Paul addresses issues that have caused division in the church in Rome regarding differing practices related to eating. Some only ate vegetables while others ate all foods. Paul argues that both groups should accept one another without judgment. Each believer lives by the measure of faith given by God and will answer to God alone, not other believers. The goal is unity in Christ, achieved through mutual acceptance rather than condemnation over disputable matters.

1. 1
Leslie Brock
NE506: Greek Exegesis of the Book of Romans
Fuller Theological Seminary
December 12, 2014
Final Exegetical Research Paper on Romans 14:1-231
I. Introduction
Romans 14:1-23 has caused much debate over the years due to its ambiguity, for the
Apostle Paul is not completely clear as to exactly what problem he is addressing in the church of
Rome, nor is he clear as to whom he is speaking. For instance, he writes of people in the church
who are weak in faith and therefore only eat vegetables, without mentioning any further details
about them. Due to its lack of clarity, many commentators have decided that this passage is
simply a reiteration of Paul’s message in 1 Corinthians 10 so as to provide teaching on a general
subject to the Roman church that would have been a common issue of the day—sacrificing to
idols.2 Others believe this passage addresses specific concerns in the church, as that is Paul’s
pastoral tendency to do in his letters. Some scholars insist that those labeled as “weak” were
recent Jewish converts, whereas others believe they could be a number of various types of
people.3 The point in this paper is not to resolve all of these exegetical issues in Romans 14.
Rather, this paper will show that these debates between who is “weak” versus “strong” and
whether this passage was written specifically with Roman church issues in mind are all
secondary to the point Paul was attempting to make. That is, in congruence with Paul’s message
1 This paper is an exegesis of the original KoineGreek languageused in the writingof the New Testament
Book of Romans by the Apostle Paul.
2 Karris,RobertJ., O.F.M., “Romans 14:1 – 15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,”The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 34 (1973): 155-178.
3 Reasoner (1999) provides an overview of the issues as well as which commentators argue for the various
“interpretive options.”

2. 2
in 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, this paper will argue that the point of the fourteenth chapter of
Romans is to show the church how to live in the unity that is fitting for the body of Christ. This
unity comes from self-denial and sacrifice, which Christ exemplified, and can be best exhibited
and practiced when the church gathers for meals.
This paper will first provide the co-text which leads into the passage of focus, delineating
the overarching themes of Paul’s letter to this point. Next, this paper will provide a brief
summary of the socio-cultural context in which Paul’s letter was written. Third, an exegesis and
explanation of the rhetorical thrust of the passage will be delineated. Last, a conclusion will be
drawn about the meaning in this complex passage within the letter to the church in Rome.
II. Co-Text
Upon concluding his argument in Romans 9-11 that the covenantal promises of God hold
for both Gentile and Jew, regardless of the present situation of Israel’s continual unbelief, the
Apostle Paul then moves into delineating the ramifications of God’s faithfulness for the people
of God. Romans 12:1 - 15:13 is a description of how the believers in Rome are to respond to
God’s covenantal faithfulness to them in their everyday living and relationships. This section
begins with an appeal to the believers, in light of God’s mercy towards them (which Paul has
expounded in his letter up to this point), that they would “offer their bodies as living sacrifices,
holy and acceptable to God.” That is, Paul appeals to the church to no longer live under the
power of the reign of sin and death, but according to the Spirit of God, to which they are now
captive (see Romans 7-8). Whereas when they were captive to the reign of sin and death they
walked according to the flesh and its desires, which included pride and unbelief at both the
individual and communal level, this new way of living in the Spirit entails humility. That is, one

3. 3
may only think of oneself according to the measure of faith he/she has been assigned by God;
this way of thinking necessitates “sober judgment” (realism) rather than puffed-up superiority
(idealism), the latter of which has the result of division (see Paul’s argument in 1 Cor. 11:17-34).
Echoing the tradition of the Jesus sayings (such as those of the Sermon on the Mount), Paul then
goes on to describe how to live in the way of humility, showing how to realistically live in the
community of God. Likewise, Paul goes on (in Romans 13) to delineate a functionally practical
way the community of God could live peacefully with the surrounding secular community as
well as with the governing authorities—by being subject to these authorities and paying taxes.
This is the way in which the community of God could protect the particularly vulnerable Jewish
and Jewish Christian populations in their midst.4 Paul concludes this section with an exhortation
to owe no one anything except love, as the greatest commandment states to “love your neighbor
as yourself.” Rather than indulging in selfishness, the community ought to humbly “put on the
Lord Jesus Christ, making no provision for the flesh.”
III. Socio-Cultural Background
It was a common practice among Jews, Greeks, and Romans of the ancient world to eat
community meals among their cohorts as part of their cultic rituals. What was known as an
agape, or love-feast, was part of the early Christians’ gatherings and included both the ritual of
the bread and cup in the tradition of Jesus, as well as a full meal shared together as a community.
Smit also writes about the importance of meals in first century Mediterranean society, adding the
fact that “most if not all parts of a society were structured through and maintained by meal
4 Grieb, A. Katherine. The Story of Romans: A Narrative Defense of God’s Righteousness. Westminster John
Knox Press:Louisville,2002.

