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 19^th 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 18^th 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 19^th 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 18^th 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 17^th and 18^th Centuries as well as those Protestant missionaries in 19^th and early 20^th 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@ in Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of divergent Interpretations, edd. Cristina Grenholm & Daniel Patte (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Trinity Press International) pp.74-95.

Brown,  R.  E. (1983) "Rome" in Antioch and Rome, R. E. Brown and  J. P. Meier (London, Geoffrey

         Chapman)

Bruce,  F. F. (1963 - 64) "St. Paul in Rome" BJRL 46 pp.326-345

_________  (1967  - 68) "St.  Paul  in  Rome  - 5.  Concluding  Observations" BJRL 50 pp.262-279

_________  (1977b) Paul:  Apostle of the Heart Set Free  (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans)

_________  (1981-82)  "The Roman Debate -- Continued" in  BJRL 64, pp.334-359.

_________  (1985a) The Pauline Circle (Exeter, Paternoster)

Brunt, P. A. (1971) Italian Manpower: 225 B.C. - A.D. 14 (Oxford, Clarendon Press)

Buckley, Michael J. , S.J. (1994) AThe Suppression of the Chinese Rites: A Suggestion of Some Factors@ in Mungello (1994: 281-5).

Bultmann, R. (1910)  Der Stil der Paulinischen Predigt und  die Kynish-stoische  Diatribe, FRLANT 13

          (Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984)

_________  (1929)  "The Historical Jesus and the Theology  of  Paul",  trans. L. P. Smith, repr. in Faith

          and  Understanding (Philadelphia; Fortress, 1987) pp.220-246.

_________  (1930) "Paul" Existence and Faith,  trans.  S.  M. Ogden (London: Collins, 1973) pp.130-172.

_________  (1952, 1955) Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel (London: SCM, 1959, 1958) 2

          vols.

Burger,     C.   (1970)   Jesus  als Davidssohn:  Eine Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, FRLANT 98.

Campbell, D. H. (1980) "The Identity of egw in  Rm.  7:  7-25" Studia  Biblica  197ê,  III:  Papers on Paul

          and  Other  New Testament Authors,  ed.  E.  A. Livingstone (Sheffield, JSOT Press) pp.57-64.

Campbell,  W.  S. (1972) The Purpose of Paul in the Letter to the Romans:  A  survey of Romans I-XI with

          special Reference  to Chapters IX-XI (Edinburgh, unpublished Ph. D. Thesis)

______________ (1973-74)  "Why  did Paul Write  Romans?"  ExpT 85:9,   pp.264-269.

______________ (1981b) "The Roman Debate" JSNT 10: 19-28.

______________ (1981c) "The Freedom and Faithfulness of God in Relation to Israel@ JSNT 13: 27-45.

_________________ (1988) "Did Paul Advocate Separation from  the Synagogue?  A  Reaction to Francis

          Watson: Paul,  Judaism and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach",  a paper presented  at 1987

          British NT Conference held at Durham, SJT 42 (1989: 457-467), reprinted in Paul=s Gospel in an

          Intercultural Context: Jew and Gentile in the Letter to the Romans (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,

          1992), pp. 122-131 .

Cancik,  H.  (1967)  Untersuchungen zu Senecas epistulae  morales  (Hildesheim, Georg olms

          erlagsbuchhandlung)

Ching, Julia (1993) Chinese Religions (Maryknoll, NY, Orbis)

Cline,  D.J.A.  (1976) I,  He,  We & They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53 (Sheffield, JSOT Press)

Cohen,  N.G.  (1976)  "Jewish  Names  as Cultural  Indicators  in  Antiquity", JSJ 7: 97-128.

Von Collani, Claudia (1994) ACharles Maigrot=s Rule in the Chinese Rites Controversy@ in Mugello (1994: 149-84.

Court,  J.  M. (1987) "Review on F. Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles", Theology 90: 396-8.

Cranfield,  C. E. B. (1982a)  "Changes of Person  and  Number  in Paul's  Epistles",  first  published in P &

          P,  pp.280-289, repr.  in  The  Bible and Christian Life:  A  Collection  of Essays (Edinburgh, T. & T.

          Clark) pp.215-228.

Cremer,   H.   (1900)  Die  Paulinische  Rechtfertigungslehre  im Zusmmenhange ihrer geschichtlichen

          Voraussetzungen  (Buetersloh, Bertelsmann)

Cullmann,  O. (1950) Early Christian Worship, trans. A. S. Todd & J. B. Torrance (London: SCM, 1953)

_____________ (1953) "The Tradition:  the Exegetical,  Historical and Theological Problems" ,  trans. A.

          J. B. Higgins, in The Early Church,  ed.  A. J. B. Higgins (London: SCM, 1956) pp. 55-99.

_____________  (1957) The Christology of the New  Testament,  2nd ed., trans. S. C. Guthrie  C. A. M.

         Hall (London: SCM, 1959)

Dahl, N.  A. (1956) "The Missionary Theology in the Epistle to the Romans",  orig. in Norsk Tidsskrift for

         Misjon 10, trans. P. Donahue,  rev.  &  repr.  in Studies in  Paul  (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing

         House, 1977) pp.70-94.

Davies,  W. D. (1980) Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements  in  Pauline  Theology,   rev. 

          ed.  (Philadelphia, Fortress)

Deissmann,  A.  (1903) Bible Studies,  2nd ed.,  trans. A. Grieve  (Edinburgh, T & T Clark)

____________  (1923)  Light  from  the Ancient  East:  The  New  Testament  Illustrated by Recently

          Discovered Texts  of  the Graeco-Roman World,  trans.  L.  R. M. Strachan, 1927 (Grand Rapids:

          Baker, repr. 1965)

Dodd, C.  H, (1952) According to the Scriptures: The Sub-structure of  New  Testament Theology,

          (London  &  Glasgow: Collins Fontana book, 1965)

Donfried,  K.  P.  (1970)  "A Short Note on Romans 16" in JBL 89, pp.441-49, repr. in Debate, pp.50-60.

_____________  (1974a) The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity,  NovT Supplements to

          NovT 38  (Leiden,  E.  J.  Brill)

_____________  (1974b) "False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans" in CBQ 36, pp.332-55, repr. in

          Debate, pp.120-148.

_________________  (1976) "Justification and Last Judgement in Paul" ZNW 67: 90-110.

_________________  (1977a) "Introduction: The Nature and Scope of the Roman Debate" in Debate,

          pp.ix-xvii.

_________________  ed.  (1977b)  The Romans  Debate  (Minneapolis, Augsburg)

_________________  ed. (1991) The Romans Debate, Rev. and Expanded ed. (Peabody, Hendrickson)

Doty, W.  G. (1969) "The Classification of Epistolary Literature" CBQ 31, pp.183-199.

_______________   (1973)   Letters   in  Primitive   Christianity (Philadelphia, Fortress)

Drane,  J.  W  (1980) "Why Did Paul Write Romans?" in PS pp. 208-227.

Duelmen,  A.  Van  (1968)  Die Theologie des Gesetzes bei  Paulus (Stuttgart, Verlag Katholisches

          Bibelwerk)

Dungan,  D.  L.  (1971)  The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of  Paul: The Use of the Synoptic Tradition

           in the Regulation of Early Church Life (Oxford, Basil Blackwell)

Dunn,  J.  D. G. (1977) Unity and Diversity in the New Testament  (London, SCM)

________________  (1980)  Christology  in  the  Making:   A   New Testament  Inquiry  into the Origins of

           the Doctrine of  the Incarnation (Philadelphia, Westminster)

_____________ (1983a) "The New Perspective on Paul", BJRL 65, pp.95-122.

_____________ (1983b) "The Incident at Antioch  (Gal.  2:  11-18)" JSNT 18: 3-57.

_____________ (1985a) "Jesus and Ritual Purity: A Study of the traditional history of Mk.  7:15" in A

           Cause de l'evangile: Melanges offerts a D. J.Dupont (Paris, Publications de Saint-Andre) pp.251-

           276

_____________  (1987b)  "Paul's  Epistle to  the  Romans:  An Analysis  of Structure and Argument",  

          ANRW  II:  25.4,  pp. 2842-2890

_____________ (1989) "Paul's Knowledge of the Jesus Tradition: The Evidence of Romans" FS fuer

          W. Trilling, hrsg. K. Kertlege et. Al. (Leipzig, st. Benno-Verlag Gmbh), pp.193-207.

Dupont,  J.  (1963)  "Appel  aux  faibles et aux  forts  dans  la communaute romaine (Rm. 14:1 B

          15:13)", in SPCIC I: 357-66.

Eichrodt, W. (1957, 1964) Theology of the Old Testament, 5th ed., trans. J. A. Baker (London: SCM, 1961,

          1967) 2 vols.

Eissfeldt, O. (1964) The Old Testament: An Introduction, 3rd ed., trans. P.R. Ackroyd (Oxford: Basil

          Blackwell, 1965).

Ellis,   E.   E.   (1957)   Paul's  Use  of  the  Old   Testament  (Edinburgh, Olive and Boyd)

________________  (1970-71) "Paul and His  Co-workers",  NTS  17: 437-52,   repr.   in   Prophecy  and 

          Hermeneutic  in  Early Christianity  (Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 1978) pp. 3-22.

________________ (1975) "Exegetical Patterns in I  Corinthians and Romans" in Grace Upon Grace,  FS

          of L.  Kuyper, repr. in  Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

          1978) pp.213-220.

Esler, P. F. (1987) Community and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan

         Theology, SNTSMS 57.

Exler,  F.  X.  J. (1923) The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study   in   Greek  Epistolography  

         (Washington,   Catholic University of America)

Fahy, T.  (1959-60)  "St.  Paul's Romans were Jewish Converts" in  ITQ 26, pp.182-91.

Farmer, W. R. (1956) Maccabees, Zealots, and Josephus: An Enquiry into  Jewish Nationalism in the

        Greco-Roman Period  (N.  Y., Columbia Univ.)

Filson,  F.  V.  (1939)  "The  Significance  of the  Early  House Churches" JBL 58, pp.105-112

_______________  (1971) A New Testament History (London, SCM)

Forkmann,  G. (1972) The Limits of the Religious Community (Lund, CWK Gleerup)

Fraikin,  D.  (1986)  "The  Rhetorical  Function of the  Jews  in Romans" in Anti-Judaism in Early

        Christianity,  Vol.I:  Paul and the Gospels, ed. P. Richardson & D. Granskou, Studies in  Christianity

        and Judaism,  no.2 (Waterloo,  Canada,  Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press), pp.91-105.

Frank,  T.  (1916) "Racial Mixture in the Roman Empire", American Historical Review, July, pp.689-708.

_________  (1924) "Roman Census Statistics from 225 to 28  B.C.", Classical Philology 19: 329-341.

_________  (1927) An Economic History of Rome,  2nd ed.  (London,  Jonathan Cape)

Fuller, R. H. (1965) The Foundations of New Testament Christology  (London, Lutterworth)

Funk,  R.  W.  (1966) Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God: The Problem  of Language in the New

        Testament and Contemporary Theology (N. Y., Harper & Row)

______________  (1967)   "The   Apostolic  Parousia:   Form   and  Significance" in CHI, pp.249-268.

Furnish,  V.  P.  (1968) Theology and Ethics in Paul  (Nashville,  Abingdon)

________________  (1972)  The Love Command in the  New  Testament (London: SCM 1973)

________________  (1985)  The Moral Teaching  of  Paul:  Selected Issues, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon,

         1986)

Gamble,  H.  Jr.  (1977) The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans:  A  Study  in  Textual and

          Literary  Criticism  (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans)

Garnsey,  P.  (1984) "Religious Toleration in Classical Antiquity" in Persecution and Toleration,  ed.  W. J.

           Sheils (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1984) pp.1-27.

Gerhardsson,  B. (1961) Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and  Written   Transmission   in 

           Rabbinic   Judaism   and   Early Christianity,  trans.  E.  J. Sharpe (Uppsala/Lund, C. W. K.    

           Gleerup)

Goldenberg,  R.  (1979) "The Jewish Sabbath in the Roman World up  to  the  Time  of Constantine the 

            Great",  ANRW  II,  19.1,  pp.414-447.

Grenholm, Cristina (2000) AA Theologian and Feminist Responds@ in Reading Israel in Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of Divergent Interpretations, edd. Cristina Grenholm & Daniel Patte (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Trinity Press International) pp. 105-123.

Guterman,  S. L.  (1951)  Religious Toleration and Persecution in  Ancient Rome  (London, Aiglon Press)

Hagner,  D.  A.  (1973) The Use of the Old and New Testaments  in Clement of Rome,  Supplements to

            NovT vol.34 (Leiden,  E. J. Brill)

____________ (2001) APaul and Judaism: Testing the new Perspective@, an updated essay of  APaul and

             JudaismCThe Jewish Matrix of Early Christianity: Issues in the Current Debate@ Bulletin for     

             Biblical Research 3 (`1993: 111-30),  included as the Chapter Four of  Revisiting Paul=s Doctrine   

             of Justification by Faith, P. Stuhlmacher   (Downers Groves, IVP), pp. 75-105.

