The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14.1-15.13 in Context

Abstract

The Strong and Weak: Romans 14.1-15.13 in Context, by Mark Reasoner. SNTSMS 103. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Pp. xxi + 272. $59.95. This monograph revises and brings up to date author's 1990 University of Chicago dissertation completed under supervision of H. D. Betz, Arthur Droge, and Richard Saller. Reasoner provides a helpful outline of various interpretations that have been offered to date of Rom 14:1-15:13 and explains implications of each of them for interpreting this section and overall letter. He aligns himself with those who attribute behavioral characteristics of such as vegetarianism, wine abstinence, and observance of days to Jewish practices among some of members of Roman churches. Yet he joins those who do not categorize simply along a Jew/Gentile line. He includes in category of some Gentile Christians who may have been attracted to Jewish practices, and in category of some Jewish members who may have considered themselves now free of Mosaic Law. He proposes to expand this position by arguing that some of were abstaining for extra-Jewish pro-Roman reasons. In this pursuit Reasoner provides an interesting study of social world of addressees according to classical sources. He examines a range of vegetarian and ascetic practices that might motivate abstinence of weak, considers background for observance of days, stigma of superstition, and social value of obligation. For example, he argues that terms weak and strong in Paul's usage correspond with the Roman tendency to define social hierarchies within various levels of early imperial society and differentiate positions in a hierarchy on basis of (p. 45). By way of this insight Reasoner seeks to penetrate social salience of Paul's language for addressees as Romans. He considers primary Latin evidence that in Roman society potentes (strong ones) exercised power and influence, whether a result of political strength or wealth. Thus it was considered important for inferiores (those socially beneath or inferior) to cultivate relationships with stronger ones and avoid offending them, to favor them even if this might require mistreating those of lesser status. These were not fixed categories as much as relative social statuses, so that from Caesar down there is a ranking at every level of society, and a variety of criteria of ability and competence that might apply in determining people's level of social influence, worth in society measured against those over whom could social power. Such clout did not go uncontested, and vulnerability of stronger reinforced ideal of discrimination in cultivation of relationships of advantage. Discussion includes other Roman terms of reference for relative strength and weakness. Reasoner presses this evidence to argue that these terms were used by Roman addressees to distinguish among themselves before Paul's letter. He does not think that Paul would count himself among in 15:1 if he had invented labels, and reasons that he would risk offending those to whom he was writing to win support. Although admitting that letter provides no explicit evidence for social status differentiation in terms of wealth or civil position, he nevertheless argues that it implies different social estimations of honor at work within confines of these groups. That scale is determined by whether or not one is ashamed, and since Paul is not ashamed of himself or his gospel, he is strong. Reasoner has made a good case that terms were used to indicate one's relative social standing in Roman society, and that this dynamic should be considered in Paul's use of language in this letter. However, his conclusions that the 'strong' are Roman citizens or foreign-born residents who display a proclivity toward things Roman, that their appearance may be described as healthy, if not robust, since eat everything (14:2a) and are `strong,' that exercise auctoritas over those whom Roman society has placed below or equal to them in status (14:3a), that they have material resources to appear more self-sufficient than others within particular class and rank (15:1), and that their place in social hierarchy of most likely corresponds to those freedmen who had risen in status, social influence, and property holdings above freeborn within lower population of Rome (pp. …