The Weak and the Strong (Romans 14:1–15:13): Part 3 of 7

Judgmentalism

“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, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7

 

Image credit: https://pixabay.com/vectors/silhouette-fall-falling-collapsing-3347559/

The Weak and the Strong (Romans 14:1–15:13): Part 1 of 7

As Paul continues his letter to the Romans, he directs his attention from general relations in the world to relations within the Christian community, continuing his emphasis on love and mutuality (from 12:3-21; 13:8-10) with further reminders of the Lord’s judgment (cf. 1:32; 2:2-16; 3:5-6; 13:11-14; 14:10-12). Although 14:1–15:13 appears to be an adaptation of what was earlier written in 1 Corinthians 8–10, the respective audiences and circumstances are quite different. The primary focus in the Corinthian letter is the “conscience” and more about idolatry than dietary laws, whereas here the main concern is strained relations due to differing levels of “faith.” Rather than simply making a generic doctrinal statement, Paul appears to be confronting a real problem affecting the saints at Rome, although specific details are less than clear to modern readers. 

Who are the “strong” and the “weak”? Paul identifies himself among “the strong [ones]” [οἱ δυνατοί] (15:1), the only explicit use of the expression in these verses. Presumably this group of disciples is to be identified with the “spiritual ones” within a community of believers (Gal. 5:22–6:1) and recognized as “mature” and “faithful” (1 Cor. 2:6; 2 Tim. 2:2), albeit still short of perfection (cf. Phil. 3:12-16). Paul is apparently aware of (or suspecting) untoward attitudes and behaviors, from which he distances himself with second and third person address (14:3-4, 10a, 15-16, 20-23), and calls upon “the strong [ones]” to take the lead in resolving the disharmony.

Various proposals for identifying the “weak” include: (a) non-Christian Jews;¹ (b) Gentile believers influenced by pagan ritualism to abstain from meat;² (c) Gentile and Jewish believers practicing ascetism;³ (d) Gentile and/or Jewish believers embracing a synthesis between Judaism and proto-gnosticism (cp. Col. 2:16, 21-22);⁴ (e) Jewish believers and/or new converts trying to avoid the appearance of idolatry (as in 1 Cor. 8–10);⁵ (f) Jewish believers and those influenced by them holding onto the special days and dietary regulations of the Mosaic system.⁶

The last option seems most likely, seeing that much of the letter has focused on Jewish vs. non-Jewish tensions, and the end of this section explicitly references “the circumcision” and “the Gentiles” (15:7-18). The distinctively Jewish concerns for what was considered “unclean” [κοινός] and “clean” [καθαρός] (14:14, 20) make a reasonably solid case for this scenario.⁷ Nonetheless, Paul himself does not characterize the other side of the dispute as “strong,” a descriptor commonly inferred by commentators but not explicit in the text until its lone occurrence at 15:1. It is at least plausible, if not likely, that the “weak,” from Paul’s perspective, would include anyone, from either side, who is guilty of selfish disregard for others and of unwarranted judging.

The multidimensional Christian community in Rome, comprised of multiple congregations, probably consisted of Jewish converts clinging to old traditions and regarded by some as “ultra-conservative” or “legalistic,”⁸ Jewish and God-fearing converts distancing themselves from the old ways of Judaism and regarded by some as “progressive” or “liberal,” and Gentile Christians leaning in either direction, whether swayed by judaizing influences or exhibiting the antisemitic mentality of the pagan world. Accordingly, “the primary question is not one of ethnicity, but of theological and social orientation.”⁹ No single group monopolized self-centered insensitivity.¹⁰ At the same time, more moderate brethren, like Prisca and Aquila and others named in the final chapter, would likely be counted among the “strong.” 

Refrain from Unrighteous Judging 

“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions” (Romans 14:1, ESV).

The issue at hand concerns “the [one]” [τὸν] “being weak” [ἀσθενοῦντα]¹¹ in “the faith” [τῇ πίστει].¹² Is this an allusion to one’s personal faith that is weak, or a weakness in understanding and applying the faith-system as God intended? Earlier Paul had spoken of Abraham as one who “was not weak [in] the faith” [μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει] (4:19), involving Abraham’s resolute trust in God and compliance with God’s revealed will, serving as an example to be emulated (4:1-25). 

