Download NON-JUDGMENTAL CHRISTIANITY Romans 14:1

NON-JUDGMENTAL CHRISTIANITY
Romans 14:1-12, Greek Text with Translation
14:1 To.n de. avsqenou/nta th/| pi,stei proslamba,nesqe(
mh. eivj diakri,seij dialogismw/nÅ 14.2 o]j me.n pisteu,ei
fagei/n pa,nta( o` de. avsqenw/n la,cana evsqi,eiÅ 14.3 o`
evsqi,wn to.n mh. evsqi,onta mh. evxouqenei,tw( o` de. mh.
evsqi,wn to.n evsqi,onta mh. krine,tw( o` qeo.j ga.r auvto.n
prosela,betoÅ
14.1 But then the person who is weak in the faith, welcome--not for arguments about
disputed matters. 14.2 The one person, indeed, believes (in) eating everything; but then the
(other) person, being weak, eats (only) vegetables. 14.3 Let the person who eats not discount
the person who does not eat; but then let the person who does not eat not judge the person who
eats--for the God welcomed him.
14.4 su. ti,j ei= o` kri,nwn avllo,trion oivke,thnÈ tw/|
ivdi,w| kuri,w| sth,kei h' pi,ptei\ staqh,setai de,( dunatei/
ga.r o` ku,rioj sth/sai auvto,nÅ 14.5 }Oj me.n Îga.rÐ kri,nei
h`me,ran parV h`me,ran( o]j de. kri,nei pa/san h`me,ran\
e[kastoj evn tw/| ivdi,w| noi> plhroforei,sqwÅ 14.6 o` fronw/n
th.n h`me,ran kuri,w| fronei/\ kai. o` evsqi,wn kuri,w|
evsqi,ei( euvcaristei/ ga.r tw/| qew/|\ kai. o` mh. evsqi,wn
kuri,w| ouvk evsqi,ei kai. euvcaristei/ tw/| qew/|Å 14.7
ouvdei.j ga.r h`mw/n e`autw/| zh/| kai. ouvdei.j e`autw/|
avpoqnh,|skei\ 14.8 eva,n te ga.r zw/men( tw/| kuri,w| zw/men(
eva,n te avpoqnh,|skwmen( tw/| kuri,w| avpoqnh,|skomenÅ eva,n
te ou=n zw/men eva,n te avpoqnh,|skwmen( tou/ kuri,ou evsme,nÅ
14.9 eivj tou/to ga.r Cristo.j avpe,qanen kai. e;zhsen( i[na
kai. nekrw/n kai. zw,ntwn kurieu,sh|Å
14.4 You--who are you, the person who judges a servant of someone else? To his own
lord he stands or he falls; but then he will be caused to stand, for the Lord is able to cause him to
stand. 14.5 [For] the one person indeed honors (one) day above (another) day, but then the
(other) person honors every day (alike). Let each person be fully persuaded in his own mind.
14.6 The person who honors the day, honors it for (the) Lord. And the person who eats (meat),
eats for (the) Lord, for he gives thanks to the God. And the person who does not eat (meat), does
not eat (it) for (the) Lord, and gives thanks to the God. 14.7 For none of us lives to himself, and
no one dies to himself. 14.8 For whether we should live, we should live for the Lord; whether we
should die, we should die for the Lord. Whether therefore, we should live, (or) whether we should
die, we are the Lord’s. 14.9 For in order for this, Christ died, and lived, so that he also might be
Lord over dead people and living people.
14.10 Su. de. ti, kri,neij to.n avdelfo,n souÈ h' kai. su.
ti, evxouqenei/j to.n avdelfo,n souÈ pa,ntej ga.r
702
parasthso,meqa tw/| bh,mati tou/ qeou/( 14.11 ge,graptai ga,r\
zw/ evgw,( le,gei ku,rioj( o[ti evmoi. ka,myei pa/n go,nu kai.
pa/sa glw/ssa evxomologh,setai tw/| qew/|Å 14.12 a;ra Îou=nÐ
e[kastoj h`mw/n peri. e`autou/ lo,gon dw,sei Îtw/| qew/|ÐÅ
14.10 But then you, why are you judging the brother of yours? Or also, you, why are you
discounting the brother of yours? For we all will present ourselves at the judgment seat of the
God. 14.11 For it has been written, “I am living, says (the) Lord–because to me every knee will
bend, and every tongue will confess out to the God.” 14.12 So then [therefore], each one of us
will give account concerning himself [to the God].
Romans 14:1-12, Translation with Footnotes
14.11281 But then the person who is weak in the faith,1282 welcome1283--not for arguments
F. F. Bruce observes that “Paul enjoyed his Christian liberty to the full. Never was a Christian
more thoroughly emancipated than he from un-Christian inhibitions and taboos. So completely
was he emancipated from spiritual bondage that he was not even in bondage to his emancipation.
He conformed to the Jewish way of life when he was in Jewish society as cheerfully as he went
along with Gentile ways when he was living with Gentiles. The interests of the Gospel and the
highest well-being of men and women were paramount considerations with him; to these he
subordinated everything else." (P. 230)
1281
Yes, Paul knew how to enjoy Christian liberty himself, and how to grant others that same
freedom and liberty. He taught that the followers of Jesus were free from the obligation for
keeping the ceremonial laws of the Jewish Bible--the Temple worship, the animal sacrifices, the
observance of the weekly day of rest and the monthly and yearly festivals.
Still, when Paul went up to Jerusalem, as described in Acts 21, he willingly went into the
Temple, and shared in paying for a sacrificial offering, demonstrating to the Jewish people his
willing respect for and obedience to their ceremonial customs, teaching by that example that he
“walked orderly, keeping the Law.”
On other occasions, Paul kept certain Jewish special days, and even had his traveling
companion, Timothy, undergo the Jewish rite of circumcision, in order for Timothy to be able to
minister to Jews. But on another occasion, when Jewish leaders tried to force another of his
companions, a Greek by the name of Titus, to be circumcised, Paul would not allow that to
happen--insisting that Greek believers must not be forced to observe Jewish customs and rituals.
Paul felt free to observe the Jewish rituals if that would be helpful to the Good News; but he
resisted any attempt to force the observance of those rituals on others, as if they were essential to
salvation.
703
When Paul was among the Greeks, he easily laid aside those Jewish practices, and
adapted his life-style to the practices of the non-Jewish followers of Jesus, not attempting to cause
them to try and follow Jewish observances.
But when he was among Jews, or on his own, Paul continued to observe many of the
Jewish observances. Some have accused Paul of being inconsistent--but the opposite is true. He
was simply expressing his freedom and liberty as a follower of Christ. In fact, Paul was
very consistent--insisting as he did on the freedom of believers to either observe or not observe
such matters, as they thought most appropriate.
That's Christian liberty--freedom in Christ. It is just this kind of Christian liberty and freedom
that Paul is describing, and calling upon the Roman Church to share in, as he writes this passage
in Romans 14.
1282
What does this phrase, avsqenou/nta th/| pi,stei, asthenounta te pistei, “(the
one) who is weak in the faith” mean? The verb avsqene,w, astheneo, occurs some 77 times
in the Septuagint, but almost always with reference to physical weakness or sickness, never in
terms of faith, or spiritual condition. It occurs some 33 times in the Greek New Testament. In the
Gospels and in Acts, it refers, as in the Septuagint, to those who are physically weak, or sick,
and who are the objects of the ministry of Jesus and his followers, but never does this matter of
being “weak in the faith” occur.
This sense of a spiritual weakness is found only in Paul’s writings, and primarily in 1
Corinthians 8 and Romans 14 (see also Romans 4:19, where Paul states that Abraham, in spite
of his advanced age and the seeming impossibility of giving birth to a son, “did not grow weak in
the faith.”
Gustav Staehlin, in an article on this verb in Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament I, pp. 490-93, states that “This is a weakness of religious and moral condition. In this
sense [it] is not found prior to the New Testament...Thus used, the terms oi` avsqenei/j,
hoi astheneis, (avsqenou/ntej, asthenountes) etc...are favorite expressions of Paul...In
them he was perhaps adopting slogans current in his churches, especially in Corinth and Rome
and on the lips of the opposite group, the ‘strong’...(Romans 15:1 [‘We who are strong ought to
bear the weaknesses of the ones without strength, and not to please ourselves’]). More precisely
these are the weak in faith, as in Romans 14:1...[‘But then the one being weak in the faith,
receive’]...“ Compare 1 Corinthians 8:9-13,
“But then watch so that this authority of yours does not become a stumbling block to the
weak ones. For if someone should see you, the one having knowledge, lying down (to eat) in an
idol temple, will not the conscience of his, being weak, be emboldened to eat the things sacrificed
to idols? For the one being weak, by the knowledge in you, is perishing, the brother for whom
Christ died. But then in this way, missing-the-mark against the brothers, and wounding the
conscience of theirs, it being weak, you sin against Christ. Wherefore, if food causes the brother
of mine to stumble, I will not eat meat into the distant future, so that I may not cause the brother of
mine to stumble.
Also, compare 1 Corinthians 9:22-23,
704
“To the weak I became weak, so that I might win the weak. To all (people) I have become
all things, so that I might by all means save some. But then I do all things because of the Good
News, so that I might become a fellow-partaker with it”
Staehlin continues, “It is common to the weak in both Corinth and Rome that they lack the
gnw/sij, gnosis [knowledge] of the full Christian (1 Corinthians 8:7 [‘But rather, the
knowledge is not in everyone; but then some people, in the customary usage of the idol until now,
as food sacrificed to an idol they eat, and the conscience of theirs, being weak, is defiled’]), and
that they have not completely loosed themselves from their pre-Christian past. In Corinth they are
still bound by the [customary usage of the idol], in Rome by the [differentiation or dispute
concerning] meats...” (P. 492) See also 1 Thessalonians 5:14 and Romans 15:7.
Paul means that there are Christian believers who are still “babies,” immature Christians,
who are “weak.” They have not completely divorced themselves from their idolatrous past
(especially in Corinth), and in Rome there are those who are “weak in the faith,” in that they still
think that it is very important to avoid eating meat, and that only a vegetarian diet should be eaten.
Who these Christians might be, and what their background was, is uncertain. Jewish
dietary laws did not mandate vegetarianism, and the probability is that these were people coming
out of various eastern religious groups which made such dietary demands on their adherents.
These are the Christian believers whom Paul describes as “weak,” or “being weak.”
Moo comments that “Paul would hope that a growth in Christ would help those who were
‘weak’ become ‘strong’...In the meantime, however, Paul is concerned with the unity of the church.
This is why he not only urges the ‘strong’ to ‘receive’ the ‘weak,’ but to receive them with the right
motivation and in the right spirit. Don’t, Paul says, welcome the ‘weak’ simply ‘for the purpose of
quarrels over disputed matters...those differences of opinion respecting the eating of meat, the
observance of days, and the drinking of wine...Paul wants the ‘strong’ to receive the ‘weak’ into full
and intimate fellowship, something that could not happen if the ‘strong,’ the majority group, persist
in advancing their views on these issues, sparking quarrels and mutual recrimination.” (Pp. 83637)
But what does Paul mean by “the faith”? Does he mean, as some have interpreted him to
mean, they were weak in terms of “the things believed by the faithful”? That is, does he mean that
their understanding of the Christian body of belief (i.e., “creed”) is inadequate, “weak”?
Or, does he mean that they were weak in their believing, that they were wavering, half-way
between faith and unbelief?
This last understanding is supported by Paul’s earlier reference to Abraham in Romans
4:20-21, Abraham...”did not hesitate (or ‘waver’) in the unbelief (in) the announcement (or,
‘promise’) of the God, but rather was made strong in the faith, giving glorious radiance to the God,
and fully convinced that what was announced (or ‘promised’) he is able also to accomplish.” Here,
Abraham’s “being made strong in the faith” has nothing to do with a creed, or body of beliefs, but
rather, with his subjective trust or belief in God. We think this is the meaning here also. Those
who are weak in the faith are those whose belief is wavering, uncertain, immature. There are still
many of us who are like that.
705
aboutdisputed matters.1284 14.2 The one person, indeed, believes (in) eating everything; but then
The 2nd person plural imperative verb, proslamba,nesqe, proslambanesthe, means literally
“take alongside oneself,” and then “extend a welcome,” “receive hospitably,” or “accept.” As Moo
notes, “The Roman Christians were not only to ‘tolerate’ the ‘weak’ but... they were to treat them
as brothers and sisters in the intimate fellowship typical of the people of God.” (P. 835)
1283
This verb occurs some 20 times in the Greek Bible, at 1 Samuel 12:22 (Samuel tells the
people who have requested a king, “For the Lord will not cast away his people, for his great
name’s sake, because it has pleased the Lord to take you people for himself,” where the Greek
phrase is “because (the) Lord kindly received [or ‘welcomed’] you people to himself for a people”);
Psalms 17:17 (18:17 in Hebrew, 18:16 in English; “he sent out from heights and took me, he
received me out of many waters”); 26:10 (27:10 in Hebrew and English; “because the father of
mine and the mother of mine forsook me; but then (the) Lord received [or ‘welcomed’] me”); 64:5
(65:5 in Hebrew; 65:4 in English; “How happy the one whom you chose, and welcomed; he will
live in the courts of yours”); 72:24 (73:24 in Hebrew and English; “In the purpose of yours you
guided me and with glorious radiance you welcomed me”;
2 Maccabees 8:1 (Judas Maccabeus receives or welcomes some 6,000 men for his army);
10:15 (Gorgias receives or welcomes those Jews banished from Jerusalem); Wisdom 17:10;
Matthew 16:22; Mark 8:32 (both the same; Peter “takes” Jesus aside to reprimand him);
Acts 17:5 (Jews “gather” a mob to attack Paul and Silas); 18:26 (Priscilla and Aquila take Apollos
aside to explain the way of the Lord more accurately); 27:33 (people for some time have not
received food); 27:36 (same); 28:2 (natives of Malta welcome ship-wrecked survivors to the heat
of their fire); Romans 14:1 (here), 3; 15:7, 7 (“Welcome one another just
as Christ has welcomed you...”) and Philemon 1:17 (Paul urges Philemon to welcome Onesimus
as he would welcome Paul).
