You are with whom you eat: Dining and the Early Church

Abstract
When the apostles gathered in Jerusalem in Acts 15 to establish the parameters for bringing the gentiles
into the family of God they established the parameters by which the Jewish church recognised
continuity between the Old Testament and the doors of the kingdom of God being thrown open to the
nations. Who one ate with, in both Roman and Jewish culture, was a big deal. Twentieth century
dieticians may have coined the phrase “you are what you eat,” but in the first century you were whom
you ate with.

This essay considers the sociological function of group dining in the first century, demonstrating its
importance in the foundation of the family of Christian believers, before approaching the meaning of
the prohibitions of the Jerusalem Council and Paul’s application thereof in Romans 14-15 and 1
Corinthians 8-11, highlighting a unity in theological purpose and a consistent and coherent approach to
the question of appropriate dining for Christians, namely, the pursuit of unity in Christ as the
preeminent consideration in any exercise of freedom.

“19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20

Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from
the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times
and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.” – James, Acts 15:19-21

“7 So they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices to goat demons, after whom they whore. This shall be a statute
forever for them throughout their generations.” – God, via Moses, Leviticus 17:7

“You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of
Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes” – God, via Moses, Leviticus 18:3

“20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants
with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the
Lord and the table of demons.” – Paul, 1 Corinthians 10:20-21

“13
Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block
or hindrance in the way of a brother.” – Paul, Romans 14:13

“31So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense to Jews or to
Greeks or to the church of God, 33just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage,
but that of many, that they may be saved.” – Paul, 1 Corinthians 10:31-33
You are with whom you eat
Anthropologists suggest identity is not declared in the meeting, but in the eating, this was perhaps truer
in the first century than it is today.1

Table Fellowship was a concrete sign of the new identity of Christian believers. Dining practices were
culturally significant for both Jew and Gentile, and the passages in question demonstrate the continued
importance for first century Christians from varying social and ethnic backgrounds to maintain
fellowship with one another. Such fellowship spoke to their new identity in Christ. Equally important
was the potential harm to the message of the gospel if Christian converts continued to identify as
followers of idols and demons. The possibility of slipping back into fellowship with the idolatrous
culture, and thus out of the fellowship of believers, was a clear and present danger for first century
Christians.2

The prohibitions placed on Gentile converts by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 were a continuation
of Old Testament regulations regarding Gentile sojourners designed to ensure table fellowship with
Jewish believers, but also served to keep the Gentiles out of harmful idolatrous practices. But they, like
Paul, were concerned not to place unnecessary hurdles before the Gentile converts, and they too were
mindful of caring for the weaker brother.3 Paul’s approach to dining in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans
14-15 have been described as part of a “horses for courses” approach to ministry, where in fact they
represent his application of the Jerusalem Council’s decision, and a thematically and theologically
unified approach to fostering and preserving unity in the church. 4

Paul’s epistles to largely gentile churches in Rome and Corinth, applied the instructions from the
council to issues arising from the Graeco-Roman context.5 Some have suggested that his own position
on food runs contrary to the prohibitions handed down by the council,6 but I will argue that his position
articulated in Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8-11 are completely consistent with the Acts 15

1
W. Braun, ‘Our Religion Compels Us to Make a Distinction”: Prolegomena on Meals and Social
Formation,’ Identity and Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean - Jews, Christians and Others –
Essays in Honour of S.G Wilson, ed. Z.A Cook and P. A Harland, (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007),
41
2
D. Newton, ‘Food Offered to Idols in 1 Corinthians 8-10,’ Tyndale Bulletin, Vol 49.1, 1998, pp 179-
182, esp 179, suggests that converts to Christianity would not necessarily have experienced a clean
break from previous convictions.
3
C.H Savelle, ‘A Reexamination of the Prohibitions of Acts 15,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 161, Oct-Dec
2004, 449-468, 453
4
In Romans 14-15 Paul is writing regarding social interactions between Jew and Gentile, a situation
similar to (but not the same as) the situation arising in Antioch addressed by the Jerusalem Council, in
1 Corinthians 8-10 he is writing to a Gentile audience on the subject of idol food – the subject of one of
the prohibitions of the council’s letter to the Gentile churches, and social interactions between Gentile
Christians and idol worshippers.
5
R. Bauckham, ‘James and the Jerusalem Church,’ The Book of Acts In Its Palestinian Setting, ed. R.
Bauckham, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 470
6
P. Parker, ‘Once More, Acts and Galatians,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, 86 no 2 Je 1967, 175-182,
176-177
decision, and more broadly with Paul’s approach to ethics and the Old Testament Law. 7 He dealt with
his converts’ struggles with their new identity as members of the true Israel, the true heirs of Moses and
the Old Testament narrative. Paul’s answer, like the council’s is rooted in the Old Testament (Romans
15:4, 1 Corinthians 10:11),8 but also in the desire to see Jews and Gentiles adopting the appropriate
posture for members of the family of God.