The entire letter is bracketed between the dual call for “obedience of faith” (1:5; 16:26) that is mutually shared by Paul and the Roman saints (1:8, 12) and established on the same standard of faith – the gospel of Christ (1:16-17; 3:25-31; 12:3, 6). It starts with the faith[fulness] of God and of Jesus Christ (3:3, 22, 26), revealed and proclaimed as “the word of the faith” (10:8, 17), prompting an obedient faith-response procuring justification (5:1-2; 9:30-32; 10:6; cf. 6:3-4, 17-18) and sustained by continued faithfulness (11:20-22).¹³

In the current chapter, appreciating that followers of Christ share a common faith based on the same model of faith, each is accountable for how he or she lives in accordance with his or her understanding of God’s system of faith as it pertains to practical issues of everyday life (14:22-23), particularly nonessential matters. These so-called “opinions” are literally “thoughts” or “reasonings” [διαλογισμοί] (cf. 1:21), which among humans are fallible and often contentious.¹⁴ Paul is appealing for an atmosphere of “welcoming,” “receiving,” “accepting” [προσλαμβάνω]¹⁵ (cf. v. 3; 15:7; note also 12:3-13) rather than quarrelsome debate, or inordinate and divisive “judgment” [διάκρισις]. 

The description “weak in the faith,” if alluding to a Christian from a strict Jewish background or influenced thereby, would describe someone with “an inadequate grasp of the great principle of salvation by faith in Christ; the consequence of which will be an anxious desire to make this salvation more certain by the scrupulous fulfilment of formal rules.”¹⁶ It has been suggested that the label “weak” may have originated from those who perceived strength as freedom from the misgivings of inherited traditions.¹⁷

“One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables” (Romans 14:2). 

Vegetarianism was not indicative of orthodox Judaism, although abstaining from meat would be expected if there were questions about the circumstances or manner of an animal’s slaughter.¹⁸ However, “meat” [κρέας] is not explicitly referenced until v. 21, along with “wine” [οἶνος] that was clearly not excluded from the Jewish dietary routine. It may very well be that Paul is merely contrasting hypothetical extremes (omnivore vs. vegetarian) to illustrate his point. What complicates the situation even more is the common practice of communal meals (Acts 2:46; Gal. 2:12; Jude 12). “In mixed communities, where table fellowship was a fundamental expression of community, the tensions set up by these differences would be considerable.”¹⁹  

“Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant [οἰκέτην]²⁰ of another? It is before his own master [τῷ ἰδίῳ κυρίῳ] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord [ὁ κύριος] is able to make him stand” (Romans 14:3-4).

God’s people are to be “welcoming” (v. 1) because God himself is welcoming and accepts those on both sides of the disagreement (cf. 15:7). The one eating is not to “despise” or “regard with contempt” (NASB) [ἐξουθενέω]²¹ (cf. v. 10) the one who abstains. The one who abstains is not to “pass judgment” [κρίνω] (cf. 2:1),²² i.e., “pass an unfavorable judgment upon, criticize, find fault with, condemn”²³ the one who does not share the same scruples. The Lord is the supreme judge; we are not.

The second person singular pronoun “you” [σύ] in v. 4 is emphatic, as in vv. 10 and 22, where Paul engages an imaginary discussion partner rather than his entire reading audience directly.²⁴ This mode of address (vv. 4a, 10ab, 15-16a, 20a, 21, 22ab) makes an impactful point without implicating the whole group or those not guilty of misbehavior. 

The eating or abstaining does not necessarily have to be a question of meat consumption.²⁵ In view of special days (vv. 5-6), the contrast could be between feasting (eating) and fasting (abstaining),²⁶ although in the previous verse each side of the issue is eating something. Either way, the principles are the same. To be continued …

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ M. D. Nanos, Mystery of Romans 85-165; contra R. A. J. Gagnon, “Why the Weak” 64-82; J. Miller, “Romans Debate” 331-33.

     ² E. Käsemann, Romans 367-68.

     ³ R. C. H. Lenski, Romans 812-13.

     ⁴ C. K. Barrett, Romans 256-57.

     ⁵ J. A. Ziesler, The Meaning of Righteousness in Paul 323-26.

     ⁶ C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans 2:694-97. This seems to be the majority opinion among conservative scholars.

     ⁷ See Gen. 7:2-3, 8; 8:20; Lev. 4:12; 6:11; 7:19; cf. Gal. 2:11-14; Col. 2:21. 

