Jewish Christians and please them?" It may be appropriate
to refer to 14:21 as an answer. Here Paul suggests that it is good for the
Gentile Christians to follow the practice of the Jewish Christians on the
specific occasion when the Jewish Christians participate in the communal meal
held at the Gentile Christian house church. In such a situation, if they eat
only vegetables together with the Jewish Christians (cf. 14:2), there is no
doubt that the Jewish Christians will be pleased.
Nevertheless,
in view of Paul's exhortation in 15:7a that he expects not only the Jewish
Christians to be welcomed by the Gentile Christians but also the Gentile
Christians to be welcomed by the Jewish Christians in turn, the issue at stake
is how the Gentile Christians could carry the burden of the Jewish
Christians and please them if they participate in the communal meal held at the
Jewish Christian house church. As a matter of fact, the only condition for
the Gentile Christians to be welcomed by the Jewish Christians to participate
in their communal meal would be for the Gentile Christians to agree to follow
the practice of the Jews in eating the meal.[114]
Thus
when Paul forcefully admonishes the Gentile Christians to carry the burden of
the Jewish Christians and not to please themselves (regardless of the effects
which their pleasing themselves would have on the Jewish Christians), but to
please the Jewish Christians, he is probably suggesting that the Gentile
Christians should follow the Jewish practice in eating meal on the specific
occasion when they participate in the communal meal held at the Jewish
Christian house church (cf. I Cor. 8: 7-13).[115] This
practice is very important because it is related to the "good" of the
Jewish Christians[116] and
the "building up" (oikodomê, cf. 14:19) of the Christian
community in Rome (15:2).[117]
Paul's
suggestion does not contradict his position stated in Gal. 2: 11-14. In
Galatians, the issue at stake is whether the Gentile Christians should live fully
according to the Jewish way of life.[118] More
precisely, the issue is whether a Gentile Christian should become a Jew if
he is to become a member of God's people. Paul is strongly against this
position. However, in Rm. 14: 1-23, he clearly states his view on the Jewish
food laws (14:14) which are essential for the Jews to preserve their Jewish
identity but not essential to the Christian faith and it is optional for those
who have faith in Christ. The issue at stake is that the observance of
the Jewish way when eating a meal on specific occasions by the Gentile
Christians would contribute to the unity of the Jewish and the Gentile
Christians in Rome.
In
fact, this suggestion is in line with Paul's exhortation that the Gentile
Christians who have the freedom of the Gospel should not only eat meat and
drink wine but equally refrain from eating and drinking them (14: 15-21).
Furthermore, by using the first person plural pronoun hêmeis to identify
himself with the Gentile Christians in Rome (15:1), Paul is probably
also thinking of his missionary principle which not only shapes his missionary
work but probably also shapes the aspirations and the very style of his life:[119]
"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a
slave to all, that I might win the more. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in
order to win Jews; to those under the law, I became as one under the law--
though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law.
To those outside the law, I became as one outside the law -- not being without law
toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the
law. To the weak (asthen8s), I became weak that I might win the weak. I have
become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (I
Cor. 9: 19-22).
If that
is the case, there are three possible conditions on which the Jewish
and Gentile Christians can participate in worship and communal meals held at
one anothers' house churches as revealed in Paul's exhortations from 14:1-15:4:
(1) The
Jewish and the Gentile Christians should change their hostile attitude
toward each other and should restore the previous situation in which the Jewish
Christians would eat only vegetables when they participate in the communal meal
held at a Gentile Christian house church. They should accept each other's
diversified practice of the Jewish food laws and hold their unity in serving
the Lord (14: 1-13a).
(2) Gentile
Christians should not take the issue of observance of Jewish food laws as a
test of faith. Their freedom in the Gospel should allow them to change their
practice of eating and drinking to bring it in line with that of the Jewish
Christians when the Jewish Christians participate in the communal meal held
at a Gentile Christian house church (14: 13b-23).
(3) Gentile
Christians have an inescapable obligation to carry the burden of the Jewish
Christians in the same way as Paul did. They should please the Jewish
Christians by following the Jewish way of eating meal on the specific
occasion when they participate in the communal meal held at a Jewish
Christian house church (15: 1-4).
Thus
the agreements Paul expected to be made between the Jewish and the Gentile
Christians in Rome are probably as follows:
(1) The
Jewish Christians should agree that, although the observance of
ceremonial laws is essential for Jewish identity, this observance is not
essential for Gentiles to become God's people. The only essential requirement
for God's people is faith in Christ.
(2) The
Gentile Christians are free from observing the Jewish ceremonial laws,
but they must not regard the observance of Jewish ceremonial laws as
incompatible with the Christian faith. Whenever they have meals with the Jewish
Christians, they could follow the Jewish way of eating meal.
(3) The
lordship of Christ is the ground for the unity of Jewish and Gentile Christians.
As far
as the first two concessions are concerned, it is difficult to judge whether a
greater concession is demanded of the Jewish or the Gentile Christians.[120] The
Jewish Christians were expected to differentiate themselves from the 'orthodox'
Jews' understanding of the Jewish law in regard to the requirements for being
God's people, while the Gentile Christians were expected to understand the
limit of freedom in the gospel and to change their eating practices whenever
they shared in a communal meal with the Jewish Christians.
In
fact, the above concessions brought the Jewish Christians no difficulty in
their own practice of Judaism. Since Judaism is a religion concerning
'orthopraxy' rather than 'orthodoxy', it is quite probable that by these
concessions the Jewish Christians were able to retain their relationship with
the non-Christian synagogues and also with the Gentile Christian house
churches. As far as the social intercourse between the Gentile Christians and
their pagan environment is concerned, the concession does not seem to cause
much difficulty. [121] Thus
although these two concessions are probably against the original position of
some Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome, they are probably the most feasible
and practical concessions which could be made between them.
Nevertheless,
one thing crystal clear is that Paul was very conscious of the danger of
apostasy by the Jewish Christians and he admonishes the Gentile Christians not
to put them in such a position. In 14:1-15:4, Paul expresses his wish that
the Jewish Christians could maintain both Jewish and Christian identities. He
does not try to persuade the Jewish Christians to abandon the Jewish ceremonial
laws, but rather defend and protect them for their practice.
