Original Meaning

AS THE REFERENCES to the “strong” and the “weak” in verse 1 show, Paul is continuing his rebuke of the Roman Christians for their judgmental attitudes. But what is the exact nature of the relationship between this paragraph and chapter 14? Some interpreters think that 15:1–6 is part of the specific exhortation to the strong that began in 14:20.1 Others insist 15:1–6 moves away from the specific divisive issues at Rome to address any similar kind of issue that Christians may face.2 The truth lies between these extremes. Paul does not abandon the specific issue he has been talking about since 14:1, but he is now at the point of wrapping up his discussion with some concluding exhortations. Specifically, he encourages those who are strong to follow the example of their Lord in putting the good of others before their own (15:1–4) and then urges the whole community to seek a unity that will enable them effectively to praise God (15:5–6).

Although Paul has indicated his agreement with the thinking of the strong group in Rome (14:14, 20), he now for the first time explicitly identifies with them, using the first person plural to include himself within the scope of his exhortation. He labels himself and the others who share his view as the dynatoi (lit., the powerful or able ones), that is, those who are “able” to see that their faith allows them to eat meat, drink wine, and so forth. The others are the adynatoi, believers who are “unable” to come to grips with this truth.

In urging the dynatoi to “bear with the failings of the weak,” Paul is not asking them simply to “put up with” those who differ from them. The verb “bear” (bastazo) has the same force here that it does in Galatians 6:2, where Paul exhorts believers to “bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ” (pers. trans.). The strong are actively and lovingly to assume the burden that the weak are not able to carry for themselves, moderating their own conduct to identify as much as possible with them. They will thus not seek to “please” themselves, but the “neighbor,” hoping to “build … up” that fellow believer (v. 2). The sudden introduction of “neighbor” language suggests Paul is thinking of the love command that exhorts love for one’s neighbor (Lev. 19:18; cf. Rom. 13:8–10).

When the dynatoi act in this way, they will be following the example of Christ, who “did not please himself” (v. 3). If Christ, “powerful” as he was, could give up his own right to life itself, these strong believers should certainly be able to give up their right to eat meat whenever they want or to drink wine or to ignore Jewish holy days. Paul puts the words of Psalm 69:9b on Christ’s lips to illustrate the attitude he had: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” “Me” in the quotation refers to Christ and “you” to God: Christ has received the scorn that people were directing at God.

Why does Paul use Psalm 69:9 to illustrate Jesus’ attitude? He is probably drawn to it because this psalm is used so often in the New Testament to describe Jesus’ suffering (see Matt. 27:34 par.; John 2:17; 15:25; Acts 1:20; Rom. 11:9). At a more specific level, he may also be thinking of the insults that the weak believers in Rome are heaping on the strong. Like Jesus, the strong in Rome should be willing to serve in love even those who are being nasty to them.

Verse 4 is parenthetical. Paul pauses to remind us why he can cite the Old Testament the way he doesus: “Everything that was written in the past was written to teach us.” The Old Testament, while no longer a direct source of moral instruction (see 6:14, 15; 7:4–6), continues to play a central role in helping believers understand salvation history and their responsibilities as the new covenant people of God.

The ultimate goal of this instruction is “hope.” Why bring hope into the discussion here? Perhaps the allusion to suffering in 15:3 leads Paul to remind us of the outcome of that suffering (see 8:20, 24–25). But he may also introduce the concept of hope as a subtle reminder to the strong at Rome—mainly Gentile Christians—that they were once “without hope” in the world (cf. Eph. 2:12) but have now been integrated into God’s people by grace. In order to preserve their hope, they must work for the health and unity of God’s people, the basis for their hope.

In verse 4 Paul cited “endurance” and “encouragement” as two specific traits fostered by the Scriptures that will culminate in hope. He picks up these two words in verse 5 at the beginning of his “prayer-wish” to God on behalf of the squabbling Roman believers. He prays specifically that God himself will grant to the community the ability “to think the same way” (lit. trans.; NIV “spirit of unity”). In light of his insistence that the weak not change their minds until their own faith leads them to do so (14:23), it is unlikely that Paul is praying here that all the Roman believers will come to the same opinion on the matters at issue. Rather, he is praying that they may possess a unity of purpose that transcends these differences.