4. 4
fellowship.”5 Formal dinners were a way of transmitting cultural values, especially etiquette. As
such, the highly stratified society of the first century was enforced and maintained by these
meals, such as who was invited, who was seated where (the host sat at the front and the most
honored guests sat closest to him/her, descending in honor the further away from the host), who
was allotted what foods and corresponding portions (the host’s inner circle or most honored
guests were served more and better food than others, and this amount and quality decreased the
further one sat from the host), etc. As such, one’s identity within society was determined by
where one was seated at these meals. In addition, social identity was determined to a large extent
by what one ate (for instance, Seneca wrote about how he was embarrassed by the aberrant
vegetarian diet he followed as a youth).6 It is no wonder, then, that Jesus’ table fellowship with
prostitutes, tax collectors, and sinners was absolutely scandalous in his day. He broke all social
norms of his day by sharing table fellowship with those “outside” of his social status as a rabbi,
as well as by not adhering to the kosher laws of the Torah (which we can surmise by the fact that
he ate with anyone, anywhere).
IV. Rhetorical Thrust of the Passage
In Romans 14, the Apostle Paul continues to delineate his teaching on how the church in
Rome can respond to God’s covenantal faithfulness—this time in a very practical manner—by
refraining from judging one another. Just as Paul has already admonished the believers to think
of themselves in humble, “sober judgment,” according to the measure of faith they each have
been given by God, now they are admonished to not judge others according to their level of
faith. If faith is not a human ability or achievement but a gift from God which is meted out
5 Smit, Peter-Ben, “A Symposiumon Romans 14:17? A Note on Paul’s Terminology,” Novum Testamentum
49 (2007):40-53.
6 Ibid.,42.

5. 5
according to God’s wisdom, there is no grounding for comparison among believers, let alone
grounding for judgment or condemnation. Paul has already expounded upon the dangers of
judging others (Romans 2:1-11), which causes division among the body of Christ rather than
unity. Indeed, Paul utilizes the word “judge” (κρίνω) eighteen times throughout his letter to the
church of Rome, eight of which are included in the fourteenth chapter. According to BDAG, the
primary way “judge” is used in this passage is “to pass an unfavorable judgment upon, criticize,
find fault with, or condemn.”7 In this specific passage of focus, Paul is admonishing believers to
not judge one another according to what they eat. As community gatherings included “love
feasts” in which the community of both Jewish and Gentile Christians sat at the same table to
partake in food and drink together as a sign of their unity in Christ (see 1 Corinthians 11: 17-34),
it would have been apparent who ate what at the table and who abstained from certain foods.
Accordingly, Romans 14 shows that some of the believers ate only vegetables, whereas
other believers ate anything placed before them. Those who abstained from meat are described
by Paul as being “weak in faith” (ἀσθενοῦντα), although he does not clarify how he makes this
connection between one’s level of faith and the type of foods one eats. As stated previously,
commentators have long debated over what Paul meant by “weak” versus “strong,” the latter of
which he does not even name until Romans 15:1. The most common assumption among scholars
is that the “weak” are Jewish converts who have not yet been able to part ways with the customs
that had marked them as the elect people of God8 (thus further confirming a Jew-Gentile
controversy throughout Romans). Grieb also believes this group might also be comprised of
Gentiles who have adopted Jewish customs, such as those Paul reprimands in his letter to the
7 Danker, Frederick W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, 3rd ed (BDAG). University of Chicago Press:Chicago,2000. 568.
8 This is the interpretation of Dunn, 798.