(15) Paul's prayer-wish towards the Jewish and the Gentile
Christians in Rome (15: 5 - 6)
Cranfield suggests that 15:5f. is a prayer-wish.[122] Although in it God is not directly addressed, the
content obviously indicates that it is Paul's exhortation to his audience as
well as his prayer to God.[123] In Murray's opinion, this combination of exhortation
to men and prayer to God is the most effective form of exhortation.[124] It urges people to try to do what one can toward the
fulfilment of one's prayer.[125] This force of exhortation is specially needed as Paul
is concluding his exhortation which starts from 14:1.[126] Thus in 15:5, Paul picks up the words of
"steadfastness" and "encouragement" in 15:4; "one
another" (allêlois) in 14: 13, 19; and the reference to Jesus
Christ in 14:9, 14, 15; 15:3.
As far as the 'persons' are concerned, humin
occurs in v.5, and the second person plural subjunctive doxazête and the
first person plural pronoun hêmwn occur in v.6. As these verses are the
concluding part of 14:1-15:6, it is obvious that Paul is addressing all the
Christians in Rome, both Jewish and Gentile Christians alike.[127] The wishes of Paul for them are twofold:
(1) to agree[128] with one another according to Christ Jesus (v.5); and
(2) with one accord and one voice to glorify the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
(v.6).
Many scholars do not discuss what kind of agreement is
referred to in the first wish of Paul.[129] We suggest that it probably refers to the agreements
which are mentioned in the conclusion of our above study of 15: 1-4.
Nevertheless, Cranfield is certainly right to suggest that Paul's whole
treatment of his subject throughout 14:1-15:13 surely tells strongly against
the view that Paul's wish is to enable the weak to be fully convinced of the
rightness of the position of the strong.[130] Leenhardt also suggests that "seeing that Paul
did not condemn the position of the 'weak' although he classed himself with the
'strong', differences will continue, at least for a time."[131] These observations are obviously against Watson's
suggestion that in Rm. 14:1 -15:13, Paul wishes "to convert the Jewish
Christian congregation [the 'weak'] to Paulinism [the position of the
'strong']."[132]
Our suggestion of the agreements between the Jewish
and the Gentile Christians is also supported by the text. It suggests that the
agreement of the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians has to be
"according to Christ Jesus" (NASB). Thus what Paul probably implies
is that although there are differences between the Jewish and Gentile
Christians in Rome, the unity between them should be maintained according to
their common acknowledgement of the Lordship of Christ Jesus Himself.[133] This unity is in fact given (didwmi) by God.
This interpretation is supported by the evidence in 14:9, 14, 18; 15:3 and 6.
In 15:6, Paul indicates that the expression of unity
is in worshipping God together (cf. v.7)[134] and in confessing Jesus Christ as our Lord.[135] Leenhardt and many others suggest that in 15: 5-6,
Paul is probably drawing upon liturgical language.[136] This observation implies that Paul wishes that the
Jewish and Gentile Christians would accept members from different house
churches to worship together and to confess Jesus Christ as Lord although they
maintain different attitudes towards the Jewish ceremonial laws. This had in
fact happened before (cf. 14: 1ff., 13) but was probably interrupted by the
hostile attitudes between individual members of the Jewish and Gentile
Christians.
In 14:1-15:6, Paul directs his exhortation explicitly
to the Gentile Christians (cf. 14:1, 13b23; 15: 14). The Jewish Christians are
addressed only as individuals (14:4, 10, 10) or together with the Gentile
Christians as the whole Roman Christian community (14: 7-13a; 15: 5-6). This is
clearly shown by the fact that Paul uses all the second person plural pronouns
and verbs in 14:1-15:4 to address only the Gentile Christians.
However, Paul's message to the Gentile Christians
would be overheard by the Jewish Christians and is relevant to them. The Jewish
Christians would understand Paul's view on the food laws, his sympathy with
their dilemma and his exhortation to the Gentile Christians for the sake of
their difficulties. Nevertheless, it is clear that Paul admonishes both the
Jewish and the Gentile Christians to change their attitude to one another, but
he admonishes only the Gentile Christians to change their practice in eating
whenever they have a communal meal with the Jewish Christians. The Jewish
Christians are not asked to change their observance of Jewish ceremonial laws,
even though their understanding is not in accord with Christian belief.
In our study above, it is obvious that Paul's
exhortation would only be relevant if the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome
are organized into different house churches. Thus Paul presupposes that
there is not a single congregation in Rome but he does not try to persuade
these different house churches to combine into one single congregation. Paul's
main purpose is to persuade them to build up a net-work -- a peaceful and close
relationship -- between these house churches. The occasional exchange of
participation in the communal meal held at both the Jewish and the Gentile
Christian house churches is very important. It symbolizes the mutual acceptance
and the commitment to unity of the Jewish and the Gentile Christians in Rome.[137]
(16) Paul Affirms the Significance of the Building up of a
Christian Community Net-
work for
the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome (15: 7-13)
The presence of the word dio at the beginning
of 15:7 separates this verse from 15:6 and also introduces 15: 7-13 as a
concluding paragraph of the section 14:1-15:13 and probably of the whole body
of the letter.[138] The conclusion which is drawn in 15:7 is very clear:
"Welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you."[139]
The occurrence of the second person plural imperative proslambanesthe
here certainly connects 15:7 with 14:1. However, while in 14:1, the second
person plural is addressed to the 'strong', it is here addressed to the
Christian community in Rome as a whole which is composed of the 'strong' and
the 'weak'.[140] Hence the use of allêlous in 15:7 is most
significant. The phrase to "welcome one another" probably indicates
the climax of the whole passage which has been built up from the exhortation in
14:1-15:4 and the prayer wish in 15:5 : (i) let us no more pass judgement on
one another (14:13a); (ii) let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual
(allêlous) upbuilding (14:19); and (iii) may God grant you to live in
such harmony with one another (15:5). In 15:7, Paul concludes his exhortation
by admonishing the Gentile and the Jewish Christians to recognize and accept
one another even though they have different attitudes towards the Jewish
ceremonial laws and the fact that they belong to different house churches.
The reason why they must accept one another is the model of Christ (cf. 15:
5).