Paul’s language here is closely related to the language of the Septuagint, especially to
Samuel’s language in 1 Samuel 12:22 and in the Psalms, 27:10, 65:4 and 73:24. Since God has
welcomed, accepted those who are weak, who are we to reject them?
1284
The genitive plural noun dialogismw/n, dialogismon, which we have translated "(about)
disputes," but which can also mean "(about) reasonings," "(about) thoughts," is changed to the
shorter synonymous noun logismw/n, logismon, "(about) reasonings," or "(about) thoughts,"
by Minuscules 81, 1175 and a few other Greek manuscripts.
The variant reading does not change the meaning of Romans.
The phrase used by Paul, mh. eivj diakri,seij dialogismw/n, me eis
diakriseis dialogismon, “not for arguments about disputes,” is translated by King James, “not to
doubtful disputations”; New King James, “not to disputes over doubtful things”; New American
Standard, “not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions”; New International Version,
“without passing judgment on disputable matters”; New Revised Standard, “not for the purpose
of quarreling over opinions.”
The reason for these somewhat varying translations is that the noun dia,krisij,
706
the (other) person, being weak, eats1285 (only) vegetables.1286 14.3 Let the person who eats not
diakrisis (here, in the plural) has a twofold meaning: (1) distinguishing, differentiation; and (2)
quarrel, disputing, argument.
In addition, the noun dialogismo,j, dialogismos, has both a negative and a positive
meaning: (1) thought, reasoning, opinion, design; and (2) doubt, dispute, argument. Both of
these nouns are in the plural here in this passage.
Some of the people Paul is addressing were filled with vibrant faith--so that Paul can
describe them as the "strong." But over against those with strong faith, there were those whom
Paul describes as being "weak in the faith." They had not yet come to the fullness of confidence
in Jesus Christ that the "strong" had achieved. They did not realize the great freedom and liberty
which was theirs in Jesus Christ. But they were still to be welcomed, and received into the heart
of the church, just the same as those who were vibrantly strong in their faith.
Whenever Christian believers come together in a joint congregation or endeavor, they
come (especially in such a polyglot, multi-racial city as Rome, or in our modern metroplexes) with
many differing ideas and opinions, which can easily lead to numerous disputes and on-going
arguments. Paul urges the Romans to not let their unity in Jesus Christ dissolve into a debating
society, trying to resolve every dispute, and reconcile every opinion. Their unity is not based on
their agreement in such matters, and Paul teaches believers to allow room for differences. Paul
immediately goes on in the next verse to give an example of such differences in opinion.
1285
The present indicative active verb evsqi,ei, esthiei, "he eats," is read by Sinaiticus,
Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, a corrector of Bezae, Psi, Uncial Manuscript
048, Minuscules 33, 1739, 1881, the "Majority Text," the Stuttgartiensis Vulgate, the Syriac
tradition, the Coptic tradition, Tertullian (died after 220 A.D.) and Clement of Alexandria (who died
before 215 A.D.).
It is changed to the present imperative, evsqie,tw, esthieto, "let him eat," by P46, the
first writer of Bezae, F, G, a majority of the Old Latin witnesses, the Wordsworth-White Latin
Vulgate and Ambrosiaster (366-384 A.D.).
This variant reading slightly changes the meaning of Romans; instead of Paul's describing
what the weak person does, it changes the text into a command for the strong
person to let the weak person continue in what he is doing. The change, however, has little
significance for the overall meaning of the passage.
1286
The early Church was made up of people from all sorts of different backgrounds, opinions, and
life-styles. They had many differences concerning the food they ate, or refused to eat. Some
(whom Paul designates the “strong”) have the kind of faith that allows them to eat any kind of food
that is prepared and served. Others (whom Paul designates the “weak”) have the kind of faith that
insists only a vegetarian diet is proper. Especially when people come together to share in a
common meal, this kind of difference can be very disruptive, as is seen in the New Testament
with regards to Jewish “kosher” food laws, which made fellowship meals between Jewish and nonJewish believers very difficult, if not impossible (see Galatians 2:11-14).
Wright comments that “If most Christians in Rome seemed happy to eat non-kosher food,
707
discount1287 the person who does not eat; but then1288 let the person who does not eat not
or to eat meat bought in a market when it had almost certainly been originally offered in sacrifice
to an idol, there were bound to be some for whom this was unthinkable. It went against everything
they had been taught from childhood...In the Messiah, God had been faithful to the covenant. The
Messiah was the goal of Torah. How then could Torah’s forbidding of certain foods be set aside?
“These questions are not simple, and Paul could not expect every Christian to come
instantly and from the heart to the same conclusion that he and many others had reached: that
Torah had indeed been fulfilled but that a new age had thereby been inaugurated that, though it
did not deny the goodness and God-givenness of Torah, nevertheless relativized many of its
injunctions as relating to the period when God’s people were a single nation” (p. 735), and were
no longer applicable in the new age when God is breaking down all the old barriers, and sending
his people out on a world-wide mission.
1287
The 3rd person singular imperative verb evxouqenei,tw, eksoutheneito, which we are
translating “let him (not) discount,” or perhaps “let him (not) despise,” is found in the Greek Bible
at 1 Samuel 2:30 (the Lord says, “Those who honor me, I will honor, and those who despise (or
‘discount’) me shall be treated with contempt”; 8:7 (the Lord tells Samuel that the people “have not
despised (or ‘discounted’) you, but me they have set at naught”–here the two parallel verbs
evxouqene,w, eksoutheneo, and evxoudene,w, eksoudeneo, which are synonyms, are
used side by side); 10:19 (Samuel tells the people, “you people today have despised (or
‘discounted’) the God,” i.e., by choosing a human king); Proverbs 1:7 (discipline, godless people
will despise, or discount); Jeremiah 6:14 (from spokespersons to priests, they were healing the
brokenness of the people of mine, discounting [its seriousness]);
Daniel 4:31 (Nebuchadnezzar is told that the kingdom has departed from him; the Greek
text adds that it is being given to a different, discounted (or ‘despised’) person...”; Amos 6:1 (the
Greek text, different from the Hebrew, begins with the words “How sad for those discounting (or
‘despising’) Zion...”;
2 Maccabees 1:27 (Nehemiah prays for the Lord to free those who have been discounted
[or ‘despised’] and detestable (i.e., by the Greeks”); Sirach 19:1 (“the one discounting the small
things, little by little will fall”); 31:31 (do not discount or despise a neighbor in his rejoicing);
Wisdom 4:18 (the ungodly will discount or despise the rightly-related);
Luke 18:9 (people who trust in themselves and discount or despise others); 23:11 (Herod
Antipas and his soldiers discount Jesus, treat him with disrespect); Acts 4:11 (Jesus is the stone
that has been discounted, or rejected by the builders, the Jews); Romans 14:3 (here), 10 (Paul
asks, why do you people discount or despise a brother?); 1 Corinthians 1:28 (God chose things
discounted or despised by people); 6:4 (in disputes within the church, and courts, do those who
are constituted to sit in judgment over those disputes, dare to choose people who are discounted
by others to serve as judges?); 16:11 (no one should discount, or despise Timothy when he
comes); 2 Corinthians 10:10 (they say that Paul’s appearance is weak, and his word has been
discounted, despised); Galatians 4:14 (the Galatians had not discounted or despised Paul
because of his sickness) and 1 Thessalonians 5:20 (do not discount the words of spokespersons
within the church).
How easy it is for Christian believers to “discount,” even “despise” other believers, and treat
708
judge1289 the person who eats--for the God welcomed him.1290
them as if they are “nothing,” when they differ sharply from us in their practices or opinions.
Perhaps this is one of the darkest marks on the history of the Christian religion–the way, for
example that the Bishops of Alexandria, Egypt, Athanasius (293?-373 A.D.) and Arius (died 336
A.D.) sharply discounted and rejected as heretical each other’s views, beginning a conflict which
rapidly grew into despite for one another, and led to warring divisions between the followers of
Athanasius (the western church) and the followers of Arius (who went to Syria, Northern Europe,
and eastward into India, all the way to China). Instead of receiving one another, without entering
into debate over their differing opinions concerning the exact relationship of the Father to the Son
(i.e., was it o`moou,sioj, homoousios, “same nature” or o`moiou,sioj, homoiousios,
”similar nature”?), they constantly fought and battled and disfellowshiped and excommunicated
each other, giving the Christian faith a heritage of division that still has not been overcome in the
centuries that have followed.
There have been numerous similar differences among believers across the centuries,
which have led to rejection of others, and terrible consequences of division and alienation, one of
the foremost of which was the on-going debate between West and East over the proper date to
observe Easter!
1288
The phrase o` de,, ho de, "but then the one," is read by P46, the first writer of Sinaiticus,
Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, the first writer of Bezae, Uncial Manuscript
048 (probably), Minuscule 1506, a few other Greek manuscripts and Clement of Alexandria (who
died before 215 A. D.).
It is changed to the phrase kai, o`, kai ho, "and the one," by a corrector of Sinaiticus,
a corrector of Bezae, Psi, Uncial Manuscript 0285, Minuscules 33, 1739, 1881, the "Majority
Text," the Latin Vulgate, a part of the Old Latin witnesses and the Harclean Syriac.
It is changed to the phrase ouvde, o`, oude ho, "neither the one," by F and G.
These variant readings do not change the meaning of Romans, but only reflect the
freedom felt by copyists and translators to slightly re-word the original text.
1289
The believer who eats meat “discounts” or “despises” the one who will not eat meat, and are vegetarians.
But the vegetarians react in a very similar way, judging or condemning those who eat meat. Such
“discounting” or “despising” quickly threatens the church with division. Paul’s phrase mh.
krine,tw, me krineto, “let him not judge,” may well mean here “let him not condemn...”
For this teaching of Paul, compare 1 Corinthians 10:25-33:
“Everything that is being sold in a meat market, you people eat–asking nothing for the sake
of conscience. For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness of it [this affirmation is based on the
teaching of Genesis 1, that the entire universe has been created by God, and pronounced “very
good”]. If anyone of the unbelievers invites you, and you desire to go, eat everything being placed
before you, examining nothing for the sake of conscience. But then if someone should say to you,
‘This is sacrificial (meat),’ do not eat because of that one, the one telling (you), and the
conscience–but then I say conscience, not your’s, but rather that of the other person. For why is
709
the freedom of mine being judged by (the) conscience of another? If I, I with thanksgiving partake,
why am I slandered concerning that for which I am giving thanks? Whether, therefore, you eat, or
drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glorious radiance of God. Become blameless
both to Jews and to non-Jews, and to the assembly of the God, even as I also please everyone in
every way, not seeking the profit of myself, but rather, that of the many, so that they may be
saved.
1290
If God has welcomed these people, who do you think you are to judge or condemn them?
In the history of the Church, there have always been people who are more "liberal" than
others, and there have always been others who are more "conservative" than others. There have
always been those who recognize the great liberty and freedom that believers have--to eat and to
drink whatever they please, and to observe religious ceremonies whenever and however seems
best. But there have also always been others who believe that certain foods and drinks are
forbidden, and that believers must follow rigid rules concerning food and drink--for example,
forbidding the eating of meat, and insisting on vegetarianism as the only correct diet; or
maintaining that followers of Jesus cannot observe special days, especially those days that were
formerly observed by "pagan religions."
Think of the massive throngs of Christian believers in our own day, all across the world.
Some hold that believers must subscribe to a very rigid and definite liturgy of observances--an
exact daily and weekly taking of communion, in certain prescribed ways, with the recitation of
traditional readings and prayers handed down by religious authorities. But others feel that
believers are free from such prescriptions for worship, that they are free to worship spontaneously,
following the immediate needs and methods of worship that seem appropriate to them at the time.
There are those believers who insist that all followers of Jesus must follow rigid rules for
both diet and drink, eating fish on certain prescribed days, and doing without food at prescribed
times, and who insist that there are certain foods and beverages that are absolutely forbidden for
the faithful. But there are others who insist that neither food nor drink have any bearing upon
Christian character, and that within the bounds of moderation, they are free to eat and to drink
whatever they choose.
In almost every congregation in metropolitan areas today, regardless of denomination,
those in attendance will almost certainly have come from greatly varying backgrounds and
traditions, especially with reference to styles of worship. Some will have come from "high church"
backgrounds, and are accustomed to very formal rituals of worship. Others will have come from
very "low church" backgrounds; they are accustomed to much more enthusiastic, spontaneous
expressions of worship. These words of Paul apply directly to this situation: "Now the one who is
weak in the faith, welcome--but not for the purpose of getting into quarrels about opinions." Or,
"Not in order to condemn such people for their views." Or, "Welcome them, without attempting to
settle all your differences."
Wright comments that “The attitude Paul is ruling out is like the disdain shown by a motorist
who drives as fast as the law allows and looks down on someone who timidly drives at only half
that speed.” (P. 736) The fast driver may discount the slow driver as “old-fashioned” and as a
“scaredy-cat”; the slow driver may pass judgment on the fast driver as “reckless” and “dangerous.”
Similar things were happening in the Church at Rome, and still are happening all across the
710
religious community in our own day. We all need, says Paul, to quit judging and condemning or
discounting one another, to welcome and accept one another, joining in our common allegiance to
Jesus Christ as Lord, leaving the judgment up to God!
The verb proslamba,nesqe, proslambanesthe, which we have translated
"welcome," is according to Cranfield "...The fundamental imperative of this passage...The
implication [is] that the Christian community in Rome as a whole is strong and that the weak are a
minority--most probably a fairly small minority. They are to accept the weak in faith, to receive
them into their fellowship, recognizing them frankly and unreservedly as brothers [and sisters] in
Christ. This [command], must surely include both the official recognition by the community...and
also the brotherly acceptance in everyday intercourse..." (P. 700)
We add, if God himself has "welcomed" them as his people, how dare we treat them in any
other manner than to "welcome" them likewise, ourselves?
Cragg comments that "Though Paul clearly considers that those who set great store by
special rules have made limited progress in the Christian life, he is convinced that they have a real
place in the Christian community. They are therefore to be received--or (with the more definite
overtones that the word conveys) welcomed. One of the marks of the church should be cordial
relations even between groups of distinctly different character. Segregation has no place within
the life of the fellowship; least of all should it follow the lines of special interest or limited concern.