6. 6
church in Galatia9 (although, if that is the case, he certainly reacts to those believers differently
than he does to these in Rome!). Nonetheless, Dunn defines “weak in faith” as a “failure to trust
God completely and without qualification… [where this trust] leans on the crutches of particular
customs and not on God alone, as though they were an integral part of that trust.”10
What is significant is the fact that Paul never actually identifies those who are “weak”
and those who are “strong,” although he does place himself into the category of “strong” (15:1).
Reasoner argues that these two binary categories Paul uses are “designations of social status” in
first century Rome which fits into the strict imperial hierarchy of that time.11 Elliott states that,
“the label ‘weak’ in Romans 14 was a contemptuous term wielded in the larger status-conscious
Roman society against those who displayed excessive scrupulosity, especially if they belonged to
a foreign cult.”12 By using these labels, Paul is using categories of status with which his readers
would have been familiar. Additionally, Paul is setting the stage for his teaching on self-denial,
sacrifice, and humility for the sake of unity in the community, for he takes the side of the “weak”
and admonishes the “strong.” Not once does he describe the ascetic behavior of the “weak” as
something that is prohibited by God; rather, he continually prohibits the “strong” from asserting
themselves over the vulnerable group. Likewise, Paul does not go so far as to label who exactly
is in which group, the naming of which would create further divisions among the church, nor
does he elaborate on the causes of differing perspectives within the church of Rome. Rather, as
9 Grieb, 126.
10 Dunn, 798.
11 Reasoner, 50.
12 Elliott,Neil. The Arrogance of the Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire: Paul in Critical
Contexts. Minneapolis:Fortress,2008.151.

7. 7
Grieb points out, he “focuses on the attitudes towards others who have made different decisions
about these issues.”13
Accordingly, the church in Rome is told to προσλαμβάνεσθε (accept, extend a welcome,
practice hospitality towards, receive into one’s home or circle of acquaintances) those who are
weak in faith, without passing judgment or quarrelling with them regarding their opinions or
motives for abstaining from certain foods (14:1). The nuanced definition of προσλαμβάνεσθε is
interesting in light of the social dynamics surely occurring at mealtime (the background of which
was delineated above), for Paul is exhorting the “strong” to receive the “weak” as though they
are welcoming them into their very homes. Implicit here is the likelihood that the “weak” have
not been welcomed in the community; thus the need for Paul’s admonition. The imperative is
counter-cultural. Paul also elucidates the type of welcome they ought to engender—one without
quarrelling or strife over differences—which speaks to Paul’s desire for harmony and unity at the
meal table. Accordingly, Paul goes on to specify what types of attitudes they ought to have for
one another: those who are free to eat anything must not despise those who abstain, and those
who abstain must not pass judgment on those who eat. The reason being, God has
προσλαμβάνεσθε (welcomed them, as if into His own home); therefore, they ought to follow
suit. Furthermore, they are not each other’s lord, so do not hold positions from which to judge
each other (vv. 4); no one is better or higher on the social ladder because of their food
preferences.
Paul emphatically tells everyone to stop judging each other, because God accepts
everyone regardless of what they do or do not eat. Since believers have “put on the Lord Jesus
13 Grieb, 127.

8. 8
Christ” and are no longer living according to the selfish desires of the flesh (whether this means
asceticism that causes disdain for others or freedom that causes enticement), they are now “living
sacrifices” and consecrated for the purposes of God. Paul states, “we do not live to ourselves,
and we do not die to ourselves,” for everything believers do in our “new lives in Christ” is to be
oriented towards and on behalf of God, not ourselves.
Interestingly, even though believers now live unto God instead of unto themselves, God
gives them freedom in how exactly they do so. This is an implicit statement throughout Romans
14, as God gives latitude to the members of the community to each live according to their own
conscience. Verse 5 states, “the one prefers one day to another, the other holds every day in
esteem. Let each one in their own mind be fully assured” (emphasis added). While some
commentators believe “preferring one day to another” in this verse refers to the Torah’s
command to adhere to the Sabbath, which would further delineate the argument above about the
“weakness” of certain Jewish believers, it is not clear whether Paul is referring to this.14 Rather,
what Paul is clearly allowing for is living according to the measure of faith one has been given,
which may mean different behaviors for different believers.15 Nowhere does Paul admonish the
“weak” for their failure to trust God fully; rather, his indictment throughout this passage is
primarily geared towards the “strong” and how they utilize their freedom. Paul states this
premise to the church in Corinth, as well: “’all things are lawful,’ but not all things are
beneficial” (1 Cor. 10:23).
Furthermore, everyone will one day “stand before the judgment seat of God” and “give
account” for themselves. Paul lifts this warning of the coming eschatological judgment from the
14 Dunn, 805.
15 Ibid.,799.