It is a unity and way of thinking that is “according to Christ Jesus” (NIV “as you follow Christ Jesus”)—that is, a unity founded on and modeled after Christ. But unity is not the ultimate goal. Unity is simply one stage on the way to the church’s final purpose: to praise God (15:6). Only when believers cease to quarrel with one another and speak with one heart and one voice will they be able to praise God as they should.

Bridging Contexts

PAUL’S USE OF TRADITION. In these verses Paul once again makes brief allusion to certain traditions that would have enhanced the Roman Christians’ appreciation for what he is teaching.

(1) The reference to Psalm 69 would have triggered a series of associations. As we noted above, the Gospel writers allude to this psalm in their portrayal of Christ’s sufferings. This psalm, attributed to David, is a lament psalm. In the typical pattern of these psalms, David both bemoans his unjust suffering (Ps. 69:1–12, 19–21) and calls on God to deliver him (69:13–18) and to punish his enemies (69:22–28), ending with praise to God for his faithfulness and certain salvation (69:29–36). The Evangelists portray Jesus as the “righteous sufferer” of these lament psalms (Ps. 22 is another) by picking up their language to describe his mockery and suffering.

All the Evangelists allude to Psalm 69:21 (“They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst”) when they describe the drink Jesus was offered as he hung on the cross (see. e.g., Matt. 27:34). According to John, Jesus himself quoted Psalm 69:4 to explain why people hated him “without reason” (John 15:25). The early Christians took their cue from this application of Psalm 69 to Jesus, using it to explain Judas’s defection (Ps. 69:25 in Acts 1:20) and the spiritual hardness of the Jews (Ps. 69:22–23 in Rom. 11:9–10; see comments). The Roman Christians knew the Old Testament well and would have immediately discerned the echoes of all these other applications of Psalm 69 as they read this text.

(2) Paul cites the tradition about Jesus. Michael Thompson and others have shown how all of Romans 12–15 is suffused with allusions not only to Jesus’ teaching but also to his example.3 This “law of Christ” is the implicit source for much of what Paul teaches about the Christian life in these chapters. But it is only 15:3 that he actually refers to Jesus, quoting Jesus’ own quotation of the Old Testament and citing his example of sacrificial giving.

Less obvious is a possible allusion to Jesus’ example, via Old Testament language, in 15:1. Paul calls on “powerful” Christians to “bear [bastazo] the weaknesses [astheneia] of the unpowerful” (lit. trans.; see Original Meaning). This language is similar to the words about the suffering servant that Matthew quotes in Matthew 8:17: “He took our weaknesses [astheneia] and bore [bastazo] our diseases” (pers. trans.). Would the Roman Christians have heard this subtle allusion to the mission of their servant-Messiah? We cannot be sure, but we think that the later explicit allusions to Jesus’ example may well have led them to discern this further allusion.

What Paul is doing, it appears, is crafting his appeal to the Roman Christians in such a way that the example of Jesus is subtly in the background throughout. Such allusions strengthen his appeal, as the Roman Christians are forced to compare their own arrogance toward the weaknesses of others with Christ’s loving humility and service. They are clearly not following Jesus’ admonition to be like him in serving rather than being served (cf. Mark 10:45).

(3) A third tradition that lies behind 15:1–6 is an early Christian pattern of exhortation that linked humility, unity, and the example of Jesus. This pattern is clearest in Philippians 2:1–11. Paul begins by urging the Philippian believers to be united in “thinking the same thing” (lit. trans. of v. 2). Such unity will come only when believers “consider others better than [themselves]” (v. 3) and look to “the interests of others” (v. 4). What they must do is to think as Christ thinks, for he “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant” (vv. 6–7).

It is not hard to discern this same pattern of teaching in Romans 15:1–6. Paul urges the Roman Christians to be united (using the same construction as in Phil. 2:2, “think the same thing,” in Rom. 15:5–6), recommends pleasing others rather than themselves as a way of achieving that unity (15:1–2), and cites Jesus’ example as someone who did just that (15:3). It is not that Paul “quotes” Romans when he writes Philippians (or vice versa). Rather, what we have is an outcropping of what was probably a basic and widespread Christian catechism, giving instructions to converts on how they are to please the God who has redeemed them. Discerning such patterns contributes to our appreciation of the unity of Scripture and accentuates the importance of the unity and humility Paul calls for in these verses.