Hahn, F. (1963b)  The  Titles of  Jesus  in  Christology:  Their  History in Early Christianity, FRLANT   

             83,rans. H. Knight &  G. Ogg (London: Lutterworth, 1969)

______  (1970)  The Worship of the Early  Church,  tran.  D.E. Green, ed. J. Reumann (Philadelphia:        

             Fortress, 1973)

Harvey,  A. E. (1985a) "Forty Strokes Save One: Social Aspects of  Judaizing  and  Apostasy" in                     

             Alternative Approaches  to  New Testament Study, ed. A. E. Harvey (London, SPCK) pp.79-96.

Hengel,  M.  (1973) Judaism and Hellenism,  2nd  ed.,  trans.  J. Bowden (London: SCM, 1974) 2 vols.

___________ (1975) The Son of God, trans. J. Bowdon (London: SCM,  1976)

Hsu, Francis L.K. (1948) Under zxfthe Ancestors= Shadow: Kinship, Personality, and Social Mobility in      

             China (Standford University Press, 1975).

Huang, Po-he et. al. (1994) Christian and Ancestor Worship (in Chinese) (Taipei, Yah-ge Publishing 

             House)

Iser, W.  (1972) The Implied Reader:  Pattern of Communication in Prose   Fiction  from  Bunyan  to    

             Becket   (Baltimore   and London:John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1975)

Jackson, James (1907) AAncestral Worship@ in Records (1907: 215-46).

Jeremias,  J. (1971) New Testament Theology, trans. (London, SCM)

Jervell,  J. (1971) "The  Letter to Jerusalem" in StTh 25, pp.61- 73, trans. & repr. in Debate, pp.61-74.

____________  (1984b)  "The  Unknown Paul" in  The  Unknown  Paul  (Minneapolis, Augsburg)

Jewett,  R.  (1969)  "The  Form  and Function  of  the  Homiletic Benediction" ATR 51: 18-34.

__________   (1982a)   "Romans   as  an   Ambassadorial   Letter" Interpretation 36, pp. 5-20.

__________  (1982b) Christian Tolerance:  Paul's Message  to  the Modern World (Philadelphia, 

             Westminster)

__________  (1986)  "Following the Argument of  Romans",  Word  & World, 6: 382-9.

Kaesemann,  E. (1969) Perspectives on Paul, trans. M. Kohl (London:  SCM, 1971)

Karris,  R.  J.  (1973)  "Romans 14:1 - 15:13 and the Occasion of Romans" in CBQ 25, pp.155-178 repr.   

              in  Debate, pp.75-99.

         _______________  (1974)  "The Occasion of Romans:  A Response  to Prof. Donfried" in CBQ 36, repr. 

                  Debate, pp.149-151.

         Keck,  L.  E.  (1979)   Paul  and  His   Letters,   Proclamation Commentaries, ed. G. Krodel (Philadelphia,

                  Fortress)

         Kennedy,  G.  A.  (1984)  New  Testament  Interpretation  Through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill &

                  London,  Univ.  of North Carolina Press)

         Kettunen,   M.   (1979)  Der  Abfassungszweck  des  Roemerbriefes (Helsinki, Suomalainen

                  Tiedeakatemia)

         Kim, C. H. (1972) Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation SBLDS 4.

         Klauck,  H.-J.  (1981)  Hausgemeinde  und Hauskirche  in  fruehen Christentum,   SBS  103  (Stuttgart,       

                  Verlag   Katholisches  Bibelwerk Gmbh)

         Klein G (1969)  "Paul's Purpose in Writing the Epistle to  the Romans"  in Rekonstruction  und 

                   Interpretation,  pp.129-44,  trans. & repr. in Debate, pp.32-49.

         Koester,   H.   (1980)   Introduction   to  the   New   Testament  (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 2 vols.

         Koskenniemi,  H,  (1956)  Studien zur Idee und  Phraseologie  des  griechischen Briefes bis 400 n.  chr.

                    (Helsinki, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia)

         Kramer,  W.  (1963) Christ,  Lord,  Son of God,  trans.  B. Hardy (London: SCM, 1966)

         Krentz,  E.  (1975) The Historical-Critical Method (London, SPCK)

         Kuemmel,  W.  G (1972) Theology of the New Testament, trans. J. E.  Steely (London: SCM, 1976)

         ______________  (1973)  Introduction to the New  Testament,  rev. ed., trans. H. C. Kee (London: SCM,

                    1984)

         Kyrtatas,  D.  J.  (1987)  The  Social  Structure  of  the  Early Christian Community (London/N.Y., Verso)

         Ladd, G. E. (1974) A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975)

         Lampe,  P. (1987) Die Stadtroemischen Christen in den  ersten  beiden Jahrhunderten:  Untersuchungen

                     zur  Sozialgeschichte, WUNT, 2:18 (Tuebingen, J. C. B. Mohr)

         La Piana,  G.  (1927)  "Foreign  Groups in Rome During the  First Centuries of the Empire", HTR 20,

                    No.4, pp.183-403.

         Latourette, K. S. (1929) A History of Christian Missions in China (repr. Taipei: Ch=eng-wen Publishing

                     Co.)

         Leon,  H.  J.  (1960)  The Jews of Ancient  Rome  (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America)

         ______________ (1964) "The Jews of Rome in the First Centuries of  Christianity"  in The Teacher's

                     Yoke:  Studies in Memory  of  Henry Trantham,  ed.  E. J. Vardaman  &  J. L. Garrett, Jr.,   et. al. 

                      (Waco, Baylor Univ.) pp.154-163.

         Leung, Ka-lun (1997) AChristianity and Chinese Ancestor WorshipCResponse from a Pastoral

                      Perspective@ (in Chinese) in Chinese Ancestor Worship, ed. Ying, Fuk-tsang  (Hong Kong,       

                      Alliance Bible Seminary) pp. 103-205.

         Li, Chi-jen (1995) Taiwan Christian Churches and Ancestor Worship (in Chinese, Tainan, Jen Kwong

                      Publication House)

         Li, Tian-gong (1998) Chinese Rites Controversy: History, Documents and Significance (in Chinese,

                      Shanghai, Ancient Texts Press)

         Li, Yi-yuen (1992) AA Review on the Change of Individual ReligiosityCTo Propose some Assumptions on

                      Study of Chinese Religious Beliefs (in Chinese) in Cultural ImagesCA Cultural Observation on

                      Religion and Ethnic Group (Taipei, Yuen Shen Cultural Enterprise) vol. 2.

         Lietzmann,  H.  (1926)  Mass  and Lord's Supper:  A Study in  the  History  of  the  Liturgy,  trans.  D.  H. 

                      Reeve,  with  "Introduction  and  Further Inquiry"  by  R.  D.  Richardson  (Leiden: E. J. Brill,

                      1979)

         ____________  (1930) "Zwei Notizen zu Paulus",  repr.  in Klein

         Lin, Jin-shui (1994) AChinese Literati and the Rites Controversy@ in Mungello (1994: 65-82).

         Lindars, B. (1961) New Testament Apologetic (London, SCM)

         Linnemann,  E. (1971) "Tradition und Interpretation in Rm. 1:3f."

         Ljungman, H. (1964) Pists: A Study of its Presuppositions and its Meaning in Pauline Use,  trans. W. F. 

                     Salisbury (Lund, G. W. K. Gleerup)

Lo, L. K. (1998)  Paul=s Purpose in Writing Romans: The Upbuilding  of a Jewish and Gentile Christian  

             Community in Rome, Jian Dao Dissertation Series 6 (Hong Kong, Alliance Bible Seminary)

Lofthouse,  W.  F.  (1946-47) "Singular and Plural in St.  Paul's Letters" ExpT 58, pp.179-182.

_______________  (1952-53) "'I' and 'We' in the  Pauline  Letters", ExpT 64: 241-5.

Lohse,  E. (1974a) The New Testament Environment,  rev. ed. Trans. J. E. Steely (London: SCM, 1976)

Longenecker, R. (1970)   The   Christology  of   Early   Jewish Christianity (London, SCM)

_______________ (1975) Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic  Period  (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans)

_______________ (1983) "On the Form,  Function,  and Authority of the  New Testament Letters",  in

           Scripture and  Truth,  edd. Carson,  D. A. & Woodbridge, J. D. (Grand Rapids, Zondervan)  pp.101-

          14. 

Luedemann, G.  (1980) Paul:  Apostle to the Gentiles,  Studies in  Chronology, trans. F. S. Jones

                     (London:SCM, 1984)

_____________  (1983)  Paulus,   der  Heidenapostel,   Band   II:  Antipaulinismus im fruehen 

                    Christentum, FRLANT 130.

Luetgert,  W.  (1913)  Der  Roemerbrief als historisches  Problem (Guetersloh,  Bertelsmann)

Madsen, Richard (1994) AThe Catholic Church in China Today: A New Rites Controversy?@ in Mungello (1994: 267-77).

Malatesta, Edward J. (1994) AA Fatal Clash of Wills: The Condemnation of the Chinese Rites by the Papal League  Carlo Tommaso Millard de Tournon@ in Mungello (1994: 211-46).

Malherbe,  A.  J.  (1977)  Social  Aspects of Early  Christianity (Baton Rouge and London, Louisiana     

         State Univ. Press)

 _________   (1983) Social Aspects of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, Fortress)

___________   (1986)   Moral  Exhortation,   A   Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia, Fortress)

         Manson,  T.  W  (1948)  "St.  Paul's Letter to the Romans -- and  Others" in BJRL 31, pp.224-245, repr. in

                   Debate, pp.1-16.

         Marcus, J. (1989) "The Circumcision and the Uncircumcision in Rome", NTS  35: 67-81.

         Marshall,   I.   H.   (1967)   "The  Divine  Sonship  of   Jesus"  Interpretation 21: 87-103.

         Marshall,  P.  (1987)  Enmity in Corinth:  Social Conventions  in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians  

                     (Tuebingen,  J.  C. B.  Mohr)

         Martin,  B. L. (1981) "Some Reflections on the Identity of egw in Rm. 7: 14-25" SJT 34: 39-47.

         Martin,  R.  P.  (1967) Carmen Christi:  Phil.  2: 5-11 in Recent Interpretation   and  in  the  setting  of 

                     Early  Christian Worship, SNTSMS 4

         _____________  (1974) Worship in the  Early  Church,  rev.  ed.  (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975)

         _____________  (1975,  1978) New Testament Foundations (Exeter, Paternoster), 2 vols.

         _____________ (1981) Reconciliation: A Study of Paul's Theology (London, Marshall, Morgan & Scott)

         Martin, W.A.P. (1890) AThe Worship of Ancestral : A Pled for Toleration@ in Records (1890: 620-31).

____________  (1902) AHow Shall We Deal with the worship of Ancestors?@ in Chinese Recorder

             XXXIII: 3 (March), pp.117-9.

         ____________  (1904) AThe Worship of Ancestors: How Shall We Deal with it?@ in Chinese Recorder

                      XXXV:6 (June), pp. 301-8.

         Marxsen, W. (1964) Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems, trans. G. Buswell

                      (Oxford, Blackwell, 1968)

         McKnight,  E.V.  (1985) The Bible and the Reader: An Introduction to Literary Criticism (Philadelphia,

                      Fortress)

         Meeks,  W. A. (1983) The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven,  

                      Yale Univ. Press)

         _______  (1986)  The  Moral World of  the  First  Christians (London: SPCK, 1987)

         _______  (1987) "Judgment and the Brothers: Rm. 14:1 - 15:13", in Tradition and Interpretation in

                     the New Testament, E.E. Ellis FS, edd. G.F. Hawthorne et al. (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans) pp. 290-  

                     300.

         Melanchthon,  P.  (1532) "Roemerbrief-Kommentar,  1532", repr. in Melanchthons  Werke  in  Auswahl 

                     5,   ed.   R.   Stupperich (Guetersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1965)

         Metzger,  B.  M.  (1971)  A  Textual Commentary on the Greek  New Testment (Stuttgart, United Bible

                     Societies)

         Minamiki, G. (1985) The Chinese Rites controversy from its Beginning to Modern Times (Chicago,

                     Loyala University Press).

         Minear,  P. S. (1971) The Obedience of Faith: The Purpose of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (London, 

                     SCM)

         Mohrlang,  R.  (1984) Matthew and Paul:  A Comparison of  Ethical Perspectives, SNTSMS 48.

         Mol, H. (1976) Identity and the Sacred (Oxford, Blackwell)

         Moore,  G.  F.  (1927-30)  Judaism in the First Centuries of  the Christian  Era:  The Age of the Tannaim  

                     (Cambridge,;  Mass, Harvard Univ. Press) 3 vols.