The phrase Paul uses presupposes a community sufficiently inclusive to have a place within it for
those who differ widely in insight and in attainment.” (P. 615)
Which one of these groups is right? Which ones are to be welcomed into the church, and
genuinely received as "members of the church-family"? Paul says, "Welcome them all." Let the
Church of Jesus Christ be an open and welcoming fellowship, that reaches out with warm hands
and hearts to welcome all people who receive Jesus as Lord--and do it without trying to debate
with them, or trying to argue them into agreeing with the particular view that you yourselves may
hold.
Cragg states, "Differences may impose a strain, but they also lay down certain
requirements. The strong have to be forbearing in their attitude, and the weak must not try to bind
others by their own [dogmatic conclusions]. As is right, the obligations are most clearly laid on the
strong...The weak must be received, but in the right spirit and the right way...'Not for altercations
or disputings'...'Not to debate about matters in doubt'...Not to pass judgment on their
thoughts'...On the one hand the strong are not entitled to adopt a superior or censorious attitude
toward the weak; nor, on the other hand, are they to seize the chance to argue, merely for the
sake of the debate, about questions on which there is legitimate difference of opinion...
"Paul is not thinking of the patient and earnest search for the truth about matters in dispute;
he is talking about the attitude which delights to overthrow an antagonist in debate,
and which works toward the triumphant demonstration that the other person is hopelessly wrong."
(P. 615)
When those who have sharp differences learn to welcome each other, and are able to
affirm their common loyalty to God and to his Son, the Christ, then as their relationship grows, and
711
14.4 You--who are you, the person who judges a servant of someone else?1291 To his own
they begin to study together, and listen to each other, change will come, and hopefully much more
unity of belief and opinion. But it is totally against the teaching of Paul to demand such unity of
belief and opinion before welcoming one another.
Paul envisions a church that is made up of all people who believe the Good News about
Jesus as Savior and Lord. He says, "Welcome all who share in that great faith--regardless of their
differing opinions or convictions. Welcome them, receive them into the fellowship. Don't argue
with them, don't try to get them to see things your way. Welcome them, love them, worship with
them--and in the context of the worship and fellowship of faith, and honest study, see what will
happen.” This is, we may well believe, the task of the “ecumenical” (‘world-wide’) church!
But also, what Paul says in Colossians 2:16 must be remembered, “Don’t therefore let
anyone judge you people in food and in drink, or in a matter of a festival or a new moon or a day
of rest.”
You can respect their convictions on these matters, but you don’t have to let them impose
their beliefs and opinions on your practice. When you have a church-wide meal, don’t try to force
the vegetarian to eat meat; and if it is going to cause them to leave the fellowship, refrain from
eating meat yourself. If you think it is good to drink alcoholic beverages, and they think it is sinful,
don’t bring those alcoholic beverages to the meal. Do without them, in order to keep peace in the
church. Is not unity more important than being able to drink a certain drink?
If these people want to observe a feast-day, or a new-moon, or keep Saturday as a restday, you don’t have to condemn them for that. Let them observe them. But at the same time,
don’t let them impose those practices on all others in the church. They can practice as they like,
but they have no right to try and make everyone follow their practices.
We wonder what would have happened in the Spanish Inquisition, when strict Roman
Catholics condemned and even put to death Jewish converts who continued to light candles or
observe the seventh day of rest, without trying to impose those practices on others? What a black
mark on the history of Christianity that those former Jews were prosecuted and oftentimes put to
death for “judaizing”!
1291
The person you are judging is not subject to your judgment, nor are you to their condemnation. That
person is the servant of someone else, the Lord–and is not your servant. The fact is, all Christian believers
have been freed from their slavery to sin and death, and have been purchased by Christ. They therefore
belong to him, as their Lord and “Master.” It is the Lord’s judgment that counts, not yours, not theirs.
Why shouldn't we have an examination of every person's faith and opinions before we
allow them to join our congregation? Why shouldn't we, before allowing anybody to take
communion, have them go through and answer correctly, a long series of questions, making sure
that they are "orthodox," that they hold the correct opinions, and agree with us in our basic beliefs,
as was done in the Reformed Churches of America in the 18th and 19th centuries? The leaders of
our denomination, coming largely from Scottish Presbyterian backgrounds, rebelled against the
demand that everyone coming to the communion table must first be examined, and pass a test of
their “orthodoxy” before being allowed to commune. They insisted that the table of the Lord
should be open to all who believe in Jesus Christ–and that it was not the church’s role to decide
712
lord he stands or he falls; but then he will be caused to stand, for the Lord1292 is able1293 to cause
whether or not they could commune. We can be thankful for that conviction of our leaders!
Paul says that we are not our brother or sister’s judge, and they are not our servants. The
Lord, and the Lord alone, is their judge. And he has not handed over the responsibility for judging
people to us in the church–quite the contrary is true: he has forbidden us to judge others.
Compare Matthew 7:1-5 and 1 Corinthians 10:1.
Kaesemann asks, "How can we, under the banner of the universal lordship of him by whom
God exercises world judgment, judge or despise a brother [or sister] as though we were the
standard by which [they are] to be measured?...No matter what may divide us on earth, we must
all come before the common Judge...He who knows that he must render his own account at the
last judgment will be careful not to anticipate the judgment of others." (Pp. 372-73)
Cragg states concerning this that, “We must never pass beyond our responsibility to Jesus
Christ as Lord. Living or dead, we are his; and at certain points this drastically curtails our liberty
of action. There are some things incompatible with his lordship which we cannot do. One of them
is to exercise the right of sitting in judgment on others...
“The confidence which condemns is often only the final expression of the superiority which
despises. The serious thing is the haughty arrogance of spirit that exalts itself above our
brother...The consciousness of God's sovereignty and judgment prevents us from forgetting that
his mercy and our need are constant...If we are acutely conscious that the right to judge belongs
to God, we will be slow to censure our brothers [and sisters]; if we know that we need to be
forgiven, we shall be more charitable toward those who stand in similar need of pardon...If we do
not feel obliged to set others right, we may have a better chance of giving a proper account of
ourselves to God.” (Pp. 622-23)
1292
The noun ku,rioj, kurios, "Lord," is read by P46, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus,
Ephraemi Rescriptus, P, Psi, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Peshitta Syriac and the Coptic
tradition.
It is changed to the noun qeo,j, theos, "God," by Bezae, F, G, Uncial Manuscript 048,
Minuscules 33, 1739, 1881, the "Majority Text," the entire Latin tradition and the Harclean Syriac.
This variant reading can be understood as reflecting the later copyists' view
of the Lord Jesus as divine; however, it may only be their understanding that Paul means God
by "the Lord." The variant reading hardly changes the teaching of Romans.
1293
The phrase dunatei/ ga,r, dunatei gar, "for he is able," is read by Sinaiticus,
Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, the first writer of Bezae, F and G.
It is changed to the synonymous phrase dunato.j ga.r evsti,n, dunatos gar
estin, "for he is powerful," by P46, a corrector of Bezae, Psi, Minuscules 33, 1739, 1881 and the
"Majority Text."
This variant reading does not change the meaning of Romans, but is only another way of
saying the same thing--something copyists felt free to do when they deemed it appropriate.
713
him to stand.1294 14.5 [For]1295 the one person indeed honors (one) day above (another) day, but
then the (other) person honors every day (alike).1296 Let each person be fully persuaded1297 in his
1294
You, in your narrow views, may not see any way that such a person who dares to eat meat can stand in
the judgment, especially in the light of your own condemning judgment. But the Lord, who is the only true
Judge, quite different from you, is able to make that person stand.
Paul believes that whatever their differences from one another, the Lord they serve is "able
to make them stand." He has not called them to himself to let them wallow in ignorance
and fall away into sin and destruction. He will be with them, and teach and guide them, enabling
them to stand. What an encouraging conviction that is!
We may think that there is no hope for them. But the Lord is not of that same opinion, says
Paul. The Lord will cause them to stand. And, we may conclude, the same Lord who will cause
them to stand, both can and will also cause us to stand, even in spite of our weakness and
ignorance at the very time we think we are "the strong."
Kaesemann comments that "Paul is announcing his confidence that the Lord of the
community, having once received a member, can cause him to stand again even when he falls.
Grace is stronger than human frailty." (P. 370) Yes--what a marvelous confidence!
1295
The conjunction ga,r, gar, is omitted by P46, a corrector of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, a corrector
of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, F, G, Psi, Uncial Manuscript 048, Minuscules 33, 1739, 1881,
the "Majority Text" and the Syriac tradition.
It is read by the first writer of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, P, Minuscules 104, 326, 365,
1506, a few other Greek manuscripts and the entire Latin tradition. The first writer of Ephraemi
Rescriptus is illegible at this point.
Moo comments that “External testimony alone suggests that we should omit the ga,r,
gar, ‘for’...But internal evidence favors its inclusion.” (P. 833) As a result of this evenly balanced
nature of the textual evidence, a decision is difficult, and that is why the word has
been placed in the text, but within brackets, to indicate uncertainty as to its originality. Whether
read or not makes little difference for the meaning of Romans.
1296
In addition to the differences concerning foods to be eaten, or not eaten, the members of the
early Church also had greatly differing traditions concerning the proper times to worship.
Compare Galatians 4:10-11, “You people observe both months and seasons and years; I am
afraid for you lest I have labored in vain for you,” most probably referring to weekly, monthly, and
yearly religious observances (most probably referring to Jewish practices).
Paul himself felt free to observe such special times (according to the Book of Acts), but
these people evidently think such observances are able to save them–and this is a path down
which Paul doesn’t want them to go. We are saved by grace–not through ritual observances.
While Paul would grant them the right to those observances, he still expresses
his concern that they can become so enamored of their rituals, that they will begin to trust in them
to save them, and not continue their reliance on the Lord Jesus as their savior.
1297
The present passive imperative 2nd person singular verb plhroforei,sqw, plerophoreistho,
“let him be fully persuaded,” is found earlier at Romans 4:21. See the use of this root verb in the
714
own mind.1298 14.6 The person who honors the day, honors it for (the) Lord.1299 And1300 the
Greek Bible at Ecclesiastes 8:11; Luke 1:1; Romans 4:21; 14:5 (here); Colossians 4:12; 2
Timothy 4:5 and 17.
1298
Paul does not think that these sharp differences among the members of the Church are
something bad; he does not hold that they all have to change and conform to the practices and
opinions of the majority. Not at all. Their relationship was not based on their agreement in
opinions, or on their following the same calendar of observances. Rather, it was based
exclusively on their love for, and loyalty to Jesus as Lord of their lives. That's what united them as
brothers and sisters in the family of God--not their diet, not the way they practiced, or refused to
practice, rituals of worship on certain days which they considered special.
Cragg comments that "Paul regards genuine conviction as of far greater importance than
unanimity...It is difficult to exaggerate the significance which the apostle attaches to conscience.
We are responsible to God for the standards we accept. When we see his will--even if it is
imperfectly--and take it as our rule, we have begun to live the truly religious life, and more perfect
understanding will be the reward of honesty and perseverance. The place at which a man actually
stands is relatively inconsequential. At present he may very dimly grasp the implications of
Christian liberty, but if he faithfully follows the light God gives him, it will finally bring him to the full
day of perfect understanding." (P. 619)
We both agree and disagree with Cragg at this point. Indeed, genuine conviction is far
more important than unanimity; and when believers come together, welcoming one another,
without beginning to debate over who is right or wrong, each seeking to follow what he genuinely
believes, a new day will dawn, and understanding will grow. But, we think, never in this life will we
human beings come to the “full day of perfect understanding.” Such an experience awaits us in
our heavenly goal, but is not, we think, to be ours in this life. Compare 1 Corinthians 13:12.
Kaesemann in like manner comments that "All things are lawful so long as we remain under
Christ's lordship...An infinite breadth of possibilities is open to the church as a whole and also to
the individual congregation, both corporately and in personal life. Where that does not exist,
Christianity breaks up into sects. Christian life suffers distortion when uniformity is enforced and
there is uncritical subjection to conventions.
"On the other hand, there is an immovable limit. If our conduct no longer manifests
belonging to Christ as an ultimate bond, our existence becomes godless...No one can escape
responsibility for decision. The same full certainty...is not just expected but demanded of
everybody...Not the name and sign, but the univocal [having only one meaning] will to remain a
disciple, is the absolute criterion of being a Christian...If we live to please the Lord, no one has any
right to restrict our freedom, to establish norms for our judgment, or to set up a program for
us...For God wants us, in our own possibilities, thoroughly nonconformist in cheerful spontaneity."
(Pp. 370-71)
What do you think? Do you agree with Kaesemann’s phrase, “thoroughly nonconformist in
cheerful spontaneity”? What does that mean? We take “non-conformist” to mean not conforming
to accepted beliefs, customs, or practices.
1299
The phrase kai. o` mh. fro,nwn th.n h`me,ran kuri,w| ouv fro,nei,
kai ho me phronon ten hemeran kurio ou phronei, "and the one not considering (or ‘honoring’)
715
person who eats (meat) eats for (the) Lord, for he gives thanks to the God.1301 And the person
the day to Lord does not consider (or ‘honor’) (it)," is interpolated into the text at this point by a
corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Psi, Minuscule 33, the "Majority Text" and the Syriac
tradition.
The text without this interpolation is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, another
corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus (probably), Bezae, F, G, Uncial Manuscript 048, Minuscules
6, 630, 1739, 1881, a few other Greek manuscripts and the entire Latin tradition. The first writer of
Ephraemi Rescriptus is illegible at this point.
This interpolation does not change the meaning of Romans, but simply reiterates what the
text is saying.
Moo comments that “Pinning down the exact nature of this disagreement over ‘days’ is
difficult since Paul does not elaborate. Some...trace the problem to the influence of the pagan
environment, which might have led some Roman Christians to distinguish ‘lucky’ and ‘unlucky’
days, or to practice days of abstinence in accordance with certain Greco-Roman religious cults...
“And the observance of days was, of course, important in the Old Testament and Judaism.
Whether the specific point at issue was the observance of the great Jewish festivals, regular days
of fasting, or the Sabbath is difficult to say. But we would expect that the Sabbath, at least, would
be involved...
“It is typical of Paul’s approach to the dispute in Rome that he does not commend, or
command, one practice or the other, but exhorts each believer to be ‘thoroughly convinced in his
own mind.’” (P. 842)
1300
The conjunction kai,, kai, "and," is omitted by P46 and a few other Greek manuscripts.
