LO, Lung-kwong
Theology Division,
    Paul’s 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 who was born in British Hong Kong. I hold two
Passports since 1997, one is issued by the PeopleÂ’s Republic of China for Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region which does not grant the right of abode in
Mainland China and another Passport issued by British Government which does not
grant the right of abode in Britain. Having obtained primary and secondary
education in British Hong Kong, I got my first degree from a national
university in Taiwan, a rebellious province ofÂ
China seeking for independence. I
received my initial theological education (M.Div.) from the Chinese University
of Hong Kong and had my Ph.D. studies at Durham, England. I have been a
Methodist minister and a social activist serving in Hong Kong and overseas
Chinese churches for nineteen years before I join 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 the last seven years. I regard myself as a Chinese living in
the interface of Chinese and western
cultures, a marginal Chinese among overseas and mainland Chinese, a minister, a social activist and a scholar
travelling between local churches, society and scholarly world. With this
background as a person on the boundaries,Â
I enter the study of the Christian Scripture, PaulÂ’s letter to the
Romans in particular, with a strong concern about the identity crisis
faced by Chinese Christian as both Chinese (overseas, marginal and Mainlander)
and Christian.
    In this paper I would provide an analytical studies of the chosen text, Rm. 14:1 – 15:13, and a discussion of my contextual and hermeneutical concerns of the passage in relation to Chinese Christians’ controversy on ancestral worship.
    This passage has drawn the attention of
many scholars since the publication of a lengthy study of Rauer (1923).[3]Â The main issues are as follows:
1.          Â
The sitz im leben of Romans in general and
the context of the controversy of Rm.Â
14:1 – 15:13           Â
in particular;
2.          Â
the identities of
the “strong” and the “weak”;
3.          Â
the issues of
controversy; and
4.          Â
Paul’s solution to the controversy.
A
brief discussion on these concerns is provided at the following.
       Since the
publication of The Romans Debate in 1977,[4]
there are growing consensus among scholars[5]Â that Romans was a letter addressed to the
concrete situation of Roman Christians.
The more controversial issue is the identity of the “strong” and the “weak”
which will be discussed in next section.
       However, as far as the context of the
tension between the “strong” and the “weak” is concerned, the issues of eating
foods, drinking wine and observing special days are raised in a setting which
they meet one another. According to the evidence of the characteristics of the
Roman Christians which we found in Rm. 16,[6]Â 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 proslambanw (14:1,
3; 15:7, 7) and oiket8s (v.4) 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.[7] 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.[8] In
our opinion, he rightly suggests that there were plausibly five or six
different house churches existing in Rome.[9]
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.[10]
      Â
In view of Paul’s use of liturgical languages in Rm. 14:10c-12.[11] and 15:9b-12,[12] it is quite probable the more specific context of Rm. 14:1 – 15:13 is related to a setting of corporate worship. Further discussion of the context of the passage will be included below.
        In 14: 1-15: 13, the controversy is
between the 'strong' and the 'weak'.
Some scholars, such as Karris,[13]
who appealed to the argument of Rauer,[14]
have argued strongly that the 'weak' might be Christians with syncretistic or
ascetic tendencies, but not ordinary Jews.[15]
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.[16]
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 there may be some ethnic Jews who act like Paul.[17]
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.[18]
       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.[19]
       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 and had communal meals
together.[20] The 'weak' (Jewish
Christians) did not abstain from meat or wine in general, they were vegetarian
only when eating with the 'strong' (Gentile Christians).[21] 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-Ã -vis the Jewish identity.[22]
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 is a more plausible suggestion than others, and will
seek to demonstrate that plausibility in 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. 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:[23]
1. The Roman Jewish community was organized as a
community net-work[24]
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 a considerable interaction
with their Gentile neighbours and also     Â
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
themselves. In other words, the principle of toleration and mutual acceptance
was not yet adopted in dealing with differences among these Roman Christians
who were organized into different house churches.. This situation probably
occurred when the Jews returned to Rome after the death of Claudius in 54 C.E..[25]
When Paul wrote his letter to Rome around 55-57 C.E.,[26]
he perhaps tried to address this situation.
       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;[27]
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.[28]
       Nevertheless, what are Paul’s positive teachings directed to the controversy? They will be presented in the personae analysis of Rm. 14:1-15:13 at below.