In 14:1-15:6, Paul has already made it clear that
Christ has accepted both the strong and the weak. In 15:8f., Paul uses the
first person singular verb legw emphatically to declare the dual roles
of Christ: (1) to become the minister of the Jews according to God's
faithfulness to the covenant; and (2) to call the Gentiles for the sake of
God's mercy.[141] Jesus Christ, thus, is the one who combines a
ministry to both Jews and Gentiles. In other words, the building up of the
net-work among the house churches in Rome would symbolize the recognition of
the ministry of Christ to the Jews and to the Gentiles.
Paul's solemn declaration is further supported by four
OT quotations in 15: 9b-12, which come from the Law, the Prophets and the
Writings.[142] Among these quotations, the one in 15:9b which
follows closely the text of LXX Ps. 17:50 indicates an individual Jew praising
God among the Gentiles.[143] The two quotations in 15: 10-11 which come from LXX
Deut. 32:43 and Ps. 116:1 respectively express a summons to Gentiles to rejoice[144] together with God's people and to praise God.
In the context of 14:1-15:13, these
quotations certainly denote the participation of Jewish Christians in the
worship held in the Gentile Christian house churches and vice versa.
[145]
Furthermore,
the last quotation of LXX Is. 11:10 in 15:12 referring to the Jewish origin of
the Messiah most probably recalls Rm. 1: 3-5.[146] Paul
concludes his exhortation and the body of his letter by affirming once again
the content of his gospel that the Son of David, the Jewish Messiah, is the
hope not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. Thus the Jewish and the
Gentile Christians share the same hope in Jesus Christ. Paul writes to both the
Jewish and the Gentile Christians to remind them that this hope is the basis
for the combination of Jews and Gentiles in one Christian community and should
be expressed by worshipping God together.
The
importance of this hope is affirmed by the double reference to 'hope' in Paul's
"prayer wish" in 15:13. Many scholars recognize the parallel between
this verse and 15:5f.. Therefore, the 'hope' in 15:13 is probably related to
the 'hope' in 15:4[147] which
is not explicitly picked up in 15:5f.. Thus "the God of steadfastness and
encouragement" (15:5) is also "the God of hope".[148] The
God who grants the agreement between the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome
(15:5f.) would fill them with all joy and peace in believing,[149] so
that by the power of the Holy Spirit they may abound in hope (15:13).[150] The
two occurrences of humas in 15:13 obviously refer to the Christian
community in Rome as a whole as in 15: 5, 7.
Thus in
15: 7-13, Paul addresses the Christian community in Rome as a whole. In it, he
not only refers to his exhortation to the Jewish and the Gentile Christians in
14:1 -15:6 about their mutual recognition and acceptance in the communal meal
held at their different house churches, but also refers to God's covenant
faithfulness to the Jews (15: 8; cf. 3: 4, 7; 9: 4ff.), God's mercy to the
Gentiles (15: 9; cf. 9: 15-18, 23; 11: 30-2) and the content of the gospel (15:
12; cf. 1: 3-5; 9: 5) which he has discussed in detail in Rm. 1-11.[151]
Summary and
Conclusion:
In our personae
analysis of Rm. 14:1 -15:13, we have developed a hypothesis that
there were two main groups of Christians in Rome: a Jewish Christian group
which may have included proselytes and God-fearers with Jews who observed
Jewish ceremonial laws, and which is a religio-cultural-ethnic group rather
than a strictly ethnic group; and a Gentile Christian group which may have
included Jews who did not maintain the observance of the Jewish ceremonial
laws. They were organized into different house churches when the Jewish
Christians returned to Rome after the death of Claudius. Since the Jewish
Christians maintained their observance of Jewish ceremonial laws, they would
probably have no difficulty in building up their relationship with the
synagogues of the Roman Jewish community. However, the bitter experience of the
Jewish Christians who had participated in the communal meal held in the Gentile
Christian house had caused a tense relationship between the Jewish and the
Gentile Christians.
Paul
understood the situation and wrote the letter to both the Jewish and the
Gentile Christians in Rome in order to persuade them to build up a peaceful and
close relationship between their house churches. In 14:1-15:13, Paul admonished
both groups to change their attitude towards one another, but explicitly
asked the Gentile Christians to consider the dilemma faced by the
Jewish Christians.
Paul
admonished the Gentile Christians to change their practice in the communal meal
and to follow the Jewish way of eating a meal whenever Jewish Christians were
present. Paul desired that the Gentile Christians would welcome the
Jewish Christians to participate in the communal meals held in their house
churches, thus recognizing the significance of the ministry of Christ among the
Jews. On the other hand, Paul wished the Jewish Christians to welcome
the Gentile Christians to the communal meals held in their house churches, thus
recognizing the legitimacy of the Gentile mission and the ministry of Christ
among the Gentiles.
In his
exhortation, Paul was fully aware of the danger of apostasy by the Jewish
Christians. Paul explicitly asked the Gentile Christians not to put the Jewish
Christians into such a position. Paul's purpose was probably to build up a
Roman Christian community net-work among the Jewish and the Gentile Christian house
churches, and at the same time to let the Jewish house churches (Jewish
Christian synagogues) retain their relations with the Roman Jewish community.
In other words, Paul neither demanded the Jewish Christians to give up their
connection with the non-Christian Jews, nor asked the Gentile Christians to
become Jews. This could happen if:
(17) the Jewish Christians could continue to maintain
their Jewish identity and their
status in
the Roman Jewish community;
(18) the Jewish Christians recognized the legitimacy
of the Gentile Christians also as God's people;
(19)
the Gentile
Christians recognized the significance of their relationship with
the Jewish Christians;
(20)
the Gentile
Christians agreed to follow the Jewish way in eating a meal whenever they
have communal life with the Jewish Christians; and
(21)
the Jewish
Christians and the Gentile Christians welcomed one another to
participate
in the
communal life of their different house churches.
From the
evidence of 14:1-15:13, we find that Paul addressed explicitly the first,
the fourth and the fifth conditions and mentioned the
second and the third in passing. We suggest that Paul may have addressed these
two conditions specifically in the first eleven chapters of Romans.[152]
We agree with Watson that the main issues concerned the question
of the relationship between the Jewish and the Gentile
Christians, and also that between Christians (Jewish and Gentile) and
Jews (Christian and non-Christian). We disagree with him critically on
Paul's attitude towards these relationships. In Romans 14:1-15:13, we find
that:
(1) Paul emphasized the importance of the unity
between the Jewish and the Gentile
Christians
but did not try to persuade the Jewish Christians to separate
from the
Jewish
community; They could be Jew and Christian at the same time.