I will argue that these passages were united in the purpose of ensuring that fellowship within the family
of believers could continue regardless of cultural mores, and to enable Gentile converts to continue to
socialise within their culture, and with Jews, in order to win people to the gospel of Christ. This
position seems consistent with Paul’s arguments concerning food sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:1-
11:1) and kosher meat (Romans 14-15:1-7). Paul’s argument in these passages is essentially identical –
though addressing two separate presenting issues, I will treat the argument from 1 Corinthians 8-11:1 at
length on that basis, while assuming that Paul’s underpinning ethical approach to food is the same, 9 and
will explore Paul’s approach to idolatry in Corinth.

You are with whom you eat: Jewish Culture

Idol food was out of the question for first century Jews, including Jewish Christians, and diasporan
Jews. Philo of Alexandria exhorted his Jewish brethren to avoid participating in Roman guilds and
associations for this reason (Ebr. 14-15, 20-29, 95).10 Philo cites examples of Jews avoiding non-kosher
and idolatrous food by avoiding participating in guild meals in idol temples.11 Barclay (1998) suggests
that it was dining practices that served to demarcate the Jewish nation from Gentile counterparts more
than any other practice.12 Jewish avoidance of such foods stretched to the varieties of Gentile wine
commonly used for libations, and even olive oil.13 Jews could share table fellowship with Gentile
7
A law he sees summarised by Leviticus 19:18 – “You shall love your neighbour as yourself,” which
he quotes in Galatians 5:14 as he approaches the issue of ethics, his approach there is as it is in Romans
14-15, and 1 Corinthians 8-11 – guided by love for the other. See G.W Hansen, ‘Paul’s Conversion and
His Ethic of Freedom,’ The Road From Damascus: The Impact of Paul’s Conversion on His Life,
Thought, and Ministry, ed. R. N Longenecker, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 213-237
8
R.B Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 143-161 argues that Paul’s use of the Old Testament for the purpose of
ethics is essentially descriptive, rather than prescriptive, that Paul uses stories and examples from the
law to invite his readers to draw their own appropriate ethical conclusions. Hays identifies Paul’s use of
the Old Testament for ethics in categories of establishing a framework for community identity, a call
for love and righteousness, a source of particular norms, a paradigmatic narrative, and a direct word to
his communities
9
D. G Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A contemporary reading of Paul’s ethics, (London: T&T
Clark, 2005), 167-168 argues that Romans passage is a reworking of the 1 Corinthians 8-10
framework.
10
B. W. Winter, "Theological and Ethical Responses to Religious Pluralism—1 Corinthians 8-10,"
Tyndale Bulletin 41, 1990, 218
11
ibid
12
J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan, (Edinburgh,
T&T Clark, 1998), 437
13
J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 434-438, also Josephus, Vita 74, claims that
use of oil from the Greeks was a transgression of Jewish law, ‘The Life of Flavius Josephus,’ The
Complete Works of Josephus trans. W. Whiston, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 2006 reprint, 5, T.
Rajak, ‘The Location of Cultures in Second Temple Judaism,’ The Book of Acts in its Palestinian
neighbours without transgressing their laws if they hosted the meal, brought their own food to social
events (Judith 12. 1-4), or ate selectively. They would even sit at separate tables (Joseph and Aseneth
7.1). These practices were not altogether popular, nor consistent with Gentile social conventions of
reciprocity,14 leaving Jews on the social outer (although there were many Gentile proselytes and others
participating in the synagogue practices of diasporan Jews).15 Their deliberate separation at mealtime,
commended by both Philo and Josephus, brought sharp criticism from contemporaries:

