Excursus: Ancient Mediterranean Food Customs
ROMANS 14
LIVING THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (12:1—15:13), cont.
Serve the Lord vs. Foods and Days (14:1–12)
Although the subject changes here from 13:11–14, it continues Paul’s practical exhortations about relationships. Instead of generalities, however, Paul now addresses at extended length (14:1—15:7) a more specific tension among believers in Rome. Paul has preached before against causing stumbling over foods (1 Cor 8–10, addressing food offered to idols), but now adjusts that theme to the specific tensions in the Roman church.1
Very detailed reconstructions regarding the views of diverse house churches (sometimes divided into four or five distinct camps) extract too much from our limited evidence, but the general situation is clear from Romans as a whole: Jewish and Gentile believers need mutual respect (see introduction). Aside from concern with Jewish success at converting Roman women, Roman literature cites three issues for which Roman Gentiles particularly looked down on Jews: circumcision, food customs, and holy days (see e.g., Juvenal Sat. 14.96–106). Paul has already addressed circumcision in 2:25–29 and 4:9–12, but has reserved the other two issues for his current exhortation. Because a major practical issue might be reserved for the end of an argument, and because this section focuses mostly on foods (holy days take up only 14:5–6), looking down on one another’s food customs was probably a major problem among believers in Rome.
Paul’s key exhortation is “accept one another.” Apart from Phlm 17, Paul’s extant letters employ this verb (proslambanō) only three times: at the beginning (14:1, 3) and end (15:7) of this section. The context of 15:7 indicates that Jews and Gentiles accepting one another (as Christ has accepted them) is a key issue (15:8–12).
Excursus: Ancient Mediterranean Food Customs
Besides Jews, some other peoples in the East also avoided pork, including Phoenicians (Herodian History 5.6.6), perhaps some Syrians (Lucian Syr. d. 54), and Egyptian priests.2 Some other cults,3 peoples,4 or sects (especially the vegetarian Pythagoreans)5 also had special food customs. Some of these groups influenced other persons not belonging to their group.
Most Jewish people maintained their ancestral food customs. Because of severe persecution for this practice in the Maccabean period, Jewish food customs had become a significant distinctive of Jewish ethnicity.6 Gentiles knew that Jews avoided pork and widely mocked them for it;7 Juvenal, for example, complained that Jews saw no difference between eating pork and cannibalism (Sat. 14.98–99). Most Diaspora Jews observed food laws;8 other peoples would hardly have ridiculed Jews for this practice otherwise. What God ordained to separate Israel from the world (Lev 11:44–45) had proved effective, but Paul saw the emphasis now on mission rather than cultural separation (though he insisted on maintaining purity in sexual and theological areas).
Scholars sometimes demur from a Jewish focus in Romans 14 because Jews were not restricted to “vegetables” (14:2) or avoiding wine (14:21). But this may be simply Paul’s hyperbole, given factors supporting a Jewish focus. It is soon clear that Paul is addressing the issue of Jews and Gentiles accepting one another (15:7–12); issues of law predominate in Romans, and “clean” and “unclean” foods do refer to Jewish kashrut (14:14).9 Nevertheless, whether or not the vegetarianism is hyperbole, it is grounded in reality: when other kosher food was unavailable for whatever reason, Jews might resort to figs and nuts (Josephus Life 13–14), food in the wild (2 Macc 5:27), or vegetables more generally (Josephus Ant. 10.190).10 It is doubtful that the problem is the lack of kosher butchers, which would have undoubtedly existed in Rome (even if much of the Jewish community had been expelled, enough members would have now returned to demand some such accommodations).11 Most people in antiquity probably could not afford meat very often, except in connection with pagan cults;12 abstaining from such cults (as Paul would expect all believers to do, 1 Cor 10:19–21) could also curtail available meat (see discussions of 1 Cor 8–10).
Some Jewish people debated among themselves whether there was a higher moral significance to the laws, and what that significance was.13 Philo kept the food laws literally but found in them allegorical significance that led to higher moral behavior,14 and he was not the first Alexandrian Jew to think in these terms.15 Paul does not clearly allegorize food laws here; he seems to treat them as a matter of the old form of the law applicable only to Israel (and in Lev 11, they were intended distinctively for Israel).