(2) Paul admonished the Gentile Christians not
to make the Jewish Christians become
Jewish
apostates in pursuit of Christian unity,
but to support the Jewish Christians in
their
effort to preserve their Jewish identity.
(22) Paul asked the Gentile Christians to exercise
their freedom to choose to follow the
Jewish way of eating a meal at
the specific occasion when they participate in the
communal meal held at a Jewish Christian house church.
However he affirmed their correct understanding that the Jewish practice had
nothing to do with their identity of
people of God. They could maintain their non-Jewish (Gentile)
identity according to the Gospel.
(23) Paul differentiates the importance of issues
between soteriological and cultural,
essential
and situational. He stands firm on the former issues without any
room to
compromise
in his letter to Galatians, but suggests actions to please those who are
wrong in
their convictions and compromise on
the latter issues in Rm. 14:1-15:13.
II.
Contextual Frames
The
above findings are most significant in our discussion of the relationship
between
Gospel
and cultural-ethnic identity, especially among Chinese. Chinese Christianity
has long been labeled as a foreign religion; Christians have been criticized
for not being Chinese. The conflict between being a Chinese and being a
Christian has been an issue reflected in the well known Rites Controversy
(1615-1742) which arose among Catholic missionaries[153]
regarding how they should deal with >Chinese rites= in the
transitional years from Ming dynasty (1368-1644) to Qing dynasty (1644-1911).
The issue at stake was whether Christian converts be permitted to continue
the practice of the ancestral cult which was so central to the entire family
and clan system, as well as the veneration of Confucius, in those temples
dedicated to his name which were attached to every school in the country?
During the stirring years of change from
the Ming dynasty to the Qing dynasty, the Catholic mission started by the
Jesuit Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) in 1583[154] had
not suffered from the disorder but flourished.[155]
Although there were occasional
persecutions mostly at the provincial level, Catholic missionaries had
made good progress in spreading the Gospel and enjoyed imperial favour,
especially under the second emperor of the Qing dynasty, K=ang-hsi
(1662-1722).[156] Under
the leadership of Matteo Ricci, Jesuit missionaries approved for their converts
the veneration of ancestors and of Confucius.[157] But opposition to this move was reported to
the Pope in Rome, Clement XI. He sent an envoy to China (1704-1710), the
Patriarch of Antioch, Maillard de Tournon[158].
However the envoy preferred to rely on a member of the Mission Etrangere de
Paris, Charles Maigrot, Vicar Apostolic of Fujien,[159] who
had meager knowledge of the Chinese language, rather than to accept the
explanations of the Chinese Emperor K=ang-shi, who was very sympathetic
to Christianity. In fact the Emperor K=ang-hsi (1662-1722) had given his
official confirmation in 1700Cthat Confucius was not worshipped
as God, but venerated as a moral teacher; that ancestral veneration was
regarded as a memorial service rather than as a worship of the spirit; and that
the ancestral tablet offered a focus for filial attention and devotion, and no
more; and that Heaven and Lord-on-high were identifiable, not with the physical
Heaven, but the Lord of Heaven and Earth and all things.[160]
The controversy was considered by eight
popes and involved leading universities in Europe.[161] In the
end, Rome supported those who opposed the rites, whose judgement was that the
ancient Chinese were idolaters and the modern Chinese atheist; that the
Confucian classics themselves, and even the Jesuit works published in Chinese,
taught doctrine contrary to the Christian faith; that ancestral rites were
illicit because they were offered to spirits of ancestors and so involved
idolatry and superstition; that Confucius himself was a public idolater and a
private atheist, and should not be honoured by Christians as a saint.[162]
In a decree of 1704, reinforced by the
bull Ex illa die of 1715, Pope Clement XI banned the rites.[163]
Another envoy of the pope, Jean Ambrose Charles Mezzabarba, was sent to China in 1720. He was more tactful
than his predeceeor, Tournon, and presented to the Emperor a concession in the
form of eight Apermissions@ which
were mainly an interpretation of the clauses that permitted ceremonies of a
purely civil or political character.[164]
However these concessions were far from satisfactory for K=ang-hsi
and were annulled by the Pope Benedict XIV, the successor of Clement XI.[165] On
July 11, 1742, Pope Benedict XIV decided >definitively= in
favour of those opposing the rites. His decree, Ex quo singulari,
condemned the Chinese rites and imposed an oath on all Catholic missionaries in
China to oppose the rites.
The decision had incalculable
consquences. The Catholic missionaries were expelled from China and an imperial
edict to ban Christianity was issued.[166] A
golden chance of implanting the Gospel on Chinese soil was lost.[167]
Cynically, almost two centuries after Ex quo singulari, during the second world war, Pope Pius XII in 1939
reversed the decision of 1742, authorising Christians to take part in cremonies
honouring Confucius and to observe the ancestral rites. By then, however, the
veneration of Confucius was largely
discontinued since China had put in a modern school system to replace the
traditional Confucian-oriented >temple-related=
institutions. Besides, the Chinese were at war with Japan, and hardly had the
time to spare for ancestral rites. The golden chance had simply gone, and not
returned.
While the Catholics have an official
position on the issue of ancestral rites,[168] the
Protestants could hardly come to any consensus even today.[169] Robert
Morrison, who was the first Protestant missionary arrived China in 1807, had
studied the problem and expressed his opposition, a stance similar to the old
Catholic position in 1832[170] Many
publications written by missionaries, including numerous evangelistic tracts,
expressed the opinion that ancestral worship is an act of idolatry belonging to
pagan culture which is not acceptable and incompatible to Christianity.[171] The
amount of publications reflected the seriousness of this issue in their missionary activities. While the
missionary activities expanded after the opium war (1840), the conflicts on the
issues between missionaries and Chinese society became a burning issue among
the missionaries. In the 19th Century, there were two missionary
conferences (1877, 1890) held in China
which paid a lot of attention on the controversy.
In the first conference (1877), almost all
participants followed the arguments of Matthew T. Yates, a Southern Baptist, who condemned the
Chinese ancestral worship as an act of idolatry to which Chinese Christians
must not participate. Only a few had raised questions, such as
whether missionaries had the right to
compel Chinese to give up their way of honouring the dead, and the practical
situation for Chinese Christians to lost their right of inheritance if they
refuse to participate in the rite. The
most positive response was proposed by T.P.