Contemporary Significance

THE OLD TESTAMENT. I want to visit again a point that emerges in passing in this paragraph: the enduring value of the Old Testament for Christian thought and life. The very fact that Paul can mention the value of the Old Testament in passing shows how ingrained that idea was in the early church. Yet the ignorance of the Old Testament among believers in our day is staggering. Average Christians, of course, are not entirely to blame. Calculate sometime the percentage of sermons you hear in your own church on the Old Testament in comparison with the New Testament. We can trace the problem one step further back. When students ask for recommendations for commentaries on New Testament books, I can usually name off the top of my head five or six excellent, contemporary treatments. But I am sometimes hard-pressed to name even one excellent commentary on certain Old Testament books.

I have taken a pretty strong discontinuous view of the Mosaic law. As I have said repeatedly, I do not think it remains a direct authoritative source for Christian ethics. But I have also made clear that we must not thereby conclude that the Old Testament is no longer of value for believers. Paul’s “no” to the continuing direct authority of the law is combined with a resounding “yes” to the continuing value of the Old Testament—including the law.

Nowhere does he make this point clearer than in Romans 15:4: “For everything that was written in the past [prographo] was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” Paul’s use of prographo certifies he is referring to the Old Testament. Note that “everything” in the Old Testament is written for our benefit as new covenant believers.

Paul does not detail all the ways in which the Old Testament is of value to believers. But he does mention two points. (1) We gain “endurance” from reading the Old Testament. Perhaps Paul thinks here especially of the example of godly men and women who stood fast in the midst of persecution and apostasy—the people whom the author of Hebrews lists in his survey of the “heroes of faith” (ch. 11). Indeed, that author likewise ties his record of faith to the need for his readers to “persevere” or endure (10:36; cf. 12:1). The example of other believers who have endured and remained faithful is a great stimulus to our own perseverance.

(2) We also get “encouragement” (paraklesis) from the Old Testament. Paraklesis can mean “exhortation,” but most commentators rightly prefer in this context “encouragement, comfort.” Perhaps Paul is here thinking of God’s faithfulness to his people, displayed throughout the Old Testament. How comforting it is to know that God never fails to fulfill his promises and remains committed to his people even when they are not as committed to him as they should be. We often stumble, we often fall. We persist in sinning, in failing to love others as we should, in putting too high a priority on our own pleasure and comfort. God is not pleased with our failures, but he is always willing to forgive and never turns his back on his own children.

In both these specific ways, then, contemplation of the Old Testament stimulates our “hope.” We have in the Old Testament a record of God’s dealings with his people that we must not neglect. We learn about God, about his purposes in history, and about his ways of dealing with his people. The modern church’s impoverished understanding of the Old Testament cannot but breed an impoverished faith, hope, and love.

Unity. Paul’s ultimate goal in this section of Romans, as his prayer in 15:5–6 reveals, is to create unity in the church at Rome. The bickering, distrust, and rejection of one another needs to be replaced with a unity of mind and spirit. Paul would write much the same thing were he living in our day. Church after church is wracked by dissension; churches quarrel with one another; Christian institutions criticize each other and bitterly compete with one another.

To be sure, there are fights that need to be fought. As we noted above, Paul is not for unity at any price. We can have Christian unity only where the essentials of what it means to be Christian are believed and lived. But so many of the fights that disfigure the body of Christ, harm our witness, and stifle our praise of God are not those kinds of fights. We quarrel about the instruments to be used in worship service, about the color of the choir robes, and about the style of our church building. Believers may have strong feelings on these kinds of matters—and there is nothing wrong with that. But we need to keep perspective. We need wisdom and a thorough grounding in God’s Word to know which issues are essential to the life of the church and which are on the periphery.

Most of all, we need to fight our battles in a Christian spirit. Paul is not urging either group in Rome to give up their beliefs. He is not even telling them not to discuss their views with one another. Though the situation prevents him from saying so, he may even hope that solid teaching and the work of the Spirit will, over the years, transform weak believers into strong ones. Similarly, God is not necessarily displeased when we hold different views on issues in the church today. When honestly expressed and calmly debated, arguments about various issues can teach us all a great deal. God does not want a bland uniformity in the church or believers who do not have enough brains or gumption to hold and defend their own ideas.

But the key is that all this take place under the umbrella of a unified spirit (15:5). When everyone seeks the good of the others and the church as a whole, disagreements can strengthen rather than weaken the community. Ultimately, the Scriptures call on each one of us to bring together two personality traits that do not always go together: tenacity in holding to the essentials of the faith and infinite patience and tolerance toward people who hold differing ideas on the nonessentials, that is, on the adiaphora.