2). Christian Freedom And Consideration For The Views Of Others (14:1-15:6).
Having laid down the principles of Christian living, Paul now moves on to what he clearly conceives of as a problem in the Roman church, the problem of disagreement on the question of religious observance. Such disagreement was inevitable. The Roman church was very much a mixture of people from many religious backgrounds, who had brought with them certain ideas about religious observance, and it especially included a large number of Jews and Jewish sympathisers, many of whom were probably still connected with the synagogue. That this latter meant that relationships between Christians and Jews in Rome were reasonably cordial, so that Christians were not necessarily seen as contrary to Judaism, comes out in the fact that later the leading Jewish elders were quite content to meet with Paul on his arrival in Rome so as to hear what he had to say (Acts 28:17-24; Acts 28:29). They still saw Christianity as a sect of Judaism (Acts 28:22). But it did mean that the Jewish Christians conformed to the norms of Judaism with respect to clean and unclean foods, and with respect to the Sabbath and to feasts.
The certain consequence would be that many Roman Christians considered the observance of the Sabbath and the observance of Jewish feasts as binding on them, together with the Jewish food laws in respect of cleanness and uncleanness. It was true that the gathering of leading Jewish Christians in Jerusalem described in Acts 15 had given concessions on these matters to Gentile Christians, but these had not been given to Jewish Christians, and even then for Gentile Christians they had stipulated abstention from eating things sacrificed to idols, from eating blood, and from eating things strangled (Acts 15:29). Thus it appears that in Rome there would be many carrying out Judaistic practises.
That the minority involved in what he is describing were of some considerable size comes out in the importance that Paul places on the subject. He clearly saw it as something that could divide the church. This again points to Jewish practises being in mind. While it is perfectly true that on top of this there might be others, such as Pythagoreans, who had their own reasons for vegetarianism (the avoidance of eating what they saw as having a living soul), and converts from other religions who saw certain days as ‘unlucky', there can really be no doubt that it was aspects of Judaism which were mainly in mind. They themselves saw the laws of uncleanness and the Sabbath as marks of distinction, distinguishing them from the rest of mankind, and Paul the former Pharisee could hardly have referred to unclean meat and the observance of a special day to a church containing as many Jewish Christians as the Roman church did without either signifying them, or making a careful distinction between them and what he was describing. As he did not do the latter we must assume the former. We should in regard to these things recognise that ‘the church of the Romans' was, like churches in all the big cities in those days, divided up into groups meeting in various parts of the city. And they would have had many different flavours. Thus that Paul addressed the whole church on the subject in such detail suggests that many in those church groups were affected by the issue, and they would contain many Jewish Christians.
Paul was apparently not concerned about abstinence from unclean foods and observance of the Sabbath, as long as such things were not made ‘necessary for salvation'. As long as it did not interfere with their loyalty to Christ he was willing to accept such differences. What he was concerned about, however, was that the church should not be divided over the issue. And he desired not only harmony, but also a position of mutual respect between the parties concerned. It is this that he now goes about enforcing.