Interculturality in peace-building and mutual edification ( Rm 14 : 19 )

This article shows that, according to Romans 14:19, peace-building and mutual edification are closely interrelated. This hypothesis is substantiated through an intercultural method, which explores the issues of peace from a triple perspective: a contemporary culture (DR Congo), an original Biblical culture (Rm 14:19) and a past Church culture (Church Fathers). These three frames basically agree that for restoring and maintaining peace, it is important to fight against its main cause, namely sin. It is equally important to cultivate things that promote peace and mutual edification.


Introduction
The rhetoric of peace-building is often used by churches, but the commitment for mutual edification remains challenging in view of devastating armed conflicts in predominantly Christian countries.The major hypothesis of this article posits that, according to Romans 14:19, peace-building and mutual edification are closely interrelated.In fact, they are syntactically linked not only by the conjunction of coordination καὶ [and] but also by the verb διώκωμεν [let's pursue] of which they are objects.The aforementioned hypothesis is substantiated through an intercultural method, which explores the issues of peace from a triple perspective, namely a contemporary culture (DR Congo/Catholic bishops of Central Africa and a South African exegete), a past church culture (Patristics) and an original Biblical culture (Rm 14:19). 1 Other models of intercultural exegesis do not include church culture as a specific component of this method (Jonker 2006:19-28;Matand 1998;Manus 2003;Ndayango 2003;Ukpong 1996Ukpong :189-210, 2001Ukpong :88-112, 2004)).The conclusion summarises the differences and similitudes of interpretations between the findings pertaining to an 'original' Biblical culture, a church culture of the past and a contemporary target culture.In addition, the present author intends to show his respect for the late Prof. Emeritus Andrie du Toit (1931Toit ( -2018)), a mentor in intercultural mediations, and proposes this method as one of the committed answers to the question raised by Prof. Emeritus Bernard Lategan, 'Quo vadis New Testament studies?' (Lategan 2009:30-38;Wessels 2009:39-41).

Romans 14:19 in the contemporary African culture
In this study, 'culture' is understood as an all-embracing reality or the totality of human experience in a given time and space.Africa or African seems to be 'more of a mind-set entity shaped from the worldview shared by the beholder' (Loba-Mkole 2011: 2).In this article, it refers to a geopolitical and multicultural continent that bears this name, without excluding its people in diaspora.The mediation of Romans 14:19 in contemporary Africa will be represented by scholarly and pastoral readings.

Pastoral reading of Romans 14:19
In 2002, the Association of Episcopal Conferences of DR Congo, Rwanda and Burundi 'ACEAC' decided to use Romans 14:19 as both Scripture reference and title for their appeal for peace, requesting the end of the Congolese deadliest war.In an intercultural approach, vertical and horizontal dimensions are important.Vertical interculturality applies to the interplay between cultures, which supersede and illuminate each other in a given time frame (e.g.past cultures, present cultures and future cultures).Horizontal interculturality refers to how a target culture and its neighbours relate to an issue.The message from the central African Bishops indicates that the neighbouring countries concerned have the same challenge regarding peace, though wars affect them at different levels.The war in DR Congo started in 1996 and has the claimed lives of approximately 6 million people (International Rescue Committee Report of 2009, New York Times March 2010).It is considered to be the second most dreadful war after the Second World War.Up to 2008, 41 United Nations Security Council resolutions were voted to restore peace in DR Congo, but without conclusive results (Migabo 1998:36-139).This applies even to the more recent settlements such as the Addis-Ababa Agreement on DR Congo (24 February 2013) and the Saint Sylvester Agreement in Kinshasa (31 December 2017).Belligerents keep changing their tactics ranging from sporadic ceasefire to intimidation, looting, raping, poisoning and extra-judiciary executions.
In their appeal for peace, the bishops denounced and condemned different aspects of the war, including the abuse of human dignity, manoeuvres to destabilise and oppose the citizens to each other, provocation and fuelling of violence, illicit weapon traffic, bad governance, ethnic hatred and division, excessive debt burden, fights among foreign forces and complicity of local leaders.They recommended to every person of good will to accept that the time has come for positive change, the church ministers to become agents for peace and reconciliation, the Christian faithful to engage more in prayer and actions of solidarity, justice and peace for the edification of the church -God's family in the Great Lakes sub-region.They urged politicians of the three countries to work hard to restore the state of rights, the judges to reject corruption and render equitable justice for all, the armed forces to ensure security, the youth to reject whatsoever that leads to war, social workers to promote fellowship among the people, the business men and women to improve the standard of living of the people and the international community to plan an international conference with the states of the Great Lakes sub-region.The latter has come to pass through the Addis-Ababa Agreement on DR Congo (24 February 2013).
A major insight from the bishops relates to the decision of devoting each first Sunday of Advent to prayer and reflexion on forgiveness, reconciliation and peace, to create specific services for reconciliation and conflict resolution, and to undertake ecumenical and inter-religious actions for a sense of more sustainable peace in the sub-region.This would be thoughtfully reinforced to become a backdrop for sensitising the 'divided Christians' to daily show evidence of their reconciliation with God, peaceful interaction and mutual edification.
Contrary to military and expensive peacekeeping policies, an intercultural strategy for conflict resolution means translating into action a Swahili saying, 'Amani hamhitaji mlinzi' [peace does not need a guard], and investing more in re-construction dialogue between cultures involved.What can we learn of Romans 14:19 from a South African theologian?

