| 13. Linguistic Exegesis The verse opens with the adverb meketi {Μηκέτι | Mē-ké-ti} “no longer” followed by the inferential conjunction oun {οὖν | oûn}, which links this exhortation to the preceding discussion and marks a logical conclusion. The hortatory subjunctive krinomen {κρίνωμεν | krí-nō-men} “let us judge” with the reciprocal object allelous {ἀλλήλους | al-lḗ-lous} “one another” forms a communal prohibition: the community is urged to cease mutual evaluation. The adversative alla {ἀλλὰ | al-là} then introduces a sharp contrast and a redirection from what should stop to what should begin.
The following clause, touto krinate mallon {τοῦτο κρίνατε μᾶλλον | toû-to krí-na-te mâl-lon}, shifts to the second person plural imperative krinate {κρίνατε | krí-na-te} “decide, judge,” with mallon {μᾶλλον | mâl-lon} “rather” strengthening the notion of a preferred, alternative kind of judgment. The demonstrative touto functions cataphorically, pointing forward to the content of the decision, expressed by the articular infinitive phrase to me tithenai proskomma tō adelpho ē skandalon {τὸ μὴ τιθέναι πρόσκομμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ ἢ σκάνδαλον | tò mḕ ti-thé-nai prós-kom-ma tṓ a-del-phō ḕ skán-da-lon}. Here, the article to {τὸ | tò} plus infinitive tithenai {τιθέναι | ti-thé-nai} “to put” creates a substantival idea, “the not putting,” which serves as the direct object of krinate.
The negative particle me {μὴ | mḕ} scopes over tithenai, defining the content of the decision as a prohibition against placing obstacles. The infinitive governs two accusative complements, proskomma {πρόσκομμα | prós-kom-ma} “stumbling block” and skandalon {σκάνδαλον | skán-da-lon} “snare, cause of stumbling,” coordinated by e {ἢ | ḕ} “or.” The indirect object tō adelphō {τῷ ἀδελφῷ | tṓ a-del-phō} “to the brother” identifies the one who might be harmed. Syntactically, the verse contrasts two uses of “judging”: a negative horizontal practice within the community and a positive self-imposed resolve to act protectively toward fellow believers. The English renderings mirror this contrast by preserving the sequence of hortatory construction followed by imperative plus an infinitival clause that expresses the resolved course of action. |