Romans 14:21

“`html

The Aspectual Force of Aorist Infinitives in Romans 14:21: Situational Abstention or Continuous Prohibition?

This exegetical study of “Rom 14:21 aorist infinitives” is based on a b-greek discussion from June 12, 2007. The initial query concerned the interpretation of Romans 14:21, specifically the temporal implications of the aorist infinitives φαγεῖν (“to eat”) and πιεῖν (“to drink”). Reference was made to Funk’s (BDAG 338(1)) assertion that the aorist in this verse should be taken strictly, suggesting abstinence “for once (in a specific instance)” if it might cause offense, implying that continuous abstinence is not the issue. This view was juxtaposed against Schreiner’s (BEPNT, 729, n.7) caution against “reading too much into the aorist infinitives” to suggest that abstention is required only in particular situations.

The main exegetical issue, therefore, revolves around the precise aspectual force of the aorist infinitives φαγεῖν and πιεῖν within the context of Romans 14:21, and how this interacts with the conditional clause ἐν ᾧ ὁ ἀδελφός σου προσκόπτει (“in which your brother stumbles”). The core question is whether these aorists imply a punctiliar, one-time act of abstaining for a specific occasion, or if they denote the verbal action of abstaining in a more general sense, with the temporal scope defined by the condition itself, thus suggesting a pattern of abstention whenever the condition is met. This distinction has significant implications for understanding the ethical demands placed upon believers concerning their Christian liberties and responsibility towards fellow believers.

Greek text (Nestle 1904)

καλὸν τὸ μὴ φαγεῖν κρέα μηδὲ πιεῖν οἶνον μηδὲ ἐν ᾧ ὁ ἀδελφός σου προσκόπτει.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• There are no significant textual differences between Nestle 1904 and SBLGNT (2010) for Romans 14:21 that impact the exegetical points raised in this study. Both editions present the same Greek text for this verse.

Textual criticism (NA28), lexical notes (KITTEL, BDAG).

• **NA28 (Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition):** The text of Romans 14:21 in NA28 aligns with the presented Nestle 1904 text, demonstrating no significant variants that alter the interpretation of the aorist infinitives or the conditional clause. This textual stability confirms the wording under discussion.
• **BDAG (Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature):**
  • φαγεῖν (phagein): Aorist active infinitive of ἐσθίω (esthio), “to eat.” (BDAG, 1999, p. 410). The aorist aspect typically denotes a simple occurrence of an action without specific emphasis on its duration, but context can suggest a punctiliar or ingressive force. This potential for punctiliarity is central to the debate.
  • πιεῖν (piein): Aorist active infinitive of πίνω (pino), “to drink.” (BDAG, 1999, p. 814). Like φαγεῖν, its aorist aspect is critical to the exegetical question regarding its temporal implications.
  • προσκόπτει (proskoptei): Present active indicative of προσκόπτω (proskopto), “to stumble,” “to strike against,” “to take offense.” (BDAG, 1999, p. 881). The present tense typically denotes ongoing, habitual, or contemporaneous action, or a state of affairs. In the context of ἐν ᾧ, it signifies the situation *in which* the stumbling occurs.
  • καλόν (kalon): “good,” “beautiful,” “fitting,” “proper.” (BDAG, 1999, p. 505). Here, it denotes what is ethically or morally commendable.
  • κρέα (krea): “meat,” “flesh.” (BDAG, 1999, p. 566).
  • οἶνον (oinon): “wine.” (BDAG, 1999, p. 696).
• **KITTEL (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament):**
  • προσκόπτω (proskopto): Volume VI, pp. 740-749 (Kittel, G., & Friedrich, G. (Eds.). (1964–1976). *Theological Dictionary of the New Testament*). The entry discusses the broader semantic field of stumbling, taking offense, or causing someone to fall (σκανδαλίζειν). The ethical dimension of avoiding actions that lead a fellow believer into sin or spiritual distress is paramount. This emphasizes the gravity of the potential impact on the “brother.”
  • καλός (kalos): Volume III, pp. 536-540. The term signifies not merely aesthetic beauty but intrinsic moral goodness, fitness, and appropriateness, especially in ethical and theological contexts.

