1. Introduction: Why Does Paul Cite Ps 68.10b in Rom 15.3?

In its original context, Ps 68.10b OG carries the psalmist's lament for reproaches he is suffering from those who oppose God.Footnote ¹ The psalmist writes, ‘the reproaches from those who are reproaching you have fallen upon me’. He indicates that those reproaching God also reproach him because he so passionately seeks God (see 68.10a). Most scholars considering Paul's use of this psalm in Rom 15.3 contend that Paul refers to enduring reproaches on behalf of other people.Footnote ² On the one hand, this common understanding makes sense, for Paul uses the quote to clarify how ‘the Christ did not please himself’ (ὁ Χριστὸς ἑαυτῷ ἤρεσεν) in the context of Paul's exhortation to the ‘powerful’ to bear (βαστάζειν) the weaknesses (τὰ ἀσθενήματα) of the ‘powerless’.Footnote ³ Yet, on the other hand, this reading leads to difficulties for modern interpreters as it clearly differs from the psalm's original context of sharing reproaches directed at God. As result, some scholars treat the psalm's original context as largely irrelevantFootnote ⁴ or contend that Paul deliberately changes the referent of σε from God to people.Footnote ⁵ Others maintain that Paul's use of the psalm is faithful to its context. Yet these readings frequently struggle to clarify from the context of Paul's argument in 14.1–15.6 exactly what type of suffering/reproach Paul urges the ‘powerful’ to endure for the sake of the ‘powerless’ in emulation of Christ.Footnote ⁶ A common reason for this difficulty is the tendency to assume that Paul's christological use of the psalm entails an allusion to Christ's suffering in the passion.Footnote ⁷ Thus, many scholars assume that Paul instructs Roman believers to do something for, or on behalf of, other believers.Footnote ⁸

Some, however, have rightly recognised that with the citation Paul references actual reproaches that the ‘powerful’ would face from the surrounding culture.Footnote ⁹ Building on the work of these scholars, I contend that, by accommodating to the dietary convictions of the ‘powerless’, the ‘powerful’ would become subject to mocking and shame from the surrounding world, reproaches that they themselves had also once directed at the ‘powerless’ (14.3, 10). Paul, therefore, urges the ‘powerful’ to understand that, because they and the ‘powerless’ are both slaves of the same master, they are to follow Christ in suffering reproach for the sake of God's household even at their own reputation's expense. By arguing that Paul uses this citation because of actual reproaches faced by the ‘powerful’, I show how Paul's use of the citation makes sense of the psalm's context, fits with the parenetic rhetoric of Paul's argument in 14.1–15.6 and necessitates Paul's move in 15.4 to justify his use of Scripture.

In addition, by highlighting the way in which Paul's use of the citation coheres with the audience's on-the-ground realities, I demonstrate the rhetorical coherence of 14.1–15.6 and provide an explanation for how the ‘powerful’ in Paul's audience could have followed his rhetoric and understood his use of Ps 68.10b. Among scholars who advocate a reading similar to mine, Matthew Scott argues for a metaleptic reading whereby the psalm's context enables the audience to grasp Paul's argument.Footnote ¹⁰ By contrast, while I maintain that Paul used the citation in a way that matches its original context, I contend that the actual reproaches the ‘powerful’ would bear for accommodating to the convictions of the ‘powerless’ function as a hermeneutical ‘trigger’ for the audience to read Paul's use of the citation in the way Scott proposes Paul interpreted and employed it, without requiring metalepsis.Footnote ¹¹

This article will proceed by first briefly contextualising 15:3–4 in Paul's argument from 14.1–15.6 before problematising common explanations for Paul's use of Ps 68.10b. I then make a positive case for my reading that Paul applies a psalm lamenting reproaches borne by the psalmist to Christ in order to encourage the ‘powerful’ to endure the shame and reproaches that will result from their accommodating to the convictions of the ‘powerless’.