         Moule,  C. F. D. (1959) An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: University Press,

                     1986)

         _________  (1961)  Worship in the New Testament  (London: Lutterworth, 1964)

         _________  (1977) The Origin of  Christology  (Cambridge, Univ. Press)

         Moulton,  J.  H.  (1906  -1976) A Grammar of New Testament  Greek (Edinburgh,  T & T Clark) 4 vols. 

                     Vol.2 ed.  W.  F. Howard;  vol. 3 & 4 by N. Turner.

         Moxnes,  H.  (1980)  Theology  in  Conflict:  Studies  in  Paul's Understanding  of  God in Romans, 

                     Supplements  to  NovT  53 (Leiden. E. J. Brill)

         Munck,  J.  (1954) Paul and the Salvation of Mankind,  trans.  F. Clarke, (London, SCM, 1959)

         Mungello, D. E. (1985) Curious Land: Jesuit Accommodation and the Origins of Sinology (Honolulu:  

                    University of  Hawaii Press, 1989)

         ___________ ed.  (1994) The Chinese Rites Controversy: Its History and Meaning, joint published by

                    Institut Monumenta Serica, Sankt Augustin and The Ricci Institute for Chinese-Western Cultural

                    History, San Francisco, Monumenta Serica Monograph Series XXXIII (Nettetal, Steyler Verlag)   

         Naquin, S. & Evelyn S. Rawski (1987) Chinese Society in the Eighteen Century (New Haven, Yale 

                     University Press)

         Neil, S.  (1976) Jesus Through Many Eyes (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978)

         Newman, B. M. & Nida, E. A. (1972) A Translator's Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles (Stuttgart,          

                     United Bible Societies)

         Newton,  M.  (1985)  The  Concept of Purity at Qumran and in  the Letters of Paul, SNTSMS 53

         Ollrog,  W-H  (1979)  Paulus  und seine  Mitarbeiter  (Neukirchen Verlag)

         O'Rourke, J. J. (1973) "PISTIS in Romans" CBQ 34: 188-194.

         Pathrapankal,  J.  (1971) Metanoia,  Faith,  Covenant: A Study in Pauline Theology (Bangalore, 

                     Dharmaram Publications)

         Patte,  D.  (1983)  Paul's  Faith  and the Power  of  the  Gospel  (Philadelphia, Fortress)

         Pearson,  B.  A.  (1971) "I Thessalonians 2:  13-16:  A  Deutero- Pauline Interpolation" HTR 64: 79-94.

         Perelman,  C.  & Olbrechts-Tyteca,  L. (1958) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation,  trans.  J.

                     Wilkinson & P. Weaver  (London/Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1971)

         Petersen,  J.  M.  (1969)  "House-Churches in Rome"  in  Vigiliae Christianae 23, pp.264-272.

         Petersen,  N.  R.  (1978)  Literary  Criticism for New  Testament Critics (Philadelphia, Fortress)

         _____________  (1985)  Rediscovering Paul:  Philemon  and  the  Sociology of Paul's Narrative World

                     (Philadelphia, Fortress)

         Pokorny,  P. (1985) The Genesis of Christology: Foundations for a  Theology  of  the  New   Testament,  

                     trans.   M.   Lefebure (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1987)

         von Rad,  G.  (1957,  60) Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (London: SCM, 1977, 1975) 2

                     vols.

         Raeisaenen,  H. (1983) Paul and the Law,  WUNT 29 (Tubingen,  J. C. B. Mohr)

         Rauer,  M. (1923) "Die `Schwachen' in Korinth und Rom", Biblische  Studien 21: 1-192.

         Reasoner, M. (1999) The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14:1-15:13 in Context, SNTSMS 103

         Records (1878) = Records of The General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, held at

                     Shanghai, May 10-24, 1877 (Taipei: Cheng-wen Pub. Co., 1973, a reprint of Shanghai: Presbyterian

                     Mission Press, 1878)

         Records (1890) = Records of General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, held at 

                     Shanghai, May 7-20, 1890 (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Press, 1890)

         Records (1907) = China Centenary Missionary Conference Records: Report of the Great Conference Held

                     at Shanghai, April 5^th to May 8^th, 1907, Printed in shanghai under the direction of the Conference

                     Committee, Edition limited to 1000 copies  (New York: American Tract Society)

         Richardson,  A. (1958) An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1961)

         Ridderbos,  H. (1966) Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. J. R. de Witt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

                     1975)

         Robinson,  J.  A. T. (1979) Wrestling with Romans (London, SCM)

         Roetzel,  C.  J.  (1982)  The Letters of Paul:  Conversations  in Context, 2nd ed. (London, SCM, 1983)

         Roller,   O.   (1933)   Das  Formular  der  Paulinischen   Briefe (Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer)

         Rowland,  C.  (1987) "Review on F.  Watson, Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles", Epworth Review, Sept.    :

                     102-3.

         Rule, Paul (1994) ATowards a History of the Chinese Rites Controversy@ in Mungello (1994: 249-266).

         Safrai,  S.  (1977) "The Synagogue and Its Worship" in Society and Religion in the Second Temple 

                     Period,  ed. M. Avi-Yonah & Z. Bares (London, W. H. Allen)

         Sanders, E. P. (1977a) Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London, SCM, 1981)

         __________  (1983a) Paul,  the  Law,  and the  Jewish  People (London, SCM, 1985)

         Schlatter,  A.  (1935)  Gottes Gerechtigkeit:  Ein Kommentar  zum Roemerbrief (Stuggart: Calwer

                     Verlag, 1975)

         Schmeller,   T.   (1987)   Paulus   und  die   "Diatribe":   Eine vergleichende Stilinterpretation (Munenster, 

                     Aschendorf)

         Schmithals,  W.  (1961) The Office of Apostle in the Early Church, FRLANT 61, trans. J. E. Steely                     

                     (Nashville & N.Y., Abingdon)

         _____________  (1975) Der Roemerbrief als historisches  Problem   (Gutersloh, Gutersloher Verlagshaus

                     Gerd Mohn)

         Schrenk,   G.   (1933)  "Der  Roemerbrief  als  Missionsdokument" Festgabe fuer E.  F.  K. Mueller, repr.

                     in Studien zu Paulus (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1954) pp.81-106.

         Schubert,  P. (1939a) "Form and Function of the Pauline Letters",  Journal of Religion 19, pp.365-77.

         _________   (1939b)   Form  and  Function  of   the   Pauline Thanksgivings, BZNW 20.

         Schuerer, E. (1973 - 87) The History of the Jewish People in  the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C. - A.D.

                    135), rev. ed., edd. G. Vermes,  F. Millar et al. (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark)  multi- volumes work.       

         Schweizer,  E.  (1959) Church Order in the New Testament trans. F. Clarke (London: SCM, 1979)

         Senior, D. & Stuhlmueller, C. (1983) The Biblical Foundations for Mission (London, SCM)

         Smallwood,  E. M.  (1981) The Jews Under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian  (Leiden,  E. J.

                     Brill)

         Smith, Henry N. (1987) Chinese Ancestor Practices and Christianity: Toward a Viable Contextualization

                     of Chinese Ethnics in Hong Kong, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation (Dallas, Southwestern Baptist

                     Theological Seminary)

         Stauffer,  E.  (1948)  New Testament Theology,  trans.  J.  Marsh (London: SCM, 1955)

         Stendahl,  K.  (1963)  "The  Apostle Paul and  the  Introspective Conscience of the West" HTR 56: 199-

                     215, repr. in Paul Among  Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays (Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1983) 

                     Pp.78-96.

         __________  (1976a)  "Paul Among Jews and Gentiles"  in  Paul Among  Jews  and Gentiles and  Other 

                     Essays  (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983)

         Stern,  M. ed.  (1974-1984)  Greek and Latin Authors on Jews  and Judaism,  (Jerusalem,  The  Israel      

                     Academy of  Sciences  and  Humanities), 3 Vols.

         _________  (1976b) "The Jews in Greek and Latin Literature" CRINT I-2, pp.1101-1159. 

         Stirewalt,  M. L., Jr. (1969)  "Paul's  Evaluation  of   Letter-Writing"  in Search the Scripture,  New

                     Testament Studies in  honour of R. T. Stamm, ed. J. M. Myers et al. (Leiden, E. J. Brill), pp.179-

                     196.

         ______________  (1977)  "The  Form and Function  of  the  Greek Letter-Essay" in Debate, pp.175-206.

         Stowers,  S.  K.  (1981)  The Diatribe and Paul's Letter  to  the Romans, SBLDS 57 (Chico, Scholars

                      Press)

         _____________  (1994) A Rereading of Romans:Justice, Jews, and Gentiles (New Haven, Yale)

         Streeter, B. H. (1924) The Four Gospels (London, Macmillan)

         Stuhlmacher,  P.  (1986) "Der Abfassungszweck des Romerbriefes" ZNW 77: 180-193

         ______________ (2001) Revisiting Paul=s Doctrine of Justification by Faith  (Downer Groves, IVP)

         Tan, Y. H. (1999)  AJudging and Community in Romans: An Action within the Boundaries@, a paper           

                      presented at SBL 1999 Seminar:Romans through  History and Cultures. 24 pages.

         Theissen,  G.  (1975b)  "Die Starken und  Schwachen  in  Korinth: Soziologische  Analyse eines

                      Theologischen Streites" in EvTh 35:   155-72,   repr.  in  The  Social  Setting  of  Pauline   

                      Christianity,  ed. & trans. J. H. Schutz (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1982)

         _____________  (1982)  The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity ed. & trans. J. H. Schutz (Edinburgh, 

                      T. & T. Clark)

         _____________  (1983) Psychological Aspects of Pauline  Theology, trans.  J.  P.  Galvin,  FRLANT 131

                      (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1987)

         Thraede,  K. (1970) Grundzuege griechisch - roemischer Brieftopik (Muenchen: C.H. Beck'sche

                      verlagsbuchhandlung)

Torrance, T. F. (1956- 57) "One Aspect of the Biblical Conception of Faith" ExpT  68: 111-114.

Treadgold, Donald W. (1994) AThe Crossing of Cultural Bridges@ in Mungello (1994: 287-90).

Turner,   H.   W.  (1979)  From  Temple  to  Meeting  House:  The Phenomenology and Theology of Places   of Worship (The  Hague/ Paris/ NY, Moulton Publishers)

Turner,  N.  (1965)  Grammatical Insights into the New  Testament (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark)

Vogelstein,  H. (1940) The History of the Jews in Rome, trans. M. Hadas (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication  

             Society of America)

Vogelstein,  H.  and Rieger, P. (1895-96) Geschichte der Juden in Rom, (Berlin), 2 volumes. 

Walters, James C. (1993)  Ethnic Issues in Pauline Letter to the Romans: Changing Self-Definitions in  

             Earliest Romans Christianity (Valley Forge, Trinity)

Wardy,  B. (1979) "Jewish Religion in Pagan Literature During the Late Republic and Early Empire",   

              ANRW II, 19.1, pp.592-644.

Watson,  F. (1986) Paul, Judaism and The Gentiles: A Sociological Approach, SNTSMS 56

_________ (1991) AReview of Romans 1-ê and Romans 9-16, by James D. G. Dunn@ JTS 42: 252-4.

Watson, James L. & Evelyn S. Rawski edd. (1988) Death Ritual in Late and Modern China  (Berkeley,

              University of California Press, 1990)

Weaver,  P.  R.  C.  (1967)  "Social Mobility in the Early  Roman Empire:  The  Evidence of the Imperial  

              Freedmen and  Slaves" Past and Present 37: 3-20.

Wedderburn,  A.  J.  M.  (1979)  "Purpose and Occasion of  Romans Again" in ExpT 90: 137-141.

____________________(1988) The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh, T & T Clark).

Wendland,  P. (1912) Die urchristlichen Literaturformen, Handbuch  zum Neuen Testament I:3 (Tubingen, J. C. B. Mohr)

White,  J.  L.  (1972b) The Form and Structure of  the  Official Petition: A Study in Greek Epistolography SBLDS 5.

____________ (1982) "The Greek Documentary Letter Tradition Third Century  B.  C.  E.  to Third Century C.  E." in Studies  in Ancient Letter Writing,  ed.  J. L. White, Semeia 22 (Chico,  Scholar Press) pp.89-106.

______________  (1984)  "New Testament Epistolary  Literature  in  the Framework of Ancient Epistolography" in ANRW  II,  25.2, pp. 1730-1756.

Whiteley,  D.  E.  H.  (1974) The Theology of St.  Paul,  2nd ed. (Oxford, Basil Blackwell)

Wiefel,  W.  (1970) "The Jewish Community in Ancient Rome and the Origins  of  Roman Christianity" in  Judaica  26,  pp.65-88, trans. & repr. in Debate, pp.100-119.

Wilckens,  U.  (1974a)  "Ueber  Abfassungszweck  und  Aufbau  des Roemerbriefes" in Rechtfertigung als Freiheit: Paulusstudien (Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag), pp.110-70.

Williams,  S.  K.  (1980) "The 'Righteousness of God' in Romans" JBL 99, pp.241-290.