For Paul, foods themselves are religiously neutral; that is, one may keep food customs because of upbringing, cultural preference or ethnic attachment, but one who keeps them out of the belief that it is religiously profitable is “weak in faith” (14:1). (Paul might even formulate this designation as a contrast with the ancestral archetype of faith who was “not weak in faith,” 4:19.) This contrasts with one who genuinely believes and hence may eat anything (14:2); nothing is really intrinsically “clean” or “unclean” (14:14).
Nevertheless, Paul’s agenda in this chapter is not to denigrate the keeping of these food customs, but to keep those who viewed themselves as “strong” from looking down on the “weak.” Paul does not want stumbling blocks placed before those who continue to keep kosher by others eating non-kosher food in front of them (14:13–21).16 Although Paul spent much of the letter establishing from Jewish Scripture that God welcomed Gentiles into the covenant, he is now emphasizing his central issue for the Gentile majority among Roman believers, namely, that they should not look down on Jews (11:18–21) or on those who keep the laws (ch. 14). Paul warns against abstainers disdaining eaters (14:3, 10), and against eaters “judging” abstainers (14:3, 4, 10, 13); he frequently used “judge” (krinō and cognates) earlier in the letter, probably including for Jews judging Gentiles (2:1, 3). It is true that some may “fall” (14:4), like the Jewish branches in 11:22 (falling is identical with “stumbling,” falling away from the faith, 14:13, 21; cf. 9:32–33; 11:9, 11),17 but God is able to make one “stand” (14:4), i.e., stand firm in the faith (cf. Rom 11:20; 1 Cor 10:12), and it is no one else’s place to judge God’s slaves (Rom 14:4; for God’s slaves cf. e.g., 1:1; 6:22). (Although Paul uses “falling” language here, perhaps based on his more general preaching on this topic reflected in 1 Cor 8:9, 13, “judging” others is also central here.)
In 14:5–6 Paul briefly introduces, as if by way of a supporting illustration, the keeping of different days. Perhaps Paul expected his audience in Rome to agree with him regarding days, and hence he could use this as part of his argument. Paul himself did not have high regard for merely exchanging Gentile sacred days for Jewish ones (Gal 4:9–10). Nevertheless, it would seem surprising if the Sabbath were less of a controversy than food customs, even if everyone believed that the law of Moses was no longer in effect. While God-fearing Gentiles who were not full proselytes might not be expected to keep the Sabbath,18 the Sabbath, in contrast to the food laws, was illustrated in creation before the birth of Israel (Gen 2:2–3; Exod 20:11). Although Jesus countered a strict approach to the Sabbath, it is not clear that he did away with it,19 and early believers in Jesus continued to designate the seventh day by that term (Acts 1:12), albeit especially regarding conventional Jewish gatherings (e.g., Acts 13:44; 16:13).
How do we reconcile this brief passage with the larger witness of the OT on which Paul normally depended (cf. e.g., Exod 31:14–15; 35:2; Jer 17:21–27; Ezek 20:12–24; 22:26; 44:24; 46:1–12), including regarding faithful Gentiles (Isa 56:3–8)? Perhaps Paul simply did not expect Gentiles to keep festivals celebrating specifically Jewish deliverances (e.g., Passover, Purim), in contrast to the more universal Sabbath. This is a possibility, but early Christians in general apparently remained familiar with these other festivals as well (1 Cor 5:7; Acts 20:6, 16), and the Sabbath was the largest issue of contention between Jews and Gentiles regarding holy days. Others have suggested that Paul refers not to the Sabbath or even festivals but to fast days (which some strict Judean pietists observed even twice a week); this proposal fits the context of foods. If he refers to the Sabbath, perhaps Paul was simply pragmatic: unless they belonged to the ethnic enclave of Israel, Gentile slaves and workers normally could not observe the Sabbath fully, and Paul did not require this ideal of those who could not observe it. Perhaps for Paul the spirit of setting aside time for rest and worship was the point behind the day, hence took precedence over literal observance especially when, as just noted, literal observance was impossible (cf. circumcision in 2:25–29, though this, like food customs, was particular to Israel). For Paul, in any case, the issue is a secondary one and not a basis for dividing believers, and this is his primary point.20
Romans also had festivals21 and regarded particular days as inauspicious.22 But while the Roman world took off regular market days every eight or nine days, they lacked a weekly Sabbath.23 The Sabbath was central to Jewish practice throughout the ancient world.24 Gentiles were widely aware of the Jewish Sabbath,25 and some Gentiles attracted to Judaism apparently avoided pork and honored the Sabbath in symbolic ways, such as lighting lamps.26 Judaism was rife with debates about festival days, though normally these conflicts involved simply the correct date for observance (especially stemming from differences between the solar and lunar calendars). Perhaps within two generations of Paul’s writing some of Jesus’s followers were clashing with traditional Jews over fast days (Did. 8.1).