It may have been caused by the eye of the copyist skipping from the -i, -i at the end of
fro,nei, phronei, to the -i, -i at the end of kai,, kai, and as a result omitting the
conjunction, but whatever the cause, the omission does not change the meaning of Romans.
1301
Cragg comments that "...The conscious effort to promote God's honor is more important than the forms
by which we try to do so. Some will use one method, some another; but in either case it is the God-ward
intention that matters. And whatever means we adopt, the test of our genuineness will be the measure in
which gratitude and praise are the distinguishing marks of our lives. In this respect both he...who eats and
he who abstains can find a level of agreement deeper than the external differences which divide them.
Though the special problem which Paul cites is one which has ceased to be of pressing importance, the
experience to which he points has been repeated in every century of Christian history. We may not all
confess our faith in the same terms, or worship according to the same rites, or govern ourselves according to
the same discipline; we may not find it easy to co-operate in common tasks: but age after age men who
could not agree in other things have united to praise God with a single voice. Our hymn-books are still the
greatest manuals of Christian unity." (P. 620)
How true this is. Look at any hymnal, of any denomination. The authors of those songs, both the
716
who does not eat (meat), does not eat (it) for (the) Lord,1302 and gives thanks to the God.1303 14.7
For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself.1304 14.8 For whether we should live,
music and the words, come from people of all denominations and convictions, all with one voice praising
the one Lord and God.
Kaesemann states, "The breadth of possible variations of behavior is infinite, but in the fullness of
possibilities it is ultimately determined by whether one lives and dies for self or for the Lord...For Paul
living and dying to the Lord is the ultimate criterion of being a Christian. Even in everyday life, then, it is
'the one ethical possibility' (Karl Barth)..." (P. 372) Do you agree with Kaesemann and Barth that this is
“the one ethical possibility,” that living and dying to the Lord is the only basis for living the Christian life?
1302
Moo comments that “In each of these instances, Paul notes, the believer–whether ‘strong’ or ‘weak’–
does what he or she does ‘to the Lord,’ that is, ‘in the interest of,’ ‘for the benefit of,’ the Lord. The
believer who sets aside certain days for fasting, or who observes the Sabbath, does so because he or she
sincerely believes this honors the Lord. Similarly, both the believer who eats anything without
discrimination and the believer who refuses to eat certain things ‘give thanks’ to God at their mealtimes and
are motivated in their respective practices by a desire to glorify the Lord.” (P. 843) This is the thing that
counts–their living out their lives, doing the things they do, or not doing the things they don’t do, in order to
honor the Lord! Do you agree?
1303
Kaesemann comments that "Both ascetics [those refusing to eat certain foods] and the strong [those who
feel free to eat foods rejected by others] confess at meals that they receive their nourishment from the hand
of God and that they have to give thanks for this
reason. Their difference in attitudes to foodstuffs does not affect their acknowledgment of the same Lord."
(P. 371)
1304
Compare 2 Corinthians 5:15, “And on behalf of all people he died, so that the ones living might
no longer live for themselves, but rather on behalf of the one dying for them, and being raised.”
We remember John Donne’s phrase, “No man is an island,” who lives free and apart from
all others, “not a part of the main.” No one can create the world in which he lives, nor can he give
birth to himself, or provide for himself as a little baby. Even if, from early childhood, some
individual might succeed in largely withdrawing from society, to live apart from others in isolation,
as a “hermit,” he will still be totally dependent upon divine gifts for the sustenance of life, and at
least somewhat dependent on others for the necessities such as food and drink, and medical
treatment in event of accident or sickness. For most people, that dependency is much greater,
expressed in multitudinous ways. Without at least a minimum of help from others, we will quickly
die; without God’s gifts, we would never have life in the first place.
When we die, our death has an impact on our family members and friends, and those who
have helped to provide for us. We are all a part of society, living in a web of interpersonal
relationships, especially today as we are dependent on others for our heritage, our education, our
opportunities, and the many services that make our common life possible. And all of us are
constantly dependent upon God our Creator, whether we acknowledge it or not.
Why does Paul introduce all of this? We think Paul wants to emphasize our interdependence on others, and on God. Whatever our dietary practices, we must give thanks to God,
and at the same time, we must consider the influence which our actions, or lack of actions, may
have on others. We cannot just go merrily on our way, doing whatever we like, without taking
thought for the impact and influence our actions or lack of actions are having on others, and on
717
we should live for the Lord; whether we should die,1305 we should die1306 for the Lord. Whether
therefore, we should live, (or) whether we should die, we are the Lord’s. 1307 14.9 For in order for
this, Christ1308 died, and lived,1309 so that he also might be Lord over dead people and living
our relationship to God! What do you think Paul means?
1305
The 1st person plural present subjunctive verb avpoqnh,|skwmen, apothneskomen, "we
should die," is changed to the 1st person plural present subjunctive verb avpoqa,nwmen,
apothanomen, another form of the same verb, by Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Minuscules 6, 33,
945, 1175, 1241 and many other Greek manuscripts.
The variant spelling does not change the meaning of Romans.
The present indicative active, 1st person plural verb avpoqnh,|skomen, apothneskomen
(note the omicron, not omega) "we die," is read by Alexandrinus,
1306
Vaticanus, Bezae, F, G, P, Psi, Uncial Manuscript 048, Minuscules 6, 630, 1241, 1739, 1881
and many other Greek manuscripts.
It is changed to the subjunctive form, avpoqnh,|skwmen, apothneskomen (with
omega) by Sinaiticus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, L, Minuscules 33, 81, 365, 1175, 1505, 1506 and
many other Greek manuscripts.
This variant reading could easily have been caused by copyists working "by ear," as the
difference in sound between omicron and omega is hardly distinguishable in spoken Greek.
However, because of the surrounding subjunctive verbs, it is easy to see how copyists would want
to conform this verb to that subjunctive pattern. The variant reading hardly changes the meaning
of Romans.
1307
All of the people Paul is addressing had it in common that whether they ate, or refused to eat,
they lifted up their prayers of thanksgiving to the Lord. They had it in common that whether they
considered every day of the week to be the same, or considered one day as more important than
other days, they did what they did in honor of the same Lord. Every one of them, whatever their
view concerning diet, or concerning ritual observances, was related to the Lord, whether in life or
in death. That's what made them brothers and sisters, and members of the family of God. That's
what united them--their love for Jesus as Lord, and their commitment of themselves to him,
whether in life or in death. That's what made them "Christians"--not their opinions, or their
observances, but their loyalty and commitment to Jesus as Lord. And that’s what unites all
confessing Christians still today, in all denominations, all around the world. That’s the
“ecumenical” church!
1308
Following the noun Cristo,j, Christos, "Anointed One," the conjunction kai,, kai,
meaning "also," is interpolated into the text by a corrector of Sinaiticus, a corrector of Ephraemi
Rescriptus, a corrector of Bezae, Minuscule 1881, the "Majority Text," the Old Latin Manuscript
d, the Stuttgartiensis Vulgate, the Harclean Syriac and the Latin translation of Irenaeus (who
lived in the second century A.D., and whose works were translated into Latin before 395 A.D.).
The text without the conjunction is read by the first writer of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus,
Vaticanus, the first writer of Ephraemi Rescriptus, both the first writer and a corrector of Bezae
(see), F, G, P, Psi, Minuscules 33, 365, 630, 506, 1739, some other Greek manuscripts, the
718
people.1310
14.10 But then you, why are you judging the brother of yours?1311 Or also, you, why are
you discounting the brother of yours?1312 For we all will present ourselves at the judgment seat of
the God.1313 14.11 For it has been written, “I am living, says (the) Lord–because1314 to me every
Clementine Vulgate and Origen of Alexandria (who died 254 A.D.).
The interpolation does not change the meaning of Romans.
The 3rd person singular, aorist active verb e;zhsen, ezesen, "he lived," is read by the first writer
of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Minuscules 365,
1309
1506, 1739, 1881, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Stuttgartiensis Latin Vulgate and the
Coptic tradition.
It is changed to the aorist verb avne,sth, aneste, "he rose up," by F, G, Minuscule
629, the Wordsworth-White Latin Vulgate and Origen of Alexandria (who died 254 A.D.).
It is changed to avne,sth kai ev,zhsen, aneste kai ezesen, "he rose up and he
lived" (a few witnesses have avne,zhsen, anezesen for the last word, ‘and he lived again’) by
a third corrector of Sinaiticus, the first corrector of Bezae (the original writer of Bezae and its
second corrector change the word-order), Psi, Uncial 0209, Minuscule 33, the “Majority Text,”
the Old Latin Manuscript a (see), the Peshitta Syriac (see) and the Latin translation of Irenaeus
(before 395 A.D.).
The variant reading hardly changes the meaning of Romans.
Jesus Christ has shared in human life, and in addition he has shared in an excruciatingly painful human
death–being executed on a wooden post, following fierce beating and mockery. He knows, by experience,
what it is to live as a human, and what it is to suffer extremely and die an agonizing death. All of this, says
Paul, qualifies him to be Lord over both the living and the dead. He knows us; he understands us. He has
shared our experiences. That is why he is qualified to be our Lord, and our Judge.
1311
Paul is repeating himself here, asking his readers to seek to answer the question of the basis on which
they think they have the right to stand in judgment on their fellow-Christians. What do we think it is that
enables us to stand in judgment over other believers?
Is it our superior intelligence, our greater faith, our allegiance to time-honored traditions? It is a very
important question to ask ourselves–by what right do we stand in judgment over others?
1312
Again, Paul is repeating himself. Moo comments that “Paul’s direct and lively style creates the picture
of the apostle shifting his gaze from the ‘weak’ [who are judging their fellow Christians] to the ‘strong’
[who are discounting their fellow Christians], as he publicly chastises these representative Christians from
the Roman community. Each, Paul suggests by using the term ‘brother’...is guilty of casting doubt on the
status of a fellow member of the spiritual family. No believer has such a right.” (P. 846) God has invited
them to come, and God has welcomed them. Who are we to reject them, or to question their standing before
God?
1313
The noun qeou/, theou, “(of the) God," is read by the first writer of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus,
Vaticanus, the first writer of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, F, G, Minuscules
1310
630, 1506, 1739, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, a part of the Old Latin
witnesses and the Coptic tradition.
719
knee will bend, and every tongue will confess out to the God.” 1315 14.12 So then [therefore],1316
It is changed to the noun Cristou/, Christou, "of (the) Anointed One," by a corrector of
Sinaiticus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Psi, Uncial Manuscripts 048, 0209,
Minuscules 33, 1881, the "Majority Text," the Old Latin Manuscript r, the Clementine Vulgate, the
Syriac tradition, Polycarp of Smyrna (who died 156 A.D.), Marcion (2nd century A.D.; according to
Tertullian, who died after 220 A.D.) and Ambrosiaster (366-384 A.D.).
This is a typical variant reading, whenever the text comes to divine names; copyists who
identified the Christ as God would easily make this substitution. The variant reading hardly
changes the meaning of Romans.
The phrase bh/ma tou/ qeou/, bema tou theou, “judgment seat of the God,”is
unique for the Greek Bible, where the noun bh/ma, bema, is found used for human “pulpits” or
places
where judgment of government officials take place. Jesus appears before the bh/ma, bema of
Pilate; Paul appeals to the bh/ma, bema of Caesar for judgment.
Compare 2 Corinthians 5:10, where Paul states that “for it is necessary for everyone of us
to appear before the judgment seat of the Christ.” Paul’s teaching concerning “no condemnation”
for those in Christ, does not mean that they are exempt from judgment; but their judge is the God
who sent Christ to save them, and the Christ himself, who died for their salvation. Compare
Matthew 25:31-46; Acts 10:42 and 17:31.
Our brothers and sisters in Christ have not been called to appear before us, to stand before
our judgment-seat. No, our brothers and sisters, and we ourselves, will all appear before God’s /
Christ’s judgment-seat. That’s the only judgment that matters! How dare we act as if our personal
judgment is of such importance? “In ‘judging’ and ‘despising’ others... they are arrogating to
themselves a prerogative that is God’s only.” (Moo, P. 847)
1314
The conjunction o`,ti, hoti, is changed to the conditional particle eiv mh,, ei me, "if not,"
or "since not" (in combination the two words means "except") by the first writer of Bezae
(probably), F and G.
The variant reading hardly changes the meaning of Romans.
Paul is quoting from the Septuagint, Isaiah 45:23, but his quotation includes a phrase found elsewhere,
for example in the following passages:
1315
Isaiah 49:18, “I, I am living, says Lord, because all (of) them you will clothe and will place
upon them like adornment of a bride.”
Jeremiah 22:24, “I, I am living says Lord, if Jechonias will become...”
Ezekiel 5:11, 14:16, 18, 20; 16:48; 17:16, 19; 18:3; 20:3, 31, 33; 33:11, 27; 34:8; 35:6,
11, all of which have the phrase “I, I live,” with a majority having the additional phrase either
before or after this phrase, “says (the) Lord.”
720
each one of us will give1317 account concerning himself [to the God].1318
Isaiah 45:23, literally, “...because to me will bend every knee, and will confess out every
tongue, to the God.”
Paul’s quotation is, “I, I live, says (the) Lord, because to me every knee will bend, and
every tongue will confess out to the God,” with the only difference from Isaiah 45:23 being that
Paul precedes the statement with the phrase, “I, I live,” and then slightly changes the word-order
of the last phrase.
This is not the kind of word-for-word, exact quotation that is demanded by biblical literalists,
but rather, is a free use of biblical statements, combining materials from various texts, and slightly
changing the word-order of the text being quoted.
See Philippians 2:10-11 for a similar statement, but without anything indicating that it is a
quotation: “so that in the name of Jesus every knee might kneel, of heavenly things, and earthly
things, and things beneath earth; and every tongue might confess out that (the) Lord (is) Jesus
Christ, for glorious radiance of God (the) Father.” This statement is rooted in Isaiah 45:23, but
expands greatly on it.
1316
The conjunction ou=n, oun, "therefore," is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi
Rescriptus, a corrector of Bezae, Psi, Uncial Manuscript 0209, Minuscule 33, the "Majority
Text" and the Harclean Syriac.
It is omitted by Vaticanus, the first writer of Bezae, F, G, the first writer of P, Minuscules
6, 630, 1739, 1881, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate and a part of the Old Latin
witnesses.