Crawford and C. Goodrich who attempted to develop Christian rites to
replace ancestral worship.
In the second conference (1890), a report
from a thorough study on the issue done by W. A. P. Martin aroused a hot debate. In
Martin=s
report, he agrees that there are some idolatrous and superstitious elements
involved in Chinese ancestral worship, but there are positive elements as well.
The origin of the rite comes from some of the best principles of humanity which
include a wish to communicate with the parents passed away. The three levels in
the rite including >posture=, >invocation= and >offering= are
not necessarily equivalent to idol-worship, but rather reflect a pattern of
Chinese daily living. He suggests that the westerners offering of flowers to
remember those dead has the same meaning as the Chinese to offer meats and
vegetables. Thus it would be better to work according to the principle of
cleaning the unacceptable elements while preserving the good ones, so that the
rite could be modified to the extend that it is in harmony with the Christian
faith. However, his accommodation approach did not get the welcome from most
participants. Nevertheless, the situation was not as one-sided as in 1877. Some
prominent missionaries, such as John Ross, Timothy Richard, Gilbert Reid and
J.M.B Smith, did express their support to Martin. They suggested that
missionaries must learn how to differentiate religious and non-religious
elements involved in the rite. It is unfair to identify ancestral worship
simply as idolatry. The opponents
proposed a strong resolution to against Martin=s
report. For them, non-western cultures such as the Chinese were simply pagan
cultures. The issue at stake was not >Gospel and cultures of other
people=, but >Gospel
and other religious traditions= which were not compatible with
Christianity that must be totally rejected.
The debate among missionaries was also
reflected among Chinese converts. It was the stance on absolute opposition to
the Chinese Christians=
involvement in the rite and also the requirement to demolish the
ancestor tablets in family as a pre-requisite for baptism that had attracted
the attention and the strong reaction of the Chinese society. Many of those
anti-Christian publications had been published in focusing on the issue and
condemned Christianity as an immoral religion which did not honour parents and
ancestors. In 1868 and 1883, some sympathizers of Christianity came from
the circle of Chinese intellectuals who had publicly expressed their opinion
that Christianity should allow Chinese to continue in the rite. Many Chinese
Christians simply adopted the positions of the western missionaries and
fiercely rejected these opinions. These Chinese practiced what the missionaries
required from them to become Christians.
Martin rekindled the debate in 1902 by publishing an essay on AHow
Shall We Deal with the worship of Ancestors?@ He further expresses his view that the rite
is not religious in nature but an
ancient Chinese social order. A committee chaired by James Jackson of the
Methodist Episcopal Mission located at Wuchang was formed to give report on
ancestral worship to the China Centenary Missionary Conference (1907). The
report mentions that AIt is constantly repeated and we
believe with much truth that Ancestral Worship still presents one of the
greatest obstacles to the progress of Christianity [in China], and that it is a
real hindrance which stands in the way of many who are convinced of its truth
and who are otherwise ready to embrace and confess faith in Jesus Christ.@
In the report, the issue of whether
ancestral worship idolatrous was avoided. The most obvious reason against the
rite was the problem of replacing The Creator by human creatures.
Nevertheless, the positive elements of expressing filial piety and the
differentiation between the nature and practice of the rite were
emphasized. Five constructive practical
methods were proposed, namely: (1) Make greater use of Memorial days to
dispel from the Chinese minds the false notion of that the westerners care
nothing for the dead, (2) more attention should be paid in Christian school and
church to positive teaching about honouring parents and commemorating
benefactors, (3) discourage wealthy families to spend much money at funerals,
in feasts and presents, but to exhort to use money on such occsions in
benevolent and philanthropic ways, (4) leave to individual conscience in
dealing with the Ancestral Tablet, (5) make more decent and suitable provision
in respect of cemeteries.
From the above, we can see that, except
for the fourth proposal related to Ancestral Tablet, these proposals are
formulated from a western cultural perspective. The main concern of Chinese
persons regarding the participation of Chinese Christians in the ancestral rite
was rejected. The position that the ancestral worship was incompatible with the
Christian faith and cannot be tolerated as a practice in the Christian Church
was reiterated. The most significant change was from a totally
negative attitude reflected in the resolutions of the two previous conferences
(1877 and 1890) to a more sympathetic one. The report advocated a constructive
rather than a destructive attitude towards the rite. Nevertheless, this
change had opened up the space for more positive discussions by Chinese
Christians. A few of them even openly supported the stance of Christian participation in the rite which was
against the basic position of the
missionaries.
In the debate among Chinese Christians on
the rite, the main issues are:
(1)
The mixed superstitious elements in the present
ancestral worship was criticized, but the original meaning of filial piety which was emphasized
by Confucius was confirmed.
(2)
The rite of ancestral worship should be reformed
rather than destroyed. Filial piety behind the rite was regarded as the
foundation of morality in Chinese culture. Chinese Christian should not cut
themselves from participation of the rite with the reason of avoiding idolatry.
However the most urgent issue was to construct a rite which would be compatible
to both Christian faith and Chinese culture.
(3)
The most critical concern of the rite should be not
regarding ancestors as gods of any kind. Even the original meaning of ancestral
worship had been distorted by some, it would not be legitimate to reject the
rite. The issues were related to concept and technicalities of the practice.
Chinese Christian could accept the rite after some adjustments.
Nevertheless, although the above
understanding of the rite as an expression of filial piety were generally
accepted, the scarce of the rite as heretic idolatry propounded by missionaries
still prevailed among Chinese Christians.
Until today, the position toward the rite
among most of the Protestant churches is almost the same as the Catholics in
the 18th Century. This stance has not only become a stumbling block
among Chinese to become Christians but also indicates that a basic issue of the
relationship between the Gospel and the Chinese culture has not been thoroughly
understood. The crux of the matter of ancestral rites is very much related to
the identity of Chinese. As a matter of fact, ancestral rites have
different stages of development in the Chinese history and possess multi-layers
of meanings. The question of how to differentiate these differences,
especially the religious meanings and the social, moral
and cultural functions, and the implied significance of these to Chinese
and Christian identities, are vital to the development of Christianity
among the Chinese.
III. Hermeneutical Frames
The controversy of the ancestral worship
among Chinese Christian is related to the interpretations of the rite and also
Christian faith.