A. 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. [29]
He argues strongly the impasse of historical-critical scholarship in
understanding this poem, which has failed to provide acceptable solutions for
the enigmas of the poem[30]Â and suggests the new hermeneutic approach
which put focus on the text in itself
and takes language as event.[31]
The language creates an alternative world
which invites the reader to enter.[32]
      We share his dissatisfaction on
historical-critical approach in studying the letters, especially the problem of
mirror-reading method could not be avoided.[33]Â Since the nature of letter is dialogical in both inside the text as
well as between the text and the readers in the historical context,[34]
we find ClinesÂ’ suggestion of the study ofÂ
personae could be applied to
studying letters. Especially, the letters are not simply a source for providing
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 of applying the approach
is to show “the legitimacy of multiple
meanings” of a text, especially in reading a poem.[35]
Our is different from him, the genre
of poem is very different from letter. The purpose of our study is to show how
this approach could help us to understand the characteristics of different
identities, relationship between them, and the operation of the persuasion
among them in the text as well as relate these findings to the historical
contexts of the author and the readers, so that we could have a better
framework to study PaulÂ’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 supplement one another in studying PaulÂ’s
letter to the Romans in general,[36]
the passage of 14: 1-15: 13 in particular.
      We borrow Clines’ ideas and name this approach personae analysis.[37] 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.[38]
      In Rm. 14:1-15:13, first person and
second person pronouns (singular and plural) occur twenty-five times.[39]
First person singular verbs[40]
and second person singular verbs[41]
occur four times each; second person plural verbs occur twice[42]
and the first person plural verbs occur eleven times.[43]
We may say that the occurrence of the first and second persons in this passage
is quite frequent.[44]
It is significant to pay attention to Paul's change from one person to another
when he uses these pronouns and verbs in this passage.[45]
          In the following analysis, we divide 14:1-15:13 into five sections according to the content and the characteristics of these 'persons'.
          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[46] proslambanesthe which most probably
refers to the 'strong' mentioned later in 15:1.[47]
If this is the case, Paul starts his admonition explicitly towards the Gentile
Christians in Rome requesting them to welcome a Jewish Christian[48]
who participates in the fellowship of their house churches,[49]
even though the Jewish Christian only eats vegetables when he participates 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 the Jewish Christian was a vegetarian in
general. His abstaining from meat was probably because he had 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.
           From a detailed personae
analysis of this passage (see the complete paper on the website), 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.
(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.[50] 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.
          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.[51]
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,[52]
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).[53]
          From a detailed personae analysis of this passage
(see the complete paper on the website), it appears that 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"[54]
          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.
          This section is the climax of Paul's exhortation directed
to the strong which starts from 14:1.[55]
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 h8meis 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[56]
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.
          From a detailed personae analysis of 15:1 – 4 (see the
complete paper on the website), it appears that 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).[57]
This practice is very important because it is related to the "good"
of the Jewish Christians and the "building up" (oikodom8, cf. 14:19) of the Christian community in Rome (15:2).
          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.[58]
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 h8meis 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:[59]
Â
          "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.[60]
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. [61]
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.
          As far as the 'persons'Â
in this passage are concerned, humin
occurs in v.5, and the second person plural subjunctive doxaz8te and the first person plural pronoun h8mwn 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.[63]
          From a detailed personae analysis of 14:1-15:6 (see
the complete paper on the website), it indicates that 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.
(5) 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 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'.[64] Hence the use of all8lous 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 (all8lous) 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).
          From a detailed personae analysis of the passage (see the complete paper on the website), it appears that 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.[65]
       From our detailedÂ
personae analysis of Rm. 14:1
-15:13 (see the complete paper on the website), 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:
(1)Â Â Â
the Jewish Christians could continue to maintain their Jewish identity and their
(2)Â Â Â Â the Jewish
Christians recognized the legitimacy
of the Gentile Christians also as God's people;
(3)Â Â Â Â the Gentile
Christians recognized the significance
of their relationship with the Jewish Christians;
(4)Â Â Â Â the Gentile
Christians agreed to follow the Jewish way in eating a meal whenever they
have communal life with the Jewish Christians; and
(5)Â Â Â Â 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.[66]
              We agree with
Watson that the main issues were
concerned with 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 Â
    Christians but did not try to persuade the Jewish Christians to separate from theÂ
    Jewish community; They could be a Jew and a Christian at the same time.6/22/02
(2) Paul admonished the Gentile Christians not to make the Jewish Christians becomeÂ
     Jewish apostates in pursuit of Christian
unity, but to support the Jewish Christians in
     their
effort to preserve their Jewish identity.