The omission of the conjunction does not change the meaning of Romans.
The 3rd person singular, future indicative verb dw,sei, dosei, "he will give," is read by
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, a corrector of Bezae, Psi, Minuscules 33,
1739, 1881 and the "Majority Text."
1317
It is changed to the longer verb, avpodw,sei, apodosei, "he will give back," by
Vaticanus, the first writer of Bezae, F, G, Minuscule 326 and a few other Greek manuscripts.
The variant reading does not change the meaning of Romans.
The last phrase in verse 12, tw|/ qew|/, to theo, "to the God," is omitted by Vaticanus, F,
G, Minuscules 6, 630, 1739, 1881, a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript r,
Polycarp of Smyrna (who died 156 A.D.) and Cyprian (who died 258 A.D.).
1318
The phrase is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, Psi,
Uncial Manuscript 0209, Minuscule 33, the "Majority Text," the Latin Vulgate, a part of the Old
Latin witnesses, the Syriac tradition and the Coptic tradition.
The omission does not change the meaning of the original text, but only makes it slightly
less specific.
721
Compare Luke 16:2 for a comparison / parable of Jesus with regards to the necessity for
giving account of our activities.
722
723
PRAYER
O Lord, since you alone are the judge of both the living and the
dead, how can we dare to stand in judgment over our brothers and
sisters, as if we are their judge, not you?
You have given us freedom–genuine freedom. We can observe special
days, or not observe them, as we think best. We can choose our diets.
If we want to be vegetarians, we can be. If we want to eat meat, and
all sorts of foods and drinks, we can, so long as we give thanks to you,
and seek to serve you in what we choose to do. We can worship with
written prayers and all sorts of religious symbolism; but we can also
worship without formal prayers and little symbolism, in plain and simple
ways. We can follow particular customs and traditions, whether Jewish
or Greek, Catholic or Anglican, Baptist, or Quaker, Church of Christ or
Christian Church Disciples. We can sing acapella, and we can sing with
musical accompaniment. All things are lawful, so long as we remain
under your Lordship. But if we are truly free, why should we judge and
condemn others who have that same freedom?
Teach us Lord, to welcome everyone you welcome, without trying to
impose our views or opinions, or our styles of worship on them. Teach
us to allow wide room for diversity, and to love and worship together
with those who differ from us, so that we may in time outgrow those
differences, and learn to appreciate one another.
We confess, Lord, the terrible sin of division that has plagued us
as your followers, from the first century until now. We have developed
our views of your truth, as we should–but then we have had the audacity
to condemn, to disfellowship and excommunicate, and to even imprison and
murder those who differ from us, who see things differently. We have
written our creeds and confessions of faith–and then, rather than using
them for teaching and guidance, we have used them to force others to
agree, under pain of rejection and even death.
Forgive us, O Lord!
In the Church today some are more liberal, others are more
conservative, just as is true in politics and in business. Each of your
followers is free to make decisions in the light of your truth and their
own consciences. But our sin is that we have formed exclusive
denominations based on these distinctions, and have divided your people,
refusing to have anything to do with those who disagree with us. Lord,
please forgive us, and help us to get beyond such foolish, hurtful
divisions. You have lived for all of us, and you have died for all of
us. You alone are the Judge of all, and you love us all. And because
this is true, teach us to quit despising and judging one another. Let
us welcome all whom you welcome, and not try to play God. In your name,
Lord Jesus, we pray. Amen.
724
LIMITATIONS ON LIBERTY:
DON'T CAUSE OTHERS TO STUMBLE
Romans 14:13-23, Greek Text with Translation
14.13 Mhke,ti ou=n avllh,louj kri,nwmen\ avlla. tou/to
kri,nate ma/llon( to. mh. tiqe,nai pro,skomma tw/| avdelfw/|
h' ska,ndalonÅ 14.14 oi=da kai. pe,peismai evn kuri,w| VIhsou/
o[ti ouvde.n koino.n diV e`autou/( eiv mh. tw/| logizome,nw|
ti koino.n ei=nai( evkei,nw| koino,nÅ 14.15 eiv ga.r dia.
brw/ma o` avdelfo,j sou lupei/tai( ouvke,ti kata. avga,phn
peripatei/j\ mh. tw/| brw,mati, sou evkei/non avpo,llue u`pe.r
ou- Cristo.j avpe,qanenÅ 14.16 mh. blasfhmei,sqw ou=n u`mw/n
to. avgaqo,nÅ
14.13 No longer, therefore, should we judge one another. But rather, judge this even
more: to not place a stumbling-block or a snare in the brother('s way). 14.14 I know, and I have
been persuaded in Lord Jesus, that nothing (is) unclean in and of itself--except to the one
considering anything to be unclean, to that person (it is) unclean. 14.15 For if because
of food the brother of yours is caused pain, you are no longer
conducting yourself according to love. Do not by the food of yours
destroy that one on behalf of whom Christ died. 14.16 Do not therefore
let that which is good of yours be slandered.
14.17 ouv ga,r evstin h` basilei,a tou/ qeou/ brw/sij kai.
po,sij avlla. dikaiosu,nh kai. eivrh,nh kai. cara. evn
pneu,mati a`gi,w|\ 14.18 o` ga.r evn tou,tw| douleu,wn tw/|
Cristw/| euva,restoj tw/| qew/| kai. do,kimoj toi/j
avnqrw,poijÅ
14.17 For the Kingdom of the God is not eating and drinking--but
rather, right-relationship, and peace and joy in a set-apart spirit.
14.18 For the one serving the Christ in this (way is) well-pleasing to
the God and approved by the people.
14.19 :Ara ou=n ta. th/j eivrh,nhj diw,kwmen kai. ta. th/j
oivkodomh/j th/j eivj avllh,loujÅ 14.20 mh. e[neken brw,matoj
kata,lue to. e;rgon tou/ qeou/Å pa,nta me.n kaqara,( avlla.
kako.n tw/| avnqrw,pw| tw/| dia. prosko,mmatoj evsqi,ontiÅ
14.21 kalo.n to. mh. fagei/n kre,a mhde. piei/n oi=non mhde.
evn w-| o` avdelfo,j sou prosko,pteiÅ
14.22 su. pi,stin Îh]nÐ
e;ceij kata. seauto.n e;ce evnw,pion tou/ qeou/Å maka,rioj o`
mh. kri,nwn e`auto.n evn w-| dokima,zei\ 14.23 o` de.
diakrino,menoj eva.n fa,gh| katake,kritai( o[ti ouvk evk
pi,stewj\ pa/n de. o] ouvk evk pi,stewj a`marti,a evsti,nÅ
725
14.19 So then, therefore, let us pursue the things of the peace,
and the things for the building up, that is for one another. 14.20 Do
not, on account of food, destroy the work of the God. All things indeed
(are) clean; but rather, (they are) evil for the person, for the one who
through falling, is eating. 14.21 (It is) good not to eat meat, nor to
drink wine, nor (anything) by which the brother of yours stumbles.
14.22 You, (the) faith [which] you have, have (it) to yourself, before
the God. How happy the one who does not judge himself in that which he
approves. 14.23 But then the one who wavers if he should eat, has been
judged, because (it is) not out of faith. But then everything that (is)
not out of faith is a missing-of-the-mark.
Romans 14:13-23, Translation with Footnotes
14.13
No longer, therefore1319 should we judge one another.1320
But
1319
What is Paul referring to when he says "Therefore..."? In Romans 14:1-12, he has taught that those who
are strong are to receive those who are weak in faith, and not to try and change them before receiving them
into their fellowship. He has taught that we must "receive" all whom God has received, and not stand in
judgment over them. Each person will be judged by God, and God has not given that task of judgment into
our hands. The Christ is the true judge, but we are not. We will all stand before the judgment seat of God,
and give account for ourselves--but we are not the judges.
That is what Paul’s “therefore” is referring to. "Since we ourselves must stand before God in
judgment, and we have not been given the divine right to judge others...therefore..."
Every Christian--especially every Christian leader, needs to take this passage with deep seriousness.
If Paul says he cannot judge, who do we think we are to be able to judge others? Who gave us all this
wisdom, so far superior to the great servant of Jesus, Paul?
But now, in verses 13-23, as Moo states, “Paul exhorts the ‘strong’ not to use their liberty in such a
way that they would cause their weaker brothers to suffer spiritual harm... Positively, Paul urges the ‘strong’
to recognize that their freedom on these matters...must be governed by love for their fellow believers (verse
15) and concern for the building up of the body of Christ (verse 19)...
“His basic exhortation is found at the beginning and end of the text–‘don’t cause a weaker Christian
to stumble (verses 13b-16 and verses 19-23)–while a central section sets forth the basic theological
rationale for his exhortation–the nature of the kingdom of God (verses 17-18).” (P. 850)
1320
Moo notes that this first half of verse 13 is “transitional.” He states that “The exhortation sums up
verses 1-12 while preparing for the new focus in verses 13-23. Both the ‘strong’ Christian and the ‘weak’
Christian...are to stop standing in judgment over one another.” (P. 850) Wright calls these verses the
“positive side of Paul’s exhortation. It is not simply a matter of giving up passing judgment on, or
despising, a fellow Christian; it is a matter of taking positive thought to see how to avoid making life
difficult for one another–and particularly how the ‘strong’ can avoid making life difficult for the ‘weak.’”
(P. 740)
726
rather, judge
this even more:1321 to not place a stumbling-block1322 or1323 a snare1324 in
In so teaching, Paul unites with the powerful teaching of Jesus, as reflected in the following
statement taken from the "Sermon on the Mount": "Do not judge others, so that you yourselves will not be
judged. For by whatever judgment you judge others, you yourself will be judged. And by whatever
measure you yourself measure out to others, it will be measured out to you." (Matthew 7:1-2)
Many a young believer has read those words of Jesus, and has acknowledged their truth. How
greatly our world needs just such a non-judgmental attitude, that accepts and loves instead of standing in
harsh judgment and condemnation over others. But then that young believer is given teaching that selfrighteously looks down on others who differ, pronouncing
judgment--not realizing how such an attitude is in direct contradiction to the teaching of the very Lord in
whom they have placed their faith.
We are given the divine mandate to "love one another," but we are not given the divine mandate to
"judge one another." We are responsible for reaching out to one another, and for receiving one another,
even the "weak," who hold different opinions from our own. But we are not responsible for judging them-that puts us in the place of God--where we don't belong.
Notice how "polite" Paul's language is: he doesn't say "You folks quit judging...", but rather, "Let us
no longer judge one another." Paul includes himself among those who have been guilty of judging others.
"We may have done so in the past--but let us no longer do so."
1321
Paul's language implies that "If you insist on making judgments, make this judgment." Wright
comments that “All right, says Paul in one of his punning moods: if you are so keen on judging things, here
is something to judge–how not to trip each other up!” (P. 740)
1322
The accusative neuter singular noun pro,skomma, proskomma, "obstacle," something that
causes someone to stumble, is omitted by Vaticanus and Minuscule 365 (see).
See Staehlin’s article on the verb prosko,ptw in Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament VI, pp. 745-58.
The pro,skomma, proskomma, is a striking of the foot against something that causes
falling. It may be the case that the believer has the freedom to eat meat, or drink wine; but if
eating meat, or drinking wine becomes the object that causes a weaker brother or sister to fall
away from the faith--if such eating or drinking becomes an "occasion of falling" for another person,
then the believer should not eat that food, or take that drink (in that person’s presence).
Insistence on personal rights and freedom would not teach such a thing; but insistence on love for
others certainly teaches it. Love renounces "rights" when the exercise one’s freedom hurts other
people.
For the occurrences of this noun in the Greek Bible, see Exodus 23:33 (if Israel worships
other gods, it will be a cause of stumbling for them); 34:12 (for Israel to make a covenant with the
Canaanites will be a cause of stumbling for them); Isaiah 8:14 (the Lord will either be a sanctuary
or a cause of stumbling for Israel); 29:21 (denunciation of those who place causes of stumbling in
the gate / court); Jeremiah 3:3 (the Greek text is quite different from the Hebrew; Israel has had
727
the brother('s way).1325
many shepherds who have been causes of stumbling for her); Judith 8:22 (Judith tells the rulers
of Bethulia that if the Jews are taken captive, they will be a cause of stumbling to their captors);
Sirach 17:25 (Sirach calls on people to turn around, and reduce the causes of stumbling); 31:7
(gold is a stumbling block for those who are enthusiastic for it), 30 (verse 29 in English; wine in
excess is a cause of stumbling); 34:16 (verse 19 in English; the Lord is a guard against causes of
stumbling); 39:24 (the Lord’s ways are full of causes of stumbling for the wicked);
Romans 9:32, 33 (the Lord as a cause of stumbling for those who refuse to have faith);
14:13 (here), 20 (same); 1 Corinthians 8:9 (same) and 1 Peter 2:8 (same as Romans 9:32-33).
See footnote 1324 for the synonym ska,ndalon, skandalon.
1323
The conjunction h', "or," is omittted Vaticanus and Minuscule 365 (see).
1324
The noun ska,ndalon, skandalon, literally refers to the "stick" used in a trap, i.e., that holds
the trap open until tripped, or pulled away, enabling the trap to close and entrap the one moving
the stick. But in usage, the noun is used to mean the trap or snare itself. See the article by
Staehlin on this noun in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament VII, pp. 339-358.
Cragg comments that "The stumbling-block is often carelessly left in the path; we may not
regard it, but those who follow may easily trip and fall. The hindrance [ ska,ndalon,
skandalon] is the snare or trap which is deliberately laid and in which others find their feet
entangled." (P. 624) In usage, ska,ndalon is a synonym to pro,skomma, proskomma.
See footnote 1322.
