Romanos 13,11
Anotações
Não é o tempo como medida dos dias e dos anos a que se refere, e sim ao “agora” da salvação, que é oportunidade e urgência
Connection. Some commentators do not regard 11–14 as a paragraph by itself but as an afterthought to 8–10. Then the meaning of the passage is: let the thought of the coming day of judgement be a further motive to fulfil all the demands of charity set out in 8–10; cf. Cornely.
g The metaphors of 11–14. On their understanding depends the appreciation of the passage. But the exact meaning of some is difficult to ascertain. (1) The sleep from which the Roman Christians are to rise, 11, must be the state of their spiritual life at the time. We may think of sleep then in the sense in which even the five prudent virgins ‘slumbered and slept’ before the bridegroom arrived, Mt 25:6 (Gifford). Perhaps we are allowed to go further and think of that carelessness, lukewarmness or indifference which often follows when the first fervour has spent itself, Apoc 2:4 f.; 3:15 f.; so Cornely who speaks of ‘socordia, ignavia, tepiditas’. But it would certainly be exaggerating to interpret this sleep as the soul’s sleep of death or state of mortal sin; cf. Apoc 3:1 ff. (against Estius). (2) The vigilance to which Paul exhorts in 11 is the same as that of Mt 24:42; 25:13; Lk 21:36; 1 Cor 16:13; Eph 6:18; Col 4:2; 1 Thess 5:6; 2 Tim 4:5; 1 Pet 4:7; 5:8; Apoc 3:2 f.; 16:15. (3) The night that is far gone, 12, has been explained (a) as the whole period of human history before the day of the Last Judgement, (b) as the readers’ life on earth looked upon as the night that precedes the day of their glorification in heaven, (c) as the ‘dark ages’ of pagan morals, so Lagrange. (4) The day that is near, 12, has been interpreted (a) as the day of the Last Judgement (Parousia), (b) as the day of the readers’ glorification, (c) as the period of Christianity (Christian morals) enlightening the darkness of heathendom. (5) The works of darkness, 12=all manner of sin. (6) The armour of light, 12, which the Christian is to wear is amply illustrated in the list of Christian virtues in 1 Thess 5:8; Eph 6:10–17.
h The nearness of the Parousia or the Second Coming of our Lord, 11. This point is discussed at great length in all modern commentaries. Paul refers to it in 11c when reminding his readers that the day of their final salvation is nearer now than when they were baptized. The purpose of the reminder is evidently exhortation to vigilance, cf. Lk 12:37; 1 Cor 7:29; Hebr 10:25, 37; 1 Pet 4:7. The modern discussions, however, turn round the question whether this text proves that St Paul regarded the Parousia as imminent. For a full answer to this problem see the commentaries on 1 Thess 4:17. All that need be said here is that inspiration covers no more than what the sacred author actually wrote and with this limitation 11c offers no difficulty. The case seems well put by SH 378 ‘The language is that befitting those who expect the actual coming of Christ almost immediately, but it will fit the circumstances of any Christian for whom death brings the day’.
11. ‘Our salvation’: the Greek text can also be translated ‘now the salvation is nearer to us than when.…’ What the Apostle means is the final salvation or glorification = the revelation of the children of God in 8:19=the redemption of the body in 8:23=the restitution of all things in Ac 3:21. ‘When we believed’: Aorist = when we became believers, or Christians, cf. C. J. Vaughan. 14. ‘Put on Christ’: here in the moral sense, cf. Eph 4:24; Col 3:12. The same phrase is used in Gal 3:27 in a dogmatic sense for the sacramental effects of baptism.
862a 14:1–15:13 Exhortations to the Weak and the Strong in the Church of Rome—Peace and unity in the church of Rome are the subject of this long exhortation. But this time, as distinct from the previous exhortations to the same effect, 12:3–8, 9–16, 17–21; 13:8–10, it is peace and unity in one particular point. St Paul has heard of Christians at Rome who abstain from meat, 14:2, and wine, 14:21, and have fixed days set apart for special religious purposes, 14:5. On the other hand he knows that there are others who regard these formalities as having been made unnecessary by the Christian doctrine of salvation, and who therefore judge those who continue to set a great value on their observance as weak in the faith. The Apostle fearing that their differences of opinion might grow into serious disturbances of peace and harmony uses the opportunity of exhorting to unity and mutual tolerance. For the want of exact modern equivalents, the two parties may conveniently be called the Weak and the Strong. On the whole subject cf. M. Rauer, Die Schwachen in Korinth und Rom nach den Paulusbriefen, BS 21 (1929).
Connexion. Most commentators see the connexion in the contrast with 13:13. It is equally possible that the Apostle left this exhortation last on purpose. The general exhortations in 12:1–13:13 are well suited to prepare the way for the discussion of what was evidently a delicate problem.
§ b Plan. The whole section can be divided into three parts: (1) 14:1–12, avoid mutual criticism; (2) 14:13–23, avoid giving scandal; (3) 15:1–13, avoid selfishness.
Difficulties. The general outlines of the situation which the Apostle has in mind are clear. But as soon as attempts are made to reconstruct the argument in detail commentators begin to differ widely. The main controversies centre round these questions: (1) Who were the Weak? (2) What is meant by the observance of special days? (3) Why does St Paul not treat the Weak in Rom in the same way as the Weak in Gal?
