“Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, ‘As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.’ So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer ...” (Romans 14:10-13a, ESV).
In line with vv. 4 and 22, each of the two rhetorical questions that opens v. 10 begins with the second person singular pronoun “you” [σύ], confronting the problem indirectly (speaking to a hypothetical addressee) yet emphatically. The exhortation equally applies to both the weak abstainer already admonished not to “judge” [κρίνω] (vv. 2-4), and the non-abstainer having been told not to “despise” [ἐξουθενέω] (v. 3), implicitly including wrongful “judgment” [διάκρισις] (v. 1). Neither sits in “the judgment seat of God” [τῷ βήματι τοῦ θεοῦ], before whom “we will all stand.”
A βῆμα (“bema”) is a judicial bench or platform or tribunal,1 used here metaphorically of God’s “judgment seat,” a metonymy for the divine judgment [κρίμα] itself (cf. 2:2-3, 16; 3:6; 11:33).2 Elsewhere it is Christ who occupies “the judgment seat” (2 Cor. 5:10).3 Exemplifying once again Paul’s high Christology, “he views God and Christ as so closely related that he can shift almost unconsciously from one to the other …”4 Scriptural confirmation is given by quoting the LXX version of Isaiah 45:23 (applied to Christ in Phil. 2:11).5
Although personal judgments can be relatively immaterial to others (v. 5), and there is a place for making judgments according to God’s standard (2:27; 16:17),6 here the concern is illegitimate judging [κρίνω] (as in vv. 3-4; cf. 2:1-3a; 3:4),7 which is to be eliminated from the collective experience of “one another” [ἀλλήλους].8 The familial term “brother” [ἀδελφός] occurs five times in vv. 10-21, its highest concentration in the letter and the only occurrences in the singular (except for the greeting in 16:23).9 This draws attention to the serious nature of a problem that engenders pride, threatens peace and unity, and creates unjustified doubts about one’s standing in the fellowship of God’s family.10
While divine judgment is universal (“all” will be judged) and no one is excepted (“each” will give an account), the present admonition is for the community of Christians (“we,” “us”), a twofold reminder that (a) God is the judge and we are not; and (b) we will be held accountable for our attitudes and actions.
Refrain from Unnecessary Offense
“… but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died” (Romans 14:13b-15).
Having quoted in 9:33 the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 8:14 (LXX),11 applicable to Israel’s rejection of Christ as a “stone of stumbling” [λίθον προσκόμματος] and “rock of offense” [πέτραν σκανδάλου], here Paul seems to borrow the same terminology to avert the potential disregard of a Christian brother, “the most un-Christian of all acts.”12 Rather than “judging” [κρίνω] one another (v. 13a), we are to “judge” [κρίνω] (ASV, KJV)—“decide” (ESV), “determine” (NASB), “resolve” (NKJV)—not to put before anyone in the Lord’s family a “stumbling block” [πρόσκομμα]13 (repeated in v. 20 with its verb form in v. 21) or “hindrance” [σκάνδαλον],14 synonymous expressions for emphasis and more specifically delineated in v. 15b. Individual Christian liberties must be curbed by unselfishness and brotherhood. Everyone has the right to his or her own opinions, but we are also responsible to the Lord, who expects us to prioritize the interests of others in consideration of the entire body of believers (cf. 12:3-16; 13:8-10; 15:1-7).