2. The Function of Rom 15.3–4 in its Context

Beginning in 14.1, Paul addresses an ongoing controversy in the Roman house churches, whereby a group within these churches continued to observe Jewish dietary laws strictly.Footnote ¹² The connection between dietary laws and purity indicates why the group's practices seem to be even stricter than the Torah's explicit regulations and makes sense of the κοινός language in 14.14.Footnote ¹³ This group, while struggling not to condemn those who did not follow their strict observance (14.3), did not use the observance of these practices as an indication of one's membership in the community in the same way as did those in the situation Paul addressed in Galatians.Footnote ¹⁴ Hence, while in 15.1 Paul takes the side of the party who eats everything, he notably never condemns those abstaining; rather, he affirms both parties’ inherent equality before the Lord.Footnote ¹⁵ Paul describes these parties in terms of ‘powerful’ and ‘powerless’, terms that resonate with discourse commonly employed in Rome.Footnote ¹⁶ Yet weakness (ἀσθενοῦντα in 14.1) and powerlessness (ἀδυνάτων in 15.1) do not make sense as self-designations, and Paul's focus throughout on challenging the rights of the ‘powerful’ accentuates these terms’ rhetorical functions.Footnote ¹⁷

While Paul begins ch. 14 by addressing the ‘powerful’, the imperative to ὁ μὴ ἐσθίων in v. 3b and the use of ὁ κρίνων in v. 4a indicate that the ‘powerless’ are among the audience and are behaving in a manner that Paul seeks to challenge.Footnote ¹⁸ His harshest language, however, he directs against the ‘eating’ party, especially after he begins to focus primarily on them at 14.13. Specifically, Paul warns the ‘powerful’ against despising the ‘powerless’ (14.3) and condemns their behaviour as lacking love (14.15) and destroying the work of God (14.20). Paul's admonitions direct the ‘powerful’ to accommodate to the preferences of the ‘powerless’ (14.13, 21; note the lack of reciprocal accommodation), a move which distinctively requires giving up power in service to the other. For instance, in 14.22–3 Paul stresses that while the faith of the ‘powerful’ allows them to eat everything, they are to keep that faith private, so as not to occasion the doubts of conscience that would lead the ‘powerless’ to condemn themselves.Footnote ¹⁹ This yielding of power correlates with three shifts in the priorities and conceptions of power for the ‘powerful’: (1) they must now prioritise the building-up of God's kingdom (14.17–18) over the exercise of power and its accompanying rights as defined in their culture;Footnote ²⁰ (2) they must exchange the exercise of their power for the acknowledgment of God's superior power, for he alone has the power to condemn and to save (14.4, 10–11);Footnote ²¹ and (3) they must recognise that they are Christ's slaves of equal status with the ‘powerless’ (14.4) and that it is only as one acts in a manner pleasing (εὐάρεστος) to God that one will be approved (δόκιμος) by people (14.18).Footnote ²²

Romans 15.1–6 makes explicit what has motivated the entire discourse in ch. 14, namely that Paul's focus lies not just on certain behaviours but on the attitudes that accompany those behaviours.Footnote ²³ The focus on underlying attitudes explains why Paul does not label the eating party until 15.1 and why, when he does so, he employs power language for both parties.Footnote ²⁴ There is no indication that Paul shifts his focus from the controversy at hand to broader paraenesis between 15.1 and 2; the repeated use of οἰκοδομή in 14.19 and 15.2 suggests just the opposite.Footnote ²⁵ The reader anticipates, therefore, that 15.3–4 must pertain to the issue of the ‘powerful’ and ‘powerless’ that Paul has been addressing, an issue related to power and thus to honour and shame. Specifically, Paul is concerned about the church's unity as God's household, and his paraenesis seeks to shift the ‘powerful’ away from a preoccupation with their own reputation so that they prioritise the unity and good of that household (including their fellow slaves), even if doing so necessitates bearing shame.

3. Problems with Previous Approaches

A plausible account of Paul's use of Ps 68.10b in Rom 15.3 must consider four main questions. (1) Why does Paul use a psalm citation rather than explicitly reference the Jesus tradition to exemplify how Jesus bore reproaches? (2) Who is the referent for σε: God (as in Psalm 68) or the audience? (3) Is Paul primarily addressing the ‘powerful’ here or the entire congregation of both ‘powerless’ and ‘powerful’? (4) How does the psalm citation connect to v. 4? Unfortunately, previous proposals have not adequately addressed each of these concerns.