“Living in their peculiar exclusiveness, and having neither their food, nor their libations, nor their
sacrifices in common with men.” – Philostratus, Life of Apollonius V.33

“They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart, and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust,
they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful.” – Tacitus,
Histories 5.5.2

Josephus (Against Apion 2, 282) claims that there is “not any city of the Grecians, nor any of the
barbarians, nor any nation whatsoever” where Jewish food prohibitions are not observed,16 an
observation consistent with the Acts 15 declaration that the Law of Moses has been taught in the
gentile cities.

You are with whom you eat: Roman Culture

In Roman culture, eating together embodied a common kinship or cause.17 Cicero’s Ad Familiares
(9.24.3), A Letter to Paetus, describes the convivium as the setting in which Romans can “live
together.” The convivium typically featured mixed genders and status groups and a reduction of social
barriers.18 Civic banquets in Roman society included dining on sacrificial meat, but all meals, public
and private, were inevitably religious in nature.19 Sacrificial meat at civic banquets was cut into even

Setting, ed. R. Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 11 suggests this is as much from a sense of
cultural revulsion as from idol pollution.
14
J.M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 435
15
Philo Mos. 2.20-24, and Josephus Against Apion. 2.10 123; 2.39 279-83, Ant. 3.8.9 217 refer to
Greeks participating in synagogue practices, and Luke describes Paul speaking to Jews and Greeks in
the synagogues in Acts 14:1 and 18:4, T. Callan, ‘The Background of the Apostolic Decree: Acts
15:20,29, 21:25,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 55, 1993, 285-297, 293-295 has a discussion of such
Gentiles.
16
Josephus, ‘Against Apion 2,’ The Works of Josephus, Translated W. Whiston, (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1987), 2006 reprint, p 811
17
H-W Kuhn, "A Legal Issue in 1 Corinthians 5 and in Qumran," in Legal Texts and Legal Issues:
Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge,
1995; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. Moshe Bernstein et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1997),
495-96, 499.
18
P. Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity (Key Themes in Ancient History;
Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999); esp. ch. 9, "You Are with Whom You Eat."
136
19
D. E. Garland, ‘The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1),’ Perspectives In
Religious Studies, 30 NO 2 SUM 2003, 176, also P. Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity,
132-136
portions and distributed to citizens in equal measure, regardless of status.20 There were, however,
exclusive Roman associations that only accepted members from the upper class that would carry out
sacrifices concurrent with public festivals to ensure that the elites received extra portions of meat. 21

The communal dining table is a practical application of identity. Braun (2007) argues that the place,
ritual, and “myth” surrounding Christian dining practices were “core mechanisms in the self-identifying
efforts of early Christian associations in the urban centres of the Roman East.”22

Shared meals communicated codes of identity and social relationships, through celebrations of the
status quo (ceremonies), or as celebrations of transition (rituals), and both public and private dinners
featured religious rites.23 They were vital for those seeking to become upwardly mobile in Roman
culture,24 which made Paul’s prohibitions particularly taxing on Christians from Corinth’s upper
classes.25

You are how you eat

Public banquets were a cultural institution and were distributed by elite individuals, and voluntary
associations, these expressed civic identity and reinforced social hierarchy, 26 and stratification during
dining was carried into association meetings.27 Hierarchy was recognised by the distribution of portions
according to status. Pliny the Younger shares an account of one such experience:

“I happened to be dining with a man, though no particular friend of his, whose elegant economy, as he
called it, seemed to me a sort of stingy extravagance. The best dishes were in front of himself and a
select few, and cheap scraps of food put before the rest of the company… One lot was intended for
himself, and for us, another for his lesser friends (all his friends are graded), and the third for his and
our freedmen.” 28