Romans 14:19 in the Patristic church culture
The views of selected Church Fathers will not be presented in chronological order, but according to the word order in the immediate context of the text concerned (Rm 14:13-23).
The sequence of Paul's argument in Romans 14:13-23 Let's not judge one another or be a stumbling block on the account of food (Rm 14:13-14, 17, 21) Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE): Clement finds the true banquet in the Word.In his view, it is a silly mind that can be amazed and stupefied at what is presented at vulgar banquets after having enjoyed the rich fare, which is in the Word of God (The Instructor 2.1.6).For him, he who eats of this meal, the best of all, will possess the kingdom of God, fixing his gaze on the holy assembly of love, the heavenly church (The Instructor 54).

May we then pursue things of peace and mutual upbuilding (Rm 14:19)
Saint John Chrysostom: For Chrysostom, the Pauline exhortation for pursuing peace and mutual edification applies equally to both sides, that is, the strong and weak.
One must become peaceable and the other must not destroy his brother.Without peace it is impossible to edify anyone (see Migne 1857Migne -1886:26.3:26.3).Chrysostom adds that men will approve a peaceful person 'not so much because of his perfect state but because of his devotion to peace and good relations' (Migne 1857(Migne -1886:26.60:26.60).

Saint Augustine:
In his letter to Darius, Saint Augustine appreciates the courage of great warriors who, with the assistance of God's protection, subdue the foes and restore peace by a sword, but he added that it: … is a greater glory to slay war with a word than men with sword and to gain and maintain peace by means of peace, not by means of war.For even those who fight are certainly seeking peace, if they are good men, but seeking it by the shedding of blood, while you have been sent to prevent the shedding of anyone's blood.(see Baxter 1998:445) Furthermore, for Augustine, it is clear that only the Holy Spirit can assure our liberation from sins through the grace that is given to human beings and through the peace by which we are reconciled to God (see Schaff & Wage 1894).Peace can also be explained as a result of grace overcoming the desire of flesh: For Augustine Romans is about the relationship between the works of the law (lex) and grace (gratia).Commenting on Romans 3:2, he explains that Paul neither condemns the law nor does he take away the free will.Before the law (ante legem), humans pursue the desire of flesh (concupiscentiam carnis), under the law (sub lege) they are pulled by it.Under grace (sub gratia) they are neither pursuing it, nor pulled by it.In eternal peace (in pace) there is no desire of the flesh (Exp.prop.Rom 13-18:2 sic).(Breytenbach 2017:276) In The subjunctive reading is geographically well spread, as it is supported by Alexandrian type (C), Caesarean type (Ψ) and Western type (D) (Aland & Aland 1982:167).It is also attested by both early and later versions (it ar, b, d, f, g, gue, o, r vg syr pal cop sa, bo arm eth geo).The indicative reading is evidenced most exclusively by the Alexandrian type of manuscripts of which the earliest dates from c. 400.The imperative reading is supported only by few later papyri.
With regard to internal evidence, the subjunctive reading suits the exhortation tune of Romans 14:13-23.Nonetheless, the indicative reading is not less appropriate, given that 'ἄρα οὖν is always followed by the indicative in Romans' (Jewett 2007:854) and that the indicative mood had the ability to convey a demand as well as an imperative: The imperative is not only integrated into the indicative and vice versa, each is part and parcel of the other.We would even state that the indicative is an imperative.The imperative merely constitutes the ethical cutting edge of the indicative, as the indicative forms the fundamental and transformative basis of the imperative (Du Toit 2007:377).