     ⁸ It is unlikely there were actual “legalists” among the Roman Christians, binding Jewish laws and traditions as salvation requirements, like those confronted in Galatians. Paul’s tone and counsel are very different in Romans. 

     ⁹ J. T. Hughes, Ecclesial Solidarity 141; based on R. N. Longenecker, Introducing Romans79-84. 

     ¹⁰ The pressing issue is “the proper attitude to adopt towards matters in themselves indifferent, but concerning which some members of the community might have scruples…. Paul has been condemning excessive indulgence; he now passes to the opposite extreme, excessive scrupulousness, which he deals with in a very different way” (W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 384). In the immediate context of the previous discourse (13:1-14), there may also be political undertones, amenable to the same principles, involving diverse opinions about secular government and the extent of a Christian’s compliance and involvement.

     ¹¹ The verb ἀσθενέω, to be feeble or sickly, also occurs in v. 2; 4:19; 8:3b. Note further the noun form ἀσθένημα and the adjectival ἀδύνατος (15:1; cf. 8:3a), the latter describing one who is unable or powerless.

     ¹² Paul also notes the weakness of the old Jewish law (8:3) and alludes to natural human weakness, including his own (6:19; 8:26). On Paul’s own weakness, see also 1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 11:21, 29, 30; 12:5, 9, 10; 13:4, 9; Gal. 4:3; and on human weakness in general, 1 Cor. 15:43; Heb. 4:15; 5:2; 7:28; 11:34. In 2 Cor. 13:3-4 the contrast is between Christ’s human “weakness” and divine “power.” One’s “weak” conscience is the focus of 1 Cor. 8:11-12.

     ¹³ Faith is something that is intended to grow and mature over time (cf. 2 Cor. 10:15; 1 Thess. 3:1-10).

     ¹⁴ Cf. 1 Cor. 3:20; Phil. 2:14; 1 Tim. 2:8; Jas. 2:4.

     ¹⁵ Philem. 17; cf. Acts 28:2.

     ¹⁶ W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 384. “The weakness is weakness in respect of faith; the weak man is one who does not fully appreciate what his Christianity means; in particular, he does not see that the soul which has committed itself to Christ for salvation is emancipated from all law but that which is involved in its responsibility to Him. Hence his conscience is fettered by scruples in regard to customs dating from pre-Christian days” (J. Denney, “Romans” 700).

     ¹⁷ J. D. G. Dunn, “Romans,” in DPL 850; R. Jewett, Romans 11-12. From a socioeconomic perspective, the weaker one in the setting of mid-first-century Corinth has been described as “insecure” and “vulnerable to be led along by the pretensions and superior social status of ‘the strong’” (A. C. Thiselton, First Corinthians 644). However, in 1 Cor. 8–10 Paul addresses a weak conscience due to a lack of understanding rather than socioeconomic status.

     ¹⁸ In the Roman setting, “we do not know how ordinary Jews, as opposed to strict Pharisees, observed the dietary laws in the first century…. There was obviously a range of practice that we cannot precisely reconstruct, since we have to rely on the mishnaic laws, codified a century and a half after Paul, which represent a prescriptive idealization by the successors to the Pharisees” (A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert 231).

     ¹⁹ J. D. G. Dunn, “Romans” in DPL 849; cf. M. B. Thompson, “Strong and Weak,” in DPL 917.

     ²⁰ This is the lone occurrence of οἰκέτης (“household servant”) in Paul’s writings. Elsewhere in the NT, only Matt. 24:35 (of the household itself); Luke 16:13; Acts 10:7; 1 Pet. 2:18.

     ²¹ Cf. Luke 18:9; 1 Cor. 1:28; 6:4; 16:11; 2 Cor. 10:10; Gal. 4:14; 1 Thess. 5:20. This is how Jesus was treated by antagonists (Luke 23:11; Acts 4:11).

     ²² The verb κρίνω is variously used in Romans of divine judging (2:16; 3:6-7; cf. the noun form in 2:2, 3b; 5:16; 11:33; 13:2) and that of the law (2:12); wrongful human judging (2:1-3a; 3:4; 14:3-4, 10, 13), as well as self-condemnation (14:22); appropriate human judging (2:27); and that which is largely inconsequential (14:5).

     ²³ BAGD 451-52.