1) Who were the Weak of Rom 14:1–15:13? Six answers have been given: (a) Converts from the Synagogue who in these matters continued to live according to the Mosaic Law and Jewish custom, cf. Col 2:16. (b) Converts from Essenism, a Jewish religious body with very severe rules of abstinence, cf. Philo, De vita contemplativa ed. Mangey II 477. (c) Another type of the Weak in 1 Cor 8, who refused to eat meat that had been offered to idols. The Weak of Rom then are understood to have gone a step further and abstained from meat and wine altogether to avoid every possibility of taking meat of this kind, cf. Cornely 692 ff. (d) Converts from some form of Orphic-Pythagorean Mystery-religion, in which these practices were in vogue at the time; cf. Lietzmann 114 f. (e) Christian ascetics, who for various reasons regarded such mortification as the sign of a good Christian life; cf. Lagrange 335. (f) Christians of ‘excessive scrupulousness’. The complete abstinence from meat and wine, and the observance of special days are in this case no more than illustrations; cf. SH 401 f. § c Each of these six answers assumes a particular type of religious practice at Rome in the days of St Paul. But none of them can be shown by independent historical evidence to have existed in the Christian community of Rome in those days, and it is easy to raise objections against each of them, (a) Complete abstinence from meat and wine was never enjoined in the synagogue. (b) The existence of Essene communities outside Palestine cannot be proved, Schürer II (1907) 656; nor can abstinence from meat and wine be shown to be characteristic of Essenism, Schürer II 664. (c) The situation in 1 Cor 8 is clear and Paul’s exhortation essentially the same as in Rom 14:1–15:13. But all this does not explain the ‘exaggeration’ in Rome and the observance of special days. (d) Orphic-Pythagorean influence is possible but difficult to prove in this particular case. (e) Strong ascetical tendencies no doubt existed in early Christianity, cf. Ac 4:32–5:11; 1 Tim 5:23; Col 2:16; Didache 8; cf. also the later Encratites, Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 28; and the Ebionites, Epiphanius, Haer. 30:15, 3. But the question is, whence this unusual type of asceticism among the Christians of Rome? (f) Scrupulousness is a common spiritual disease, the existence of which at Rome as anywhere else in the times of St Paul can readily be admitted. But can complete abstinence from meat and wine and the observance of special days be reasonably regarded as typical examples of what we call scrupulousness? They may have been such under the circumstances, but then they are more than mere illustrations, cf. 1 Cor 8. Further, the concessions which St Paul makes to the Weak of Rome cannot be applied to the scrupulous in general. In view of so much uncertainty most modern commentators refuse to decide in favour of one of the above six explanations. Instead they prefer to speak vaguely of a combination of various influences and tendencies known to have existed at the time. Briefly, as far as we know, Jewish as well as pagan current tendencies, pre-Christian as well as Christian thought, may have contributed to the complicated situation presupposed in Rom 14:1–15:13; cf. SH 399–403; Lagrange 335–40; Boylan 211 f.
§ d (2) What is meant by the observance of special days in 14:1–15:13? The only reference to this practice of the Weak is 14:5. But it may be implied in 14:21c. St Paul’s description is so vague that one can only discuss the possibilities, (a) The special days observed by the Weak may have been holy days = feast-days. In this case the holy days of the OT calendar (Sabbath, New Moon, etc.) would seem to be meant, cf. Gal 4:10 f.; Col 2:16 f. This opinion is naturally held by all who regard the Weak as converts from the Synagogue, cf. Cornely 702. But if they were holy days, one can also think of Christian holy days, e.g. Sunday, Apoc 1:10. (b) The special days of the Weak more probably were fast days. This explanation is based on the context in which abstinence is the predominant feature. So Lagrange, Boylan. In this case the practice of the Weak may be compared with the early Christian custom of fasting Wednesdays and Fridays, Didache 8, or later every Wednesday and Saturday in Rome. The two extreme possibilities which the text theoretically allows, that the Weak fasted every day, and the Strong never, can safely be neglected.
§ e (3) Why does St Paul not treat the Weak in Rom in the same harsh way as the Weak in Gal? The difference in St Paul’s attitude to very much the same question is beyond any doubt. In Gal the Weak stand clearly condemned as being in the wrong; in Rom Paul pleads for sympathy and understanding. The difference cannot be explained as a change in the Apostle’s doctrine, because the doctrine of justification by faith and not by observance of law is essential to his teaching and to Rom in particular, cf. 3:21; 4:3 f.; 5:1. The true explanation then can only be found in the different circumstances. And in fact it can be shown from the texts that the two cases were fundamentally different in spite of external similarities. The Weak of Gal tried to enforce circumcision with all its subsequent observances as a sacrament necessary for salvation. Thus the observance or non-observance of the Mosaic Law became a matter of dogma, heresy and excommunication. On the other hand, though the Weak of Rom also had a high opinion of their observances, there is no indication that they regarded them as necessary for salvation. For them as well as for their opponents these observances were a matter of opinion and practice, comparable with pious customs of today. That they preferred to associate with those who shared their views and mode of life was only natural. Nor is it difficult to understand how this preference could become a matter of conscience. ‘The stricter the rule, the holier the life’, sums up a very common experience. At all events the Apostle’s positive teaching with regard to this point in 14:1–15:13 does not go beyond the conclusion that whenever this or that rule of life comes to be considered as the more perfect, its acceptance or non-acceptance becomes a matter to be decided by the conscience of the individual in question. But that does not make it a matter of dogma, heresy or excommunication in the Church at large. In brief, there is no contradiction between Gal and Rom 14:1–15:13. For similar concessions on the part of St Paul see 1 Cor 8; Ac 16:3; 21:20–26.