The ethical indicator has been made stronger by the reading διώκετε, which resonates with another imperative towards the end of the section, namely κατάλυε in Romans 14:20.Omanson (2006:318) finds another imperative in Romans 14:13, but κρίνωμεν is rather a subjunctive.Nevertheless, he correctly concludes that 'the context here seems to require the subjunctive, that is, an exhortation and not the indicative' (Omanson 2006:318).The discrepancy between the second person plural διώκετε and the second person singular κατάλυε betrays the former as an impromptu at a later editing.
Then, it can be argued that the subjunctive reading of Romans 14:19 echoes and reinforces the exhortation already expressed at the beginning of the section in Romans 14:13 (μηκέτι … κρίνωμεν: let's not judge).Moreover, according to Gundry (2010:622), 'the use of both "therefore" and "then" emphasizes the following exhortation and makes it grow out of what God's reign does and doesn't consist in (Rm 14:17)'.This reign of God consists of a realm where there is no space for negative discrimination among the disciples, as everything belongs to them, them to Christ and Christ to God (1 Cor 3:23).
Each of the three readings attested by the external evidence uses a particular verbal mood (subjunctive, indicative and imperative) and fits well within the literary context of an ethical exhortation.However, the reading with the subjunctive mood is most probably the better one as it conveys an exhortative appeal more considerately than an indicative or an imperative.Therefore, given both external and internal evidence, the subjunctive reading should be preferred because of its early attestation, wider geographical distribution and better rendering of an exhortative tune.One can convincingly assert that διώκωμεν represents the original variant in the sense of a predecessor text-form, an autographic text-form or even a canonical text-form, but not an interpretative text-form.
According to Epp (2010:22-23), a predecessor text-form is a form of text discoverable behind a New Testament writing, an autographic text-form is the textual form as it left the desk of a Biblical author or his secretary, a canonical-text form is 'the textual form of a book at the time it acquired consensual authority' and an interpretive text-form represents 'any and each interpretive iteration or reformulation of a writing'.The term 'predecessor form' might be problematic due to a lack of evidence.Holmes (2011Holmes ( :61-79, 2012) ) prefers to speak of 'earliest transmitted text' or 'initial text' that can be identified through recencio, examinatio and emandatio.In the final analysis, διώκομεν and especially διώκετε can be regarded as interpretative text-forms, since διώκομεν might also be the result of a scribal error through which the second omega in διώκωμεν was mistakenly replaced by an omicron to produce διώκομεν.Struggling to establish the most 'original text' in the sense depicted above is an appropriate exercise, because 'making theological statements about the text without reference to the nature of the text … is an arbitrary attempt to impose dogma on reality' (Parker 2007:583-589).
It is worthy to note that the French 'recherchons' do not strictly render a subjunctive form, but rather an imperative, first person plural.Together with its likelihood of being the most original reading, the subjunctive διώκωμεν in Romans 14:19 seems to be equally an ethical indicator that conveys the sense of a gentle directive through a clearly considerate tune of exhortation that the imperative and indicative forms cannot communicate.