Willis,  W.  L. (1985) Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument  in I Cor. ê and 10, SBLDS 68

Wilson,  R.A.  (1964)  "'We'  and  'You' in the  Epistle  to  the Ephesians",  StEv Vol.   II, pt. 1, ed. F.L. Cross, pp. 676- 80.

Witek, John W., S.J. (1994) AEliminating Misunderstandings: Antoine de Beauvollier (1657-1709) and His Eclaircissements sur les controverses de la Chine@ in Mungello (1994: 185-210)

Wright,  N.  T. (1980) The Messiah and the People of God: A Study in  Pauline  Theology  with  Particular  Reference  to   the Argument  of the Epistle to the Romans (Oxford,  unpublished D. Phil. Thesis)

Wuellner,  W. (1976) "Paul's Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans" in CBQ 38: 330-351, repr. in Debate, pp.152-174. 

_____________  (1987) "Where is Rhetorical Criticism Taking  us?" CBQ 49: 448-63.

Yang , C. K. (1961) Religion in Chinese Society (Berkeley, LA, London, University of California Press)

Yeo, Khiok-khng (1996) Ancestor Worship: Rhetorical and Cross-Cultural Hermeneutical Response (in Chinese) (Hong Kong, Chine Christian Literature Council)

Ying, Fuk-tsang (1997a) AChristianity and Chinese Ancestor WorshipCA Historical Survey@ (in Chinese) in Chinese Ancestor Worship, ed. Ying, Fuk-tsang (Hong Kong, Alliance Bible Seminary) pp. 1-102.

_____________  (1997b) AA Retrospect on Research of Chinese Ancestor Worship@ (in Chinese) in Chinese Ancestor Worship, ed. Ying Fuk-tsang (Hong Kong, Alliance Bible Seminary)

Young, F. (1992) AThe Pastoral Epistles and the Ethics of Reading@ in JSNT 45, pp. 105-20, reprinted in The Pauline Writings: A Sheffield Reader, edd. Stanley E. Porter & Craig A. Evans (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1995) pp.268-282.  

Young, John Dragon (1994) AChinese Views of Rites and the Rites Controversy, 18^th-20^th Centuries@ in Mungello (1994: 83-108).

Zerwick, M. (1963) Biblical Greek,  ed.  J.  Smith (Rome: Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1983)

Zerwick,  M.  & M. Grosvenor (1981) A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek  New Testament,  rev.  ed.  (Rome,  Biblical Institute Press)

Ziesler,  J.  A.  (1972)  The  Meaning of Righteousness in  Paul, SNTSMS 20

________________  (1983)  Pauline  Christianity  (Oxford,   Univ. Press)

Zuercher, Erik (1994) AJesuit Accommodation and the Chinese Cultural Imperative@ in Mungello (1994: 31-64).

 

---

^[1] See Grenholm (2000: 105) and the quotation from Watson (1991: 252).

^[2] Recent discussions, see Nababan (1962),  Minear (1971), Karris (1973), Watson (1986: 88-98), Meeks (1987), Schneider (1989), Barclay (1996), Nanos (1996: 85-165),  Lo (1998: 117-158), Tan (1999) and Reasoner (1999).

^[3] Edited by Donfried (1977), in which nine articles with different perspectives are collected, the revised and expanded edition (1991) adds thirteen more articles; see also  Wedderburn (1988: 140ff); Lo (1998).

^[4] E.g. Barrett (R, 1962: 256); Michel (R, 1978: 419f.); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 364); Wilckens (R, 1982 III: 78); Jewett (1982b: 23) and those listed in Reasoner (1999: 4, 8-16). Discussion on the similarities and differences between Rm. 14:1-15:13 and I Cor. 8-10, see Lo (1998: 52-55) and Reasoner (1999: 25-44).

^[5] I take the liberty to use the terms 'Christians', 'Christianity', 'Judaism' anachronistically as convenient shorthand in connection with Paul's writings.

^[6] Rm. 16 is regarded as part of  Romans,  see discussion in Lo (1998: 24-26). For the characteristics of Roman Christians found in Rm. 16:3-15, see Lo (1998:27-35).

^[7] So Cranfield (R, 1979 II: 696f.); Dunn (1987b: 2880).

^[8] See Minear (1971) and the discussion on his methodology in pp.6ff.. His work did not gain widespread acceptance among scholars; see Campbell (1974: 268f.); Wedderburn (1978-79: 141); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 820ff.). However, since more attention has been paid to the situation of Roman Christians in understanding Romans, his insight on the importance of Rm. 14-15 as the key passage for determining the situation has gained more appreciation, see Donfried (1977) and Watson (1986: 88f.).

^[9] Minear (1971: 7); see also Cranfield (R, 1975, I:22); O'Neil (R, 1975: 221); Stuhlmacher (1986: 192).

^[10] Minear (1971: 7).

^[11] Minear (1971: 8-15) suggests that the five groups are: 1. the 'weak in faith' who condemned the 'strong in faith'; 2. the strong in faith who scorned and despised the weak in faith; 3. the doubters; 4. the weak in faith who did not condemn the strong; and 5. the strong in faith who did not condemn the weak. Logically speaking, it is possible that all these positions were present among the Roman Christian community. However, Minear's suggestion goes beyond the evidence of the text. The reason why Minear makes this suggestion is probably that because he wants to show the dynamics between these five postions and Paul's purpose to persuade members of groups 1, 2 and 3 to shift to groups 4 or 5 (p.15). In fact, according to Minear's analysis of Romans (p. 45), only Group 1, 2 and 3 are specially addressed by Paul. Group 4 and 5 are scarcely singled out, see pp. 54f., 82. Donfried (1974b: 107) rightly criticized Minear's work that "while the direction of Minear's general interpretation is persuasive, it is open to question whether one can determine so precisely that there were five differentiated groups in the Roman churchesYY.we are hesitant to concur with Minear in attempting to relate almost every passage to some problem or opponent in RomeY.[and] it is perhaps misleading to suggest an almost point by point correlation". 

^[12] Paul's argument in 14.10c-12 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), see Ellis (1957:151) and Kaesemann (R, 1980:373). There are two observations concerning the quotation: (1) The original setting of Is. 45:23 is the universal worship which Yahweh foretells will be offered to him one day. The prophet had clearly expected a turning to Yahweh of all the nations upon earth, see Westermann (I, 1966: 176), Mckenzie (I, 1968:84) and Martin (1967: 255f.). The sense of worship seems to be strengthened in Rm. 14:11 when Paul uses exhomologesetai in place of omeitai, see Black (1971-72:8), Cranfield (R, 1979, II:710). Black (1971-72:8; R, 1973:167) suggests that the translation of this word as 'give praise to' (RSV, NASB) instead of 'confess' (NIV) or 'acknowledge' (NEB) is clearly preferable. (2) There are nine OT quotations in the NT -- four of them in Pauline letters -- within which the phrase legei kurios occurs [Acts 7:49; 15:16f.; Rm. 12:19; 14:11; I Cor. 14:21; II Cor. 6:16ff. (twice); Heb. 8: 8-12 (thrice); 10:16f.; 10:30, see Ellis (1957: 107 n.2)]. Ellis (1957: 107f.) observes that the greater portion of the citations are related to the 'temple' typology in which the Christian community is viewed as God's new temple with the inclusion of the Gentiles.. The quotations in Acts 15:16f. and I Cor. 14:21 refer explicitly to the theme of Gentiles, while Heb. 8: 8-12; 10:16f. refer to the new covenant prophecy (Jer. 31:31ff.); cf. II Cor. 6:16ff..  

^[13] Paul uses four OT quotations in 15: 9b-12, which come from the Law, the Prophets and the Writings, LXX Ps. 17:50; Deut. 32:43; Ps. 116:1 and Is. 11:10. 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. 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 (euphrainein) together with God=s people and to praise God. Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 746) and Kaesemann (R, 1980: 386) recognize that the word euphrainein is used in the setting of cultic worship.

^[14] Karris (1973: 79ff.).

^[15] Rauer (1923).

^[16] See also Barrett (R, 1962: 257f.); Raeisaenen (1983: 48); Bassler (1984: 56f.).

^[17] The use of the word koinos to denote "unclean" in the religious sense is almost exclusively Jewish; see Mk. 7:2, 5; Acts 10:14, 28; 11:8; cf. koinoô: Mtt. 15:11, 18, 20; Mk. 7:15, 18, 20, 23; Acts 10:15; 11:9; 21:28. In Mtt. 15:11; Mk. 7:15 and Acts 10: 10-16, the problem of observance of Jewish food laws is dealt with under this keyword; cf. Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 713); Wilckens (R, 1982 III: 90); Newton (1985: 102); Dunn (R, 1988 II: 818); Wedderburn (1988: 30-35, 60); Fitzmyer (R, 1993: 688, 696), Barclay (1996: 290) and other scholars listed in Reasoner (1999: 8-16). Pace Ziesler (R, 1989: 324-6) who insists that the issue is that of meat offered to idols. Reasoner (1999:.17f.) suggests that there were other reasons why people abstained from meat and wine in first century Rome (pp. 102-38). However his claim that Wedderburn and Ziesler  to be on his side (pp.4, 17-19) is unjustified [see his own recognition of the difference between he and Wedderburn in p. 18; his position against using I Cor. 8-10 to interprete Rm. 14:1 B 15:13 (pp. 25-37) could not allow him to agree with Ziesler (R, 1989:324) who considers the problem in Rome is Avery similar to that in Corinth@]. Reasoner=s suggestion to understand  Astrong@ and Aweak@ as terms of social status in first-century Rome (pp.45-63) could help us to widen our view on these two identities in relation to social-economic-political perspectives, but could not undermine our understanding along more or less  ethnic lines (see his discussion on >ethnicity= in pp. 210-7).

^[18] For detailed discussion on the possible interpretations of the identities of the Astrong@ and the Aweak@, see Cranfield (R, 1979 II: 690-7), Wilckens (R, 1982 III: 109-115), Moo (R, 1996: 828-32).

^[19] See the bibliographical reference in Karris (1973: 76 n.6). Among these scholars, we may add Black (R, 1973: 164); Campbell (1973-74: 268); Cranfield (R, 1979 II: 694ff.); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 366); Wilkens (R, 1982 III: 79); Patte (1983: 247f.); Watson (1986: 94ff.);  Dunn (1987b: 2880); Wedderburn (1988: 30-5, 60); Stuhlmacher (R, 1989: 219-21); Fitzmyer (R, 1993: 77-80, 687-8); Moo (R, 1996: 828-31).

^[20] So Watson (1986: 95).

^[21] See Minear (1971: 9). In early Christian times, worship and communal meal were probably inseparable; I Cor. 11: 17-22; cf. see Cullmann (1950: 14ff.). For detailed discussion of the development of the communal (fellowship) meal in the context of Christian worship, see Moule (1961: 18-46).

^[22] Some scholars have wrongly thought that the 'weak' were those who abstained from meat in general. Therefore they refused to identify the weak as Jewish Christians but regarded them as some Hellenistic vegetarians; so Rauer (1923: 1-192) cited by Jewett (1971: 43f.); Barrett (R, 1962: 257f.); Schlier (R, 1977: 405f.); cf. Murray (R, 1965, II:175); see also discussion in Kaesemann (R, 1980: 368).

^[23] See Minear (1971: 10).

^[24] See discussion on Tacitus Historiae, V, 5:1; Letter of Aristeas, Joseph and Asenath in Lo (1998: 85-88).

^[25] Barrett (R, 1962: 6) has rightly pointed out that at the early stage "it is not impossible that the first Christians in Rome .... formed a synagogue community within the general framework of the Jewish groups in the city..."; cf. Bruce (A, 1952: 317ff.); Donfried (1970: 54).

^[26] See Lo (1998: 57-113).

^[27] The hyphanated form of "net-work" is intended to show the the relationship between the different synagogues and house churches in Rome which were closely connected but not as a united organization, see discussion in Lo (1998: 20)..

^[28] See discussion on Paul's use of  proslambanô and  oiketês in notes 43, 53 below.

^[29] See Bartsch (1968: 44f.); Wiefel (1970: 111-113), who give a possible analysis of the situation of the Roman Christian community when the Jewish Christians returned to Rome after the death of Claudius; cf. Marxsen (1964: 100); Donfried (1970: 55); Huebner (1978: 68). However, we disagree with Wiefel that the denial of assembly was a first step in moderating the eviction edict of Claudius, see discussion in Lo (1998: 78-80) 3. Furthermore, his suggestion that the letter to the Romans "was written to assist the Gentile Christian majority, who are the primary addressees of the letter, to live together with the Jewish Christians in one congregation, thereby putting an end to their quarrels about status" (p.113, our eamphasis) is imprecise and contradictory to the findings of our study below.

^[30] See Leenhardt (R, 1957: 9); Kuemmel (1973: 311); Cranfield (R, 1975 I: 16); Fitzmyer (R, 1993: 86f.).