Translation Variants

The grammatical analysis of Romans 14:21 hinges primarily on the interpretation of the aorist infinitives φαγεῖν (“to eat”) and πιεῖν (“to drink”) in conjunction with the conditional clause ἐν ᾧ ὁ ἀδελφός σου προσκόπτει (“in which your brother stumbles”).

• One scholarly perspective, represented by Funk (BDAG), argues for a “strict” aorist interpretation, suggesting a punctiliar or ingressive aspect. This would imply abstention “for once” or “in a specific instance” when offense might be caused, rather than a continuous or habitual pattern of abstinence. The aorist infinitive, in this view, denotes a single, discrete act of refraining.

  Rhetorically, this interpretation emphasizes the situational ethics of Christian freedom, where an individual’s actions are governed by the immediate impact on others. It suggests a flexible response to potential stumbling blocks, rather than a rigid, permanent rule of abstinence.

• Conversely, Schreiner critiques this “strict” aorist reading, arguing that it “reads too much” into the aorist infinitives. This perspective suggests that the aorist aspect here does not inherently carry a punctiliar temporal force indicating a one-time event, especially when contrasted with the imperfective present infinitive (e.g., ἐσθίειν/πίνειν). Instead, the aorist infinitive might simply denote the verbal idea without specific temporal implication, allowing the context—particularly the conditional clause—to define the scope of the abstention.

  A second contributor to the discussion supports this alternative view by interpreting ἐν ᾧ ὁ ἀδελφός σου προσκόπτει as a conditional element akin to ὅς ἄν προσκόπτῃ or ἐάν προσκόπτῃ. This renders the prohibition hypothetical, applying to “any potential occasion” where offense might occur, but not necessarily mandating continuous abstinence. The contrast with a potential present infinitive (τὸ μὴ ἐσθίειν μηδὲ πίνειν οἶνον) further supports the idea that the aorist infinitives here describe acts of refraining *when* the condition is met, not a perpetual state of abstaining.

• Grammatically, the present indicative προσκόπτει within the ἐν ᾧ clause typically denotes an ongoing or habitual action, or a state. However, when combined with ἐν ᾧ, it can function as a conditional or generic temporal clause, indicating “in whatever circumstance” or “whenever” the brother stumbles. This reinforces the idea that the abstention is contingent upon the brother’s potential stumbling, rather than being an absolute, continuous requirement for the believer. The aorist infinitives thus describe the *kind* of action (refraining) that is good, with the *occurrence* of that action governed by the condition.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

The exegetical debate regarding Romans 14:21 centers on whether the aorist infinitives φαγεῖν and πιεῖν imply a temporary, situational abstention or a continuous, general prohibition, influenced by the interpretation of the conditional clause ἐν ᾧ ὁ ἀδελφός σου προσκόπτει. While a “strict” punctiliar reading of the aorist can be argued, the prevailing scholarly consensus, supported by grammatical analysis of the conditional clause, suggests that the abstention is required *whenever* it might cause a brother to stumble, rather than prescribing permanent dietary restrictions. The aorist infinitives simply express the action of refraining without imposing a specific temporal duration that overrides the contextual condition, allowing for repeated instances of abstinence as needed.

1. “It is good not to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything else by which your brother stumbles.”
   This translation emphasizes the general principle of avoiding any action that causes a brother to stumble, with the aorist infinitives denoting the act of refraining without specifying its duration. The focus is on the *occasion* of stumbling, whenever it may occur.
2. “It is good to refrain from eating meat or drinking wine, or doing anything else whenever your brother takes offense.”
   This rendering highlights the conditional nature of the abstention, suggesting that the refraining happens *on each occasion* that offense is caused. It conveys the generic temporal/conditional force of ἐν ᾧ, implying a repeatable, situation-dependent action rather than a single event or continuous state.
3. “It is good to abstain from eating meat or drinking wine, or from anything else that would cause your brother to fall.”
   This translation subtly conveys the intentionality and preventative nature of the abstinence. The aorist aspect is understood as expressing the simple, unconstrained action of abstaining in response to a potential problem, emphasizing the ethical responsibility to avoid causing a brother to “fall” or “trip up” in faith.

“`