For occurrences of this noun in the Greek Bible, see Leviticus 19:14 (don’t place a snare
in front of the blind); Judges 2:3; 8:27 (both concerning idolatry as being a snare to Israel); 1
Samuel 18:21 (Saul gives his daughter Michal to David as wife, to be a snare, to catch him);
25:31; Psalms 48:14 (49:14 English; word only in Greek); 49:20 (50:20 English; word only in
Greek, “you are placing a snare in front of your mother’s son); 68:23 (69:22 English); 105:36
(106:36 English); 118:165 (119:165 English); 139:6 (140:5 English); 140:9 (141:9 English);
Hosea 4:17 (word only in Greek text);Judith 5:1, 20; 12:2 (Judith refuses to eat the food of
Holofernes; it would be a snare to her); 1 Maccabees 5:4; Sirach 7:6 (only in Greek text); 27:23
(“In your presence his mouth is all sweetness, and he admires your words; but later he will twist
his speech and with your own words he will trip you up,” i.e., “he will place a snare in your way”);
Psalms of Solomon 4:23; Wisdom 14:11 (idols are snares);
Matthew 13:41; 16:23 (Peter is a snare to Jesus); 18:7, 7, 7; Luke 17:1; Romans 9:33;
11:9; 14:13 (here); 16:17; 1 Corinthians 1:23 (Christ is a snare to Jews); Galatians 5:11 (the
execution-post of Jesus is a snare); 1 Peter 2:8; 1 John 2:10 (those who love are not snares to
others) and Revelation 2:14.
1325
What Paul means is that even something that is good in itself, like eating meat, or drinking wine, if done
in such a way as to become a “stumbling-block,” can cause another to stumble and fall, or to be trapped,
becomes wrong for the person who lives by the law of love
(compare 1 John 2:10, “Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make
[his brother] stumble”).
Love always seeks to do only those things that will help and minister to others. Love refuses to do
anything, even if legally correct, that would cause others to fall or be trapped. Here again, the teaching of
728
14.141326
I know, and I have been persuaded in Lord Jesus,1327 that
nothing (is) unclean in and of itself1328--except to the one considering
Paul is closely related to (or, deeply rooted within) the teaching of his Lord Jesus, as found in such passages
as the following: "And whoever shall cause one of these little ones who have confidence [in me] to be
entrapped [the verb is skandali,zein, skandalizein], it is much better for him if a large
millstone is hung around his neck, and he has been thrown into the sea." (Mark 9:42; compare
Matthew 18:6-7; Luke 17:1-2)
That is, in fact, one of the strongest warnings that Jesus ever gave. Jesus actively reached
out to the little ones, to bring them to faith. And his warning is that it is a terrible thing to cause
even one of those little ones to be entrapped.
Staehlin, in his article on ska,ndalon, skandalon (Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament VII, p. 355, states that “The main principles of Paul in settling the problem [of causing
others to fall in the life of the community] are to be found in Romans 14:13...21...and 1
Corinthians 8:13...In both cases [those of Corinth and of Rome] something of the past has not
been overcome; this is equally true of both Jewish and Gentile Christians. In both churches the
collision of divergent views and attitudes causes a ska,ndalon, skandalon for the weak,
though in manifestly different forms according to the rejection or acceptance by the weak of the
freedom of faith practiced by the strong. In the one case the ska,ndalon, skandalon can
lead to division in the community or to the separation of the weak from it. In the other the danger
is that the weak will act against conscience and with wavering faith (1 Corinthians 8:10; Romans
14:20, 23).”
The solution to the problem is for the “strong” to have deep concern for the “weak,” and to
take care that they not cause their weaker fellow-Christians to stumble, even if this means they
will not be able to use or take advantage of their freedom in Christ. What’s more important–
exercising my personal freedom, or not causing my brother to fall? Love knows the answer to that
question!
1326
Moo comments on verse 14 that “In this verse Paul lays the groundwork for the suggestion...that the
behavior of the ‘strong’ could bring spiritual harm to the ‘weak.’ Paul begins by stating a fundamental
principle–one to which the ‘strong’ would no doubt give an enthusiastic ‘Amen!’: ‘I know and am
persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself.’” (P. 852)
1327
Paul's words, "I know, and I have been persuaded..." reflect the fact that this was not an easy conclusion
for Paul to draw--it was contrary to his training in Separatist (or "Pharisaic") Judaism. The example of Peter
as given in Acts 10, who had such a hard time accepting the fact that all foods are clean, and not any longer
to be called "unclean," is a good example of the same kind of difficulty that Paul himself would have had.
But it was his relationship to Jesus, the risen Lord, that had taught and convinced him otherwise. Jesus, in
his personal ministry, had reached out to just those people whom the Separatists (or Pharisees) considered
unclean, and unworthy of their fellowship. He had received and eaten with "sinners"--compare Luke 15:12. But more than that, he had specifically taught concerning the "cleanness" of all meats or foods--see the
next footnote.
1328
The reflexive genitive neuter pronoun e`autou/, heautou, "itself," which we have translated “in
and of itself,” is read by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, a corrector of Ephraemi Rescriptus, Uncial
Manuscript 048, Minuscules 6, 81, 104, 365, 1505, 1506, 1739 and some other Greek
729
manuscripts.
It is changed to the pronoun auvtou/, autou, "of it," by Alexandrinus, the first writer of
Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, F, G, Psi, Uncial Manuscript 0209, Minuscules 33, 1881 and the
"Majority Text."
The variant reading does not change the meaning of Romans.
Paul's teaching is closely related to, if not directly built upon, the teaching of Jesus, his
Lord. Mark 7:15-23 states: “There is nothing from outside of the person, which, entering into him,
can make him unclean. But rather, those things that come out of the person are the things that
make a person unclean. And when he entered into a house, (away) from the crowd, his followers
were asking him (concerning) the parable. And he says to them, Are you also likewise without
understanding? Don't you understand that everything that enters into the person from the outside
is not able to make him unclean? Because it does not enter into the heart, but rather, into the
stomach, and goes out into the toilet. (He is making all foods clean.)
“And he was saying that, That which comes out of the person, that is what makes the
person unclean. For from within, out of the heart of people come evil plans: immoral sexual acts,
thefts, murders, violations of marriage covenants, desires to always have more, malicious acts;
deception, lack of self-control, stinginess, abusive speech, haughty pride, lack of moral judgment-all these evil things proceed from within, and make the person unclean.” That is, "Not from the
outside, but from the inside." "Not external things, but internal plans, desires, attitudes."
Where, we ask, is this kind of teaching rooted? The answer is, it is rooted solidly in the
Bible--in Genesis 1:1-2:3, the story of creation. Seven times in that great opening chapter of the
Bible, the refrain is repeated, "And God saw that (the light) was good...And God saw that (the
land and the seas) were good...And God saw that (the land filled with vegetation) was good...And
God saw that (the sun, moon, and stars) were good...And God saw that (the sea filled with marine
life, and the skies filled with flying creatures) were good...And God saw that (the land filled with
living creatures [the sources of ‘meat’]) was good...And God saw (male and female, and) all that
he had made, and it was very good."
This is the seven-times emphasized, deeply important affirmation of this opening story of
the Bible: all of creation is very good. There is nothing created that is evil, or unclean, in and of
itself. Only misuse, or perversion of what is basically good, can produce evil or uncleanness. It is
only when the hearts of human beings make evil plans, and misuse or abuse God's good creation,
that evil and uncleanness originate. That is the all-important
beginning point for a consideration of biblical ethics, and for understanding the distinction between
good and evil, between clean and unclean.
Moo claims that “Paul is not here claiming that there is nothing at all that is absolutely evil
or sinful. His statement must be confined to the point at issue: ritual defilement as defined by Old
Testament / Jewish law.” (P. 852) But we disagree with Moo. Paul’s statement must be
understood in the light of Genesis 1–which is universal, and not limited to those things forbidden
in Jewish law. In Jesus, the teaching of Genesis 1 is reaffirmed! And we want to ask Moo–what
is there in God’s good creation, that is absolutely evil or sinful, that is not an abuse or perversion
730
anything to be unclean, to that person (it is) unclean.1329
14.15
For
if because of food the brother of yours is caused pain, you are no
longer conducting yourself according to love.1330
Do not by the food of
of something that in itself is good? What do you think?
Wright comments that “In verse 14a, and then again in verse 20b, Paul insists that all
foods are ‘clean.’ This was a regular early Christian belief, though it must have been hard to
hammer out and maintain (see Matthew 15:11; 17:20; Mark 7:18-19; Acts 10:15, 28; 11:9; Titus
1:5).” (P. 740)
If Genesis 1 teaches emphatically that the entirety of God’s creation is “very good,” how is
it then, that in the story of the flood (Genesis 6-9), and later in the "Levitical Code" (see Leviticus
11:1-47 and Deuteronomy 14:3-20), some animals are declared "clean," while certain other
animals are declared "unclean"? Our answer to this puzzling question is as follows: when the
Canaanite fertility religions began to worship animals, and to use them in their fertility rites as
means of "sympathetic magic," those animals were declared "unclean" for Israelites seeking to
avoid such fertility worship. It is not that the animals were "unclean" as such, or by creation--but
they were declared "unclean" because of their misuse in the religious practices of Canaan--some
of the animals even being used as sexual partners for human beings ("bestiality"). However,
whenever such misuse of these animals has ended, and they are no longer used in orgiastic
fertility rituals, then they can be considered "clean." That is why Jesus, and the early Christians
(see the story of Peter in Acts 10) could understand that all foods, including those animals
formerly declared “unclean,” were “clean” and could be eaten as food. See the next footnote.
1329
For the person who realizes the great truth of Genesis one, reaffirmed in the teaching of Jesus--that all of
creation is "very good"--and who does not misuse or abuse animals or foods in terms of sympathetic magic,
or fertility rites--all animals, and all foods and drinks, are indeed "clean." They can be used, and eaten, and
drunk, with joy and thanksgiving before God the Creator.
But for the person who looks upon certain animals or foods or drinks as magical means for gaining
power, or for influencing God in prayer, or who engages in sexual practices with such animals--those
animals are indeed "unclean." By their misuse, they have become sources of impurity and should be
abstained from. It is not the animal or the food or the drink, in and of itself--it is only because of its abuse,
or misuse, that originates in the mistaken thoughts and intentions within the mind (or "heart") of the human
being involved. For such people, who have not yet understood the goodness of all creation, those animals,
or foods, or drinks, even though in fact "clean," are still for them, because of their attitudes and thoughts
concerning them, "unclean."
As Cragg notes, "If a man has a scrupulous conscience, he must obey it; he dare not ignore its
verdict...A man's conscience ought to be respected even when it persuades him to accept unnecessary
limitations." (P. 625) And, Paul insists, the fellow-believer who does not share in that scrupulous
conscience, must be very careful not to cause harm to that fellow-believer. As Moo notes, “Paul wants the
‘strong’ in faith to recognize that people cannot always ‘existentially’ grasp such truth–particularly when it
runs so counter to a long and strongly held tradition basic to their own identity as God’s people.” (P. 853)
1330
Paul insists that when we are surrounded by people who have such over-scrupulous, superstitious,
mistaken beliefs, and are influenced by such limitations, we must take them into loving consideration--and
731
yours destroy that one on behalf of whom Christ died.1331
(16)1332
Do not
not simply push on with our new-found freedom, insensitive to their feelings and concerns. As Cragg
commented, "The strong may hold stoutly to his liberty, and up to a point he is entitled to do so; but when
his freer outlook brings his brother into jeopardy, that point has already been passed." (P. 625)
It is at just this point that the major concerns of Paul become obvious. We are not to govern our
lives simply by what we know and understand about God and reality. We are to take into loving
consideration the thoughts and feelings of others around us. It is much more important to live by love, than
it is to live by our superior (and far too often proud, and haughty) knowledge. Even true religious
knowledge can become just that--proud and haughty--and instead of helping us to reach out to others, will
cause us to become stumbling-blocks to them. That's what Paul wants his readers to avoid.
With our new-found freedom in Christ, we may understand that all of creation is "clean" and "very
good." But instead of insisting on that truth, and proclaiming our freedom by our actions, we need to let
love for others guide us--and not carelessly trample on their scruples. We must avoid becoming a source of
"grief" to others; we need to act as their loving, helpful friends.
Moo comments that “The eating of the ‘strong,’ coupled with their attitude of superiority and scorn
toward those who think differently, can pressure the ‘weak’ into eating even when they do not yet have the
faith to believe that it is right for them to do so. And by doing what does not come ‘out of faith,’ the ‘weak’
sin (verse 23) and suffer the pain of that knowledge. In behaving as they are, then, the ‘strong’ are ignoring
what Paul has set forth in 12:9-21; 13:8-10 as basic to Christian conduct: love for ‘the neighbor.’” (P. 854)
1331
Remember, urges Paul, that Christ died for all humanity. Our Lord has given himself completely and
totally to this mission of reaching out to all people, to seek them and call them and impart to them his
cleansing and forgiveness. Let us not, then, in our proud knowledge and feeling of superiority to others, so
act that others will be destroyed–i.e., pushed away from the Kingdom instead of being welcomed into it.
People are deeply influenced by the actions and attitudes of others. One person, boldly claiming and
practicing something in society, can become the catalyst for many other people doing the same things and
thinking the same way. We human beings are in many ways similar to sheep--who all too often follow
blindly, doing what we see being done by others. Always remember that, urges Paul, So act and speak that
your life will have a positive influence in this world, instead of a negative one. Don't do or say anything
that would cause a fellow human being to be turned away from the Christian way and its hope.
"The weak in faith will be grievously hurt, he will have the integrity of his faith...and obedience
destroyed, and his salvation put at risk, if he is led by his strong fellow-Christian's insistence on exercising
the liberty, which he (the strong Christian) truly has, into doing something for which he as yet does not
possess the inward liberty. The strong will therefore not be acting in accordance with Christian love, if his
weak brother is thus seriously hurt on account of the food which he (the strong Christian) eats." (Cranfield,
Pp. 714-15)
Compare 1 Corinthians 8:11, where Paul states, "For the one who is weak is being destroyed by
your knowledge, the brother on behalf of whom our Anointed King died." As Moo notes, “If, Paul implies,
Christ has already paid the supreme price for that ‘weak’ Christian, how can the ‘strong’ refuse to pay the
quite insignificant price of a minor and occasional restriction in their diet?” (P. 855)
1332
Moo comments on verse 16 that “The prohibition in the verse is a conclusion that Paul draws from what
he has just said in verses 14-15. Freedom from the dietary laws is a ‘good’ thing, a legitimate implication
732
therefore1333 let that which is good of yours1334 be slandered.1335
14.171336
For the Kingdom of the God1337 is not eating and
of the coming of Jesus the Messiah and the New Covenant. But if the Christian were to use that freedom in
such a way that a fellow believer was put in spiritual danger, that ‘good’ would quickly become something
that would be ‘blasphemed’–that is, it would become the cause of other people reviling and defaming that
which is a divine gift.” (P. 855)
1333
The conjunction ou=n, oun, "therefore," is omitted by F, G and the Peshitta Syriac.