First, in relation to 15.3–4 scholars most often consider the broad question of why Paul uses a psalm citation to support his claim that ‘Christ did not please himself’. Frequently, the debate centres on why Paul uses Ps 68.10b rather than a concrete example from the Jesus tradition.Footnote ²⁶ Attempts to resolve this debate observe that Paul reads the psalm christologically and employs the citation as if Jesus were the speaker,Footnote ²⁷ yet disagreement persists as to whether Paul has particular instances from Jesus’ life in mind.Footnote ²⁸ Regardless of how much of the Jesus tradition Paul knew, however, his other epistles indicate that he taught that Christ suffered physical and emotional humiliation,Footnote ²⁹ and so a citation from a psalm commonly understood as messianic by early Christians – and referencing such humiliation – should not surprise us.Footnote ³⁰ The problem with common treatments of this passage lies rather in that, while scholars recognise that Paul employs a psalm citation instead of explicitly describing the crucifixion, their explanations often assume reference to the crucifixion. For instance, Koch, who rightly recognises that the passage contains no implication of vicarious suffering, still maintains that the citation refers to the passion and enables an ‘Interpretation der Passion im Sinne des οὐκ ἑαυτῷ ἀρέσκειν’.Footnote ³¹ Interpreters thereby shift the passage's nuance away from Paul's explicit focus. The question should not be why Paul employs a citation rather than reference the Jesus tradition, but why he focuses on bearing reproach.

For instance, Hays argues: ‘The connection between the exhortation and its warrant is a bit imprecise, but Paul's point seems to be simply that Christ endured suffering and blame vicariously: he was innocent but incurred reproaches. Thus, the powerful, rather than pleasing themselves, should likewise be willing to suffer if necessary for the sake of others.’Footnote ³² The problem with Hays’ proposal is that it does not fit the context; Paul has spent most of ch. 14 challenging and confronting the ‘powerful’ concerning their attitudes towards the ‘powerless’; what suffering does he have in mind that they should bear? Nowhere in 14.1–15.6 does Paul use suffering language; rather, he speaks here only of bearing reproach (ὀνειδισμός). Hays has imported the notion of vicarious suffering from his understanding of the context of Jesus’ crucifixion that he assumes Paul has in mind.Footnote ³³ Reproach language does feature in the Jesus tradition, yet in the Gospels the reproaches function to highlight the shamefulness of Christ's death – even those crucified with him reproached him (ὀνειδίζω in Mark 15.32; Matt 27.44). By assuming that a reference to the crucifixion necessitates a focus upon Christ’ vicarious suffering, scholars implicitly rule out the possibility that Paul is emphasising here an aspect of the crucifixion other than its vicarious nature.Footnote ³⁴ Although reference to vicarious suffering is possible, one should not foreclose a more straightforward reading if it fits with both Paul's rhetoric and the citation's context: Paul employs the citation to indicate that the Christ suffered undeserved reproaches because of his association with God in order to urge the ‘powerful’ to likewise give up their claim to honour and accept reproaches because of their association with God.

Second, and closely related to the above, is the issue of the referent of σε in the citation: does it refer to God, as in the psalm, or to people (e.g. Paul's audience)? In reality, however, whether they read σε as referencing God or people, scholars generally understand the passage in essentially the same way. Most interpreters contend that Paul remains faithful to the psalm's context here, so that σε refers to God.Footnote ³⁵ Yet because these interpreters assume that Paul has the crucifixion in mind, they reason that he focuses on Christ's suffering on behalf of others. Thus, according to this reading, Paul exhorts the audience to also endure reproaches on behalf of others. For instance, Douglas Moo argues: ‘NT writers often apply language from Ps. 69 to the passion of Jesus, and Paul probably thinks of the “reproaches” borne by Christ as those tauntings Jesus endured at the time of his crucifixion … Paul therefore implicitly appeals to Jesus’ giving of himself in service to others as a model to imitate.’Footnote ³⁶ Granting, for the sake of argument, that Paul does have in mind an account of the crucifixion such as that contained in Mark 15.32 and Matt 27.44 that describes Christ being taunted (ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν) on the cross, what strikes the attentive reader is that in those accounts Christ is taunted for an apparently unwarranted claim to be God's Messiah, not for ‘giving of himself in service to others’.Footnote ³⁷ Thus the ‘historical’ context mirrors the psalm's focus on suffering because of association with God. Moo's reading, by contrast, though explicitly arguing that σε refers to God, shifts Paul's exhortation away from bearing reproaches directed at God to giving oneself ‘in service to others’ in emulation of Jesus.Footnote ³⁸ While Paul's point does include the imitation of Christ, Moo's reading moves what is being imitated away from what the citation actually says: namely, that Christ bore reproaches directed at God, not others.