     ²⁴ Note also Rom. 2:1-5, 17-29; 3:1-9; 9:19-21; 11:17-24; 1 Cor. 6:12-20; 15:29-41; Gal. 2:17-19; 3:1-9, 19-22.

     ²⁵ There is no explicit mention of “meat” [κρέας] until v. 21, though implicitly included among “all things” [πάντα] (v. 2) and “food” [βρῶμα] (vv. 15, 20); also implied with allusions to “unclean” [κοινός] and “clean” [καθαρός] (vv. 14, 20).

     ²⁶ See Lev. 16:29-31; 23:26-32 (cf. Acts 27:9). Note also Matt. 9:14; Mark 2:18; Luke 5:33; 18:12; Acts 23:12.

Related Posts: The Weak and Strong: Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7

 

Image credit: https://www.freepik.com/premium-vector/helping-hand-concept-gesture-sign-help-hope-two-hands-taking-each-other_32818085.htm

To what extent should Christians allow themselves to be wronged?

     “Indeed, therefore, it is already a failure for you altogether, that you have lawsuits among one another. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be deprived?” (1 Cor. 6:7).¹ What is Paul admonishing his readers to do? To what extent should a Christian allow him/herself to be wronged?

     The church in mid-first-century Corinth was inconsistent in the extreme. In the case of an immoral brother in their midst, they should have made a reasoned judgment and implemented church discipline but took no action at all (1 Cor. 5:1-2). In cases of petty disputes, they should have judged among themselves but took too much action and went to pagan courts (6:1-9). In both cases, they neglected their God-given responsibility to make their own judgments and settle matters among themselves (cf. 5:11-12). In the latter case, they were airing the church’s dirty laundry in public and bringing reproach upon the church.

     In the opening verses of chap. 6, Paul is not addressing criminal or sinful behavior but petty disputes that left the church susceptible to unnecessary ridicule from outsiders. While the verb aposteréō is rendered “cheat” or “defraud” in many English translations, in the very next chapter it is used in the sense of “deprive” (7:5). Paul is addressing the selfish and arrogant attitudes of those demanding their perceived “rights” at the expense of fellow believers (cf. 4:6, 18, 19; 5:2; 8:1; etc.). This is in stark contrast to the noble conduct of the apostles (4:12-13), the opposite of selfless concern for others (8:13; 10:24), and contrary to Christian love (13:5). God’s design for the church is not a utopian environment void of conflict but a place where inevitable disputes are resolved through love (cf. 8:1; 16:14).

     The key is what’s in the best interest of others. Paul affirms that it would be better to suffer personal wrong than to damage the reputation of the church (1 Cor. 6:7-8; 10:24). This does not suggest, however, that anyone should simply allow him/herself to be victimized, which would ultimately benefit neither the victim nor the offender (cf. Phil. 2:4). Nor does it suggest it is inappropriate to avail oneself of basic human rights (cf. Acts 25:10-12).
     If, for example, a brother in Christ embezzles funds from my bank account, to say and do nothing would be contrary to Christian principles. Sin cannot be tolerated in the church (1 Cor. 5:7; 15:33), it would hamper my God-given responsibility to give to the Lord’s work and provide for my family (1 Cor. 16:2; 1 Tim. 5:8), and the brother’s soul is jeopardized (Gal. 6:1; Jas. 5:19-20). If, however, my brother merely says something in anger that hurts my feelings, then hiring a lawyer and suing for defamation and psychological distress is not a Christ-like response. Between these extremes are plethoric scenarios that may require the collective wisdom of the church to help discern what is necessary for appropriate resolution (cf. 1 Cor. 2:15; 5:3, 12; 1 Tim. 5:20).

     Followers of Jesus have been “sanctified,” i.e., set apart from the sinful world in their thinking and behavior.² Christians are expected to refrain from retaliation (Matt. 5:38-48; Rom. 12:17-21; 1 Thess. 5:15) and be peacemakers (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 12:18). The point of 1 Cor. 6:1-11, which is an extension of chap. 5, is that discord in the church is to be addressed from within (cf. Matt. 18:15-20; 2 Thess. 3:6-15).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² Note “saints” [hagioi] (1 Cor. 1:2; 6:1, 2; 14:33; 16:1, 15) = “sanctified ones” or “holy ones” (cf. 1:2; 3:17; 6:11).

Related Posts: The Saints will judge the World and Angels

Image credit: http://churchofchristarticles.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/prayer-man.jpg