20
Garnsey, Food and Society, 131-132
21
ibid, 134-135
22
ibid, 42
23
C. Osiek and D.L Balch, Families in the New Testament World, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1997), 45
24
D.E Garland, ‘The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols,’ 185
25
D.E Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2003), 12
26
O.M. Van Nijf, The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East, (Amsterdam: J.C
Gieben, 1997), 156, 246
27
J.F Donahue, ‘Towards a Typology of Roman Public Feasting”, Roman Dining: a special issue of
American Journal of Philology, ed. B.K Gold, and J.F Donahue, (Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press, 2005), 104-105
28
Pliny the Younger, Letters, 2.6
It seems likely that wealthy Christians in Corinth had been influenced by this practice. 29 This was one
issue Paul addressed in Corinth, (1 Corinthians 11) following certain reports of the conduct of the
church.30 The wealthy members of the church were dining luxuriously while the poor went without.31
Table fellowship was required between Jew and Gentile, slave and free, rich and poor, it was
unacceptable to dine as if attending a private dinner.32

Shared meals were the centre of Christian life, a method for caring for one another, and remembering
the death of Jesus.33 The familial nature of the gathering made importing this segregation inappropriate.
Distinguishing between rich and poor was destructive to this identity.34

You are where you eat

Roman civic dining often, but not exclusively, took place in temples.35 Archeological evidence from
Pompeii suggests dining also took place in inns and bars,36 meals also often took place in homes.37 All
social meals were religious; some were more religious than others. While some meals in temples may
not have involved religious rites and participation in the act of sacrifice, the idolatrous connection
could not fail to have been drawn by observers.38

29
J. Murphy-O’Connor, ‘House Churches and the Eucharist’, Christianity at Corinth - the Quest for
the Pauline Church ed. E. Adams, and D.G Horrell, (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), C.
Osiek and D.L Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 200 features a table comparison of what
we know of Graeco-Roman dining practices and the “Corinthian Eucharistic Pot Luck”.
30
B.W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 159-163
31
Ibid, 142-150
32
Ibid, 154-158, G.S Shogren, ‘Is the Kingdom About Eating and Drinking or Isn’t It (Romans
14:17)’, in Novum Testamentum, Vol. 42, Fasc. 3, July (2000), 256 “Freedom in the area of food issues
is fine, but more relevant are true righteousness, face, peace, joy and Christian brotherhood, attitudes
that would ensure the weak a place at the table”
33
C. Osiek and D.L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World, 200, 210-212
34
T.M Lindsay, The Church and Ministry In the Early Centuries, (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1902), 51
35
C. H. Kim, "The Papyrus Invitation," JBL 94 (1975), 391-402, P.D Gooch, Dangerous Food: 1
Corinthians 8-10 in its Context, (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1993), 2-13 has an
archeological and literary study of the practice of dining in the temple of Demeter and Kore in Corinth.
36
David E. Garland, ‘The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1),’ Perspectives In
Religious Studies, 30 NO 2 SUM 2003, 175 cites J. Shelton, As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in
Roman Social History (2d ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 307, n. 3 who identifies 20 inns
and 118 bars in the ruins of Pompeii.
37
A.T Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth, 36
38
David E. Garland, ‘The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1),’ 175, A.T Cheung,
Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy, 36, suggests it was not possible to
distinguish between social and religious meals served in temples.
Evidence of temple dining in Corinth has been discovered, with the temple of Demeter and Kore, the
Asklepieion,39 and the Imperial Temple as possible candidates. An Imperial context for the δαιμονια
issue Paul addresses is altogether more likely.40

You “aren’t” whom you don’t eat with

A commandment “not to eat with” certain groups, or people, was essentially a commandment not to
meet or identify with those groups,41 which is the function of Paul’s earlier exhortation not to eat with
the immoral brother (1 Corinthians 5:11).42 Eating together was a form of social approval.43 Thus,
Paul’s rebuke of Peter for withdrawing from table fellowship with the Gentiles at the behest of
Judaisers is warranted (Galatians 2:11-15),44 especially in the light of Peter’s experience with Cornelius
and his defense to those of the circumcision party (Acts 11:1-18), a party who in essence were arguing
that the church was a subset of Judaism, and that proselytes were converting to Judaism and to
Christianity.45