^[31] Minear (1971: 13).

^[32] Minear (1971: 15).

^[33] Clines (1976: 25-33, 37-40).

^[34] Clines (1976: 25, 53).

^[35] Clines (1976: 53-56).

^[36] Clines (1976:54ff.) and see also Petersen (1985), the discussion on  literary/narrative world .

^[37] So Keck (1979:16); for discussion of the problem of mirror-reading method, see Barclay (1987).

^[38] According to the study of ancient epistolography, see Koskenniemi (1955); Cancik (1967); Thraede (1970); White (1984), there were three essential elements belonging to the basic character of the letter, see Koskenniemi (1955: 34-47); Cancik (1967: 46-88); cf. Funk (1967: 263); Doty (1973: 11f.): (a) GREEK  philophronêsis: the basic element of friendship which exists between the sender and the recipient, see Koskenniemi (1955: 36); (b) parousia: this is considered as the most important function of the letter, which is to make the 'absent' become 'present' ("die apousia zur parousia machen"), see Koskenniemi (1955: 38), (c) homilia: this primarily denotes a dialogue. In other words, homilia through a letter leads to communion and intercourse one with the other, see  Koskenniemi (1955: 43f.). If this was indeed the case, it implies that Romans probably functioned as a means of social intercourse between Paul and the Roman Christians as if Paul were present among them, cf. Schubert (1939a: 376); Lofthouse (1946-47: 181); Doty (1973: 27). In other words, Paul and the Roman Christians were the primarily dialogical partners in the letter. The persons 'I' (egw) and 'you (plural)' (humeis), together with the related verbs, in the text should primarily represent Paul and Roman Christians, as a whole or in part, unless proved otherwise from the context of the letter, cf. Cranfield (1982a: 215). From the text, we can see what characteristics were attributed to the 'I' and 'you (plural)', and what was the relationship between them. Furthermore, we have to pay attention to the other 'persons' occurring in the text, especially 'we' (hemeis) and 'you (singular)' (su). For 'we' primarily denotes the 'I' and other(s), who could be his audience or someone else, see Lofthouse (1946-47:  180),  (1952-53: 241); Hanson (1961: 47); Cranfield (1982a: 221). Moreover, 'we' could be used as an authorial plural, see discussion in Moule (1959: 118) 'epistolary plural'; BDF: 146 (s. 280, The Literary plural); and Cranfield (1982a: 225). BDF: 146f. suggest that in Romans, in which Paul does not write in the name of two or more persons, no authorial plural is found; however, Cranfield (1982a: 225) argues against this suggestion and he thinks that such plurals are found in Rm. 1:5; 3:8f.. Stendahl (1976a: 23) also supports this understanding but obviously overstates his case when he says "Many of Paul's use of "we" and "our" are that stylistic plural by which he really means only himself" (our emphasis). Although the occurrence of 'you (singular)' in a letter addressed to a community seems to be strange. However, it can denote individuals in the community or functions as a rhetorical device (in diatribal style) to typify the experiences or concern of individuals among the audience in order to involve them to dialogue with the sender of the letter, see Stowers (1981: 84- 93,105f.,152); Cranfield (1982a: 218f.). BDF: 147 (s. 281) suggest that Paul some times uses second person singular to represent any third person in order to illustrate something universal in a vivid manner by reference to a single individual, as though present among his audience (2:17; 11:17; 14:4 etc.); however, they agree that the second person singular can be used in combination with a direct address to the persons in mind. Stowers (1981: 99,cf.100,106,135) rightly points out that "In the diatribe there is often little distance between the real audience and the fictitious interlocuter", and he adds that "The immediate addressee [second person singular] may be fictitious, but the members of the real audience are actually the ones on trial" (p.106). Furthermore, Stuhlmacher (1986: 191) emphasizes that Paul's dialogues in Romans represents his real dialogues with his opponents in Rome; see also Stuhlmacher (1985: 89 n.8); although he seems to be mistaken in interpreting Stowers' position as if he suggests that the "fictitious interlocutor" has no relation to the real audience. Nevertheless, the identities and functions of these first and second persons in the text would be decided in the context of each occurrence. In 1982, Cranfield published an important article to discuss the changes of persons  and number in Paul's letters. He observes that Paul's use of the different persons and his sometimes remarkably rapid transitions from one to another are significant for our understanding of Paul's argument in his letters. He suggests that a closer attention to them may contribute to the exegesis of the letters, see Cranfield (1982a: 215, 228); see also a similar discussion on singular and plural in Paul's letter in Lofthouse  (1946-47), (1952-53). As a matter of fact the significance of paying attention to Paul's use of different persons in his letters is observed by some scholars, e.g. Hanson (1961: 47); Robinson (1974: 236-44); Stendahl (1976a: 23); Brawley (2000: 75-7, 82-7). See also Wilson (1964) who attempts to study the significance of the use of  'We' and 'you' in Ephesians. Thus it is quite possible that by analysing the occurrences of the first person (singular and plural) and the second person (singular and plural), pronouns and verbs, we might establish a basic framework within the text for us to study the characteristics of the sender (as presented by himself) and the addressees (as presented by the sender) and the interaction between them.

^[39] Clines (1976: 33, 59f.), his emphasis.

^[40] See Lo (1998).

^[41] Clines (1971) uses the phrase Apersona-analysis@ only once as a description of his study of the personae in the text (p. 38) but not as an approach. In fact he seems to avoid the phrase, even though he uses AVisual analysis@, AAct/agent analysis@, ASpeech analysis@, AAffect analysis@, ATemporal analysis@ for all other Sections in Chapter 3 (pp. 37-49) of his book, but only APersonae@ (pp. 37-40) as the name of the Section (a) in which he mentions the phrase Apersona-analysis@.

^[42] It implies that by the letter of Romans Paul aims to persuade his Roman audience to accept certain theses. Thus the 'I' and the 'you' in the text are also involved in a process of persuasion. In other words, there are two processes of persuasion.  One is in process between the sender and the recipients in which the letter is the means of persuasion. The other is in process within the letter, primarily between the 'I' (the "implied author") and the 'you' (the "implied reader") as suggested by Booth (1983: 70-6, cf. 138); see also Iser (1972: 30); McKnight (1985: 101f.). The 'I' is not simply the 'speaker' in the letter, but "an implied version of himself [the author]", which is the picture of the presence of the author, see Booth (1983: 70-4) and McKnight (1985: 101f.). The 'you', the "implied reader", is the image of the reader as created by the author in the text, see discussion in Booth (1983: 138); Iser (1972: 30-2) and McKnight (1985: 102). According to Petersen's observation (1985: 8) that "in letters there is no distinction between contextual  history and referential history corresponding to what we have seen in narrative".  In other words, if the sender is a competent communicator, these two processes of persuasion should be related. The one within the letter should reflect the one attempted by means of the letter in concrete situation.

^[43] Egw, 3 times: 14:11, 11; 15:3; su, 12 times: 14:4, 10, 10, 10, 10, 15, 15, 21, 22; 15:3, 9, 9; humeis, 5 times; 14:16; 15:5, 7, 13, 13; and hêmeis, 5 times: 14:7, 12; 15:1, 2, 6.

^[44] 14:14; 15:8, 9, 9.

^[45] 36. 14: 1, 13; 15: 6, 7.

^[46] 14: 15, 20.

^[47] 14: 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 10, 13, 19; 15:4.

^[48] See Table I in Lo (1998: 428) which shows the occurences of the first and second person (singular and plural, pronouns and verbs) in Romans 1-11, 14-16.

^[49] 39. Wilcken (R, 1982, III: 79) suggests that the frequent change of the personal pronouns in this passage indicates that Paul is not only a teacher but also a pastor who directs his care to his addressees.

^[50] Rm. 14:1-15:13 contains thirteen imperatives: 14:1, 3, 3, 5, 13, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22; 15:2, 7; see Karris (1973: 84). In which three are second person plural imperatives (14: 1, 13; 15:7) and three are second person singular (14:15, 20, 22). Leenhardt (R, 1957: 345) is unjustified in overlooking the importance of Paul's use of the second person plural in this passage.

^[51] See Murray (R, 1965, II: 174); Michel (R, 1978: 422, 447); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 366); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 81). Cranfield's suggestion (R, 1979, II: 739) that in 14:1 proslambanesthe refers to the church in Rome as a whole is unconvincing; the text clearly indicates that there are two types of Christians in the community, one is "weak in faith" and the other is asked by Paul to welcome the "weak in faith". Although we agree with Cranfield (R, 1979 II: 700) that the 'weak' are probably a minority while the 'strong' are a majority, we accept that in 14:1, Paul addresses specifically the strong.

^[52] It is noteworthy that the singular article with a present participle occur frequently in 14: 1-7 to denote an indefinite person.

^[53] The word proslambanw is used in the papyri of 'receiving' into a household, see M & M: 549; Black (R, 1973: 165). In the NT, it occurs twelve times of which five of them are in Pauline epistles (Rm. 14:1, 3; 15:7, 7; Philm. 17). In Acts 18:26; 28:2; Rm. 14:1; 15:7a and Philm 17, it is used to denote brotherly acceptance into a household. While in Rm. 14:3 and 15:7b, it refers to God's and Christ's gracious acceptance of men respectively as an example for the mutual acceptance between the 'strong' and the 'weak'; see also the reference to LXX in Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 700 n.1). Michel (R, 1978: 422) suggests that this word refers to official recognition as brother and admission to the community as well as their communal meal.

^[54] Watson (1986: 97) rightly suggests that Paul's argument in 14:1ff. does not presuppose a single congregation in which members disagree about the law. However, he wrongly suggests that it was extremely unlikely that the Jewish and the Gentile Christians had shared common worship. In fact, the bitter experiences referred to in 14: 1-4 and Paul's demand for a changing attitude to both the 'weak' and the 'strong' presupposed that they had had the experience of worshipping together. The word meketi in v.13a also indicates an existing situation of judging one another which is probably a result of the experience expressed in vv. 1ff.; cf. Murray (R, 1965, II: 187). Barrett (R, 1962: 262) suggests that "the tense of the verb [in v. 13a] supports the view that Paul is addressing a real, not a hypothetical situation."

^[55] See Barrett (R, 1962: 259); Schlier (R, 1977: 407); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 705; cf. 694f.); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 83).

^[56] In Romans, peritome occurs 15 times ( 2: 25, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29; 3: 1, 30; 4: 9, 10, 10, 11, 12, 12; 15: 8); in none of these case does Paul denounce circumcision (cf. Gal. 5:12; Phil. 3:2) or put it into antithesis with "uncircumcision". Against Marxsen (1964: 101), who suggests that in Romans, circumcision and uncircumcision are always stand in contrast to each other. In fact, Paul affirms the value of circumcision in 2:25; 3:1 and describes Jesus as a servant to the circumcised in 15:8. Moreover, akrobustia occurs 11 times in Romans (2: 25, 26, 26, 27; 3: 30; 4: 9, 10, 10, 11, 11, 12), all of them linked with peritomê  In all these cases, Paul tries to relativize the difference between circumcision and uncircumcision (cf. 2: 25- 29; 4: 10-12), and emphasizes the unity between the circumcised and the uncircumcised (cf. 3:30; 4:9). See Schlatter (R, 1962: 51f.), who also argues that circumcision was probably not an issue among the Christians in Rome; cf. Dunn (R, 1988: 122).

^[57] So Schlatter (R, 1962: 51f.), who deduces this conclusion from the evidence in 2: 25-29; cf. Dunn (R, 1988: 122). If this is the case, it provides an indirect evidence to indicate the possibility for a Jew to have a meal with the Gentiles.

^[58] In Rm. 14:1-15:13, Paul pays more attention to the conflict on the observance of the food laws (cf. 14:2, 3, 6, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23) but mentions the problem of observance of the days only in passing (cf. 14: 5f.).

^[59] According to Acts 15: 4-29, the issue of circumcision as a requirement for Gentiles to be God's people is settled in the 'Jerusalem council', but the Gentile Christians are asked to observe the food laws; the observance of the days is not mentioned. However, according to Paul's extant undisputed letters, Paul shows no knowledge about the content of the so called 'apostolic decree'. In Gal. 2 Paul seems to indicate that the issue of circumcision as a requirement for Gentile Christian was settled (cf. 2: 3, 7f.) between himself, Barnabas and the Jerusalem apostles, and there were no further requirements proposed (cf. 2: 6). See discussion in Conzelmann (1973: 84f., 88f.); Hengel (1979: 115 ff.); Dunn (1983b: 38). On this issue, we may trust Paul rather than Luke's account. Nevertheless, Luke's account obviously reflects the issues which were hotly disputed among the early Christians, especially in a mixed Christian community which composed of both Jewish and Gentile Christians, such as Antioch and Rome; cf. Conzelmann (1973: 86, 89); Dunn (1983b: 38).