It is read by P46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, Psi, Uncial
Manuscript 048, Minuscules 33, 1739, 1881, the "Majority Text," the Latin Vulgate, a part of the
Old Latin witnesses, the Harclean Syriac, the Coptic tradition, Clement of Alexandria (who died
before 215 A.D.) and Ambrosiaster (366-384 A.D.).
Whether read or not makes little difference to the meaning of Romans.
In the light of Genesis one, and the teaching of Jesus, the believer has come to
understand that all of creation is "good," and can be used in good and healthful ways. Such a
believer no longer believes that anything in creation is evil or unclean in and of itself--only its
abuse or misuse can cause it to become either evil or unclean. We take this to be "the good" of
which Paul speaks. But there is a constant danger that this new view of reality will be
misunderstood by others, and be used by them to speak profanely of, and belittle the Christian's
life-style.
It may well be that you, as a Christian believer, know that you have the freedom to drink
wine in moderation. But a fellow believer, who believes in abstinence from every form of
intoxicating drink, seeing you, in your freedom taking a glass of wine, will become confused, and
feel betrayed by your action--and be led to speak against what is "good" to you.
The believer who feels that he has such freedom to use any and all of God's "good"
creation, may feel himself limited and thwarted by having his fellow believer's limitations imposed
on him. (Compare Paul’s own statement in 1 Corinthians 10:29b-30, “For why should my liberty
be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why
should I be denounced because of that for which I give thanks?”) But love does not resent such
restrictions, and gladly limits the amount of freedom which one will practice in such situations.
(That is exactly Paul’s conclusion in 1 Corinthians 10:33, “...I try to please everyone in everything
I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so that they may be saved.”)
1334
The genitive plural personal pronoun u`mw/n, "of yours," is changed to the 1st person personal
pronoun h`mw/n, "of ours," by Bezae, F, G, Psi, Minuscule 1506, a few other Greek
manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, a few of the Old Latin witnesses, the Peshitta Syriac, the Sahidic
Coptic, Clement of Alexandria and Ambrosiaster (366-384 A.D.). This variant reading hardly
changes the meaning of Romans.
1335
Moo comments that “Paul is warning the ‘strong’ Christians that their insistence on exercising their
freedom in ceremonial matters in the name of Christ can lead those who are spiritually harmed by their
behavior to revile the legitimate freedom that Christ has won for them.” (P. 856)
733
drinking1338--but rather, rightrelationship,1339 and peace1340 and joy1341 in a set-apart spirit.1342
14.18
Moo comments on verses 17-18 that “Paul provides the theological underpinnings for his imperatives in
verses 13-16 and 19-23. The ‘strong’ need perspective and this is just what Paul tries to give them here.
For the ‘strong’ are placing too high a value on Christian freedom from ceremonial observances. By
insisting that they exercise their liberty in these matters, they are causing spiritual harm to fellow believers
and are thereby failing to maintain a proper focus on what is truly important in the kingdom of God...
1336
“Theirs, paradoxically, is the same fault as that of the Pharisees, only in reverse: where the
Pharisees insisted on strict adherence to the ritual law at the expense of ‘justice, mercy, and faith’ (Matthew
23:23), the ‘strong’ are insisting on exercising their freedom from the ritual law at the expense of
‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.’ For these are the qualities, Paul reminds the ‘strong,’
that are what the kingdom of God is all about–not ‘eating and drinking.’” (P. 856)
1337
This is the only place in Romans where this phrase, "the Kingdom of the God," appears. In 1
Corinthians 4:20, Paul states, "For the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." There, Paul means
that God's Kingdom is found, not just in talk, but in strong deeds of action. For other references to God’s
Kingdom in Paul’s writings, see 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50, 54; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5;
Colossians 1:13; 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; 2 Timothy 4:1 and 18.
"The Kingdom of God" is one of the preeminent teachings of Jesus. It lies at the heart of the
proclamation of John the Immerser, and then of Jesus himself, whose initial proclamation was, according to
Mark 1:15, "The time has been fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God has drawn near--turn around, and have
confidence in the Good News."
Mark causes us to understand that in Jesus (the "King"), the Kingdom of God had drawn near, and
those who were willing to respond by turning around and having confidence in him and his message, could
thereby enter into that Kingdom, and share in its blessings.
But what was this "Kingdom of God" like according to Mark? In a long series of vignettes, or
"thumb-nail sketches," Mark pictures the work of the King--in loving ministry, in healing, in casting out
evil, in teaching, in welcoming little children and those considered unworthy by the Jewish leaders, etc. It
was just there, in loving compassion, self-giving service and strong teaching concerning the will of God,
that the Kingdom of God had drawn near. All of that Kingdom-ministry was leading up to a great selfsacrifice on the part of the King--which Mark pictures in his closing chapters--and which enables the
unworthy followers of the King to enter into a new life, sharing in the ministry which Jesus had begun in
Galilee, with the risen Lord in their presence.
Paul's language here is closely related to this picture of the Kingdom of God that is found in Mark.
The Kingdom of God as pictured in Mark did not involve a rigid adherence of Jesus and his followers to
a strict dietary code, or to a legalistic teaching concerning food and drink. As a matter of fact, many of the
legalistic elements of contemporary Judaism (such as a strict observance of the day of rest) were no longer
considered important in the Kingdom of God.
1339
Matters of food and drink are not important for the Kingdom of God--but right-relationship is. Indeed, at
the very heart of the ministry of the King, and of his followers, is entrance into the right-relationships both
given and demanded by God: to treat all people, regardless of their position or background, in the proper
1338
734
way--as children of God, as brothers and sisters, as beings of ultimate worth--not to be cast off, or
disregarded, or despised. A right-relationship with a weaker brother will never allow anyone to treat that
brother carelessly, or without concern for what our actions will do to him.
hq")d'c.,
The student of the Jewish Bible recognizes this word, "right-relationship"--
tsedaqah in Hebrew, dikaiosu,nh in Greek--as being at the very heart of the ethical teaching
of the entire Bible--especially of the great writing spokespersons of Israel, such as Amos, Hosea,
Isaiah, and Jeremiah. It is just as prominent in the wisdom teaching of the Jewish Bible.
Nothing can substitute for right-relationship(s). Where right-relationships are not present, the
Kingdom of God is not being experienced as present. Anyone who wants to do the will of God
must be rightly-related with others. We cannot be right with God, and wrong with our neighbors,
or our mates, or our children, or especially, with poor people in need. This is basic for biblical
teaching--and now Paul says, this is what the Kingdom of God is all about.
God imparts right-relationship with himself through his free gift in Jesus; as believers
accept that wonderful divine gift, it becomes the all-important standard for their lives. Some
commentators insist that all Paul means here is this divine gift of right-relationship--not the human
responsibility for living in right-relationships. But this view overlooks the fact that Paul is
contrasting right-relationship, peace, and joy with legalistic practices concerning food and drink-things people do. As his following words will make clear (verse 18), he is talking about the way in
which people serve the Christ. In the Kingdom of God, it is not eating and drinking, but rightrelationships. That is Paul's concern here.
~Alv'
This great, important biblical word-, shalom in Hebrew, eivrh,nh in Greek--is
the goal that God seeks for his people, and the goal at which our lives should be aimed. It is a
condition of well-being, the absence of conflict and hostility, along with the presence of peace and
prosperity, in which all of God's children can share, as the world returns to the condition intended
by God in creation. Peace is, of course, the great gift of God; but living in peace, and becoming
"peace-makers," is the primary task of the people of God. That's what the Kingdom of God is all
about, says Paul. And, if peace is God's gift and our goal, it will mean that we will always think
about the consequences which insisting on our freedom will have on the community--will such
action contribute to peace, or will it be destructive of peace and harmony in the community?
1341
Joy--cara, in Greek, represents a large number of words found in the Psalms, as the people
of God are called to worship with great rejoicing, even in the face of tribulation. Such radiant joy
lies at the heart of the nature of the Kingdom of God. Those who realize God's love and
forgiveness, and who enter into his peace, are able to throw themselves in faith on God's
provision and promises, and thereby to find a great, unending source of joy in their hearts and
lives. Where such joy is not present, vibrantly ringing out in genuine worship, the Kingdom of God
is not being experienced as present. Paul probably intends that if our insistence on using our
freedoms causes sorrow and grief in our weaker brothers and sisters, we ought not to insist on
using them. That is, we ought to govern our freedom by considerations of right-relationships,
peace, and joy.
1342
This last phrase, "in a set-apart spirit," or “in a Set-apart Spirit’ means that the Kingdom of God is
located in the innermost being of the individual, as people, from the depths of their hearts, commit
themselves to the service of God's will (and thereby living in the Set-apart Spirit)--through always
struggling for right-relationships, through bringing into being the peace and prosperity that God desires for
1340
735
For the one serving the Christ in this (way1343 is) well-pleasing to the
God and approved1344 by the people.1345
14.191346
So then, therefore, let
all his people, and through joyful hearts that love to sing with gladness, even in the midst of suffering. And,
Paul may be understood to imply, if our innermost beings are totally dedicated to God, we will not be
anxious to demonstrate our freedom to do certain things--which might, by their doing, keep us from
fulfilling the mission of God.
These are the marks of the Kingdom of God--not rigid legalism with its obedience to laws
concerning eating and drinking--but right-relationships, peace and joy, in a set-apart spirit, that puts the
mission of God uppermost in our lives and purposes. Not the care-less enjoyment of legitimate liberties, but
the loving, careful attention to what impact our actions may have on others!
1343
The dative neuter singular demonstrative pronoun tou,tw|, "in this," is read by the first writer of
Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, the first writer of Bezae, F, G, P,
Uncial Manuscripts 048, 0209, Minuscules 81, 1506, 1739, 1881, a few other Greek
manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate and a part of the Old Latin witnesses. It is changed to the plural
form tou,toij, "in these (things)," by a corrector of Sinaiticus, a corrector of Bezae, Psi,
Minuscule 33, the "Majority Text," the Old Latin Manuscript b, some manuscripts of the Latin
Vulgate and the Syriac tradition. The variant reading hardly changes the meaning of Romans.
This statement makes it clear that Paul is talking about human actions when he speaks of
right-relationships, peace, joy and a set-apart spirit. These are the ways in which we serve our
King in his Kingdom.
It is a very practical question: "How can a person truly serve the Christ?" Paul's answer is
that he is served, not through rituals of eating or drinking--or of not eating or drinking--but rather,
through right-relationships, peace and joy in a set-apart spirit. When we quit placing emphasis on
such external matters as dietary rituals, and willingly enter into (or, in terms of the Sermon on the
Mount, when we hunger for) right relationships with God and with all our fellow human beings;
when we struggle for peace on earth (or, in the words of the Sermon on the Mount, when we dare
to become "peace-makers" in our broken world); when we enter into the joyful worship of God that
pours out joy for others (or, in the words of the Sermon on the Mount, when we are willing to
joyfully suffer undeservedly for the sake of the Kingdom of God); and when our innermost beings
are truly set-apart for the service of God, rather than for the fulfillment of our own personal desires
(in the words of the Sermon on the
Mount, when we seek his Kingdom first)--in all of this, we are serving the Christ, and are
participants in the Kingdom of God.
1344
The nominative singular adjective do,kimoj, "approved," is changed to the dative plural form
doki,moij by Vaticanus, the first writer of G and a few other Greek manuscripts (see). The
variant, which agrees with the following noun avnqrw,poij, makes the text say "pleasing to
the God and with approved people." This variant does not change the meaning of Romans in a
significant way.
1345
This kind of life--seeking right relationships with God and with all other people; working for peace upon
earth; rejoicing in God even in the midst of trials; and having hearts that are set-apart for God's purposes
rather than our own--is the kind of life that God approves of, and that will also be approved of by human
736
us pursue1347 the things of the peace, and the things for the building
up, that is for one another.1348
14.20
Do not, on account of food,
beings. They will see and recognize the truth and the goodness involved in such a life-style. Such a life is
the best possible witness for God in our broken, competing world.
Paul, of course, knew from long experience that such a life-style would not always be peaceful, and
would oftentimes draw opposition and fire from non-believers (such as he constantly experienced at the
hands of unbelieving fellow Jews). But he also believed that ultimately, such a life-style would receive
human approval, and would lead others into the Kingdom of God, simply because of its winsome goodness.
If we, instead of riding rough-shod over the feelings and convictions of others, especially of others
weaker than ourselves, will be constantly concerned for practicing right-relationship with all others,
working for peace with them, and sharing with them the joy of knowing and serving the Christ with
dedicated hearts, we will quickly become instruments of the Kingdom of God, advancing its claims
throughout our broken, warring world. Do you want to share in the growth of the Kingdom of God? Then
learn to share in this life-style.
1346
Moo comments on verse 19 that “After his ‘indicative’ interlude, Paul turns back to ‘imperative,’
exhorting the Roman Christians to put into practice in their relationships with each other the principles of
the kingdom that he has just set forth (verses 17-18). This verse, then, introduces the concluding section of
commands in this paragraph (verses 19-23).” (P. 859)
1347
The present subjunctive 1st person plural verb, diw,kwmen, diokomen, (with omicron), "let us
pursue," is read by Ephraemi Rescriptus, Bezae, Psi, Minuscules 33, 1739, 1881, the "Majority
Text," the entire Latin tradition and the Coptic tradition.
But the present indicative active, diw,komen, diokomen (with omega), "we are
pursuing," is read by Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, F, G, L, P, Uncial Manuscripts 048,
0209, Minuscules 6, 326, 629 and some other Greek manuscripts.
It may well be that this variant reading has arisen as a result of copyists working "by ear,"
since the two verbs sound almost identical in spoken Greek. In fact, the present indicative verb
has the greater weight of textual witnesses, but the context seems to call for the subjunctive
tense, not the indicative.
1348
Following the last phrase in verse 19, eivj avllh,louj, eis allelous, "for (or ‘to’) one
another," the subjunctive 1st person plural verb fula,xwmen, phulaksomen (with omega),
"let us keep," is interpolated into the text by the first writer of Bezae, F, G, Minuscule 629 (see), a
majority of the Old Latin witnesses and the Wordsworth-White Latin Vulgate.