(1)Â Â Â Â 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 Â
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 ofÂ
people of God. They could maintain
their non-Jewish (Gentile) identity according to the Gospel.
(2)Â Â Â Â
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.
     Nevertheless, although the above
understanding of the rite as an expression of filial piety were generally
accepted, the stance of the rite as heretic idolatry propounded by missionaries
still prevailed among most Chinese
Christians until today.
     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
concerning the rite is its religious nature. However the understanding of
religion in Chinese culture is very different from the west. It is a common
understanding in the modern religious study that there is no Chinese word
equivalent to the word “religio
(Latin)” or “religion”. [94] The modern Chinese term
for religion--“tsung-chiao”-- was
imported from Japanese translations of European works and terminology in the 19th
Century.
     In his classic study, Religion in Chinese Society (1961),
Prof. C.K. Yang differentiates religion into two types: institutional religion
and diffused religion. According to Yang, “institutional religion in the
theistic sense is considered as a system of religious life having (1) an
independent theology or cosmic interpretation of the universe and human events,
(2) an independent form of worship consisting of symbols (gods, spirits, and
their images) and rituals, and (3) an independent organization of personnel to
facilitate the interpretation of theological views and to pursue cultic
worship.”[95] Diffused religion is
considered of as “ 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.”[96]
Buddhism, Taoism and Christianity belong to institutional religion. Diffused religion
includes ancestor worship, the worship of community deities, and the
ethicopolitical cults.[97]
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.[98]
Nevertheless, although the religious element of Chinese ancestral worship which
originated in 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. [99]
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 religiously significant as a
way to communicate with the departed kinsmen and even has a function of
pursuing blessings and avoiding 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.[100]
In a survey conducted in Taiwan by Prof. Li Yi-yuen, around two third of those
who claim to be non-religion believers participated in ancestral worship.[101]
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.[102]
Although the communist
Chinese government had adopted a policy of suppression of religious activities,
including 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 is evidence that
the rite has become more and more popular.[103]
     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.[104]
The issue of identity is particularly significance for those Chinese outside
the major population of Chinese, vis-a-vis
among overseas Chinese.
     The position of Vatican in 18th Century as
well as most Protestant missionaries and churches today is based on the
interpretation of Christian faith, especially the first two of the Ten
commandments (Ex. 20: 3-6).[105]
However if the interpretation of the above on Chinese religious perspective on
ancestral worship is taken into account, the charge of the violation of Ten
commandments is not fit in the context.
     Furthermore, in the discussion among
missionaries in the 1907 conference, the issue of “individual conscience” was
raised in relation to dealing of the Ancestral Tablet. This was a real
breakthrough in the discussion of the ancestral worship since MorrisonÂ’s essay
of 1832.[106] The languages of “each
one must be fully persuaded in his own mind”[107]
and “A decision of the Emperor…..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”[108]  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 commonly seen.[109]
I would like to propose that the message ofÂ
Rm. 14:1 – 15:13 is also relevant to the discussion, which has been
overlooked. The issue related is the identity crisis faced by both Jewish
Christians and Chinese Christians.
     As has been shown in the above Section of
Analytical Frames, the main issue in
the passage is the identity crisis 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 or 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 “right” understanding
(orthodoxy). They could not accept the “wrong” practice of the weak as they are
supported by the “wrong” understanding. Although the weak see the issue from
the other way round.
     In the Chinese Christian controversy on
ancestral worship, the Popes and their delegates in the 17th and 18th
Centuries as well as the Protestant missionaries in 19th and early
20th Centuries had not viewed the issue from the Chinese contexts
and the Chinese Christian perspective. They did not see in their relationship
with the Chinese Christians, that they are the strong who forced the weak,
Chinese Christians, to face the identity crisis of being Chinese and
Christian.Â
     Would the missionary history in China be
different, if the message of Rm. 14:1 – 15:13 had been listened from the
position of the weak?
Barrett, C. K. (1962) A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, BNTC (London,:
A
& C Black, 1971)
Black, M. (1973) Romans (London: Marshall, Morgan
& Scott, 1981)
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.
Dunn, J. D. G. (1988) Romans, WBC 38 A and B, 2 volumes (Waco, Word Books).Â
Fitzmyer, J. A.