Whether regarding special worship days or food customs, the issue is motivation: one should observe or not observe such customs “to the Lord” (14:6).27 For Paul, this issue simply reflects the larger principle of doing everything for the Lord. That principle, rather than an outward regulation, is the real criterion for true religion (14:7–9). The “Lord” for whom believers are to live and die (14:7–8) is Jesus, who died and rose as Lord (14:9). (Cf. the emphasis on sharing his death and new life in 6:2–11; on Jesus as risen Lord cf. also 10:9–10.)28
Because all would stand before God’s judgment seat (14:10), judging others now was both pointless and dangerous, usurping a divine prerogative and inviting stricter judgment (2:1–3).29 (Residents of Rome were familiar with a bēma or judgment seat, corresponding to the rostrum in the Roman forum.) Verifying the need for “all” (Jew and Gentile) to stand before God (14:10, 12), Paul cites Isa 45:23: “every” knee and tongue would acknowledge God at the judgment (Rom 14:11).30 (The context in Isaiah, 45:21–24, emphasizes that God is the only savior and source of righteousness, even for the Gentiles.)31
Do Not Risk Siblings Stumbling (14:13–23)
Rather than “judging” others, Paul admonishes (playing on senses of “judge,” cf. 14:10), one should “judge” not to provoke a fellow believer to fall away from faith (14:13). Food is a secondary matter not worth risking anyone’s salvation over (14:13, 15). For Paul, foods are neutral, neither clean nor unclean (14:14; Paul is speaking ritually, according to Lev 11, not equating all food hygienically or nutritionally).32 The issue is how one views the food (14:14), because one must eat “to the Lord” (14:6; cf. 1 Cor 10:31). To risk grieving or even “destroying”33 another believer over food is to fail to walk in love (14:15), hence to violate the true heart of the law (13:8–10). What the eater may intend as good (affirming freedom in Christ) may be viewed by others as evil (as disobeying Scripture, 14:16);34 although Paul may have thought some postmodern approaches today extreme, he exhibits a tremendous pastoral sensitivity to different persons’ motivations and perspectives.35 Now Paul applies to Christians who do not observe the law the very critique against strict Jews they may have earlier applauded: in view of God’s judgment (14:10–12; cf. 2:3–5), they must not judge (14:13; cf. 2:1), nor dare they let what they mean for good cause ill speaking (blasphēmeō, 14:16; cf. 2:24).
In contrast to what does not matter very much, namely foods, Paul comes in 14:17 (as he had in 14:6–8) to what really does matter: the true righteousness he has been discussing throughout the letter (beginning in 1:17). It is only life empowered by God’s Spirit, not by the flesh, that can please God (8:2–13, especially 8:8). This life, rather than external rules, fulfills the hearts of the law (8:2–4). As in Galatians, this principle means that merely external rules involving the flesh cannot produce righteousness; but the genuine purpose of God’s inspired law will never oppose the life yielded to God’s Spirit (Gal 5:18–23). For Paul, peace seems especially relational (Rom 14:19); joy at least often occurs in the context of relationships (Rom 15:32; cf. 2 Cor 1:24; 2:3; 7:4, 13; 1 Thess 2:19–20).36 In 14:17, Paul understands God’s future reign (proclaimed by Jesus) as being initially actualized in believers’ present lives through the Spirit.37
Just as the spirit of the law will never contradict a life genuinely following God’s Spirit (Gal 5:18, 23), it is by Spirit-filled character (Rom 14:17) rather than debates about foods that one serves Christ properly (Rom 14:18; cf. Heb 13:9). Paul describes this service as “pleasing” to God (as in 12:1–2) and tested and approved by people, a conventional combination for describing what is honorable to everyone (2 Cor 8:21).38 Since God’s way is peace (Rom 14:17), believers (divided in Rome, as we have noted) should seek39 “peace” (cf. Rom 12:18; 1 Thess 5:13), hence reconciliation and unity, and beyond that to “build one another up” (14:19). “Building up”40 contrasts with “tearing one another down” over foods (14:20).
