Rom 14:21 aorist infinitives Scott Wells s.a.wells at insightbb.com
Tue Jun 12 21:45:43 EDT 2007
 Funk  Rom 14:21 aorist infinitives KALON TO MH FAGEIN KREA MHDE PIEIN OINON MHDE EN hWi hO ADELFOS SOUPROSKOPTEI.BDF 338(1) [note] remarks regarding this verse “Also in Rom 14:21.the aoristis to be taken strictly: ‘it is good not to eat meat for once (in a specificinstance) if it might cause offence’; it is not a question of continuousabstinence.” Yet Schreiner (BECNT, 729, n.7) says it is to “read too muchinto the aorist infinitives.in suggesting that abstention from meat and wineis required only in particular situations.” Possibly someone could help me understand which view is more accurate?Scott Wells
 Funk Rom 14:21 aorist infinitives
 Rom 14:21 aorist infinitives Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Wed Jun 13 07:34:45 EDT 2007
 Rom 14:21 aorist infinitives  NA-28 On Jun 12, 2007, at 9:45 PM, Scott Wells wrote:> KALON TO MH FAGEIN KREA MHDE PIEIN OINON MHDE EN hWi hO ADELFOS SOU> PROSKOPTEI.> > BDF 338(1) [note] remarks regarding this verse “Also in Rom > 14:21.the aorist> is to be taken strictly: ‘it is good not to eat meat for once (in a > specific> instance) if it might cause offence’; it is not a question of > continuous> abstinence.” Yet Schreiner (BECNT, 729, n.7) says it is to “read > too much> into the aorist infinitives.in suggesting that abstention from meat > and wine> is required only in particular situations.”> > Possibly someone could help me understand which view is more accurate?> > Scott WellsI guess it’s a matter of how one interprets EN hWi hO ADELFOS SOU PROSKOPTEI: is it understood as an equivalent of hOS AN PROSKOPTHi or EAN PROSKOPTHi? That is, does it refer to any potential occasion where eating meat or drinking wine might bring about a crisis of conscience in another believer? If so, then these aorist infinitives (FAGEIN and PIEIN) might be seen as abstentions on hypothetical occasions rather than as patterns of behavior to observe at all times. For myself I have to say that I’m inclined to read it that way, and to think that permanent abstention might more likely be indicated by TO MH ESQIEIN MHDE PINEIN OINON. It certainly seems to me that the relative clause sets a conditional factor governing whether or not abstinence “is a good thing.”Carl W. ConradDepartment of Classics, Washington University (Retired)1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243cwconrad2 at mac.comWWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/
 Rom 14:21 aorist infinitives NA-28
8 thoughts on “Romans 14:21”
Scotty Searan I’ve got few of those coming your way. There are not Easy English translation but do explain how in the verse these aorist infinitives (FAGEIN and PIEIN) might be seen as abstentions on hypothetical occasions rather than as patterns of behavior to observe at all times
Troy DayDo you mean PHAGEIN
φαγεῖν – in greek is 1 letter F
I would say Scott Wells. Seems to view the best meaning of the Bible. He seems to think some on the conscience sake. , where it offends a brother. And not all the time, when there’s no one around that would be offended. That seems to be what I can see. But I only understand English also. The idea is that love is to be the ruling guide , and not our freedom of liberties.
Aorist— without horos, a limit. Past time without further Without further qualification. I found that in the dictionary. It did say it had a tense of Greek Verbs. I couldn’t find the other two. I guess I could go to google and find them. But if I don’t know. I just don’t know.
Doesn’t these verses mean that if you are not condemned on things that are not sins, (such as wearing Jewelry) yet there may be a brother/sister who is condemned or offended that we should not do these things, scoff or criticize the person because they are offended.?
Troy Day Paul was so concerned about offending the weaker, especially eating meat, he would have become a vegetarian to keep from offending.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
I would imagine, Paul was like this on anything that was questionable that might offend or cause a stumbling block.
Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.
I will tell you, for the most part, this verse is not obeyed or considered in the Pentecostal churches today and has not been for decades.
The reason why it is not used is: In the 50s, 60s and 70s people were called fanatics.
Starting in the 80s up til now they are called legalist.
These were dirty words and people, much less preachers and teachers do not want to be called that
But this is a command and we have no option but to obey
Scotty Searan I know for a fact that this verse does not allow drinking