(1993) Romans, AB 33 (N.Y.,
Doubleday)
        Kaesemann, E. (1980) Commentary on Romans, 4th ed., trans. & ed. G. W. Bromiley, (London: SCM, 1982) Â
Michel, O. (1978) Der Brief an die Roemer, KEK, 5th ed. (Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht)
Moo, D. (1996) The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans)
Sanday, W. &Â
Headlam, A. C. (1902) A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to theÂ
Romans,
5th
ed., ICC (Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1905)
Stuhlmacher, P. (1989) PaulÂ’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.
Barclay, J. M. G. (1987b) "Mirror-Reading a Polemical  Letter: Galatians as a Test Case" JSNT 31: 73-93.
_____________ (1996)Â
“’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
Booth,  W.  C.  (1983) The Rhetoric of Fiction,  2nd ed. (Chicago, Univ. Press)
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)
Cranfield, C. E. B. (1982a) "Changes of Person andÂ
Number in Paul's Epistles", firstÂ
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.
Cullmann, O. (1950) Early Christian Worship, trans. A. S. Todd & J. B. Torrance (London: SCM, 1953)
Donfried, K. P. (1974b) "False Presuppositions in the Study of Romans" in CBQ 36, pp.332-55, repr. in
        Debate, pp.120-148.
__________ ed. (1977b) The Romans Debate (Minneapolis, Augsburg)
___________ ed. (1991) The Romans Debate, Rev. and Expanded ed. (Peabody, Hendrickson)
Dunn, J. D. G. (1983b) "The Incident at Antioch (Gal. 2: 11-18)" JSNT 18: 3-57.
Ellis,  E.  E.  (1957)  Paul's Use of the Old  Testament (Edinburgh, Olive and Boyd)
Esler, P. F. (1987) Community
and Gospel in Luke-Acts: The Social and Political Motivations of Lucan
        Theology, SNTSMS 57.
Gamble, H. Jr.Â
(1977) The Textual History of the
Letter to the Romans:Â AÂ StudyÂ
in Textual and
         Literary Criticism  (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans)
Grenholm, C.
(2000) “A Theologian and Feminist
Responds” in Reading Israel in
Romans, edd. Cristina Grenholm & Daniel Patte (Harrisburg, Penn., TPI)
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 toBecket   (BaltimoreÂ
and London:John Hopkins Univ. Press, 1975)
Jackson, James (1907) “Ancestral Worship” in Records (1907: 215-46).
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.
         Koskenniemi, H, (1956) Studien zur Idee und  Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. chr.(Helsinki,
Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia)
       Latourette, K. S. (1929) A History of Christian Missions in China (repr. Taipei: Ch’eng-wen Publishing Co.)
         Leung, Ka-lun (1997) “Christianity and Chinese Ancestor Worship—Response 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) “A Review on the Change of Individual Religiosity—To Propose some Assumptions on
                     Study of
Chinese Religious Beliefs (in Chinese) in Cultural
Images—A Cultural Observation on
                    Religion and Ethnic Group (Taipei, Yuen Shen Cultural Enterprise) vol. 2.
          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)
        Martin, W.A.P. (1890) “The Worship of Ancestral : A Pled for Toleration” in Records (1890: 620-31).
        McKnight, E.V. (1985) The Bible and the Reader: An Introduction to Literary Criticism (Philadelphia, Fortress)
        Minear, P. S. (1971) The Obedience of Faith: The Purpose of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (London, SCM)
   Nababan, A.E.S. (1962) Bekenntnis und Mission in Roemer 14 und 15: Eine exegetische Untesuchung, unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Heidelberg.
Ninos, Mark D. (1996) The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of PaulÂ’s Letter (Minneapolis, Fortress)
        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 5th to May 8th, 1907, Printed in shanghai under the direction of the Conference Committee,
Edition limited to 1000 copies (New York: American Tract Society)
        Senior, D. & Stuhlmueller, C. (1983) The Biblical Foundations for Mission (London, SCM)
        Schneider, Nelio (1989) Die “Schwachen” in der
christlichen Gemeinde Roms: Eine historisch-exegetische
Untersuchung zu Roem 14:1-15:13, unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Kirchliche Hochschule Wuppertal
        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)Â
        Tan, Y. H. (1999) “Judging and Community in Romans: An Action within the Boundaries”, a paper          Â
                     presented at SBL 1999 Seminar:Romans through History and Cultures. 24 pages.