1. Interpretations on the
Rite of Ancestral Worship
The main issue concerned the rite is its
religious nature. However the understanding of religion in Chinese culture is
so different from the west. It is a common understanding in the modern
religious study that there is no Chinese word equivalent to the word Areligio
(Latin)@ or Areligion@. The modern Chinese term for religion-- sung-chiao
- was imported from Japanese translations of European works and terminology in
the 19th Century.
In his classic study, Religion in
Chinese Society (1961), Prof. C.K. Yang differentiates religion into two
types: institutional religion and diffused religion. According to Yang, institutional religion in the theistic sense
is considered as a system of religious life having (1) an independent theology
or cosmic interpretation of the universe and human events, (2) an independent
form of worship consisting of symbols (gods, spirits, and their images) and
rituals, and (3) an independent organization of personnel to facilitate the
interpretation of theological views and to pursue cultic worship. Diffused
religion is considered of as A a religion having its
theology, cultus, and personnel so intimately diffused into one or more secular
social institutions that they became a part of the concept, rituals and
structure of the latter, thus having no significant independent existence.@
Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity belong to institutional religion. Diffused
religion includes ancestor worship, the worship of community deities, and the
ethicopolitical cults. In other words, ancestral worship had all the
primary qualities of religion diffused into the institutional structure,
including the belief in the souls of the dead, their power to influence the
living morally and physically, and the need for perpetual sacrifice by the
descendants was a part of the classical thought that had been inseparably woven
into the matrix of kinship values and the very concept of the traditional
family. The mortuary and sacrificial rites and other social and economic
arrangements of the family that were associated with the dead ancestors formed
an integral part of the system of rituals of the family. Nevertheless, although
the religious element of Chinese ancestral worship which originated during the
Shang dynasty (c. 1766-1123 BCE) is obvious, the Confucian attempt to
rationalize and moralize the understanding of the rite was as early as in the sixth Century BCE. Thus there are different motivations and
understanding of the rite of ancestral worship among Chinese. For most
intellectuals, it is a cultural activity which helps to express filial piety,
serves the purpose of integrating the community
and has a function of moral enhancement in society. For common people,
it is understood religiously significant as a way to communicate with the
departed kinsmen and even has a function of pursuing blessings and avoid
curses.
Nevertheless, from a survey of Henry
Smith conducted in Hong Kong in the mid-eighties, most people who participated
in the rite are not motivated by religious concern but rather connections with
and responsibility towards ancestors. In a survey conducted in
Taiwan by Prof. Li Yi-yuen, around two third of those who claim to be
non-religion believer participated in ancestral worship. In other words, most
Chinese in modern Hong Kong and Taiwan who participate in ancestral worship are
not motivated by religious concern but rather filial piety as well as social
and moral considerations.
Although
communist Chinese government had adopted a policy of suppression of religious
activities, included ancestral worship, during the Cultural Revolution
(1966-76), an open policy has been implemented since 1980. Comprehensive survey
on the ancestral worship in Mainland China has not been done recently, there
are evidence that the rite become more and more popular.
Thus, ancestral worship is still a living
issue among Chinese. Ones position on whether Chinese Christian could
participate in ancestral worship is significant and depends on the
interpretation of the meaning of the rite in Chinese context. The issue is
religio-cultural-moral-ethnic related and it has directly implication to the
identity of Chinese.
2. Interpretation of the
Christian Faith
The position of the Vatican in the 18th
Century as well as most Protestant missionaries and churches today is based on
the interpretation of the Christian faith, especially the first two of the Ten
commandments (Ex. 20: 3-6). However if the interpretation of the above
regarding the Chinese religious perspective on ancestral worship is taken into
account, the charge of the violation of Ten commandments is not valid.
Furthermore, in the discussion among
missionaries in the 1907 conference, the issue of Aindividual
conscience@ was
raised in relation to dealing the Ancestral Tablet. This was a real
breakthrough in the discussion of the ancestral worship since Morrison in 1832.
The languages of Aeach one must be fully persuaded
in his own mind@ and AA
decision of the EmperorY..might make it easier for a weak
Christian to disobey the voice of conscience. For the strong Christian
it might only make him realize that he must oppose the Imperial decision both
as to Imperial and as to the Confucian worship@ surely echo languages used in I Cor. 8-10
and Rm. 14: 1- !5:13, especially 14: 5b. Since the relationship between the
discussion and I Cor. 8-10 has been studied by Yeo (1996), I would like to
propose that the message of Rm. 14:1 B 15:13
is also relevant to the discussion, however it was missed by the missionaries
involved.
As has been shown in the above Section of
Analytical Frames, the main issue in the passage is the identity crises faced
by the Jewish Christians that whether they could maintain their Jewish identity
and also followers of Christ. Under the pressure of the strong, the weak have
to face a choice which Paul does not think necessary nor proper. Even though the strong are right in
understanding of the relation between faith and eating and drinking, they
should understand the implications from the view of the weak. For the strong
enjoy more freedom in their daily practice, they should please the weak rather
than judge the weak in their practices which are essential to maintain their
Jewish identity.
Thus, only if the strong could see from
the perspective of the weak, they would not agree to give up their "right@
practice (orthopraxy) which is supported by their Aright@
understanding (orthodoxy). They could not accept the Awrong@
practice of the weak as they are supported by the Awrong@ understanding.
Although the weak see the issue from the other way round.
In the Chinese controversy on ancestral
worship, the Popes and their delegates in the 17th and 18th
Centuries as well as those Protestant missionaries in 19th and early
20th Centuries had not viewed the issue from the Chinese contexts
and Chinese Christian perspective. They did not see in their relationship with
the Chinese Christians, they are the strong who forced the weak, Chinese
Christians, to face the identity crises of being Chinese and Christian.
Would the missionary history in China be
different, if the message of Rm. 14:1 B 15:13 had been listened from the
position of the weak?
Bibliography
I.
Commentaries
A. Old
Testament
1. Isaiah
Kaiser, O.
(1963) Isaiah 1-12,
trans. R. A.
Wilson (London: SCM, 1972)
Mckenzie, J.
L. (1968) Second
Isaiah, AB (N.Y.: Doubleday)
Westermann, C. (1966) Isaiah 40-66,
OTL, trans. D. H. G. Stalker (London:
SCM, 1969)
Whybray, R.