^[60] Many scholars seem to assume that Paul designates deliberately the word exouthenew to the attitude of the 'strong' towards the 'weak' and the word krinw to the attitude of the 'weak' towards the 'strong'; and thus identifies the one who 'pass judgement' in v.4 as the 'weak'; e.g. Nygren (R, 1944: 445); Leenhardt (R, 1957: 348); Barrett (R, 1962: 258); Murray (R, 1965, II: 175ff., cf. 187); Furnish (1972: 115f.); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 701f.); Dunn (1987b: 2880). However, in view of the fact that the word diakrinw in 14:1 refers to the strong who pass judgement on the scruples of the weak; and krinw in v. 13a is used in a subjunctive hortatory mood referring to both the 'weak' and the 'strong' and bidding them not to pass judgement on one another; it is not plausible to assume that these two words are specifically connected with the attitude of either the 'strong' or the 'weak'. Minear (1971: 70; cf. 46) is certainly wrong in suggesting the word "condemned" (krinw) as the "technical term" which designated the 'weak'.

^[61] Many scholars see the importance of this principle. Murray (R, 1965, II: 178) suggests that this injunction illustrates the diversity of approved conviction, and "this insistence is germane to the whole subject of this chapter. The plea is for acceptance of one another despite diversity of attitude regarding certain things. Compelled conformity or pressure exerted to the end of securing conformity defeats the aims to which all the exhortations and reproof are directed"; see also Nygren (R, 1944: 444); Leenhardt (R, 1957: 349); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 705f.); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 370).

^[62] As far as the text is concerned, 14:3c refers probably only to the exhortation directed to the non-eater that God had received the eater; see Cranfield (R 1979, II: 702). However, as far as the content of 14:3c is concerned, it may apply to the individuals of both groups; see Kaesemann (R, 1980: 369); cf. Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 702).

^[63] It is significant that Paul uses the imagery of a household slave (oiketês) in v.4. A household slave is the slave who stands under the head of the house alone and is thus independent of his fellow-slaves who are either under the same master or others; cf. Kaesemann (R, 1980: 369). In the text, the word allotrios is used to denote "another man's slave"; cf. A-G: 40; instead of the heteros, which means "other" or "another"; cf. A-G: 315; as expected by some scholars; see Kaesemann (R, 1980: 369); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 82). Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 703) even disregard the natural meaning of allotrios and suggests that "the point made by allotrios is not, of course, that the strong Christian belongs to a master other than the one to whom the weak Christian belongs, but that he belongs to a master other than the weak Christian -- he is not the weak Christian's slave, but another's, i.e., Christ's (or God's), and therefore not answerable to the weak Christian." However, if we take the historical situation of the Roman Christian community into account, there will be no difficulty in interpreting the text with full respect for the original word used. It is quite probable that there were Christians who were household slaves of different masters in the Roman house churches. Paul's imagery of household slave probably refers to the common experience among the Roman Christians. The point which Paul wants to make is that one has no right to pass judgement on another man's slave; his master will be fully responsible for him.

^[64] . In 14: 3-9, Paul uses the word kurios 8 times (in vv.4, 8, 9), theos three times (in vv.3, 6), Christos once (v.9). In v.4, it is not easy to decide whether Paul had Christ or God in mind when he uses kurios, however, in v.9, it is clear that Christ died and rose again so that he might become Lord; see Moule (1977: 44); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 708). Thus this understanding of v.9 makes it necessary to understand the repeated toi kurioi of v.8 to refer to Christ; cf. Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 702 n.3). Kaesemann (R, 1980: 371f.) suggests that a confessional statement is used in v.9 (cf. I Cor. 15:3; II Cor. 5:14f.).

^[65] See discussion in footnote 12 above.

^[66] See Stowers (1981) and the discussion of our understanding of the diatribe in Lo (1998: 45-48) Ch. 1 Section III.A.

^[67] See discussion in Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 709).

^[68] See Kaesemann (R, 1980: 371); Cranfield (1982a: 221f.).

^[69] For discussion on the relationship between worship and communal meal, see note 14 above.

^[70] For discussion of the limits of table-fellowship in the Judaism of the late second temple period, see Dunn (1983: 12- 25); Esler (1987: 76-86) and our discussion in Lo (1998: 85-88) Ch. 3 Section II.D.

^[71]So Barrett (R, 1962: 262); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 711); Cf. Michel (R, 1978: 430); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 374).

^[72] So e.g. Leenhardt (R, 1957: 351); Barrett (R, 1962: 262); Murray (R, 1965, II: 187); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 711); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 374); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 90).

^[73]There are only 6 occurrences of proskomma in NT. Apart from I Pet. 2:8 all are used by Paul: Rm. 9: 32, 33; 14:13, 20; I Cor. 8:9. skandalon occurs 15 times, five times in Mtt. (13:41; 16:23; 18:7, 7, 7), once in Lk. 17:1, and none in Mk. or Jn.. It occurs 6 times in Pauline epistles, in which 4 times in Rm. (9:33; 11:9; 14:13; 16:17); once in I Cor. 1:23 and Gal. 5:11. The other 3 times occur in I Pet. 2:8; I Jn. 2:10 and Rev. 2:14.. 

^[74] See further discussion in note 131below.

^[75] In both Rm. 9:32f. and I Pet. 2: 6-8, there are combinations of two quotations from Isaiah (8:14 and 28:16) in two very similar sections and they are applied in an analogous fashion to Christ; see Staehlin (TDNT VII: 353). For discussion of the differences in the methods of the two combinations in Rm. 9:32f. and I Pet. 2: 6-8, see Staehlin (TDNT VI: 754f.).

^[76] . See Kaiser (I, 1963: 118); cf. Lindars (1961: 176).

^[77] See Staehlin (TDNT VI: 754); Cranfield (R. 1979, II: 512); Guhrt (NIDNTT II: 706). However, Lindars' (1961) suggests that the stone in Rm. 9:33 is first of all an article of belief, belief in Christ (p.177); I Pet. seems to be the first place where the stone is identified with the person of Christ (p.180)..

^[78] See Lindars (1961: 177).

^[79] So Lindars (1961: 178; cf. 180).

^[80] Ellis (1957: 153) suggests that Rm. 14:13 may be an allusion of Lev. 19:14 (Deut. 27:18). However, only skandalon but not proskomma occurs in Lev. 19:14 LXX, both words do not occur in Deut. 27:18.

^[81] In Rm. 9:33 and I Pet. 2:8, both passages emphasize that the "stone" or the "rock" of stumbling and offence are laid by God Himself. This kind of stumbling is God's decree and is inevitable; cf. I Cor. 1:23; see Staehlin (TDNT, VI: 756); (TDNT, VII: 352ff.); Guhrt (NIDNTT, II: 709).

^[82] In the NT, while the offence of the gospel must not be moved, there is a human offence which must be avoided; cf. Mtt. 18:6f.; Rm. 14:13, 21; I Cor. 8:13; 10:32; II Cor. 6:3; see Staehlin (TDNT, VI: 753f.); (TDNT, VII: 355); Guhrt (NIDNTT, II: 709f.).

 

^[83] It is significant that in the LXX, proskomma and skandalon are used in connection with Israel's worship of pagan gods and so they become the apostate people, e.g. Is. 8:14; Jos. 23:13; Jud. 2:3; 8:27; cf. Ex. 23:33; 34:12; see Staehlin (TDNT, VI: 749), (TDNT, VII: 342); Guhrt (NIDNTT, II: 705). In Jud. 12:2, eating pagan food would be an offence (skandalon).

^[84] Murray (R, 1965, II: 712) prefers the suggestion that Paul refers here to union and fellowship with Christ; cf. Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 712). However, Lagrange (R, 1916: 329) suggests that the use of the personal name Iesous here could be a pointer to the presence of a reference to some specific teaching of the historic Jesus; cf. Dodd (1953: 144); Leenhardt (R, 1957: 352); Stanton (1974: 97 n.2); Michel (R, 1978: 431); Huebner (1978: 84); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 712f.); Dunn (1985a: 272f.). For discussion of Paul and the Jesus tradition, see Cullmann (1953: esp. 63ff.); Dunn (1989).

^[85] Some scholars understand "the work of God" as referring to God's work in the weak brother; e.g. Murray (R, 1965, II: 195); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 723); and some as referring to the community; Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 392); Barrett (R, 1962: 265); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 378; Bertram (TDNT, II: 643). In view of the contrast between oikodomê (v.19) and kataluein (v.20), "the work of God" probably refers to the Christian community of the Jewish and Gentile Christians in Rome. For discussion of the implication of Paul's use of oikodomê, see note 133  below.

^[86] Cf. v.14; Mk. 7:19, I Cor. 6:12f; some scholars suggest that this clause appears as a slogan of the strong; cf. Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 723); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 378).

^[87] It is significant that BDF:sec.338(1) draws our attention to the fact that phagein is an aorist infinitive (so is piein). Aorist infinitives are used in this verse possibly because Paul was thinking of the specific occasions when eating or drinking might cause a brother to stumble rather than of continuous abstention; cf. Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 724 n.7). If this is the case, it is consistent with our understanding of the situation of Roman Christians that they were organized into different house churches. Occasional participation of members from other house churches in the worship of different house churches happened before Paul wrote his letter to Rome (vv.1, 2) and this kind of practice was expected by Paul to be continued. Thus in v.20, Paul was possibly thinking of the specific occasions when members from the Jewish Christian house church participated in the communal meal held at the Gentile Christian house church and it would be good if the Gentile Christians also abstained from meat and wine as the Jewish Christains did on such occasion (v.2).

^[88] The fact that the five sentences which make up vv.20-22 have all been introduced asyndetically, the word play of krinwn (v.22b), diakrinomenos (v.23a) and katakakritai (v.23a), together with the presence of de in v.23a suggest that vv.20- 23 are closely related together; see Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 727).

^[89] pistis is a catch word in Romans, which occurs 40 times (including 16:20). In ch. 14, it is used to denote the characteristics of the weak (vv.1, 23a, 23b) and the strong (v.22). However, it is quite possible that the lable 'weak' was originated from those (the 'strong') who disagreed with the persons so described, see Cranfield (R, 1979 II: 700); Wilckens (R, 1982 III: 81).

^[90] In v.23, Paul describes the situation of the weak to the strong. He indicates how the freedom of the strong could lead the weak to sin.

^[91] In Rm. 13: 8-10, Paul sums up his ethical exhortation in the all-embracing commandment of love. Paul probably refers kata agapê to that passage; cf. Murray (R, 1962, II: 192); Furnish (1972: 104). Raeisaenen (1983: 64) rightly points out that Rm. 13: 8-10 "seems to prepare the discussion in 14:1-15:13 .... [and] serves as a basis on which Paul can build in the sequel when he tries to clear up the quarrels within the community".

^[92] In this context, the second person plural pronoun humwn most probably refers to the strong; see Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 391); Murray (R, 1965, II: 193); Michel (R, 1978: 433); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 716); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 376); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 93). However, as far as the meaning of to agathon is concerned, some scholars refer to it as Christian freedom; Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 39); Barth (R, 1933: 519); Barrett (R, 1962: 264); Murray (R, 1965: 193); Michel (R, 1978: 433); but others refer to it as salvation or gospel; Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 717); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 376); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 92). Nevertheless, these two suggestions are in fact not mutually exclusive. The issue at stake in the preceding paragraph (14: 13b-15) is the freedom of the Gentile Christians from observing the Jewish food laws, this freedom surely comes from the gospel of Christ. So it seems better to understand to agathon in this verse as the freedom of the gospel.

^[93] See Conzelmann (IC 1969: 149); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 715 n.2); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 376).

^[94] Cf. F. A. Philippi's remark cited by Murray (R, 1965, II: 192 n.20) ; see also Dunn (R, 1988: 821). Murray (R, 1965 II: 192) does not see the seriousness of the issue of the observance of the Jewish food laws among the Jewish and Gentile Christians and misunderstands the case discussed in this verse as "the sin of the weak"; his objection to F. A. Philippi's remark is unwarranted. See also our discussion on 14:13b.

^[95] Kaesemann (R, 1980: 376f.); cf. Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 717).

^[96] See Barrett (IC, 1968: 244).

^[97] So Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 391); Leenhardt (R, 1957: 354); Michel (R, 1978: 433); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 93); for detailed discussion of different possibilities, see Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 715ff.).

^[98]  See above note 122.

^[99] In fact, the word blasphêmew occurs only four times in Pauline epistle (out of 34 times in NT). Other from I Cor. 10:30 and here, it occurs in Rm. 2:24 and 3:8. In Rm. 2:24, it refers to Gentiles who speak evil because of the conduct of the Jews. However, in 3:8, it is used in a diatribal passage (3: 1-9) in which Paul is engaged in a dialogue with a typified Jew; see Stower (1984a). It is significant that in both verses (3:8 and 14:16) the words blasphêmew and agathos occur and the issue discussed is similar. In 3:8, the typified Jew "speaks evil" to Paul and probably also those Christians who are not so scrupulous on law, that they are antinomians; see Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 74); Barrett (R, 1962: 65); Murray (R, 1959, I: 97f.); Cranfield (R, 1975, I: 186 n.4); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 84). In 14:16, it is probably the more scrupulous Jewish Christians and the non-Christian Jews who might "speak evil" to the Gentile Christians because of their freedom of the gospel.