You are why you eat: Avoiding dining with the “so called” gods
The converted Roman citizen in Corinth could come out of imperial indoctrination without fear of
persecution following Gallio’s decision (Acts 18:12-17),46 but the temptation to indulge in one’s rights
as a citizen in the festivities at the Isthmian Games, 47 and in other civic distributions must have been
confronting, and for some, overwhelming.48 Winter’s argument that the “so-called gods” of 1
Corinthians 8:549 and the δαιμονια of 1 Corinthians 10 represent the deified Roman emperor is more

39
P.D Gooch, Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in its Context, pp 2-32, suggests that Demeter and
Kore rites involved participation in the act of sacrifice as worship, while dining at the Asklepieion
dining rooms (especially the dining rooms of Lerna) was more secular in nature (though still religious).
40
D. Newton, ‘Food Offered to Idols in 1 Corinthians 8-10,’ Tyndale Bulletin, Vol 49.1, 1998, pp 179-
182
41
J. Schwiebert, ‘Table Fellowship and 1 Corinthians 5:1,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, 127 no 1
Spr 2008, 159-164, 162
42
ibid, 159
43
ibid, 162, also P. Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, Key Themes in Ancient History
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); esp. ch. 9, "You Are with Whom You Eat," 135-137,
Garnsey identifies three kinds of private banquets – the client dinner, the protégé dinner, and the peer
dinner, in the first the patron would treat his clients as though they were equals, in the second a patron
would attempt to gain social status for his protégé by having him mix with important friends, and in the
third peers would meet to form political and commercial alliances.
44
This author assumes that the Galatians 2 passage does not refer to the Jerusalem Council, but rather
the events of Acts 11.
45
J. Smith, ‘These Necessary Things – Acts 15:28-29,’ Restoration Quarterly, 4 no 4 1960, p 247-250,
248
46
B.W. Winter, ‘The Imperial Cult, The Games, and Dining in a Temple (1 Corinthians 8-10:21), After
Paul Left Corinth, 269-286, esp. 278-280, B.W. Winter, ‘Rehabilitating Gallio And His Judgement In
Acts 18:14-15,’ Tyndale Bulletin 57.2 (2006) 291-308.
47
Such “rights” must have been linked to the Federal cult, as ordinary participation in temples was not
by “rights” as it was not limited to citizens. B.W Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 280
48
B.W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 269-286
49
ibid, 5, identifies the ‘gods on the earth’ as the emperor and imperial family.
convincing than the alternatives; that all idols are demonic façades, 50 or that the issue was dining in idol
temples like the Temple of Demeter and Kore (which is likely the issue in 1 Corinthians 8:7-13). 51

Paul is addressing multiple circumstances in which a Corinthian might be confronted with idol food, in
the temple, in the marketplace, in private dinners and sharing in the cup of δαιμονια.52 The lure of
Roman culture was a major concern for Paul as he ministered to new Gentile converts. Paul urges the
Corinthians to forgo their rights as Roman citizens for the sake of the body, as he too forgoes his rights
(1 Corinthians 9).53 Scholarly consensus has now been reached on the unity of chapters eight through
11, where once chapter nine was treated as an interpolation.54

Paul’s aim, when writing to his gentile converts in Rome and Corinth, was to ensure his addressees
maintained their identity in the body of Christ, not slipping back into the idolatrous Graeco-Roman
culture, and in particular the veneration of Roman gods, including the Emperor. Emperor worship was
a required religio of Roman citizens. Judaism was exempt via the Mos Maiorum,55 Roman converts to