In light of the priorities specified in 14:19–20, foods are clean,41 hence neutral, but they become agents of evil if used in such a way as to provoke another’s apostasy. Better to avoid not only unclean food, but even (perhaps hypothetically in this case) all meat and wine, or anything that could destroy a fellow believer (Rom 14:21; cf. 1 Cor 10:31–33). By faith one can know that food is clean, so that one is not condemned unless through causing another to stumble (14:22). But the one who cannot eat with confidence that God has approved the food will disobey what they genuinely believe is God’s will, hence fall into sin (14:23).42 For Paul, then, sin is not only a matter of behaviors, but of motives. A weak conscience with weak faith would be healthier if it were strong, but such maturation must come by persuasion regarding what is God’s will, not by simply changing behavior without regard for motives. By appealing to the larger principle that “anything not ‘from faith’ is sin,” Paul also returns to his emphasis on faith as a relationship with God in contrast to mere regulations (for the specific Greek expression for “from faith” here, see 1:17; 3:26, 30; 4:16; 5:1; 9:30, 32; 10:6). Because Paul is concerned about those weak in faith (14:1), the doubters (14:23), he advises the “strong” not only to avoid terminally tripping them up in their faith (14:13) but to actively support them (15:1).
1. For comparisons with 1 Cor 8–10 see Talbert 2002 311–12.
2. Herodotus Hist. 2.47; Sextus Empiricus Pyr. 3.223; Plutarch Isis 5, Mor. 352F, 353F; Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.141; Lewis 1983: 131; ANET2 10. Earlier, Hittites treated pigs as unclean (ANET2 209; Moyer 1983: 29; idem 1969: 106).
3. E.g., Athenaeus Deipn. 10.422D; PGM 4.52–55; Apuleius Metam. 11.21; Plutarch Isis 2, Mor. 351F.
4. E.g., Britons (Caesar Bell. gall. 5.12); Romans (Plutarch Quaest. rom. 21, Mor. 268E); Libyans (Sextus Empiricus Pyr. 3.223); Egyptians (Plutarch Isis 7, Mor. 353C); Syrians (Diodorus Siculus 2.4.3; Artemidorus Daldianus Onir. 1.8); Indians (Herodotus Hist. 3.100); and others.
5. Diodorus Siculus 10.6.1; Plutarch De esu 1.1, Mor. 993A; Lucian Vit. auct. 6; idem Gall. 4–5, 18; Philostratus Vit. Apoll. 1.1, 8, 21; 6.10–11; 8.5, 7; Ep. Apoll. 8, 43, 84; Iamblichus V.P. 3.13 (avoiding also wine); 16.68–69; 24.106–9; 30.186; Diogenes Laertius 8.1.12–13, 19, 24. Some others also taught vegetarianism (Edwards and Reasoner 2000: 1015; Ovid Metam. 15.72–73, 75–110, 453–78; Orphics in Linforth 1941: 263; Guthrie 1966: 16–17, 197, 201), at least as a preference (Musonius Rufus 18A, p. 112.19–23).
6. See e.g., Holmén 2001: 224–25; Dunn 1988: 800.
7. E.g., Epictetus Disc. 1.22.4; Plutarch Quaest. conv. 4.4.4, Mor. 669C; Juvenal Sat. 6.160; cf. Josephus Ant. 2.137; Leary 1993; Leon 1960: 39.
8. So Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.282; see also evidence in Trebilco 1991: 18 (though conservative Judeans were often suspicious, t. ‘Abod. Zar. 4:6).
9. Most commentators do recognize Jewish kashrut here; see especially Barclay 2001: 289–93; earlier, see some ancient commentators like Ambrosiaster and Theodoret (in Bray 1998: 337–38). Jewett (2007: 837) regards “vegetables” as the strong’s stereotype.