Delimitation
The syntax of Romans 14:19 is organised in such a way that makes it an independent sentence built around the verb διώκωμεν, which commands two objects (things of peace and things of upbuilding of one another).But the use of two distinct markers of result (ἄρα οὖν, so then) is a strong signal that this sentence is a conclusion of a preceding reasoning.Therefore, these markers explicitly link the exhortation to the reasoning that starts at Romans 14:13.
Romans 14:13 can be viewed as the beginning (terminus a quo) of the literary unit in which Romans 14:19 is found.As a matter of fact, either identical or similar expressions are displayed or reasons for seeking peace and mutual edification are given in the whole section of Romans 14:13-23.Romans 14: 23 can be presented as the end (terminus ad quem) of the section that started in Romans 14:13.Firstly, the explicit reference to judgment and eating occurs in Romans 14:23, forming an inclusion with Romans 14:13.Secondly, the beginning of the next verse (Rm 15:1) marks another shift from an all-encompassing group of addressees of Romans 14:13-23 to an exclusive group of addressees made of the strong ones (οἱ δυνατοί).Moreover, the section limited by Romans 14:13 and 23 makes a clear-cut appeal to the inclusive group of addresses concerned: let's not be judgemental towards one another (Rm 14:13) but bear in mind that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin (Rm 14:23) (Légasse 2002:872;Schlier 1977:412).
The internal coherence of Romans 14:13-23 is based on both syntactical (particles of connection) and thematic devices.
The unifying theme of this section concerns the reasons for seeking peace and mutual edification.These are given in the lines surrounding Romans 14:19.They are marked by the particle γάρ that is repeated three times in the previous verses dealing with table fellowship issues (Rm 14:15-18).These γάρ-clauses follow two declarations of which the first one is a general statement that prohibits passing judgement on other people while the second one illustrates Paul's personal view about uncleanness (Rm 14:13-14).The issue of contaminated food being addressed here is not a matter of 'Torah-free "liberals" versus Torah-observant "traditionalists" but Torahobservant traditionalists versus Torah-observant ultratraditionalists' (Bolton 2009:621).
The internal cohesion is reinforced by a threefold repetition of the οὖν particle in the section of Romans
The two major introductory statements of which the first is in negative form and the second in affirmative form (Rm 14:13-14): • Let's no longer judge one another but decide not to scandalise any brother (Rm 14:13).• I know and am persuaded that nothing (no food) is unclean in itself and in Jesus, except in one's mind (Rm 14:14).
The reasons for the above and for new implications are governed by γάρ and οὖν combined with ethical indicators (vv.15-18): • One reason explaining the major statements is love (γάρ-clause): for if someone hurts a brother by what he or she eats, he or she does not walk in love (Rm 14:15a).This reason is followed by two ethical indicators: ß First ethical indicator (imperative): Do not ruin the life of a person for whom Christ died (Rm 14:15b).ß Second ethical indicator (imperative + οὖν): Then do not let the good to be reviled (Rm 14:16).
• Two reasons explaining why the good is not to be reviled: ß First reason (γάρ-clause): for the kingdom of God is not food nor drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rm 14:17).ß Second reason (γάρ-clause): for he who serves Christ in this way pleases God and is approved by men (Rm 14:18).(Jewett 2007:833).
The γάρ clauses follow a personal statement in which Paul uses a double rhetorical device: οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, I know and I am persuaded in the Lord Jesus (Rm 14:14).He calls the attention of his audience by appealing to his own authority in terms of knowledge and persuasion in the Lord Jesus, whereby only very few apostles, if any at all, would outdo him.The arguments developed in Romans 14:15-23 can be ignored simply by someone who undermines the authority of Paul and that of Jesus.In Romans 14:19, Paul delivers one of the core messages of Jesus' Gospel, namely the exhortation to seek peace and mutual upbuilding in a very ordinary situation under the threat of divisions and rivalries.In Pauline thinking, these divisions are certainly a result of ignorance (cf. the use of the clause 'I know', implying that some may not know), lack of faith (faith is repeated thrice in the last section of the pericope) and sin (final statement: everything that does not proceed from faith is sin) (see Gaventa 2009:181-182).

Paul's gospel of peace and the table-fellowship in Rome
It is likely that Paul's addressees in Rome consisted of both the Jewish and Gentile Christians of which some of the Jewish origin had previously been leading pagan ways of life; likewise, some Gentiles would have embraced Jewish traditions before their conversion (Borgen 1995:36, 42;Mitternacht 2003:563;Sandelin 1989:11-26;Sanders 2010:165;Zetterholm 2003:171).Sanders argues that Paul found the broad middle ground between Gentiles and Jews: 'He forged a Christianity that was Jewish to the degree that it forbade idolatry and extra-marital sex and was Gentile to the degree that it forbade circumcision, Sabbath, and dietary laws' (Sanders 2010:173).However, Paul might not have 'forbidden', but relativised Sabbath and dietary laws (Bolton 2009:622-624;Dunn 1988:805).
In any case, for Paul, Jesus Christ is the faith canon and the role model as captured in Philippians 2:6 and especially in Romans 15:5: 'May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus' (see Grabe 2001:110-114;Okambawa 2002:362;Strüder 2005:499;Tellbe 2001:209).
The ethical code that Jesus teaches to his disciples in the context of dispute is summarised in Mark 9:50: 'have salt in yourselves, and make peace with one another', which Matthew 5:9 reads: 'blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called children of God'.For Mark, salt as a metaphor for the Word of God is an important ingredient that can spark and maintain peaceful relations, especially those shaped by love (Jn 13:35).As Miller puts it, 'the victory comes as believers love with God's love, genuinely and redemptively' (Miller 1992:177).