9. 9
oracles of the prophet Isaiah, who wrote, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall give praise to God” (Is 45:23). In this OT text, argues Shum, “emphasis is
clearly put on human reverence and praise to God… however, in Rom. 14:11 God’s just
judgment over human deeds is underscored as a reminder to Roman Christians that they have no
right at all to pass judgment upon their fellow-believers.”16 This is underscored by the fact that
they all have only one Lord, the Creator of heaven and earth—so, “who are [they] to pass
judgment on servants of another?” Are they God (Paul intimates)?
As Paul has been referring to the traditional Jesus sayings to provide practical guidance
for the believing community of Rome (see Romans 12), it is no doubt he is thinking of the
following when he warns his readers of the coming judgment seat of God: “Do not judge, so that
you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure
you give will be the measure you get” (Mt 7:1-2). This thought echoes his previous warning for
judging others, placed closer to the beginning of his letter (Romans 2), which states that those
who judge others are passing judgment on themselves because they do the same things which
they condemn others for doing. This passing judgment on themselves is an indication of storing
up wrath “on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Ro 2:5). No
one will be spared God’s judgment on that day, regardless of food, drink, circumcision, or any
other matter, “for God shows no partiality” (Ro. 2:11).
Using the preposition οὖν (“accordingly”) to connect the coming judgment of God with
his subsequent thought, Paul then provides an alternative action (“but rather,” ἀλλὰ τοῦτο) to
judging others: believers are to actively decide to not place any possible mechanism of offense or
16 Shum, Shiu-Lun, “Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans,” Ph.D. Diss.,GlasgowUniversity:1999.250.

10. 10
cause of stumbling in front of a brother or sister. Interestingly, Paul is using a play on words here
in his double use of κρίνω, which further arranges a juxtaposition between what believers are to
do (decide) versus what they are not to do (judge).17 That is, they are not to “give a member an
occasion to experience inward pain or make or offense, or to put an obstacle in a member’s way”
by causing the member to πρόσκομμα (“make a misstep”). How would a member give another
member an occasion to make a misstep? By placing a stumbling block (σκάνδαλον) in their path,
which according to BDAG is “an action or circumstance that leads one to act contrary to a proper
course of action or set of beliefs, temptation to sin, enticement.”18 Thus, when one member eats
certain foods that tempt other members to sin by going against their beliefs, or acts in a manner
that persuades others to abandon their consciences, they are not only placing an obstacle in those
members’ way and causing offense, but they are actually setting up to destroy (ἀπόλλυε) them.
Furthermore, they are setting up to destroy the one for whom Christ died; “if Christ was willing
to give up his life for the sake of the weak,” states Dunn, “they surely could not regard food as
more important.”19
According to several commentators, the severity of Paul’s use of “destroy” in verse 15 is
that it implies an eternal destruction.20 Origen provides a clear example of how this can happen:
he states that, “a hindrance is something encountered along the way which makes the feet of
climbers or walkers stumble. These hurt those who have recently begun to travel the road of
faith. The contentiousness, negligence, contempt, and pride of those going before them make
them stumble. Shocked by these examples, they are turned away from the faith.”21 Dunn
17 BDAG, 568.
18 BDAG, 926.
19 Dunn, 831.
20 Ibid,821.
21 Burns, J. Patout Jr. Romans: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,
2012.346.

11. 11
provides an even more nuanced interpretation of verse 15, arguing that while some
commentators believe that this verse implies a person can fall out of covenantal grace with God,
it is not clear whether Paul adheres to that type of “covenant obligation.” Rather, Dunn states that
it is the devout Jew(ish Christian) who, when she is persuaded against her conscience to abandon
food laws and the Sabbath, believes she has “broken the covenant with God and that she has thus
condemned herself to eternal loss.”22 (Of course, this interpretation is contingent upon the
premise that the “weak” believer is a Jewish Christian, which is not clear here.) Later in the
passage, Paul uses the word κατάλυε (a cognate of ἀπόλλυε) as he exhorts the believers to not
“for the sake of food destroy the work of God.” This is connected to Paul’s admonishment that a
member is “not walking in love” (vv. 15) when they cause another to stumble, and as such, the
sanctifying work of God which the Spirit has built between them, relationally, is κατάλυε (torn
down, demolished, destroyed, disintegrated, dismantled). The message clearly stands to the
believers in Rome: do not place your doctrine as a priority before your relationships.
Paul continues to utilize strong negative language to describe the one who causes the
other to sin. He states that not only does the member’s action ruin the “one for whom Christ
died,” but the good deeds that the member does do will be spoken of in blasphemy
(βλασφημείσθω, vv. 16). That is, any attempt to do good while tempting others to sin will only
be thought of irreverently, impiously, and disrespectfully; in short, the believer’s witness to
Christ is ruined if he entices others to go against their conscience.
The apostle states that nothing is unholy or unclean in and of itself (vv. 14). However, if
someone “reckons” (holds a view, thinks, believes, is of the opinion) that something is unholy or
22 Dunn, 821.