        Thraede, K. (1970) Grundzuege griechisch - roemischer Brieftopik (Muenchen: C.H. Beck'sche
                     verlagsbuchhandlung)
Watson, F. (1986) Paul, Judaism and The Gentiles: A Sociological Approach, SNTSMS 56
_________ (1991) “Review of Romans 1-8 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)
Wedderburn, A. J. M. (1988) The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh, T & T Clark).
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.
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) “Christianity and Chinese Ancestor Worship—A Historical Survey” (in Chinese) in Chinese Ancestor Worship, ed. Ying, Fuk-tsang (Hong Kong, Alliance Bible Seminary) pp. 1-102.
_____________ (1997b) “A Retrospect on Research of Chinese
Ancestor Worship” (in Chinese) in Chinese                                  Â
 Ancestor Worship, ed. Ying Fuk-tsang (Hong Kong, Alliance Bible Seminary) pp.209-30.
[1] See Grenholm (2000: 105) and the quotation from Watson (1991: 252).
[2] Detailed footnotes of this Section can be found in the complete paper on the website: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/religious_studies/SBL2002/home2002.htm
[3] 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).
[4] 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).
[5] E.g. Barrett (R, 1962: 256); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 364); Wilckens (R, 1982 III: 78) 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).
[6] Rm. 16 is regarded as part of Romans. For the detailed discussion of the characteristics of Roman Christians found in Rm. 16:3-15, see Lo (1998:27-35).
[7] See Minear (1971) and the discussion on his methodology in pp.6ff.. His work did not gain widespread acceptance among scholars; exceptions see Donfried (1977) and Watson (1986: 88f.).
[8] Minear (1971: 7); see also Cranfield (R, 1975, I:22).
[9] Minear (1971: 7).
[10] Minear (1971: 8-15). Donfried (1974b: 107) rightly criticized Minear's work that "while the direction of Minear's general interpretation is persuasive,Â…Â….we are hesitant to concur with Minear in attempting to relate almost every passage to some problem or opponent in Rome".Â
[11] 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).
[12] 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.
[13] Karris (1973: 79ff.).
[14] Rauer (1923).
[15] See also Barrett (R, 1962: 257f.)
[16] The use of the word koinos to denote "unclean" in the religious sense is almost exclusively Jewish; Reasoner (1999:.17f.) suggests that there were other reasons why people abstained from meat and wine in first century Rome (pp. 102-38).
[17] For detailed discussion on the possible interpretations of the identities of the “strong” and the “weak”, see Cranfield (R, 1979 II: 690-7), Wilckens (R, 1982 III: 109-115), Moo (R, 1996: 828-32).
[18] See the bibliographical reference in Karris (1973: 76 n.6) and Reasoner (1999: 6-16).
[19] So Watson (1986: 95).
[20] 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.).
[21] See Minear (1971: 10).
[22] See discussion on Tacitus Historiae, V, 5:1; Letter of Aristeas, Joseph and Asenath in Lo (1998: 85-88).
[23] See Lo (1998: 57-113).
[24] 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)..
[25] See Wiefel (1970: 111-113). 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.
[26] See Cranfield (R, 1975 I: 16); Fitzmyer (R, 1993: 86f.).
[27] Minear (1971: 13).
[28] Minear (1971: 15).
[29] Clines (1976: 25-33, 37-40).
[30] Clines (1976: 25, 53).
[31] Clines (1976: 53-56).
[32] Clines (1976:54ff.) .
[33] For discussion of the problem of mirror-reading method, see Barclay (1987).
[34] For study of ancient epistolography, see Koskenniemi (1955); Cancik (1967); Thraede (1970), See detailed footnote in the complete paper on the website.
[35] Clines (1976: 33, 59f.), his emphasis.
[36] See Lo (1998).
[37] Clines (1971) uses the phrase “persona-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 “Visual analysis”, “Act/agent analysis”, “Speech analysis”, “Affect analysis”, “Temporal analysis” for all other Sections in Chapter 3 (pp. 37-49) of his book, but only “Personae” (pp. 37-40) as the name of the Section (a) in which he mentions the phrase “persona-analysis”.
[38] 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.).Â
[39] 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 h8meis, 5 times: 14:7, 12; 15:1, 2, 6.
[40] 14:14; 15:8, 9, 9.
[41] 36. 14: 1, 13; 15: 6, 7.
[42] 14: 15, 20.
[43] 14: 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 10, 13, 19; 15:4.