Conclusion
The readings of Romans 14:14 (original Biblical culture) from a contemporary church culture (DR Congo) and from a past church culture (Patristics) basically agree on the fact that for restoring and maintaining peace, it is important not to undermine fighting against its main cause, namely sin.It is equally important to cultivate things that promote peace and mutual edification, such as love, reign of God and service to Christ.A major difference between the three frames of reference consists of the fact that in the contemporary culture, the ethnic and social class disputes have produced the world's deadliest war.Had the Christians heeded to Christ, such wars would be avoided.Jesus is reported to have recommended peace and love among his disciples: 'have salt in yourselves, and make peace with one another' (Mk 9:50) and 'by this all will know that you are my disciples, you have love for one another' (Jn 13:35).St Augustine stated that 'it is a greater glory to slay war with a word than men with sword and to gain and maintain peace by means of peace, not by means of war' (Letter ccxxix, 2; cf.Schaff 1894).Similarly, a Swahili saying holds that 'Amani hamhitaji mlinzi' [peace does not need a guard].Indeed, peace cannot be kept by armed forces, it is the opposite of armed conflicts.A practical way towards sustainable peace entails putting up reconciliation strategies that integrate things of mutual edification (love, reign of God, service to Christ, righteousness and sinlessness).
Gennadius marvels at how wonderfully Paul develops his argument.For him, Paul firstly starts off at the bottom, by referring to food.Secondly, he calls the person who is sinned against a brother.Thirdly, he considers what has been done to that person as destruction.Fourthly, he says that this outrage has been committed against someone for whom Christ died.Fifthly, he states that someone who does this causes godliness to be blasphemed.Sixthly, he declares that we have not come to faith in Christ to be able to enjoy this or that but to be able to share in righteousness, which means in sinlessness, peace and joy (seeStaab 1933:412).

19 in its original Biblical culture Original variant: διώκωμεν, διώκομεν or διώκετε?
a nutshell, Church Fathers equated the Word of God and the fruits it yields (righteousness or sinlessness, peace, mutual edification and joy) with the true food and drink (Clement of Alexandria and Gennadius).All those qualities produced by the Word of God are the gifts of the Holy Spirit Byz Lect itar, b, d, f, g, gue, o, rvg syr pal cop sa, bo arm eth geo 2 Origen lat Chrysostom; Ambrosiaster Pelagius Augustine Speculum.∆ιώκομεν is supported by ‫א‬ A B F G L P 048 0150 0209 6 263 2200 (St Augustine).Every person and a fortiori each Christian (strong or weak) is encouraged to cultivate them, while fighting not against a brother or sister for whom Christ died, but rather striving to overcome destructive judgments (John Chrysostom).How can Romans 14:19 be understood in its original Biblical culture?Romans 14:The text of Romans 14:19 poses a relatively major text-critical issue pertaining to three variants of the only main verb of the whole sentence.One variant reads διώκωμεν [may we pursue: subjunctive, first-person plural of διώκω, pursue] while another has διώκομεν [we pursue: indicative, firstperson plural] or διώκετε [pursue: imperative, second-person plural].External evidence of διώκωμεν includes C D Ψ *vid l 60 l 147 l 165 l 422 l 592 l 593 l 597 l 603 l 884 l 1154 l 1356.∆ιώκετε is attested by 921 l 1021 l 1439 geo.
The literary correct French rendering of διώκωμεν should be 'que nous recherchions' [may or shall we pursue, let's pursue].French versions like Bible de Jérusalem and Traduction oecuménique de la Bible have chosen the imperative form 'recherchons' and have certainly influenced the use of this verbal form by the bishops of Central Africa for their appeal for peace.The best option would have been to stick to the literal and yet meaningful translation of the subjunctive διώκωμεν (que nous cherchions), which is both a natural rendering in French as well as an accurate representation of the 'original' verbal form.
On the other hand, the discontinuity or demarcation is signposted by the presence of the particle μηκέτι [no more] coupled with new addressees ἀλλήλους [one another], deviating from the single addressee of Romans 14:12 (περὶ ἑαυτοῦ, [about himself]) to join a more inclusive group.Verse 13 is then the beginning of a new development of the conclusion reached in Romans 14:12.
'each of us shall give account of himself to God' with regard to interpersonal relationships.This logically leads to the next declaration 'then let us no more judge one another' (Rm 14:13a).But, the discontinuity prevails: on one hand the concluding particle οὖν signals that a different conclusion is being drawn from Romans 14:12, which already has another concluding marker (ἄρα).
over it words of Law, it is as if they had eaten from the table of God, for it is written, 'And he said unto me, This is the table that is before the Lord' (Ezek 41:22) (m.Abot 3:3).In Paul's view, the challenges or contradictions posed by different ways of conducting table fellowship are resolved by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which in fact constitutes the Gospel of peace when it is well understood and well applied.
The significance of table-fellowship in Judaism is underlined by Rabbi Simeon (c.100-160/170) in the following terms:If three have eaten at one table and have not spoken over it words of the Law, it is as though they had eaten of the sacrifices of the dead (Ps 106:28), for it is written, 'For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness without God' (Isa.28:8 -'place' taken as a designation for God).But if three have eaten at one table and have spoken