Robert Jewett recognises this tension between σε and the citation's paraenetic application and argues that Paul has implicitly shifted the referent of σε so that it ‘refers to a human victim rather than to God as in the original psalm’.Footnote ³⁹ The strength of Jewett's reading lies in its understanding that Paul's use of the psalm correlates to an actual situation on the ground so that ‘Paul is attempting in this citation to correlate the shameful insults that both Christ and his followers bear’.Footnote ⁴⁰ Yet Jewett overemphasises the connection between the citation and v. 2. Introduced by ἀλλά, the citation forms the antithesis of v. 3a so that it functions not to exemplify neighbour love but to clarify the difference between pleasing σε and pleasing ἐμέ.Footnote ⁴¹ The use of the singular pronoun σε in the mouth of Christ thus most naturally refers to God, as it does in the psalm, rather than an undefined ‘human victim’. Jewett, by contrast, must then argue that v. 4 justifies Paul's ‘gigantic, virtually heretical step’ in shifting the referent. If the shift in referent was truly so significant, however, then one would rightly expect Paul to have made the switch more explicit.Footnote ⁴²

In the end, however, the pay-off of both Moo's and Jewett's readings is remarkably similar. Both argue that Paul stresses that since Jesus has borne reproaches on the audience's behalf, they must likewise bear reproaches on each other's behalf.Footnote ⁴³ Like Hays's reading discussed above, while theologically cogent, both explanations have shifted Paul's use of the psalm away from its original context – bearing reproaches from those who are reproaching God because of one's association with him.Footnote ⁴⁴

Third, beyond reading in additional context or arguing for implicit changes to the psalm's original meaning, Jewett's explanation, in particular, does not adequately account for the citation's role in Paul's argument. Jewett contends that while Paul addresses the strong in v. 1, by v. 2 he has expanded his concern to both parties so that vv. 3–4 address both parties equally.Footnote ⁴⁵ Thus, for Jewett, Paul exhorts each group (i.e. the ‘powerful’ and the ‘powerless’), on the basis of how Christ bore reproaches on their behalf, to increase ‘the other group's honor and integrity rather than participating in mutual shaming’.Footnote ⁴⁶ In support of Jewett's position, one could argue that ἕκαστος broadens ἡμῶν in v. 2 from referring just to the ‘powerful’ (cf. ἡμεῖς in v. 1) to include the whole audience (i.e. each party). Yet Jewett's reading proves deficient on three points. (1) Positing such a contrast between two consecutive uses of the first-person plural pronoun not only seems overly subtle but neglects the explicit connection between what Christ exemplifies (οὐχ ἑαυτῷ ἤρεσεν) and Paul's exhortation to the ‘powerful’ in 1b (μὴ ἑαυτοῖς ἀρέσκειν).Footnote ⁴⁷ (2) The exhortation to please one's neighbour (ἀρεσκέτω in 15.2) goes beyond merely ceasing to condemn (cf. 14.3) and requires positive action. Throughout ch. 14, however, Paul has required such positive action only of the ‘powerful’ on behalf of the other party. (3) If the focus of 15.2–4 is ‘mutual shaming’ as Jewett contends, troublesome paraenetic implications result. Whether one looks to the historical Jesus or the psalm's context, the nature of the reproaches which Paul indicates Jesus faced connote hostility from unbelievers.Footnote ⁴⁸ Yet throughout ch. 14 Paul stresses that both parties are united as slaves of the same master and members of the same household. If 15.2–4 focusses on ‘mutual shaming’ as Jewett contends, so that each party is to see itself in the one who does the reproaching alluded to in the citation, this seems to run contrary to the overall paraenetic thrust of 14.1–15.6.Footnote ⁴⁹