With absolute certainty Paul can say, “I know [οἶδα]15 and am persuaded [πέπεισμαι],”16 based on the highest authority “in the Lord Jesus.”17 The threefold allusion to what is “unclean” [κοινός], then contrasted with what is “pure” or “clean” [καθαρός] (v. 20), is almost certainly applicable to the conventional food regulations of ancient Judaism.18 Though no longer binding (“nothing is unclean in itself”),19 the conscientious abstainer is habitually aware of these distinctions and sincerely “thinks” (ESV, NASB), “considers” (CSB, NKJV), “regards” (NIV) [λογίζομαι] such matters according to entrenched sensibilities.20
To unnecessarily “grieve” [λυπέω]21 a “brother” in Christ with preventable actions like subjective food choices (at least publicly), the hypothetical “you” is no longer “walking” [περιπατέω]22 according to “love” [ἀγάπη],23 thereby discounting all that is said in 12:3-18 and 13:8-10. The suggestion of precluding the proverbial “stumbling block” or “hindrance” (v. 13b) is intensified here as an imperative: “do not destroy [ἀπόλλυμι]24 the one for whom Christ died,” i.e., do not spiritually harm or contribute to the spiritual demise of a fellow-Christian (cf. 2:4-12; 8:33-34).25 This, incidentally, challenges the Calvinistic doctrines of limited atonement and perseverance of the saints, since it is possible for one “for whom Christ died” to face spiritual ruin (cf. 1 Cor. 8:11). In light of the fact that Jesus has already paid the price for our sins (cf. 5:6-11), how can any of his disciples “refuse to pay the quite insignificant price of a minor and occasional restriction in their diet?”26 Paul himself is a living example of such self-sacrificing love (15:1; cf. 1 Cor. 8:13; 9:12-19; 10:32–11:1).
“So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil” (Romans 14:16).
“So” [οὖν] draws a conclusion from the absolute importance of demonstrating brotherly love. The directive here is for “you” (singular) to not allow the good of “you [all]” (plural) to be evil spoken of or slandered or blasphemed [βλασφημέω] (cf. 2:24; 3:8).27 Although this “good” [ἀγαθός] is commonly interpreted as Christian freedom in general,28 or more particularly freedom from obsolete dietary laws,29 it may rather refer to the good conduct, deeds, and influence expected of every follower of Jesus (cf. 2:7, 10; 5:7; 7:19; 12:2, 9, 21; 13:3; 15:2; 16:19). If anyone in the Christian community has been contributing to interpersonal or intercongregational disruptions, the reputation and well-being of the Lord’s church as a whole is to take precedence. Note Paul’s persistent emphasis throughout the letter on all the saints, beyond any one individual or local congregation, collectively in a cohesive cooperative.30
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 Matt. 27:19; John 19:13; Acts 12:21; 18:12-17; 25:6, 10, 17.
2 Implied in Rom. 3:8; 5:16; 13:2.
3 On the role of Christ in judgment, see also John 5:22-30; 12:48; 9:39; Acts 17:31.
4 D. J. Moo, Romans 847 n.105. “This ‘christologizing’ of traditional theistic eschatology is the best example of a more diffuse phenomenon in which ‘God-language’ becomes implicitly christological, without the christology ceasing to be theocentric” (J. D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 255).
5 On the perfect passive indicative formula γέγραπται (“it is written”), referring to sacred scripture having been recorded in the past with current and ongoing applicability, see Rom. 1:17; 2:24; 3:4, 10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:13, 33; 10:15; 11:8, 26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3, 9, 21.
6 See also 1 Cor. 2:15; 5:3, 12; 6:2-5; Gal. 1:9; cf. John 7:24; 1 John 4:1; 2 John 10-11.
7 See also Matt. 7:1-5; Luke 6:37; 1 Cor. 4:3-5; Col. 2:16; Jas. 2:13; 4:11-12.
8 Cf. Rom. 1:12; 12:5, 10, 16; 13:8; 14:13, 19; 15:5, 7, 14; 16:16.
9 Paul typically uses the collective plural “brethren” [ἀδελφοί] in Romans, as in 1:13; 7:1, 4; 8:12, 29; 9:3; 10:1; 11:25; 12:1; 15:14, 15, 30; 16:14, 17.