12. 12
unclean, it is unholy or unclean for that person. Therefore, if someone in the body of Christ
considers meat or wine to be unholy or unclean, they must abstain in good conscience, as should
other members of the body so as to not tempt those in abstention. By denying themselves of what
they could eat or drink on good conscience, they are creating solidarity with their “weaker”
brothers and sisters, and walking in love.23
Paul reminds his readers that the kingdom of God is about righteousness and peace and
joy in the Holy Spirit, not about who is free to eat or drink whatever they desire.24 When
members of the body of Christ live out of the place of righteousness, peace, and joy, both God
and onlookers approve (the opposite of blasphemy, vv. 16). Therefore, states Paul, “let us pursue
peace and that which edifies [builds up] one another,” which is juxtaposed with his warning
against destroying or tearing one another down (vv. 15). If someone has sufficient faith in which
she is free in conscience to eat or drink whatever she chooses, she ought to keep that secretly
between her and God, not bragging or lording it over others who do not feel such freedom. But
the person who has doubts about whether he should eat or drink something is condemned if he
eats, because he is not acting according to the measure of faith he has been given, “for whatever
does not proceed from faith [trust, belief, conviction, good conscience] is sin.” Therefore, rather
than either judging those who abstain or tempting them to go against their beliefs, Paul
admonishes those of us “who are strong to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please
ourselves” (Ro 15:1).
23 Grieb, 129.
24 Ibid.,129.

13. 13
V. Conclusion
The Apostle Paul places an inordinate amount of power in the hands of the “strong” in
this passage, argues Beverly Gaventa.25 She states that Paul continually employs language
throughout this passage in which power is at this group’s “disposal,” such as the ability to cause
the downfall of others (vv. 13, 20-21) and even the power to destroy (vv. 15, 20). Furthermore,
the “strong” have the capacity to destroy God’s very own work, according to Paul in this
passage. However, Gaventa argues that the power given to the “strong” by Paul is actually
rhetorically setting the stage for his definition of “true power,” which he defines in 15:1 and is
the very inverse of what he has been describing all along—“we who are strong ought to put up
with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.” As “Christ did not live to please
himself” (vv. 3), neither are we to. Instead, we are to use our strength for the benefit of others,
deferring to their weaknesses so they will not stumble but be healed. We are to create solidarity
with others, especially those who are weak or vulnerable, in order to be the community that truly
follows the ways of the cruciform Christ. True community grows out of the self-denial and
sacrifice of its members. True unity comes when table fellowship reflects the welcoming
presence of Christ.
For “love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law” (Ro
13:10). Just as Christ stated He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, so does the body
of Christ when it is following His law, which is a law of love.26
25 Gaventa, Beverly Roberts, “Reading for the Subject: The Paradox of Power in Romans 14:1 – 15:6,”
Journal of Theological Interpretation 5.1 (2011): 1-12.
26 Ibid.,130.

14. 14
Bibliography
Burns, J. Patout Jr. Romans: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2012.
Danker, Frederick W. A Greek-English Lexicon of the NewTestament and other early Christian
Literature, 3rd
ed. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,2000.
Dunn, James D. G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Elliott, Neil. The Arrogance of the Nations: Reading Romansin the Shadowof Empire:Paulin Critical
Contexts. Minneapolis: Fortress,2008.
Gaventa, Beverly Roberts, “Reading for the Subject: The Paradox of Power in Romans 14:1 – 15:6,”
Journal of Theological Interpretation 5.1 (2011): 1-12.
Grieb, A. Katherine. The Story of Romans:A Narrative Defense of God’sRighteousness. Westminster
John Knox Press:Louisville, 2002.
Karris, Robert J.,O.F.M.,“Romans 14:1 – 15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 34 (1973): 155-178.
Reasoner,Mark. The Strong and the Weak: Romans14.1 – 15.13 in Context.Cambridge: University
Press,1999.
Shum, Shiu-Lun, “Paul’s Use of Isaiah in Romans,” Ph.D. Diss., Glasgow University: 2002.
Smit, Peter-Ben,“A Symposium on Romans 14:17? A Note on Paul’s Terminology,” Novum
Testamentum 49 (2007): 40-53.