N. (1975) Isaiah
40-66, NCB (London, Oliphants)
B. New Testament
1.
Acts (Abbreviation: A)
Bruce,
F. F. (1952) The Acts of the Apostles, 2nd ed.
(London, Tyndale)
Conzelmann, H.
(1972) Die Apostelgeschichte, HNT 7
(Tuebingen, J. C. B. Mohr)
Haenchen, E. (1965) The Acts of the Apostles, 14th
ed., trans. B.
Noble & G.
Shinn (Oxford,
Basil Blackwell, 1971)
Hanson, R. P. C. (1967) The Acts (Oxford,
Clarendon)
Marshall, I.
H. (1980) The Acts of the
Apostles, TNTC (Leicester, IVP)
Munck, J. (1967) The Acts of the
Apostles, AB
Neil, W. (1973) The Acts of the Apostles, NCB (London, Oliphants)
Roloff, J. (1981) Die
Apostelgeschichte, NTD (Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht)
Schneider, G. (1980, 1982) Die Apostelgeschichte, HTKNT
(Freiburg, Basel, Wein, Herder) 2 vols.
Williams, C.
S. C. (1964) A Commentary on the
Acts of the Apostles, BNTC (London, A
& C
Black)
2.
Romans (Abbreviation:
R)
Achtemeier, P. (1985) Romans
(Atlanta, John Knox)
Barrett, C. K. (1962) A Commentary
on the Epistle to the Romans, BNTC (London,: A & C Black,
1971)
Barth, K. (1933) The Epistle to the
Romans, 6th ed., trans. E. C. Hoskyns (London,: Oxford
University Press, 1965)
_________ (1956) A Shorter
Commentary on Romans, trans. (London:
SCM, 1959)
Best, E. (1967)
The Letter of
Paul to the
Romans (Cambridge, University Press)
Black,
M. (1973) Romans, NCB
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1981)
Bruce,
F. F. (1963) The Epistle to the Romans,
TNTC (London: Tyndale Press, 1969)
Brunner, E. (1956) The Letter to
the Romans, A Commentary, trans. H. A. Kennedy (London:
Lutterworth, 1959)
Byrne, B. (1996) Romans, Sacra
Pagina Series vol. 6 (Collegeville, Liturgical Press)
Cranfield, C. E. B. (1975, 1979) A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,
ICC (Edinburgh, T & T Clark,
1985, 1983), 2 vols.
Dodd, C. H.
(1959) The Epistle of Paul to
the Romans (London, Collins, Fontana
Books)
Dunn, J. D. G. (1988) Romans, WBC 38 A and B, 2
volumes (Waco, Word Books).
Fitzmyer, J. A. (1993) Romans, AB 33 (N.Y.,
Doubleday)
Fung, Ronald Y. K. (1997, 1999, 2001, forthcoming) Romans,
4 volumes (in Chinese) (Taipei,
Campus Evangelical Fellowship)
Grayston, K.
(1997) The Epistle to the Romans, Epworth Commentaries (Peterborough,
Epworth
Press)
Kaesemann, E. (1980)
Commentary on Romans,
4th ed., trans. & ed. G. W.
Bromiley, (London:
SCM, 1982)
Knox, J. (1954) "The
Epistles to the Romans" in The Interpreter's Bible Vol. IX (Nashville,
Abingdon) pp. 355-668
Kuss,
O. (1957, 1959, 1978) Der Roemerbrief (Regensburg, Verlag Friedrich Pustet) 3
vols.
Lagrange, M.
J. (1950) Saint Paul Epitre
aux Romains, (Paris, J. Gabalda)
Leenhardt, F.
J. (1961) The Epistle to the
Romans, A Commentary, trans. H.
Knight (London,
Lutterworth)
Maillot, A.
(1984) L'epitre aux romains
(Paris, Le Centurion &
Geneve, Labor et Fides)
Manson, T. W.
(1962) "Romans" in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, edd. M. Black & H. H.
Rowley (London: Thomas Nelson and
Sons) pp.940-53.
Michel, O. (1978) Der Brief an die Roemer,
KEK, 5th ed. (Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht)
Moo, D. (1996) The Epistle to the
Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans)
Morris, L. (1988) The Epistle to the Romans
(Leicester, IVP)
Murray, J.
(1959, 1965) The Epistle to the Romans, NIC (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1984) 2 vols.
Nygren, A.
(1944) Commentary on Romans,
trans. C. C. Rasmussen, (London:
SCM, 1952)
O'Neill, J.
C. (1975) Paul's
Letter to the Romans (Harmondsworth, Penguin)
Sanday, W.
& Headlam, A. C. (1902) A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans, 5th
ed., ICC (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1905)
Schelkle, K.
H. (1963) The
Epistle to the Romans: Theological Meditations, 2nd
ed., trans.
B. Thompson (N.Y.: Herder & Herder, 1964)
Schlatter, A. (1962) Der Brief an
die Roemer (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1974)
Schlier, H. (1977) Der Roemerbrief,
HTKNT
Schmidt, H. W. (1966) Der Brief des
Paulus an die Roemer, THNT (Berlin, Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt)
Stuhlmacher, P. (1989) Paul=s
Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, trans. Scott J. Hafemann
(Louisville: Westminster/John
Knox, 1994)
Wilckens, U. (1978, 1980, 1982) Der Brief an die
Roemer EKK (Zurich, Benziger Verlag) 3 vols.
Zeller, D.
(1985) Der Brief an die Roemer (Regensburg, Verlag Friedrich
Pustet)
Ziesler, J. (1989) Paul=s
Letter to the Romans (London, SCM)
3.
I Corinthians (Abbreviation: IC)
Barrett, C. K. (1971) A Commentary on the First
Epistle to the Corinthians,
BNTC, 2nd ed.
(London, A & C Black)
Bruce,
F. F. (1971) 1 and 2 Corinthians, NCB
(London, Oliphants)
Conzelmann, H. (1969) A Commentary on the First
Epistle to the Corinthians,
Hermeneia series,
trans. J. W. Leitch
(Philadelphia, Fortress, 1975)
Fee, G. (1987)
The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids,
Erdmans)
Hering, J.
(1962) The First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, trans.
A. W. Heathcote and
P.
J. Allcock (London, Epworth)
Moffatt, J.
(1938) The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London, Hodder and
Stoughton)
Morris, L.