10. Some scholars note that one might avoid Gentile wine from which libations had been poured (m. ‘Abod. Zar. 2:3–4; 3:8—5:11; probably Dan 1:12; Jdt 12:1–2), though some could also avoid wine as a (voluntary, not expected) partial fast to God (Dan 10:3; T. Reu. 1:10; T. Jos. 3:5; some cite also T. Jud. 15:4, but cf. 14:6; 16:3–5).
11. Cf. the later Roman butcher in Williams 2002. Rome accommodated Jewish customs even in their various enclaves (Winter 2001: 288–93).
12. So most scholars, though the case is debated (see the concerns of Meggitt 1994; information in Frost 1999).
13. Cf. e.g., Sipre Deut. 75.2.1. Cf. the private view attributed to Paul’s contemporary Yohanan ben Zakkai (but reported much later) in Daube 1956: 142; Flusser 1988: 38 (surprisingly similar to Mark 7:14–23).
14. See Spec. Laws 4.100–118; Rhodes 2003; Sanders 1990: 273. Philo had a problem with extreme allegorizers (Migration 89–93; Hay, “Extremism”). Pigs were thought unable to control sexual appetites (Xenophon Mem. 1.2.30).
15. See Let. Aris. 128–29, 147 (cf. 223); cf. T. Ash. 2:9–10. Some think that Let. Aris. reflects Pythagorean influence (Berthelot 2001). Some also allegorized regulations concerning Isis’s priests (which included food rules; see Plutarch Isis 4, Mor. 352DE).
16. On some plausible views, this might have occurred sometimes at common meals (e.g., Lung-Kwong 1998: 140; Das 2003: 68). Some envision common meetings (in Corinth) in 16:23; perhaps some house congregations were mixed. But certainty seems difficult, as Jews did not concern themselves with what Gentiles or God fearers ate, though claims of “spiritual” proselytism (cf. 11:17) might raise different expectations. If the meals were potlucks (and individuals rather than hosts seem addressed here), no one could force Jewish attenders to eat non-kosher food.
17. For the seriousness of “stumbling,” see e.g., Ezek 14:3–7; Sir 9:5; 25:21; 34:7, 17; 35:15; 39:24; 1QS 2.12; 3.24; 1QpHab 11.7–8; 4Q174 f1 2i:8–9; T. Reu. 4:7.
18. The later practice of using a Gentile as an agent on the Sabbath, however, was problematic (CD 11.2; m. Shab. 16:8; t. Shab. 13:9; cf. Exod 20:10; Deut 5:14).
19. See e.g., Vermes 1993: 13; Keener 1999: 350, 353–54; idem 2003b: 643–46.
20. Cf. prophets who regarded Sabbath observance as meaningless without justice (Isa 1:13; cf. Amos 8:5; Hos 2:11).
21. Ovid Fast.; Dupont 1992: 195–218; Stambaugh 1988: 221–24 (for other holidays, 225–40); Shelton 1998: 378–84; Cole 1992; Harmon 2004.
22. E.g., Aulus Gellius Noct. att. 5.17; Ovid Fast. 1.8, 45–48; Plutarch Alc. 34.1; idem Cam. 19.1; idem Alex. 14.4; Dionysius Epid. 3.266–67; Iamblichus V.P. 28.152; cf. also b. Pesah. 112b; Shab. 129b.
23. See e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus Ant. rom. 7.58.3; Sherk 1988: 252–53, §198.
24. E.g., Josephus Life 279; t. Shab. 1:13; see further Abrahams 1967: 1:129–35; Safrai 1974–76: 804–7; Sanders 1992: 208–11; idem 1990: 7–8.
25. See e.g., Suetonius Tib. 32.2; Tacitus Hist. 5.4; Dio Cassius 65.7.2; Whittaker 1984: 63–71.
26. Barclay 2001: 295–98.
27. “Thanks to God,” connected here with eating, probably evokes the blessing over the food (Jub. 22:6; Josephus J.W. 2.131; Sib. Or. 4.25–26; m. Ber. 3; cf. Apos. Con. 7.26.4; Safrai 1974–76: 802; Slater 1969).
