We argued above that Paul wrote Romans in part to address and facilitate reconciliation of the intragroup conflict among the Christ-followers in Rome, which was expressed particularly through a reluctance to share table fellowship. In Rom 14:1–15:13, Paul makes his case for why the recipients should be reconciled and “welcome one another” (15:7). If the letter is to function in this way, it needs to facilitate the process of social recategorization by encouraging the members of each group—the “strong” and the “weak”—to think of themselves as a single group that shares a common identity.146 Paul needs to shift the category of social identity from Roman Christ-followers, on the one hand, and Jewish Christ-followers, on the other, to the new identity in Christ. I argue that Paul’s resurrection language plays a role in that recategorization. If he is successful, the members of each subgroup will prioritize their loyalty to the community of Christ-followers as a whole over their loyalty to those who share their distinct ethnic identities. The effectiveness of this process increases if
the letter refrains from encouraging the members of disparate groups to abandon their sense of ethnic distinctiveness while simultaneously encouraging a superordinate ingroup identity. The goal is not to erase ethnic distinctions; it is to shift the level of inclusiveness from ethnicity to the group of Christ-followers as-a-whole.147 If that goal is realized, such inclusivity ought to be realized in shared table fellowship among the believers. The question for this investigation is how that table fellowship relates to Paul’s understanding of future bodily resurrection in relation to the use of the body in the present.
I propose that the table fellowship Paul hopes to see is itself a bodily practice. Paul’s appeal for shared table fellowship comes at the end of a larger section of the letter which began at 12:1 and which is focused primarily on matters of ethics and behavior. As Barclay observes, Paul’s discussion of the “presentation” of the body in Rom 6 (vv. 12–14, 19) is directly linked to the opening of chapter 12, “I urge you, therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies
(παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν) as a living sacrifice, holy (ἅγιος) and pleasing to God” (12:1).148 That the bodily life of believers should be “holy” further reinforces the connection to the earlier material (cf. ἁγιασμός in 6:22). The following verse puts the exhortation negatively and sets the instruction in the context of the believer’s
movement from the old aeon to the new aeon: “And do not be conformed to this age (τῷ αἰῶνι τούτω), but be transformed by the renewal of your mind (νοῦς) in order that you may discern what is the will of God” (12:2).149 Together these verses constitute a general exhortation that will be applied to particular situations in the remainder of the section that runs through 15:13. As Barclay remarks, “That is why the bodily
reorientation described in Romans 6 is given some exemplification in Romans 12–15, which concerns the formation of a community structured by and oriented to the good news.”150 Given the connections between the exhortation in Rom 12:1–2 to present the
body in worship and Paul’s earlier discussion of the body in chapters 6 and 8, the
147 Ibid., 34-35.
148 Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 494.
149 For the view that ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος implies the contrast from Jewish eschatology between “the
present age” and “age to come” see, Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, 52; cf. Dunn,
Romans 9-16, 712; Schreiner, Romans, 647-648; Gorman, Cruciformity, 354; Wright, "Romans," 705;
Witherington and Hyatt, Romans, 286; Longenecker, Romans, 922-923. Esler disagrees with an eschatological interpretation of ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος and argues instead that it “refers to the present period and realm inhabited by persons and powers to which the redemption offered in Christ stands in
contradiction,” which here includes “the realm of ethnic hostility and conflict,” (Conflict, 310-311). For the term elsewhere in Paul, see 1 Cor 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; 10:11; 2 Cor 4:4; Gal 1:4.
expectations set forth in 12–15 should be understood as implications of Paul’s theology of the body and bodily practice worked out earlier in the letter.
This is particularly the case with regard to the question of table fellowship in Rom 14:1–15:13. The evidence suggests that Jewish believers (the “weak”) and Gentile believers (the “strong”) did not avoid each other completely. For one group to boast over the other (Rom 11:18) requires some contact.151 Nevertheless, if Rom 14:1 is a clue, their gatherings were marked by dispute. The letter itself was presumably read during a meeting at which representatives from both groups were present. Welcoming one another in peace instead of passing judgment on one another (14:10, 13) is a particular expression of the general expectation of presenting their bodies to God in worship (12:1). To go a step further, to fellowship around the table is
something one does with the body. And as a bodily practice, table fellowship among Christ-followers will be a matter either of submitting the parts of the body to sin for death or to God as alive from the dead (cf. Rom 6:13). If the “strong” and the “weak” are unwilling to welcome one another at the table as Christ has welcomed them, then they use their bodily organs as instruments of wickedness. This would be submitting the parts of the body to sin and could be construed as reverting to the ways of the old Adamic age. Alternatively, if they use their hands to put food in their mouths as they eat together at the same table, then they are using these parts of their bodies as
instruments of righteousness. They show themselves to be participants in the new age of grace and life. They embody in the present their hope of future bodily resurrection. For Paul, using the body in a way that is congruent with bodily resurrection means bringing one’s body to the table with believers of other ethnicities. Further, if using the body as an instrument of righteousness also points forward to the liberation of all creation, then coming together at the table anticipates the hope of all creation to be set free from bondage to decay.