The additional word does not change the meaning of Romans.
There are two goals to pursue, states Paul: (1) the things that contribute to peaceful
relationships between people; and (2) the things that build up other people, instead of hurting, or
tearing them down. It seems obvious that this is just another way for Paul to express the
nature of the Kingdom of God, and its demands. Seeking ways to peace and building up of
others is the same thing as seeking right-relationships, peace, and joy.
737
destroy1349 the work of the God.1350
All things indeed, (are) clean1351;
It is an important question to ask ourselves. Is my life-style contributing to peace, both in
the religious community and in the larger community? Are my words and actions contributing to
the building up of others, or am I contributing to hostility and to the tearing down of others? Am I
destroying the right-relationship between brother and brother, causing hostility rather than peace,
and causing grief rather than joyful worship? The building up of the community simply cannot be
accomplished by such actions.
Cragg comments, "Granted that a given type of conduct is permissible to me, before I act
on that conviction I must pause to consider its consequences for my neighbor. In particular, I
must make sure that what I do promotes the peace of the fellowship and results in the upbuilding
of the religious community. The history of Christianity abounds in examples of people, intensely
earnest about nonessentials, who have felt at liberty to shatter the unity of the church for the sake
of their particular fetish." (P. 628) Of course, those who have shattered the unity of the church
have always felt that the issues were essential, anything but nonessential, and this raises the
question of what is essential to genuine Christian religion, and what is nonessential. Surely Paul
would answer, what is essential is that which makes peace, and which builds up others.
Moo comments that “As verse 20 makes clear, Paul is still addressing the ‘strong’: he calls
on them to maintain the kind of attitude and behavior with respect to the matters of dispute in the
Roman church that will foster harmony between the two factions...The strong believers will foster
peace in the community by making the interests of the church as a whole their priority.” (P. 859)
1349
The 2nd person singular imperative verb kata,lue, "(do not) destroy," is changed to the 2nd
person singular imperative verb avpo,llue, also meaning "(do not) destroy," by the first writer
of Sinaiticus. The variant reading does not change the meaning of Romans.
1350
Compare verse 15. Paul is repeating himself here. "Even if we can eat and drink whatever we like, we
should be ready to forego the exercise of that liberty if the welfare of our brother should demand it."
(Cragg, P. 629)
Moo discusses what this phrase “the work of God” might mean, concluding that Paul “probably
refers to the Christian community rather than to the individual ‘weak’ believer. Paul is warning ‘strong’
believers that they can seriously damage the church–destroy its unity and sap its strength–through their
attitudes and actions toward the ‘weak.’ And they cause this damage ‘for the sake of food’–because they
persist in behaving in a certain way in a matter that is peripheral, at best, to the kingdom of God. To be
sure, Paul admits, the strong believers are right to think that they possess the freedom as the New Covenant
people of God to eat and drink without any restriction from the Old Covenant law–‘all things are clean.’
But, as he did earlier when making the same point (verse 14), Paul immediately qualifies this assertion of
liberty.” (P. 860)
1351
Following the adjective kaqara,, kathara, "clean (things)," the dative plural adjective
kaqaroi/j, katharois, is interpolated into the text, "to clean (people)," by a corrector of
Sinaiticus.
This slightly changes the meaning of Romans; instead of affirming that all things are clean,
it weakens this to mean all things are clean to people who are clean. But the change in meaning
is not very significant.
738
but rather, (they are) evil1352 for the person, for the one who through
falling, is eating.1353
14.21
(It is) good not to eat meat, nor to
drink wine, nor (anything) by1354 which the brother of yours stumbles.1355
14.22
You, (the) faith1356 [which]1357 you have, have (it) to
Wright comments that “...Food becomes ‘evil’ (not just ‘unclean’) for someone who eats it in such a way
as to cause someone else to stumble. The ‘strong’ are hereby confronted: they are right to consider all foods
clean, but they must realize that some food can become unclean even for them.” (P. 742)
1353
Compare verse 14. Again, Paul is repeating himself, for the sake of emphasis. Cragg said that "The
sovereign law of Christian conduct is always to subordinate our own privilege to our brother's need. It is
not spiritual liberty so to walk that others stumble in consequence." (P. 630)
1354
The preposition evn, en, "by," is conjecturally changed to the neuter number e`,n, hen, "one
(thing)," by Hofmann, and changed to the phrase e`,n evn, hen en, "one thing by..." by
1352
Mangey. But such conjectural changes of an ancient text by modern scholars are of little value in
determining its meaning.
1355
The 3rd person singular, present indicative active verb prosko,ptei, proskoptei, "stumbles
against," is changed to the 3rd person singular, present indicative passive verb lupei/tai,
lupeitai, "is grieved," by the first writer of Sinaiticus and P.
The variant reading changes the meaning slightly, but with little significance for the overall
meaning of the passage.
Genuine love for others must dictate all our actions. It would be far better never to eat
meat, or drink wine, or do anything that causes a brother or sister to fall. Our goal in life, says
Paul, is not to be able to fully express our freedom, doing any and everything we may desire--but
rather, our goal is to help others, to contribute to peace and mutual up-building. This is the very
heart and center of the Christian life-style and ethic: life lived in such a way as to contribute to
peace and the building up of others, rather than being lived solely in the pursuit of our own
freedoms and interests. Wright comments that “Here is something positively right and good that
‘the strong’ can do: to abstain from meat, or wine, or anything else that makes a fellow Christian, a
‘brother,’ that is, a member of God’s family, to stumble.” (P. 742)
Moo comments on verse 21 that “...It is ‘good’ not to eat meat or to drink wine or to do
anything that might cause that brother to stumble. As verse 17 sums up the central theological
point, so this assertion states the basic practical point that Paul makes in verses 13-23...Paul
clearly intends to make the principle he states here as widely applicable as possible by adding ‘or
anything else.’ The believer who seeks the peace and edification of the church should gladly
refrain from activities that might cause a fellow believer to suffer spiritual harm.” (P. 861)
1356
Moo comments that here, “As in verse 1, ‘faith’ does not refer to general Christian faith but to
convictions about the issues in dispute in Rome that arise out of one’s faith in Christ. Paul is not, then,
telling the ‘strong’ Christian to be quiet about his or her faith in Christ–a plea that would be quite out of
place in the New Testament!...The silence that Paul requires is related to the need to avoid putting a
stumbling block in the way of the ‘weak.’ This will mean that the ‘strong’ are not to brag about their
739
yourself, before the God.1358
How happy the one who does not judge
himself in that which he approves.1359
14.231360
But then the one who
convictions before the ‘weak’ and, especially, that they are not to propagandize the ‘weak.’” (Pp. 861-62)
1357
The accusative feminine singular relative pronoun h]n, "which," is omitted by Bezae, F, G, Psi,
Minuscules 1739, 1881, the "Majority Text," the Latin Vulgate, a part of the Old Latin witnesses,
the Harclean Syriac and the Sahidic Coptic. The pronoun is read by the first writer of Sinaiticus,
Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, Uncial Manuscript 048, Minuscules 81, 945, 1506, 1739,
a few other Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin Manuscript r, the Peshitta Syriac and the Bohairic
Coptic. This omission is probably the result of the eye of copyists / translators skipping from the n at the end of pi,stin to the -n and the end of h]n, and thereby leaving out the intervening
word. The omission does not change the meaning of Romans, but makes its meaning less clear.
1358
Cranfield comments that "To be free from the sort of scruples which trouble the weak is in itself a
precious gift. The inward freedom does not have to be expressed outwardly in order to be enjoyed: one
may enjoy it in one's own inner life--a secret known only to oneself and God. And, if a weak brother is
going to be hurt by one's giving outward expression to
one's freedom, then one should be content with the inward experience of it, of which God is the only
witness." (P. 726)
You may have the confidence that it is all right in God's eyes to eat all sorts of food, and drink all
sorts of drink--in moderation. But there is no need to carry a flask of alcohol everywhere you go, waving it
in the nose of fellow Christians who are members of Alcoholics Anonymous. In the first century world,
where many people were convinced that it would be wrong to eat meats that had been used in pagan
sacrifices, it would not be wise to constantly parade the fact that you felt free to eat such meat, or to share in
such eating at public meetings. Far better to make your own decisions, and to hold your own convictions
concerning such matters privately, keeping them to yourself, and not openly demonstrating your beliefs
before anybody and everybody.
1359
What a blessed thing it is, says Paul, to be confident and sure in one's actions, and not to do anything that
would bring a feeling of guilt or condemnation because of the violation of one's conscience or convictions.
Genuine blessedness, or happiness, comes from being at peace with one's convictions--not doing those
things which one believes to be wrong.
1360
Moo comments on verse 23 that “In contrast to the Christian who acts from conviction is the ‘weak’
Christian ‘who has doubts’ or ‘who wavers.’ The doubts of such Christians arise from the fact that they do
not have a strong enough faith to believe that they can ignore the ritual elements of the Old Testament
law...What brings God’s condemnation is eating when one does not have the faith to believe that it is right
to do it. This, Paul claims, is ‘sin.’ Why? Because, Paul goes on to explain, ‘everything that is not out of
faith is sin’...
“What he here labels ‘sin’...is any act that does not match our sincerely held convictions about what
our Christian faith allows us to do and prohibits us from doing. ‘For a Christian not a single decision and
action can be good which he does not think he can justify on the ground of his Christian conviction and his
liberty before God in Christ’ [quoting Ridderbos]. Violation of the dictates of the conscience, even when
the conscience does not conform perfectly with God’s will, is sinful...
”The ‘strong,’ he is suggesting, should not force the ‘weak’ to eat meat, or drink wine, or ignore the
Sabbath, when the ‘weak’ are not yet convinced that their faith in Christ allows them to do so. For to do so
740
wavers, if he should eat, has been judged, because (it is) not out of
faith.1361
But then everything that (is) not out of faith is a missing-
of-the-mark.1362
would be to force them into sin, to put a ‘stumbling’ block in their way (compare verses 13, 20-21). First,
their faith must be strengthened, their consciences
enlightened; and then they can follow the ‘strong’ in exercising Christian liberty together.” (Pp. 863-64)
1361
We are called to "walk by faith," by confidence in God and his will. But if we "waver"
--if we do things that we are uncertain about, violating our convictions, that is the very opposite of walking
by faith or by confidence in God and his will. It is not an act of faith to do what we think may be wrong, or
is at the best questionable.
Wright comments that “To doubt is not to sin; but to act on something when one has serious doubts
about it is to fall under condemnation, because the action does not flow from faith...
“The point here is not just that the weak may be convicted of sin if though doubting, they go ahead
and eat, though that is the first and probably the main level of meaning. The further level is that the strong,
knowing this, must take care lest, by eating, they entice the weak into stumbling, and so themselves sin
against the weak...This complex little analysis of motives, responsibilities, and results is a copy-book
exercise in thinking through the demands both of love (13:8-10) and of humility (12:3-8) within the
Christian community.” (P. 743)
Compare Jacob (“James”) 1:6 and 2:4 for similar uses of this verb diakri,nomai,
diakrinomai, which means in these contexts “to waver,” or “to hesitate.”
1362
To be "on target" as followers of Jesus means to always act by faith, to do only those things which we
confidently believe to be the will of God. To go ahead and act when our innermost convictions tell us that
what we are doing may be wrong, is to miss-the-mark, to sin against God.
Paul's great paradigm of faith or confidence is Abraham; his favorite passage is Genesis 15:6--"And
he [Abraham] put confidence (or ‘believed’) in YHWH, and he [YHWH] considered it in him as a rightrelationship." The story of Abraham is the story of a person who places confidence in YHWH--following
his word, trusting his promise, building his future upon loyalty to YHWH. That is the kind of life that is "on
target," that does not "miss the mark." And for Paul, every believer is now a "child of Abraham," who is to
walk in the same kind of confidence that Abraham had.
Some ancient Greek manuscripts of Romans end here at 14:23, with only the additional benediction
that is found in 16:25-27 added. Other manuscripts add the benediction of 16:25-27, but then have
chapters 15 and 16 plus the benediction repeated. Other manuscripts have other variations as to where the
final benediction occurs--some at the end of 15:33. What is obvious from all of this is that the Letter to the
Romans was distributed in different forms in the early Christian world, sometimes omitting the last two
chapters (15 and 16) as not being integral to the main teaching of the book, but much more personal in
nature.
The Life Application Bible has a note on Romans 14:13ff. that observes, "Some Christians use an
invisible weaker brother to support their own opinions, prejudices or standards. 'You must live by these
741
standards,' they say, 'or you will be offending the weaker brother'...
“In truth, the person would often be offending no one but the speaker. While Paul urges us to be
sensitive to those whose faith may be harmed by our actions, we should not sacrifice our liberty in Christ
just to satisfy the selfish motives of those who are trying to force their opinions on us...
“Neither fear them nor criticize them, but follow Christ as closely as you can." (P. 2054)
742
PRAYER
Lord Jesus, we have gathered here today to lift up our voices in praise, and to place
ourselves under your Word, listening for your voice in Scripture, opening our hearts for your
correction and guidance.
We know full well that we ought not to judge others, because judgment is your business,
not ours. You have called us to love our fellow human beings, not to be their critics or judges. We
know this–but how easy it is for us to fall back into criticism of others, becoming judgmental in our
attitudes, so that instead of loving and helping others, we reject them and condemn them. Forgive
us, Lord!
We are thankful that You have set us free from the burden of legalism, of thinking that in
order to be saved we have to keep 613 commandments, or any code of canon law. You have set
us free; we have a wonderful freedom of action as we live in this, your good creation by faith. But
far more important than enjoying our freedom, and doing anything that we think is lawful and right,
is our responsibility to love and help our fellow human beings. O Lord, let us never, in the
exercise of our freedom, hurt or cause our fellow human beings to stumble or fall!
O Lord, let us seek right-relationships, and peace and joy in set-apart spirits, above all else
in life. Let us always seek to have a right relationship with You, our Lord, and then with all our
fellow human beings, the very people for whom You died. Let us always do the things that lead to
peace, rather than to strife and bickering. Let us always seek to be sources of joy to all with
whom we come in contact, instead of sources of discouragement.
Give us clean consciences, filled with faith. Let us never do anything that violates our
consciences, or that acts on the basis of anything less than faith in You and Your will. In Your
name, Lord Jesus, we pray. Amen.
743