28. For “whether we live or die,” cf. 2 Macc 6:26.
29. On judgment before God’s throne (on the analogy with royal thrones), cf. e.g., 1 En. 47:3; 90:20; 4 Ezra 7:33; by the elect one, 1 En. 55:4; 61:8; 62:3; 69:27–29 (all from the Similitudes, of uncertain date).
30. That Paul can apply this text directly to Jesus elsewhere (Phil 2:11), as well as the image of the “judgment seat” (2 Cor 5:10), shows just how closely he connected the Father and Son.
31. Because God swears by himself in Isa 45:23, Paul summarizes with the common OT “As I live” (e.g., Deut 32:40, a context cited in 15:10; esp. prominent in Ezek; in Isaiah, see 49:18), equivalent to other swearers’ “As YHWH lives.”
32. Many find here a reference to the tradition in Mark 7:15 (e.g., Jeremias 1964: 14; Dunn 1998: 685; Kim 2002: 264–65); this may well be the case, but we should note that the application to foods is ambiguous without Mark’s explanation (Mark 7:19).
33. A common Pauline term that can suggest eternal destruction (2:12; 1 Cor 1:18–19; 2 Cor 2:15; 4:3); the closest parallel here, suggesting that Paul preached such material more than once, is 1 Cor 8:11. This fits the sense of “stumble” in 14:13; cf. John Chrysostom Hom. Rom. 26.
34. Others also warned against what others could construe as evil (see note on 12:17).
35. Scholars often compare his approach to Stoic adiaphora, matters that are neither intrinsically right nor wrong though they may tend toward or become either (Cicero Fin. 3.15.50; Seneca Ep. Lucil. 82.10–14; Lucian Vit. auct. 21; Arius Didymus 2.7.7, p. 42.13–15; 2.7.7b, p. 44.14–33; 2.7.7g, p. 50.18–20; cf. Deming 2003: 384–88); cf. even Epicurus in Diogenes Laertius 10.120. On motivation as a mitigating factor, see also Philodemus On Criticism col. 9B.
36. Paul’s understanding of joy (as of the kingdom) reflects a biblical and Jewish context (see e.g., Halpern-Amaru 2005) more than a Stoic approach to emotion (on which, see the essays in Sihvola and Engberg-Pedersen 1998; also Musonius Rufus 17, p. 108.7; Dio Chrysostom Or. 25.1; Arius Didymus Epit. 2.7.5g, p. 32.4; 2.7.5k, p. 34.1; 2.7.6d, p. 40.1; 2.7.11g, p. 70.33–36; Engberg-Pedersen 2000: 73; idem 2003: 612), though there may be some overlap on positive emotions.
37. See especially Cho 2005: 11, 52–109; cf. Hamilton 1957: 21–22; on the kingdom in Paul, cf. also Donfried 2002: 233–52, esp. (regarding his use of Jesus’s message) 247–48, 250–51.
38. Prov 3:4 LXX; Polybius 22.10.8; 27.8.4; Chariton Chaer.1.10.3; t. Šeqal. 2:2; Sipre Deut. 79.1.1.
39. Possibly “pursue” here evokes 9:30–31, again implying faith as the right way to pursue righteousness. “Pursuing peace” also evokes Ps 34:14, as in 1 Pet 3:11. Both the allusion and the context support reading the subjunctive “let us” rather than the indicative “we do” here (mishearing a vowel was a common scribal error, as we noted at 5:1).
40. A frequent Pauline metaphor regarding God’s people (15:20; 1 Cor 3:9; 8:1, 10; 10:23; 14:3–26; 2 Cor 10:8; 12:19; 13:10; 1 Thess 5:11), borrowed from the OT (Jer 1:10; 24:6; 31:28; 42:10).
41. A Stoic could speak of some foods as “pure” in the sense that they were not heavy, weighing down the soul (Musonius Rufus 18A, p. 112.27–28), but the idea in 14:20 is the Jewish idea of ritual purity, since speaking of koinos in 14:14 makes sense only on Jewish terms.
42. Some other Jewish teachers addressed the concern of doubtful issues that, while not necessarily sinful in themselves, could allow a negligent person to slide into sin (e.g., ’Abot R. Nat.30A; ’Abot R. Nat. 32, §72B; cf. the rabbinic “fence around the Torah” in m. ’Abot 1:1; Moore 1971: vol. 1, 259).