10 D. J. Moo, Romans 846; A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert 235.
11 See also 1 Pet. 2:7-8; cf. Matt. 21:42; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11.
12 C. H. Dodd, Romans 218.
13 Or “obstacle” (NASB); cf. 9:32, 33; 1 Cor. 8:9. Outside of Paul, only in 1 Pet. 2:8.
14 Or “cause to fall” (NKJV), “stumbling block” (NASB), “pitfall” (CSB), “trap” (NET), “obstacle” (NIV); cf. Rom. 9:33; 11:9; 14:13; 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:23; Gal. 5:11; outside of Paul in Matt. 14:41; 16:23; 18:7[x2]; Luke 17:1; 1 Pet. 2:8; 1 John 2:10; Rev. 2:14. The verbal σκανδαλίζω is used less frequently in Paul (1 Cor. 8:13; 2 Cor. 11:29) and more commonly in the Gospels (26 times). C. H. Dodd surmises that Paul must have learned the concept from the teachings of Jesus, seeing that σκάνδαλον “is not a good or usual Greek word, and the very fact that Paul uses it here suggests that he knew it in the tradition of the sayings of Jesus” (Romans 218).
15 Note also Rom. 2:2; 3:19; 5:3; 6:9, 16; 7:7, 14, 18; 8:22, 26-28; 11:2; 13:11; 15:29.
16 Note also Rom. 2:8, 19; 8:38; 15:14.
17 “‘In the Lord’ simply means (as the phrase is often used) ‘in harmony with,’ or ‘according to’ the Lord’s will” (R. C. Deaver, Romans 556).
18 See Gen. 7:2-3, 8; 8:20; Lev. 4:12; 6:11; 7:19; cf. Gal. 2:11-14; Col. 2:21.
19 Note also v. 20; 7:4, 6; cf. Acts 10:9-16; Gal. 3:19-25; Col. 2:13-17. On the sense of “purifying all foods” in Mark 7:19, see K. L. Moore, “When did Jesus annul the Jewish ceremonial food restrictions?” Moore Perspective (15 April 2012), <Link>.
20 Note, e.g., Acts 10:14; 11:8; 16:3; 1 Cor. 9:19-20, 22; cf. also Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:1-5. Seeing that “people differ in their ability to internalize truth …. 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” (D. J. Moo, Romans 853).
21 Cf. Matt. 14:9; 17:23; 18:31; 19:22; 26:22, 37; Mark 10:22; 14:19; John 16:20; 21:17. The verbal λυπέω (to “grieve” or “cause sorrow”) is employed twelve times in 2 Corinthians (2:2 [x2], 4, 5 [x2]; 6:10; 7:8 [x2], 9 [x3], 11), almost entirely in the context of referencing Paul’s previous letter. Elsewhere in Paul the word occurs only here in Rom. 14:15, and Eph. 4:30; 1 Thess. 4:13.
22 Cf. Rom. 6:4; 8:1, 4; 13:13.
23 Note also Rom. 5:5, 8; 8:35, 39; 15:30.
24 Cf. 1 Cor. 1:18; 8:11; 15:18; 2 Cor. 2:15-16; 4:3; 2 Thess. 2:10; also Matt. 10:28; Luke 9:25; 13:3, 5; 19:10; John 3:16; 10:28; 17:12; Jas. 4:12; 2 Pet. 3:9; 2 John 8.
25 “Paul was not making the strong captive to the foibles of the weak. The strong were to refrain from eating meat not because others objected or were offended, but because the weak were in danger of compromising their integrity by succumbing to the temptation to adopt practices they fundamentally believed to be wrong …” (M. B. Thompson, “Strong and Weak” in DPL 917).
26 D. J. Moo, Romans 855.
27 Μὴ (not) βλασφημείσθω (you [singular] let be slandered), οὖν (therefore), ὑμῶν (of you all’s [plural]) τὸ ἀγαθόν (the good).
28 J. Denney, “Romans” 2:705; C. K. Barrett, Romans 264; H. C. G. Moule, Romans 389; W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 391.
29 D. J. Moo, Romans 855; E. F. Harrison, “Romans” 148; J. Murray, Romans 2:193; R. C. Deaver, Romans 557.
30 Rom. 1:6-8; 3:22; 4:16; 6:4; 8:32; 10:12; 12:4-8, 10, 16, 18; 13:8; 14:13, 19; 15:5-7, 14, 33; 16:16.
Related Posts: The Weak and Strong: Part 1, Part 2, Part 4
Image credit: https://pixabay.com/vectors/silhouette-fall-falling-collapsing-3347559/
No comments:
Post a Comment