[44] 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.
[45] 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.
[46] 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).
[47] See Michel (R, 1978: 422, 447); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 366); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 81).
[48] It is noteworthy that the singular article with a present participle occur frequently in 14: 1-7 to denote an indefinite person.
[49] The word proslambanw is used in the papyri of 'receiving' into a household, see M & M: 549; Black (R, 1973: 165).
[50] 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).
[51]So Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 711); Cf. Michel (R, 1978: 430); Kaesemann (R, 1980: 374).
[52] So e.g. Kaesemann (R, 1980: 374); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 90).
[53]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..Â
[54] Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 725).
[55] For detailed discussion of the textual problem of the connection between Rm. 14 and 15, see Gamble (1977: 16-35, 96-126).
[56] In v.4, there is a first person plural possessive pronominal adjective h8meteros.
[57] See Dunn (1983b: 30).
[58] See Dunn (1983b: 31f.).
[59] So Senior & Stuhlmueller (1983: 182). 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.
[60] 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..
[61] 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 “the law-observant Christians, in the long term and at a deeper level he seriously undermines their social and cultural integrity” (306). However, this may not be the case in a process of cultural interaction, mutual influence is expected..
[62] The other prayer-wishes in Romans are all in ch.15 (vv.13 and 33); see Cranfield (R. 1979, II: 736).
[63] See Cranfield (R, 1979, II: 737); Kaeseman (R, 1980: 383).
[64] See Sanday & Headlam (R, 1902: 397); Michel (R, 1978: 447); Wilckens (R, 1982, III: 105).
[65] 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.Â
[66] See Lo (1998: 197-415).
[67] See the complete paper on the website for a more detailed discussion.
[68] 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).
[69] See Latourette (1929: 132-135) for JesuitÂ’s attitude toward Chinese rites.
[70] See Latourette (1929: 141-146).
[71] See Latourette (1929: 140) and Ching (1993: 193).
[72] 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.).
[73] See Ching (1993: 194).
[74] See Latourette (1929:140f.,146f.).
[75] See discussion in Latourette (1929: 148f.).
[76] See Latourette (1929: 149f.).
[77] Latourette is ambivalent about the consequences of the controversy. On the one hand he criticizes that the papal decision had “established 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 “the papal decisions made the winning of nominal adherents more difficult, but they tended to keep high the standards of the Church”. For him “Numbers were sacrificed for vitality” (p.155). However, Latourette has to answer the question (p. 154, cf. p. 132) that “in 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.”
[78] See discussions in Huang (1994); Yeo (1996); Ying (1997a) and Leung (1997).
[79] Morrison, J. (1832: 202) and (1833: 502).
[80] See Ying (1997a: 11-13).
[81] See Records (1878: 396-7, 401), cited by Ying (1997a: 13, n. 24).
[82] See Records (1890:620-31).
[83] Ibid, p. 627.
[84] See Ariarajah (1994: 2-4).
[85] See the list of publications in Ying (1997a: 20, n. 42).
[86] Ibid, p. 233.
[87] See Jackson (1907: 239-4).
[88] See the resolutions and the discussion in Jackson (1907: 604-24).
[89] Ibid, p. 239.
[90] See Ying (1997a: 55-64).
[91] Ibid, pp. 76-82.
[92] See Watson & Rawski (1988) and Ying (1997b: 218, 224).
[93] See Yang (1961), especially pp.29-31, 44-48, 60ff., 253-255.
[94] See Yang (1961: 2) and Ching (1993: 1-3).
[95] Yang (1961: 294).
[96] Ibid, pp. 294-5.
[97] Further discussion of institutional and diffused religions in Chinese society, see Yang (1961: 295-340).
[98] See Yang (1961: 29-31, 44-48, 53, 298).
[99] Ibid, pp. 48-9; Ching (1993: 19-21) and Leung (1997: 146-50)..
[100] 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 (1997b: 223-4).
[101] Li (1992: 152-3, 160), see also Ying (1997b: 222-3).
[102] See also Leung (1997: 158).
[103] See Ying (1997b: 221-2).
[104] See Ying (1997b: 224-5).
[105] Other biblical texts related to the discussion of ancestral worship, see Yeo ( 1996: 135-41).
[106] See note 170 above.
[107] Jackson (1907: 244).
[108] Records (1907: 621-2), my emphsis.
[109] See Yeo (1996) and also Leung (1997: 160, 204).