Taking these matters through the lens of social identity, Paul’s expectations for bodily practice at the table in chapters 14:1–15:13 stand in continuity with the
resurrection-oriented future social identity that we inferred based on Paul’s attitude toward the body and bodily practice in the earlier parts of the letter. Believers—both Jew and Gentile—are part of the group “in Christ” that will be raised from the dead in the future. They are included in the family of Abraham by virtue of sharing faith in the God who raises the dead. Thus, their behavioral practices in the present expressed in
their common life should embody that shared identity. Given Paul’s understanding of the bodily practice in the present and bodily resurrection in the future, the recipients should engage in shared table fellowship as a present expression of their temporally coherent resurrection-oriented future identity. If they do not, they fail to embody their future possible identity.
Evidence that bodily resurrection plays a role in the relationship between identity and behavior appears also in Rom 14:7–9. Believers should not pass judgment (14:3–4, 10) on one another on matters of the Sabbath and diet (14:6) because in passing judgment they are living to themselves rather than living to the Lord (14:7–8). To substantiate this point Paul reminds the recipients, “For this reason Christ died and lived again (ἔζησεν), in order that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living” (14:9). The aorist form of ζάω should be taken as a reference to the resurrection of Christ, given its placement in the verse subsequent to his death. By appealing to the resurrection and lordship of Jesus, Paul aims to orient the life of the community around the authority of the resurrected Christ. When they pass judgment on one another’s habits of eating and worship, they make value judgments that do not accord with a resurrection-oriented identity. Paul invites the recipients to reconsider their value judgments in light of the resurrection of Christ in which they hope to participate in the future. If the resurrected Christ orients their social life, then their practices ought to embody a shared identity oriented towards the future possibility of sharing in
Christ’s resurrection. Eating together without dispute over the menu is a characteristic of a community defined by such an identity.
That the future possible resurrection-oriented identity does not negate their ethnic distinctiveness is apparent in 15:1–13. Paul does not call upon Jewish believers to abandon their scruples with regard to food. Rather, he calls upon Gentiles believers to “bear the weaknesses of the weak” (τὰ ἀσθενήματα τῶν ἀδυνάτων βαστάζειν, 15:1). That is, Paul anticipates that the Jews will continue to abstain from meat, and he wants the Gentiles to accept them that way. Thus, by sitting at the same table, yet still
engaging in different dietary practices, they simultaneously embody both unity and diversity. The result is a harmony that glorifies God with a single voice (15:6). That diversity in harmony is further expounded in 15:7–12. The appeal to “welcome one another” in 15:7 is substantiated by the point that “Christ has become a servant of the circumcised for the sake of the truth of God, in order to confirm the promise to the patriarchs, and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” (15:8–9). Here again the distinctive identities of both subgroups are embraced by Paul. Christ’s
ministry to the Jews functions instrumentally in relation to the Gentiles. In the
doxological material of 15:10–11, the Gentiles are exhorted to rejoice and praise God along with the people of God, once again indicating the continuance of ethnic
distinction within the larger community of believers. The implication is that these distinctions are not disregarded, but neither are they determinative as markers of Christian identity. That identity is characterized by faith in the God who raised Christ and who will raise those “in Christ.”
In sum, Paul has cast a vision of the people of God that embraces ethnic distinctiveness and assimilates it into a higher level of group inclusion. Jewish believers and Gentile believers alike are invited to embrace a new identity in Christ which includes the future possible identity of bodily resurrection, yet neither group is required to yield their subgroup distinctiveness. One concrete and embodied
expression of this identity is welcoming one another at the table. Their differences serve to glorify God all the more by displaying diversity in harmony through their embodied life in general and their table and worship practices in particular.
3.7. Conclusion
Paul’s understanding of the relationship between bodily practice in the present and bodily resurrection in the future is consistently portrayed in Romans in terms of the dichotomy between the old age and the new age. Although believers have not yet been raised from the dead, they participate in the new age by virtue of their
incorporation into Christ, and they anticipate their future resurrection with bodily practices characterized by holiness and not sin. This transformation is enabled by the indwelling presence of God’s Spirit who empowers believers to use the body for righteousness as members of the new age, even though their bodies are bound to mortality. The incongruity between present mortality and future resurrection depicts in the bodies of believers the tension that characterizes all of creation in that it is awaiting redemption while remaining in bondage to decay. I have emphasized throughout Paul’s view that resurrection is something that will happen in the future, and it will happen to the group of people who are in Christ and in whom the Spirit dwells. To that extent, future bodily resurrection can be described as a temporally consistent future possible social identity that can be embraced by Jewish believers and Gentile believers without requiring either of them to abandon their distinct ethnic identities. The key insight is that if they embrace bodily resurrection as a future possible identity, then it has potential to influence their social practices. I have argued that this sheds light on the problem of table fellowship in Rom 14 and 15. Table fellowship can be viewed as
a bodily practice precisely because it involves bringing the bodies of the recipients together at the table. If table fellowship is a bodily practice, then Paul’s instructions with regard to the body in Rom 6 and 8 have bearing on our reading of Rom 14 and 15. If Jewish believers and Gentile believers share the same resurrection-oriented future possible identity, then they ought to use their bodies in accord with that identity. Refusing to share table fellowship runs against their shared identity and against the ethics of the new aeon. However, if they bring their diverse bodies to the same table, their practices embody their shared identity in a way that anticipates the future resurrection of the body and the redemption of all creation.
CHAPTER 4
RESURRECTION OR DESTRUCTION?