Fourth, although 15.4 does not make a claim unique to Paul, or even to Romans,Footnote ⁵⁰ that Paul explicitly justifies his application of the Scripture to his audience at this point in his argument has long struck interpreters as unexpected.Footnote ⁵¹ Possible explanations have included that (1) Paul does so in order to defend his use of Scripture broadly and perhaps specifically the further citations in vv. 7–13, that (2) he does so to defend a particular exegetical move in his use of Ps 68.10b in v. 3, or that (3) the verse is simply a later interpolation.Footnote ⁵² Jewett has sufficiently rebutted option 3,Footnote ⁵³ and options 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive. The real debate lies in what exegetical move Paul is defending in his use of Ps 68.10b. As may be expected, one's position in that debate correlates to how one understands Paul's point in the citation. As noted above, Jewett argues that Paul defends his switch in the referent of σε, whereas Hays and others contend with various nuances that the verse justifies Paul's use of christological exegesis for exhortation.Footnote ⁵⁴ If neither the switch in referent nor christological exegesis is Paul's primary point in using the citation, however, then the stress of v. 4 likewise lies elsewhere.

In regard to each of the four main exegetical concerns described above, there is a pattern in the deficiencies of common interpretations: though most interpreters agree that in ch. 14 Paul deals with a specific issue impacting his actual audience in the Roman church, they do not adequately consider how Paul's use of Ps 68.10b relates to that issue in a way that explains both his use of this particular psalm in v. 3 and his justification of his exegesis in v. 4. That is to say, they do not adequately resolve the hermeneutical question of how Paul moves from the concrete situation in the Roman congregations that he is addressing to the scriptural proof that he uses in his argumentation.

4. Proposal: The ‘Powerful’ Bear Reproaches When They Accommodate

I propose that Paul uses Ps 68.10b to highlight a particular aspect of Christ's not pleasing himself (οὐχ ἑαυτῷ ἤρεσεν) for the strong to imitate, namely the bearing of reproaches that one receives for God-honouring behaviour. Specifically, this God-honouring behaviour entails the ‘powerful’ accommodating to the convictions of the ‘powerless’, convictions which, as shown below, were despised by the broader society. Thus, these reproaches will come from the outside community and possibly from some of ‘powerful’ themselves, who do not follow Paul's exhortation. This reading addresses each of the exegetical concerns above, makes sense in the context of Paul's argument, and explains the function of v. 4. I will build this argument in four steps: (1) confirm that Paul's focus in vv. 3–4 remains on the ‘powerful’; (2) establish that the ‘powerful’ were likely to face reproach for accommodating to the behaviour of the ‘powerless’; (3) demonstrate that the nature of the reproaches the ‘powerful’ faced aligns with the original context of Ps 68.10b; and (4) explain how this understanding of Paul's use of the citation makes sense of Paul's justification in v. 4 of his use of Scripture.

First, 15.3–4 continues the overall focus of 14.1–15.6 on the ‘powerful’. By placing τὸν ἀσθενοῦντα as the object of προσλαμβάνεσθε at the beginning of the section in 14.1, Paul indicates that he is primarily speaking to a party distinct from the ‘powerless’. There are several places where the rhetoric does address the ‘powerless’ party, such as 14.3b and 14.10a, but the focus narrows to the ‘powerful’ in v. 13. All of the exhortations that follow focus on the ‘powerful’ party, admonishing them to protect the faith of the ‘powerless’. While the ‘powerful’ are not to let ‘what is good in your regard be denigrated’ (14.16), Paul explicitly instructs them to give up their dietary freedom and accommodate to the conscience of the ‘powerless’ (14.20–3). Paul uses ἀσθενήματα in 15.1 to recall 14.1, but he now labels the party ἀδυνάτων instead of ἀσθενούντων. The switch in terminology confirms the power dynamics at play. When Paul instructs the ‘powerful’ (οἱ δυνατοί) to bear (βαστάζειν) the ‘weaknesses’ (ἀσθενήματα) of the ‘powerless’ (τῶν ἀδυνάτων), he calls for behaviour that requires a surrender of freedoms.Footnote ⁵⁵ Because Paul uses the same language in both his exhortation to the ‘powerful’ and the example of Christ that motivates this exhortation (note the repetition of ἀρέσκω with the relevant reflexive pronoun in vv. 1 and 3), the focus has not shifted away from the ‘powerful’ between 15.1 and 15.3a. Therefore, contra Jewett, one should understand ἕκαστος ἠμῶν in v. 2 as corresponding to ἡμεῖς in v. 1 instead of indicating a widening of Paul's focus to the whole congregation.Footnote ⁵⁶ As a result, the citation in 15.3b focuses primarily on the ‘powerful’, not ‘mutual shaming’ by both parties.Footnote ⁵⁷