50
As suggested by many, including E. C. Still, III, ‘Divisions Over Leaders And Food Offered To
Idols: The Parallel Thematic Structures Of 1 Corinthians 4:6-21 And 8:1-11:1,’ Tyndale Bulletin, 55.1
(2004), 17-41, 33
51
pace. P.D Gooch, Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in its Context, 2-13, esp 13
52
Traditional scholarly views identified up to three circumstances, see the summary from J.
Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Reconsideration, (Tubingen:
Mohr Siebek, 2003), 4-37, some have conflated eating in homes with the marketplace (1 Corinthians 8
with 10:23-29), see B.N Fisk, ‘Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behaviour and Pauline
Response in 1 Corinthians 8-10,’ Trinity Journal, 10 NS (1989) 49-70, 51, and more recent works have
combined the temples of 8:10 with the cup of δαιμονια, see P.D Gooch, Dangerous Food: 1
Corinthians 8-10 in its Context
53
Winter’s translation of εχουσια as “right” rather than “power” is an important distinction and
provides a cohesion with the interpretation of δαιμονια, R.A Horsley, ‘Consciousness and Freedom
among the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 8-10,’ The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 40, 1978, 580-581
explores use of similar terminology by Philo, and in Stoic and Cynic philosophy finding interesting
semantic overlaps with the concept of freedom and conscience. He cites a quote from Diogenes
Laertius 7.121: "(The Stoics say that the wise man) alone is free (eleutherori) and bad men are slaves;
freedom (eleutheria) is the power (exousia) of autonomous action, and slavery the lack of autonomous
action." Horsley inexplicably settled on an assumption that Paul is writing to apostate Jews.
54
D. E. Garland, ‘The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1),’ Perspectives In
Religious Studies, 30 NO 2 SUM 2003, 189, also E. Coye Still, III, Divisions Over Leaders And Food
Offered To Idols: The Parallel Thematic Structures Of 1 Corinthians 4:6-21 And 8:1-11:1, Tyndale
Bulletin, 55.1 (2004), 34 suggests 8:7-9:27 function “as one large division of Paul's argument oriented
throughout toward non-use of rights in service of the gospel.”
55
The actual nature of Judaism’s legal status, ie whether it was a “religio licita,” is in some dispute.
Caesar most certainly provided some freedom for Jews to practice their religion within the empire – but
this may not have had the effect of freeing them for all time. cf T. Rajak, ‘Was there a Roman Charter
for the Jews?’ The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol 74 (1984) pp 107-123, which suggests (p 107) that
the phrase “religio licita” to describe Judaism was first recorded by Tertullian, that they only required
“public backing, with muscle behind it” rather than a charter to establish these rights, and that it was
not the nature of the polis to exclude citizens from the practice of customary activities. See also – M.
Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World – The Greek and Roman Documents quoted by
Josephus Flavius, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebek, 1998), 412 –the treatment of Jews throughout the empire
after Caesar’s death suggests this declaration was not all encompassing precedent, while L.V. Rutgers,
‘Roman Policy Towards Jews’, Judaism and Christianity in First Century Rome ed. K.P Donfried and
P. Richardson, pp 93-116 suggests that Jewish status under Roman law varied greatly from Emperor to
Emperor – and that there was no charter or official policy regarding the Jews.
Judaism were protected by the Jewish umbrella (as were Christians after Gallio’s ruling). 56 Winter
(2001) suggests that Christians in Corinth wished to exercise their civic rights to dine and recline in the
Temple of Poseidon at nearby Isthmia during the federally sponsored games (1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1). 57

Christian converts were to distance themselves from idol temples – even if they “knew” there was no
truth behind the idols (1 Corinthians 8:10, 10:14-22).58 Commitment to the one true God meant turning
from the so-called gods and the demons, as it did in the Old Testament. This was foundational to their
conversion, and it is unlikely that this was the first time the issue of idolatry came up in Paul’s
relationship with the Corinthian church, it is plausible to presume that these chapters are part of an
ongoing dialogue, 59 with the arrival of the Isthmian Games presenting the new issue of “rights” for
Paul to address.60 It is also possible that the “strong” in Corinth are more concerned about maintaining
social status within the church than with their knowledge of the true nature of idols.61

Paul shows real concern about the role of food in establishing identity with regards to partaking in the
Lord’s Supper (and thus the body of Christ) while also participating in the demon’s cup.62 He draws a
parallel between Israel’s historic participation at the temple altar and the antithetical nature of
participating in this Imperial Cultic activity (and other idolatrous demon worship) as being mutually
exclusive with participating in Christian fellowship (1 Corinthians 10:20-21)63 employing similar