(1985) I Corinthians, rev.
ed., TNTC (Leicester, IVP)
Orr, W. F. & Walther, J. A. (1976)
I Corinthians, AB (N.Y.: Doubleday, 1981)
Robertson, A.
& Plummer, A.
(1914) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle
of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 2nd
ed., ICC (Edinburgh, T & T Clark)
4.
II Corinthians (Abbreviation: II C)
Barrett, C. K. (1973) A Commentary
on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC (London, A &
C Black)
Bruce,
F. F. (1971) 1 and 2 Corinthians, NCB
(London, Oliphants)
Bultmann, R. (1976) The Second Letter to the Corinthians, trans. R. A. Harrisville
(Minneapolis:
Augsburg Publishing House, 1985)
Furnish, V.
F. (1984) II
Corinthians, AB (N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985)
Hering, J.
(1967) The Second Epistle of
Saint Paul to the Corinthians,
trans. A. W. Heathcote
&
P. J. Allcock (London, Epworth
Press)
Hughes, P.E. (1967) Paul's Second
Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1971)
Martin, R. P.
(1986) 2 Corinthians, WBC 40 (Waco, Word Books)
5.
Galatians (Abbreviation: G)
Betz, H. D.
(1979) Galatians, Hermeneia (Philadelphia, Fortress)
Bruce, F. F. (1982) The Epistle of
Paul to the Galatians NIGTC (Exeter, Paternoster)
Burton, E. D.
(1921) The Epistle to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark)
Lightfoot, J.
B. (1890) St.
Paul's Epistle to the Galatians (London: Macmillan, 1910)
Lietzmann, H. (19
) An die Galater, HNT 10 (Tuebingen, J. C. B. Mohr)
Mussner, F. (1974) Der Galaterbrief, HTKNT 9
(Freiburg/Basel/ Wien: Herder & Herder)
Oepke,
A. (1957) Der Brief des Paulus
an die Galater, 2nd ed., THNT 9 (Berlin, Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt)
Schlier, H.
(1971) Der Brief an die Galater, 14th ed., KEK 7 (Goettingen,
Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht)
6.
Philippians (Abbreviation: P)
Beare,
F. W. (1969) A Commentary on
the Epistle to the Phillippians,
2nd ed. (London,
Adam &
Charles Black)
Collange, J. F. (1973) The Epistle of Saint Paul to
the Philippians, trans. A. W. Heathcote
(London:
Epworth Press, 1979)
Gnilka, J. (1976) Der
Philipperbrief, HTKNT
Hawthorne, G. F. (1983) Philippians,
WBC 43
Martin, R.
P. (1976) Philippians, NCB
(London, Oliphants)
Michael, J. H. (1928) The Epistle
of Paul to the Philippians, MNTC (London, Hodder and Stoughton)
Scott,
E. F. (1955) "The Epistle to the Philippians" IB XI:
3-129
II.
Articles, Books and Theses
Barclay, J. M. G. (1987a) "Review on F. Watson, Paul,
Judaism and the Gentiles", Themelios: 28-9.
_______________
(1987b) "Mirror-Reading a
Polemical Letter: Galatians as a
Test Case" JSNT 31:
73-93.
_______________ (1996)
A=Do We Undermine the Law?@: A Study of Romans 14:1-15:6@ in Paul and the
Mosaic Law, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Tuebingen, J.C.B. Mohr) pp.287-308
Barrett, C. K. (1956)
The New Testament Background (N. Y. &
Evanston: Harper & Row, 1961)
____________(1961) Luke the
Historian in Recent
Study (Philadelphia, Fortress)
___________ (1964-65)
"Things Sacrificed to Idols",
NTS 11, pp. 138-153
reprinted in Essays on Paul
(London, SPCK, 1982),
pp.40-59.
Bartsch, H. W.
(1965a) "The Historical Situation of Romans" original in Communio Viatorum
8.4, trans. R. L. Andrea, in Encounter 33 (1972).
pp.329-339.
_____________ (1965b) "Die Kollekte des
Paulus", in Kirche in der Zeit 20: 555ff
_____________ (1967)
"Zur vorpaulinischen Bekenntnisformel im Eingang des Roemerbriefes", TZ
23: 329-39.
_____________ (1968) "The Concept of Faith in Paul's
Letter to the Romans", Biblical Research 13:41-53.
_____________ (1971)
"Die Empfaenger des Roemerbriefes" StTh 25: 81-89.
De Bary, Wm. Theodore (1994) AReflections on the Chinese Rites Controversy@ in Mungello (1994: 291-303).
Beker, J. C. (1980) Paul
the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Edinburgh, T. & T.
Clark)
____________
(1988) "Paul's Theology:
Consistent or Inconsistent?" in NTS 34: 364-77.
Benko, S. (1969) "The
Edict of Claudius of A.D. 49
and the Instigator Chrestus", Theologische
Zeitschrift 25, pp.406-418.
_________ (1972) "The History of the Early Roman
Empire" in Early Church History,
edd. S. Benko and
J. J.
O'Rourke, (London, Oliphants) pp. 37-80.
Blass, F. and Debrunner, A.
(1961) A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, trans. & rev.
of the 9th - 10th ed. by
R. W. Funk
(Cambridge, University Press)
Booth, W. C.
(1983) The Rhetoric
of Fiction, 2nd
ed. (Chicago, Univ. Press)
Bornkamm, G (1963a)
"The Letter to the Romans as
Paul's Last Will and
Testament" in Australian
Biblical
Review 11, repr. in Debate, pp.17-31.
____________ (1966b)
"The Anathema in the Early Christian Lord's Supper Liturgy" in Das
Ende des
Gesetzes, pp.123-132; trans. P.
L. Hammer, repr. in Early
Christian Experience (London: SCM,
1969)
pp.169-179.
____________ (1969) Paul, trans. D. M. G. Stalker
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1985)
Bousset, W. (1921)
Kyrios Christos: Geschichte
des Christusglaubens von
den Aufaengen des
Christentums bis Irenaeus, 2nd ed., FRLANT 21.
Bradley, D. G.
(1953) "The Topos as a Form in the
Pauline Paraenesis", JBL 72, pp.238-246.
Brandt, W. J. (1970)
The Rhetoric of Argumentation (N.Y., Bobbs- Merril)
Brawley, Robert L. (2000) AMultivocality in Romans 4@