Second, understanding Paul's emphasis to lie on the ‘powerful’ provides insight into why he quotes Ps 68.10b to explain how Christ did not please himself. Moo states: ‘Why Paul uses this particular quotation is not clear since we have no reason to think that the strong were enduring “reproaches”’.Footnote ⁵⁸ Yet this is not entirely accurate. Paul twice admonishes the ‘powerful’ not to despise (ἐξουθενέω) the ‘powerless’ (14.3, 10), indicating that the ‘powerful’ considered the behaviour of the ‘powerless’ as disgraceful.Footnote ⁵⁹ Nor was it only the ‘powerful’ who considered these kinds of behaviour – both vegetarianism and Sabbath observanceFootnote ⁶⁰– as contemptible.Footnote ⁶¹ For instance, Tacitus includes both abstention from pork and the love of ‘indolence’ (inertia) in observing the Sabbath as examples of Jewish practices that characterise a people that ‘regard as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor’.Footnote ⁶² He goes on to describe Jewish customs as ‘base and abominable’ (sinistra foeda).Footnote ⁶³ Similarly, Juvenal, chastising parents for setting their children bad examples, describes those who ‘happen to have been dealt a father who respects the Sabbath … They think there is no difference between pork, which their fathers abstained from, and human flesh … But it's their fathers who are to blame, taking every seventh day as a day of laziness and separate from ordinary life.’Footnote ⁶⁴ By exhorting the ‘powerful’ to accommodate to the behaviours of the ‘powerless’ in communal meals, therefore, Paul is instructing the ‘powerful’ to engage in shameful behaviour. Thus, those who heeded Paul's admonitions would find themselves on the receiving end of the very reproaches that they had formerly dished out, and which would continue to come from those among their party who resisted Paul as well as those in the broader society who may have happened to observe or hear reports of the communal meals.

Third, to many scholars the relationship between Paul's use of the citation and its original context remains obscure.Footnote ⁶⁵ In Psalm 68 the psalmist begins by lamenting the severity of his suffering and how God has not yet responded (vv. 2–4) before clarifying that the nature of his suffering is undeserved opposition from many enemies (vv. 5–6). In vv. 7–9 the psalmist employs the language of honour and shame, indicating that he has borne reproaches (ὀνειδισμόν) for God's sake (v. 8) and that the resulting shame (ἐντροπή) has estranged him from his family (v. 9) and could cause others who seek the Lord to also experience shame (v. 7).Footnote ⁶⁶ Then in v. 10a the psalmist prefaces the phrase Paul cites with the statement ‘for zeal for your house consumed me’ (ὅτι ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου κατέφαγέν με). The ὅτι indicates that this clause explains the reason for reproaches the psalmist received in v. 8 (and in v. 10 as well). In its original setting, this zeal for God's dwelling place connotes a passion for God, his presence and the right behaviour of God's people that his continued presence in their midst required.Footnote ⁶⁷ The psalmist argues that the reproaches (ὀνειδισμοί) that he has borne for God's sake (v. 8) come from those who reproach (τῶν ὀνειδιζόντων) God himself (v. 10b). Thus, it is not that the psalmist bears reproaches instead of God or for anyone else; rather, the psalmist understands that the shame he is experiencing directly results from his alignment with God.

This reading of the citation's context closely aligns with Paul's argument up to 15.3. In 14.3, Paul commands the ‘powerful’ not to despise (ἐξουθενείτω) the ‘powerless’ for their dietary conservatism (cf. also 14.10). He then repeatedly stresses the value of the ‘powerless’ in God's eyes: they are the Lord's household slaves (οἰκέτην in 14.4), in their not eating they honour the Lord (14.6), and they are the ‘work of God’ (τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ in 14.20) whom the ‘powerful’ must not destroy nor cause to stumble (14.20–1). The ‘powerful’ are to love the ‘powerless’ not only as their neighbour (πλησίον in 15.2) but as their fellow slaves in the same household (14.4); their actions are to flow out of loyalty to a common master and a desire for the unity and strength of a common household (οἰκοδομήν in 15.2).Footnote ⁶⁸ Thus, if by accommodating to the ‘powerless’ the ‘powerful’ will bear reproaches, then the reproaches which they bear are the result of their submission to their master, God, and what he values and, by extension, their alignment with Christ.Footnote ⁶⁹ In this way, their experience mirrors that of the psalmist and of Christ.Footnote ⁷⁰