^[100] For discussion on the function of ara as an inferential particle and its combination with oun to introduce a result which is inferred from the preceding verses, see A-G: 103; BDF: sec. 451(2); Cranfield (R, 1975: I: 288).

^[101] We prefer the reading of the hortatory subjunctive diwkwmen; see iscussion in Leenhardt (R, 1957: 355 n. ); Metzger (1971: 532); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 720f.). It is significant that the word diwkw occurs five times in Romans, except the occurrence in 12:14 in which it denotes persecute; see A-G: 200; all other four cases (9:30, 31; 12:13 and here) denote figuratively to mean "pursue", "seek after", so A-G: 200. In the context of both 9:30, 31 and here, diwkw is related to the words proskomma and skandalon (cf. 9:33 and 14:13b).

^[102] . See the discussion of Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 721); cf. Leenhardt (R, 1957: 355); Dodd (1959: 26).

^[103] oikodomê occurs only twice in Romans, both are in this passage (14:19; 15:2). Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 721f.) suggests that Paul's use of the word is to be seen in the light of the rich and varied use of the language of building in the OT, in extra-biblical Jewish writings, and also in the rest of the NT. Cranfield draws special attention to the fact that in Jer. 31:4, God is spoken of building his people Israel and in Jer. 12:16 as building up Gentiles in the midst of his people, that is, incorporating them into the community of his own people. This understanding is particularly significant to our study of this passage, for we suggest that Rm. 14:1 -15:13 refers to the relationship between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in Rome. Furthermore, Cranfield ( R, 1979, II: 722) follows Barrett (R, 1962: 265), see also Furnish (1972: 112f.), in suggesting that "building up" means the building up of the Church as a corporate entity, but he emphasizes that it also denotes the building up, in faith and obedience, of each individual member. The building up of the Church and the building up of the individual members are two aspects of the same process.

 

^[104] See the discussion of the situation of the Jewish community in Rome in Lo (1998: 91-113).

^[105] Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 725).

 

^[106] For detailed discussion of the textual problem of the connection between Rm. 14 and 15, see Metzger (1971: 533ff.) and especially Gamble (1977: 16-35, 96-126). Moreover, many scholars recognize that it is obvious that the opening verses of ch.15 continue without any break from the previous discussion in ch.14, it is still talking specifically about the problem in ch.14; cf. Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 394); Knox (R, 1954: 631); Dodd (R, 1959: 11); Murray (R, 1965, II: 197); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 731). Kaesemann (R, 1980: 380f.) and Black (R, 1973: 171) are unjustified in suggesting that in ch.15 the exhortation is continued in a general sense. Kaesemann (R, 1980: 381) even goes further to suggest that in 15: 1-2 "he [Paul] no longer refers concretely to the conflicts at Rome." As will be shown below, we suggest that 15: 1-4 is the last stage of Paul's exhortation which is the most forceful one. Thus 15:1ff. is not just a summary of Paul's exhortation to the strong as suggested by Kaesemann; cf. Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 729; cf. 731); it is a climax of Paul's exhortation to them. Furnish (1972; 117) is completely unjustified in suggesting that "the charge to the strong concludes in 15:1" and "a new paragraph begins in 15:2 as Paul concludes the whole discussion with exhortations equally appropriate for both groups." The first person plural pronoun in 15:1 clearly starts a new paragraph, the exhortation in 15:2, "let each of us please his neighbour for his good" obviously corresponds to the strong who are admonished not to please themselves in 15:1.

^[107] In v.4, there is a first person plural possessive pronominal adjective hêmeteros.

^[108] opheilw here clearly denotes "obligation", see A-G: 603; cf. Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 730). The word group opheil- is common in the NT. In Romans, opheilw occurs three times (13:8; here and 15:27); opheilê occurs once in 13:7; opheilêma occurs once in 4:4 and opheiletês occurs three times in 1:14; 8:12; 15:27. It is significant that in 15:27, Paul uses opheilw to denote the indebtedness of the Gentile Christians to the Jewish Christians. Paul probably had in mind here the same meaning.

^[109] For detailed discussion of the meaning of bastazein, see Cranfield (R, 1979 II: 730 n.2), cf. Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 394); Knox (R, 1954: 632); Murray (R. 1965, II: 197); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 381).

^[110] It is noteworthy that Paul uses adelphos to denote fellow- Christians in 14: 10, 13, 15, 21 and addresses the Roman Christians emphatically as adelphoi mou in 15:14. However, Paul's change to use "neighbour" (plêsion) to denote the relation between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians is probably most significant. In the undisputed Pauline epistles, plêsion occurs only four times out of seventeen times in the NT (Rm. 13: 9, 10; here, Gal. 5:14; cf. Eph. 4:25). In all other three instances (Rm. 13:9, 10 and Gal. 5:14), the reference is obviously related to Lev. 19:18 which presumes that neighbours are those outside the circle of blood relation. Thus although it is difficult to differentiate exactly the use of adelphos and plêsion to refer to the fellow-Christians in the NT, the use of plêsion probably refers to a wider sphere than the use of adelphos; see Greeven (TDNT, VI: 317); Guenther (NIDNTT, I: 257). Furthermore, Kaeseman (R, 1980: 381) suggests that plêsion in 15:2 also recalls the context of the commandment of love in Lev. 19:18 (cf. 13:9, 10); see also Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 731 n.3); although the word areskein is used here instead of agapê. However, we suggest that the shift of Paul's uses of addressing fellow-Christians as adelphos (14: 10, 13, 15, 21) to plêsion (15:2) and the shift of the use of agapê to areskin indicate that Paul had in mind a new context. It is the context of the situation of Roman Christians who belonged to the Christian community of Rome and yet not to the same house churches. Therefore, they were adelphos and also plêsion.

^[111] In the original OT quotation, it is the righteous sufferer who speaks to God that the reproaches levelled against God have fallen upon him. In 15:2, Paul identifies Christ with the righteous sufferer who endures suffering on behalf of God; see Black (R, 1973: 172); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 733). In the context of 15: 1-4, the purpose of the OT quotation is certainly to emphasize the lengths to which Christ went in his not pleasing himself in order to encourage the Gentile Christians in Rome to identify themselves with the example of Christ; see Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 733); Achtemeir (R, 1985: 224).

^[112] Kaesemann (R, 1980: 381).

^[113] It is noteworthy that Paul's OT quotations are virtually confined to his four Hauptbrief; see discussion in Ellis (1957: 30ff.). Among them Romans has the most extensive quotations; see the table in Ellis (1957: 150ff.). However, there are only two instances in Romans that Paul gives a qualification for the significance of his quotation. One is in 3:19 and the other is here. In 3:19 Paul seems to imply that his use of the OT quotations in Romans is understood by his addressees as primarily instructions to the Jews; cf. Nygren (R, 1944: 142); Dodd (R, 1959: 72); Black (R, 1973: 64); Cranfield (R, 1975, I: 196). For discussion of the interpretation of "the law" in 3:19 as "Scriptures", see Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 80); Bultmann (1952, I: 259f.); Kuss (R, 1957: 108); Dodd (R, 1959: 72); Cranfield (R, 1975, I: 195f.); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 87). However, in 15:4 Paul asserts that "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction." Since the primary addressees of this passage were the Gentile Christians, Paul probably felt the need to make this qualification. Thus, Paul wanted to make it clear here that the Scripture was written not only for the Jews but also for Christians in general, including the Gentile Christians.

^[114] See note 100 above.

^[115] See Dunn (1983b: 30).

^[116] The meaning of agathon is not clear here. Barrett (R, 1962: 269) suggests that it refers to the good purpose of "building up"; Kaesemann (R, 1980: 381) suggests that it refers to "what is beneficial in the comprehensive sense, and that is interpreted by oikodom8". However, Cranfield (R, 1975, I: 428; 1979, II: 666, 732) follows Calvin in suggesting that it refers to "salvation". Nevertheless, we suggest that if we see the "good" as the "good" of the Jewish Christians, then it refers to the necessity of the Jewish Christians to be in fellowship with the Gentile Christians as according to the truth of the gospel. Unless the Jewish Christians are united with the Gentile Christians, their faith is not wholly compatible with the faith of Abraham (Rm. 4). See the discussion in Lo (1998: 265-332).

^[117] See note 133 above.

^[118] See Dunn (1983b: 31f.).

^[119] So Senior & Stuhlmueller (1983: 182). Dunn (1977: 254) suggests that Paul's advice in Rm. 14:1-15:6 is more in line with the policy of Peter and Barnabas at Antioch than in accord with his own strongly worded principle in Gal. 2: 11- 14. To some scholars, Peter and Barnabas' policy was in line with Paul's principle stated in I Cor. 9: 20-23; see Richardson (1979-80: 347f.). However, the difference of Paul's position in Gal. and Rm. seems to be that those occupying the superior position in Gal. were Jewish Christians while those in Rm. were Gentile Christians. Thus in Gal., the issue is the danger of Judaizing which requires a Gentile Christian to become a Jew if he is to become a member of God's people. While in Rm. the issue is the danger of a Jewish Christian becoming a Jewish or a Christian apostate in the process of building up the relationship between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians.

 

^[120] Watson (1986: 96) suggests that "by far the greater concession is demanded of the Jews." However, he seems to overlook the diversified attitude among Jews towards Gentiles who would like to become members of God's people; the most famous case is recorded in Josephus AJ, XX: 34-48 in which Izates, king of Adiabene, was told by a certain Jewish merchant, Ananias, that he could "worship God even without being circumcised if indeed he had fully decided to be a devoted adherent of Judaism" (AJ, XX: 41). However, when another Jew, named Eleazar, who came from Galilee, met the king, he urged him to carry out the rite (AJ, XX: 43-46); see also Feldman's discussion of this issue at the footnote a of AJ, XX: 43;cf. Hengel (1979: 116); Dunn (1983b: 23). See also McEleney (1973-74), who adduces evidence from Jewish writings and suggests that the requirement of circumcision was not always strictly observed if special circumstance made it appear undesirable; but see also the critique by Nolland (1981). Furthermore, there was probable difference between the Jewish Christians and the 'orthodox' Jews in their understanding of what is required of Gentile Christians if they are to become God's people; see note 84 above.

^[121] Barclay (1996: 303-308) suggests that by encouraging Jewish and Gentile Christians to accept one another, and insisting the Gentile Christians should not pressurize Jewish Christians to change their conviction and practices of Jewish law, in the short term, Paul=s position could protect Athe law-observant Chrisatians, in the long term and at a deeper level he seriously undermines their social and cultural integrity@ (306).

^[122] The other prayer-wishes in Romans are all in ch.15 (vv.13 and 33); see Wiles (1974: 299f.); Cranfield (R. 1979, II: 736). Wiles (1974: 91) classifies 16:20a as a doubtful "wish-prayer" [his term] in Romans. Cf. Kaesemann (R, 1980: 383), who calls this form a "prayerful request".

^[123] Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 396) straight forwardly suggest that here is Paul's prayer for the unity of the community. Murray (R, 1965, II: 200) recognizes that "these verses are not directly in the form of prayer addressed to God" and suggests that "they are in the form of a wish addressed to man that God would accomplish in them the implied exhortation, an eloquent way of doing two things at the same time, exhortation to men and prayer to God." Although Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 736) hesitates to accept Murray's interpretation, he suggests that "it is surely more closely akin to prayer than to exhortation. In fact it is really tantamount to a prayer."

^[124] Murray (R, 1965: 200).

^[125] See Cranfield (R, 1979 II: 736).

^[126] Most scholars suggest that 15: 1-13 is part of Paul's exhortation which starts from 14:1; see Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 383f.); Nygren (R, 1944: 441); Michel (R, 1978: 418); Cranfield (R 1979: 690); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 364); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 79); Achtemeier (R, 1985: 214). However, Dodd (R, 1959: 217); Bruce (R, 1963: 243) and Dunn (1987b: 2881) consider that there is a division between 15:6, and v.7. Dunn suggests that 15: 7-13 is "intended to round off the body of the letter, both the theological treatise and the resulting paraenesis, and to link the argument of the letter into the more personal concern to follow." However, while 15: 1-6 and 7-13 are obviously to a certain extent parallel in thought; so Black (R, 1973: 171) and Dunn (1987b: 2881); and vv. 7-13 alludes to some vocabulary in the earlier part of the letter, such as "God's truthfulness" (v.8a; cf. 1:18, 25; 2:8; 3:4, 7); "the promise to the fathers" (v.8b; cf. 2: 25-9; 4: 9-22; 9:4, 8-9) and "God's mercy to Gentiles (v.9, cf. 9: 15-18, 23; 11: 30-2); see Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 741 n.4; 742, 744 n.2); Dunn (1987b: 2881); we suggest that in 15: 7-13 Paul connects his exhortations to the Jewish and the Gentile Christians in Rome (14:1-15:6) with his theological argument in Rm. 1-11; cf. Wuellner (1976: 171f.). Thus 15: 5-6 can be seen as a conclusive prayer-wish of 14:1-15:4, but the significance of Rm. 14:1-15:6 can only be fully understood if we also take 15: 7-13 into account. Therefore, in our present study, we consider 14:1-15:13 as one integrated passage.