56
B.W. Winter, ‘Gallio’s Ruling On The Legal Status Of Early Christianity (Acts 18:14-15),’ Tyndale
Bulletin, 50.2, 1999,
222, Roman converts to Judaism were also exempt from participating in the Imperial Cult as:
“Whether Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians, Roman citizens, or provincials, they were all seen
as ‘a party’ operating under the Jewish umbrella.”
57
B.W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 93-96, B.W, Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians
as benefactors and citizens, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 174, suggests a particular link between
immorality and dining at the Isthmian Games should guide our understanding of 1 Corinthians 8, and
that these games were linked to the Imperial Cult.
58
The question surrounding the nature of this knowledge, and whether Paul was repeating a quote from
correspondence with the Corinthians is outside the scope of this piece, D.E Garland, ‘The Dispute Over
Food,’ 182, argues that Paul was not ok with any behaviour that could possibly have been perceived as
legitimising idol worship and that equating the strong in Romans with the strong in 1 Corinthians is an
anachronistic fallacy. He suggests that “It is more reasonable to conclude that Rom 14 - 15 is an
adaptation of principles found in 1 Cor 8:1-11:1 to a quite different situation. Consequently, Rom
14:1-15:6 should not be read into the Corinthian context. It is mistaken to assume that, as Paul was in
theological agreement with the "strong" in Romans, he also agreed with the so-called "strong" in 1
Corinthians 8 and only wanted them to be more charitable to their theologically challenged brothers
and sisters,” R.A Horsley, ‘1 Corinthians: Paul’s Assembly as an Alternate Society,’ 233 also suggests
that Paul did not share the “enlightened theology” of his Corinthian audience with regard to the nature
of idols.
59
D.E Garland, ‘The Dispute Over Food,’ 183
60
J. Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A socio-rhetorical reconsideration, 219,
rejects Winter’s framework on the assumption that these “rights” were not shared by the strong and the
weak, such that the weak would not be in a position to witness the strong partaking of their rights. If
the rights are a product of citizenship, then it is likely that these were shared by the strong and the
weak.
61
D.E Garland, ‘The Dispute Over Food,’ 184
62
R.A Horsley, ‘1 Corinthians: Paul’s Assembly as an Alternate Society,’ 234
63
Horrell suggests it is participation in the act of sacrifice, and thus the religious rites, that Paul speaks
against in these verses, see D.G Horrell, ‘Idol-food, idolatry and ethics in Paul,’ Barton, S.C. (ed.)
reasoning for not engaging in sexual misconduct (1 Corinthians 6:15-18).64 It is as unconscionable to
unite Christ with these demons through partaking in the cup, as it is to unite Christ with a prostitute
through sexual immorality.

The source and purpose of the council’s prohibitions

Avoiding idol worship was fundamental to turning to the one true God,65 and presented a real threat to
weaker brothers (1 Corinthians 8:10-11). In Paul’s mind to knowingly eat idol food could not fail to be
perceived as idolatry.66 It was a key area for maintaining unity in the church, as it had been for Gentile
sojourners looking to join Israel.

The Jerusalem Council opened with a question of salvific significance, 67 and ended presenting an
ethical and theological framework for Gentile converts,68 including, but not limited to, the parameters
by which they could enjoy table fellowship with their Jewish brothers. Agitators in the church were
suggesting that circumcision was necessary for the salvation of the Gentiles (Acts 15:1,5). It was the
marker of foreign conversion into Judaism.69 The apostles resolve that salvation for Jew and Gentile is
from a common source, through a common methodology (Acts 15:11), and had been prophesied in the
Old Testament (Acts 15:18)70 and as a result the Gentiles were to be welcomed without unnecessary
burdens (Acts 15:19, 28). The question of salvation addressed, the apostles turned to consider how then
the gentile converts should live (Acts 15:19-21).