Many readings of 15.3–4 fail to differentiate between the nuances of experiencing reproaches on behalf of, alongside or because of association with another, and they thus imply a shift between Christ's actions and the application to the ‘powerful’. In the psalm's context, the psalmist bears reproach not on behalf of or even alongside God but because of his association with God. Similarly, in 15.3 Paul employs the citation as Christ's declaration that he bore reproaches because of his association with God. When scholars move to address Paul's application of the citation to his audience, they often assume that he urges them to suffer ‘on behalf of’ the other even though nothing in the rhetoric has such nuance.Footnote ⁷¹ While 15.1 instructs the ‘powerful’ to bear (βαστάζειν) the ἀσθενήματα of the ‘powerless’, this bearing does not remove the ἀσθενήματα,Footnote ⁷² but rather involves the ‘powerful’ in sharing in the ‘weaknesses’ of the ‘powerless’.Footnote ⁷³ In context, bearing ‘weaknesses’ means identifying with the ‘powerless’ in the kinds of behaviour that occasion their social vulnerability. Paul recognises that the ‘powerful’ would resist engaging in kinds of behaviour that the broader society and they themselves (see 14.3, 10) despise, and so he makes several timely rhetorical moves. He first appears to validate the ‘powerful’ through the use of δυνατοί and by aligning himself with them.Footnote ⁷⁴ Then he executes a rhetorical reversal, indicating that they are not to employ their power for themselves, but rather they are to give it up in order to please their neighbour for the good of the church. Lastly, Paul uses the example of Christ bearing reproaches to urge the strong to do likewise. He uses the citation to strengthen the connection between Christ's not pleasing himself and the audience's situation. The citation indicates that Christ bore reproach for the sake of honouring God; similarly, the ‘powerful’ will bear reproach from outsiders by honouring God as they accommodate their behaviour to that of God's people whom these outsiders mock. Thus, the ‘powerful’ suffer reproach not for the ‘powerless’ but with them because they are both slaves of the same master. Paul has connected the ‘powerful’ to Christ not on the basis of shared power but on the basis of shared shame.Footnote ⁷⁵

This understanding of the citation's rhetorical function leaves no room for the pride of the ‘powerful’. Throughout 14.1–15.6 Paul has reconfigured the two parties from mutual antagonists to slaves of the same master in the same household. The primary application of the citation, therefore, focuses on moving the ‘powerful’ from concern with their own reputation to willingness to bear the reproaches directed at the master because of the behaviour of his other slaves.Footnote ⁷⁶ Yet, in applying the passage to the ‘powerful’, Paul does seem to allow a double valence, so that the ‘powerful’ endure reproaches because of their association with their master (God/Christ) and with the other slaves (the ‘powerless’) out of a love for them (15.2). The double valence makes sense of how Paul's use of the psalm both strongly echoes its original context and fits with his admonitions of the ‘powerful’ in the rhetoric of 14.1–15.6.Footnote ⁷⁷

Fourth, what remains to explain is why Paul argues in 15.4 that ‘all that was written before was written for our instruction’. Although Paul made a similar remark in 4.23–5, here he stresses Scripture's pedagogical function as he seeks to convince a reluctant audience to engage in behaviour that contradicts pervasive cultural norms of honour and shame. He justifies not only the citation's connection to Christ, but more importantly the audience's connection to Christ's willingness to accept shame. Thus, by stressing that Scripture speaks directly to his audience, Paul, consistent with his eschatological understanding of Christ, urges the audience to join with Christ in enduring reproach from those who oppose God. Furthermore, Paul stresses that Scripture speaks to the audience ‘in order that through the endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we should have hope’.Footnote ⁷⁸ The attribution of ὑπομονῆς and παρακλήσεως to God in the wish-prayer of v. 5 connect Scriptures' function with God's character: the Scriptures provide endurance and encouragement because they are the words of the God of endurance and encouragement who alone can grant (δῴη) the ability for the ‘powerful’ to follow Paul's exhortation.Footnote ⁷⁹