^[127] See Murray (R, 1965, II: 201); Black (R, 1973: 172); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 737); Kaeseman (R, 1980: 383).

 

^[128] The expression to auto phronein occurs also in Rm. 12:16a; here; II Cor. 13:11; Phil. 2:2a, 4:2; cf. Gal. 5:10; Phil. 3:15. In all these places it surely means 'think the same thing', 'be in agreement', 'live in harmony', 'be of the same mind', or 'have a common mind'; see A-G: 874; Barrett (R, 1962: 241, 270); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 642, 737).

^[129] Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 737) suggests that it is not easy to decide what kind of agreement is referred to and Paul has not presumed to decide already in his own mind the exact content of the agreement he desires to be given.

^[130] Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 737).

^[131] Leenhardt (R, 1957: 363); cf. Brunner (R, 1956: 120).

^[132] See Watson (1986: 97f.). As a matter of fact, in Rm. 14:1-15:13, Paul does not 'denounce' the practices of the 'weak' or see the practices of the 'weak' and the 'strong' as 'antithesis'. Watson's 'sociological model' is not applicable to Rm. 14:1-15:13.

^[133]  See discussion in Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 396); Cranfield (R, 1979 II: 737); Michaelis (TDNT, IV: 669); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 383); Murray (R 1965, II: 201); Brunner (R, 1956: 120) and Wilckens' (R, 1982, III: 102).

^[134] The word homothumadon occurs quite often in the LXX, but in the NT, apart from 15: 6, only in Acts (1:14; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57; 8:6; 12:20; 15:25; 18:12; 19:29). In Acts 1:14; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 8:6; 15:25; it is used to denote the Christian community which is in a setting of gathering together. In Acts 4:24, although the word stoma does not occur, homothumadon is linked with the praise of God by the congregation with one voice. This is perhaps the setting which Paul has in mind in 15:6. Furthermore, the phrase eis doxan tou theou in v.7 probably also has a liturgical ring as well; see Michel (R, 1978: 447 n.20).

^[135] In v.6, many commentators pay attention to the difficulty of translating the words ton theon kai patera tou kuriou hêmwn Iesou Christou; see Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 396f.); Murray (R, 1965, II: 201f.); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 738). However, as far as our study is concerned, the most significant thing to be noted is the change of the second personal plural pronouns humin in v.5 to the first personal plural pronouns h8mwn in v.6. In this context, h8mwn is connected with the confessional formula "Jesus Christ our Lord". In Romans, the similar usage for 'our Lord' is numerous, 1:4, 7; 4:24; 5:1, 11, 21; 6:23; 7:25; 8:39; 15:30; 16:18, 20, 24. For discussion on 'We' as Christians in general, see Cranfield (1982a: 221f.). For discussion of of "Jesus is Lord", see Dunn (1977: 50).

^[136] See Leenhardt (R, 1957: 363 n*); Barrett (R, 1962: 270); Michel (R, 1978: 447 n.17); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 738); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 383).

^[137] It is significant that some modern sociologists recognize the importance of rituals in building up a religious community. Mol (1976: 237) suggests that "rituals consolidate beliefs as well as customs". McGuire (1981: 71) says, "Ritual is one particularly important aspect of a group gathering. By ritual, the group symbolizes meanings significant to itself. Ritual gives symbolic form to group unity, and participating individuals symbolically affirm their commitment."

^[138] See note 156 above.

^[139] In 15:7, instead of hêmas, most scholars and translators prefer the reading of humas; see e.g. Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 397); Leenhardt (R, 1957: 364); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 739); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 385); Wilckens (R, 1982: 105 n.499); cf. Metzger (1971: 536); RSV; NIV; against NASB.

^[140] See Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 397); Leenhardt (R, 1957: 364); Murray (R, 1965, II: 203); Michel (R, 1978: 447); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 105). Against Kaesemann (R, 1980: 385), who fails to see that Rm. 15: 7-13 is oriented to both the Jewish and the Gentile Christians in Rome; he suggests that 15: 9-12 is not concerned with the unity of the Church but the acceptance of the Gentiles as an eschatological miracle.

^[141] For discussion of the various explanations of v.9, see Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 742f.). However, as far as our study is concerned, our emphasis of the role of Christ as related to the Gentiles is not disputed; see Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 398); Leenhardt (R, 1957: 364f.); Barrett (R, 1962: 271f.); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 743); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 385f.).

^[142] See note 13 above. The four OT quotations in 15:9b, 10, 11, 12 come from LXX Ps. 17:50; Deut. 32:43; Ps. 116:1 and Is. 11:10. The common keyword among these quotations is ethnê; see Ellis (1957: 49f.); Cranfield (R, 1979: 744ff.); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 386).

^[143] Many scholars agree that Ps. 18 is introduced as a psalm sung by David; so Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 398); Leenhardt (R, 1957: 365); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 745). However, while this passage (LXX Ps. 17:49ff.) is explained messianically in the Midrash, Lam. R. I, 16:51; see Ellis (1957: 57); some scholars suggest that Christ is meant rather than David; so Lagrange (R, 1950: 347); Cranfield (R, 1979: 745f.); cf. Kaesemann (R, 1980: 386). Kaesemann (R, 1980: 386) suggests that Paul may have seen in the paslmist's words a foreshadowing of his own mission as the Jewish apostle of the Gentiles; cf. Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 745). Nevertheless, in either one of these cases, it is obvious that the subject of the first person singular verbs exhomologêsomai and psalo is definitely a Jew but not a Gentile. In the context of 14:1-15:13, it is more reasonable to understand the quotation as Paul's evidence for an individual Jew worshipping God among the Gentiles in the OT.

^[144] Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 746) and Kaesemann (R, 1980: 386) recognize that the word euphrainein is used in the setting of cultic worship.

^[145] Pace Barrett (R, 1962: 272); Murray (R, 1965, II: 206), who see these quotations referring only to the Gentiles in v.9a but not also the Jews in v.8; see Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 744f.).

^[146] Barrett (R, 1962: 18, 272), also Bornkamm (1969: 249) and Wilckens (R, 1982 III: 108), unlike most scholars, acknowledge the similar reference to the Davidic descent of Jesus in 15:12 and 1:3; however, they do not indicate the significance of this similarity. As a matter of fact, Paul does not refer to the Davidic descent of Jesus in other extant undisputed letters (except in Rm. 1:3 and 15:12 ; cf. II Tim 2:8). We suggest that Paul's emphasis on Jesus as a Jewish messiah of the Gentiles at the beginning and closing of his letter to the Romans is probably related to his purpose of writing this letter and the content of this letter as a whole; see the discussion in Lo (1998: 265-332).

^[147] So Knox (R, 1954: 640); Barrett (R, 1962: 272).

^[148] It is more probable that the genitive tês elpidos is the genitive to describe God as the source of hope rather than the object of hope; see Knox (R, 1954: 640); Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 744); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 387); against Murray (R, 1965, II: 207).

^[149] Although the phrase en twi pisteuein is omitted in a few ancient manuscripts, many scholars agree that it should be regarded as original; see Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 748 n.4); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 387).

^[150] It is significant that the terms "hope', "joy", "peace", "faith", "Holy Spirit" also occur in 5: 1-5. Knox (R, 1954: 640) suggests that 15:13 must be interpreted in the light of 5: 1-5, of which it is a brief summary.

^[151] Black (R, 1973: 173) rightly acknowledges that 15: 9-13 not only sums up the conclusion of the argument between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians, but also the main theme and purpose of Romans. 

^[152] See Lo (1998: 197-415).

^[153] See Ching (1993: 192); the following discussion of the controversy is largely based on the information from Latourette (1929: 131-151) and Ching (1993: 193-195). For a historical survey of the controversy see Minamiki (1985).

^[154] See Latourette (1929: 91-105) for the progress of the mission of  Jesuits in China between 1583 to 1630.

^[155] See Latourete (1929:105f.).

^[156] For the discussion of persecutions and the progress of Catholic missionaries in their work during this period, see Latourette (1929:115-130, 156-8).

^[157] See latourette (1929: 132-135) for Jesuit=s attitude toward Chinese rites.

^[158] See Latourette (1929: 141-146).

^[159] See Latourette (1929:  139, 142ff.).

^[160] See Latourette (1929: 140) and Ching (1993: 193).

^[161] The Protestant philosopher Leibnitz published a defense of the Jesuits, but in 1700 the theological faculty of the University of Paris formally disapproved the Jesuit position, see Latourette (1929:139f.).

^[162] See Ching (1993: 194).

^[163] See Latourette (1929:140f.,146f.).

^[164] See discussion in Latourette (1929: 148f.).

^[165] See Latourette (1929: 149f.).

^[166] Although K=ang-hsi decreed in December, 1707, that all missionaries, if they wished to remain in China, they had to obtain an imperial piao or permit, and commanded that this be granted only to those who agreed to abide by the practices of Matteo Ricci (see Latourette, 1929: 144), the Emperor was not very strict in enforcing his edict (see Latourette, 1929: 157). Nevertheless, the situation became worse and worse that the growth of the Church which she enjoyed before the controversy had stopped and greatly retarded, and even under the threat of extinction in the following decades; see discussion in Latourette (1929: 156-166) and Ching (1993: 194f.).

^[167] Latourette is ambivalent about the consequences of the controversy. On the one hand he criticizes that the papal decision had Aestablished a tradition for making the Church unadaptable to Chinese conditions and beliefs. It tended and still tends to keep the Roman Catholic Church a foreign institution, one to which China must conform but which refuses to conform to China@ (see p. 154). On the other hand he praises that Athe papal decisions made the winning of nominal adherents more difficult, but they tended to keep high the standards of the Church@. For him ANumbers were sacrificed for vitality@ (p.155). However, Latourette has to answer the question (p. 154, cf. p. 132) that Ain the only countries where Christianity has triumphed over a high civilization, as in the older Mediterranean world and the Nearer East, it has done so by conforming in part to older cultures. Whether it can win to its fold a highly cultured people like the Chinese without again making a similar adaptation remains an unanswered question.@

^[168] Under the leadership of Cardinal Yu Bin, the Catholic Church in Taiwan has started to celebrate Mass in honour of ancestors and Confucius publicly since the 70=s; see discussion in Li (1995: 76-77) and Leung (1997: 175-7), 

^[169] See discussions in Huang (1994); Yeo (1996); Ying (1997a) and Leung (1997).

^[170] Morrison, J. (1832: 202 and  (1833: 502).

^[171] See the list of publication and discussion in Ying (1997a: 8-11).

 See Ying (1997a: 11-13).

 See Records (1878: 396-7, 401), cited by Ying (1997a: 13, n. 24).

 See Records (1890:620-31).

 Ibid, p. 627.

 See Ariarajah (1994: 2-4).

 See the list of publications in Ying(1994a: 20, n. 42).

 See discussion in Ying(1994a:20-25).

 Jackson (1907: 215-6).

 Ibid, p. 233.

 See Jackson (1907: 239-4).

 See the resolutions and the discussion in Jackson (1907: 604-24).

 Ibid, p. 239.

 See Ying (1994a:  55-64).

 Ibid, pp. 76=82.

 See Watson & Rawski (1988) and Ying (1997b: 218, 224).

 See Yang (1961), especially pp.29-31, 44-48, 60ff., 253-255.

 See Yang (1961: 2) and Ching (1993: 1-3).

 Yang (1961: 294).

 Ibid, pp. 294-5.

 Further discussion of institutional and diffused religions in Chinese society, see Yang (1961: 295-340).

 See Yang (1961: 29-31, 44-48, 53, 298).

 Ibid, pp. 48-9; Ching (1993: 19-21) and Leung (1994: 146-50)..

 See Smith (1987: 9-89, especially 39-41), when the question of the feeling of ancestral worship is asked, 95% agreed as showing respect to the ancestors, 79% thanksgiving to ancestors, 79% as sense of belonging to family, 73% as for individual satisfaction, 67% remembering the dead. The religious concerns, such as practical needs of ancestors (44%), fear to arouse the anger of dead (40%), concern the situation of the dead (37%), represented less than 50% of the responses; see also Ying (1994b:223-4).

 Li (1992: 152-3, 160), see also Ying (1994b: 222-3).

 See also Leung (1994: 158).

 See Ying (1994b:221-2).

 See Ying (1994b: 224-5).

 Other biblical texts related to the discussion of ancestral worship, see Yeo ( 1996: 135-41).

 Jackson (1907: 244).

 Records (1907: 621-2), my emphsis.

 See also Leung (1994: 160,  204) who uses Paul=s ideas in I Cor. 8-10 to discuss the issue.