Idolatry: false worship in the Bible, Early Judaism, and Christianity, (London: T&T Clark), pp.120-40,
reproduced at http://eric.exeter.ac.uk/exeter/handle/10036/65873, 7
64
D.G Horrell, ‘Idol-food, idolatry and ethics in Paul,’ 15-16, R.A Horsley, ‘Consciousness and
Freedom among the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 8-10,’ The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 40, 1978, 579,
identifies Paul’s priority of the “body” metaphor, and avoiding uniting the body inappropriately with
contaminating things throughout 1 Corinthians.
65
Many have suggested that the action of turning from idolatry was the demarcating identifier of
Christian conversion, e.g D.G Horrell, ‘Idol-food, idolatry and ethics in Paul,’ 1-3, 12, and W. A.
Meeks, "Corinthian Christians as Artificial Alien," in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide (ed.
T. Engberg-Pedersen; Lousiville: WJK, 2001), 134 calls it an act of profound resocialisation and a
complete change of identity.
66
A. T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy, JSNT Sup 176.
(Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 162, suggests Paul’s logic in 1 Corinthians 8 is:
knowingly eating idol food is participating in idolatry, therefore avoid food that you know is linked to
idols. A more accurate understanding might be: idols aren’t real, though people who believe they are,
or have doubts, will associate your eating with idolatry, so don’t do it. This latter position better takes
the nature of food sold in the marketplace (most food was tainted by idolatry).
67
It seems that the concerns of those advocating circumcision for gentiles in Acts 15:1, and the
Pharisees (15:4) had their objections and advocacy for circumcision as a requirement for salvation
thoroughly rebuffed by Peter’s speech (15:7-11), and the conversation then turned to establishing
parameters for the gentile’s entry into fellowship with their Jewish brethren.
68
An injunction given salvific weight by Paul’s arguments in Romans and 1 Corinthians, see below.
69
Tacitus, Histories, Book 5, “Circumcision was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other
men. Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into
them, to despise all gods, to disown their country, and set at nought parents, children, and brethren.”
70
H. van de Sandt, ‘An Explanation Of Acts 15.6-21 In The Light Of Deuteronomy 4.29-35 (LXX),’
Journal for the Study of the New Testament, vol 46 (1992), 73-97 argues that the quotes from Amos in
Acts 15 are also linked to Deuteronomy 4:29-35.
Their answer to that question is tied to age-old relational boundaries between the people of God and
Gentile converts, though some incorrectly argue they are exclusively bound to the Noahic Covenant
(Genesis 9).71 James’ presentation to the council is based on the fulfillment of Old Testament promise
(Acts 15:15-18), and his prohibitions for Gentiles are tied to the knowledge of the teaching of Moses in
foreign cities (Acts 15:21).72

The prohibitions have corollaries in the requirements for Gentile sojourners in the Old Testament law
(Leviticus 17:7-8, 10, 18:26, 19:4),73 and the chapters (Leviticus 17-18) have a particular focus on
idolatry, it is possible that these became a first century criteria for sharing table fellowship. 74 Bauckham
(1995) suggests a common Jewish lexically-based exegetical methodology provided a natural link
between the Amos passage James quotes (Acts 15:16-18, Amos 9:11-12) and the Levitical legislation
regarding the foreigner in Israel’s midst,75 he also demonstrates that this was the understanding of the
origin of the prohibitions in the early church.76 Savelle (2004) argues for a syncretism between the
Noahic covenant, Leviticus, and rabbinic teaching in the first century, to properly explain the
prohibitions.77 Callan makes the case that the prohibitions represent a concise summary of all laws
regarding the sojourner that came with a warning of being cut off from the people. 78 Longnecker (1984)
suggests the four chosen “rules” are “concessions for the scruples of others for the sake of harmony
within the church and the continuance of the Jewish Christian mission.”79 It is also plausible that the
prohibitions were consistent with Jewish synagogue preaching to Gentiles, idolatry was perceived as

71
J.D.G Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, (Louisville: Westminster
John Knox Press, 1999) 142-160, because Dunn conflates the issue Paul reports in Galatians 2 with the
Jerusalem Council, he works from a presupposition that Paul is unhappy with the decision of the
council, and not, as Acts suggests, encouraged by the decision like all who were present, he also
identifies the Noahic covenant as the standard required of foreigners in the midst of Judaism, also, C.H
Savelle, ‘A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15,’ 457-459, the Noahic commandments are
universal (arising pre-Israel), correlate with three of the four prohibitions, and may have soothed the
minds of the Pharisaic Christians, but the Acts prohibitions don’t cover all of the Noahic
commandments, the correlations aren’t as close as some have argued, and the link made by the council
is to Moses, not to Noah (though that could be shorthand for the Pentateuch).
72
Others, for example F.F Bruce, The Book of Acts, NICNT, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p 296
interpret this passage as relevant to the Jewish mission in the gentile world – he suggests that James felt
there would be ample opportunity to hear the law of Moses, I feel it more likely that James assumed a
degree of familiarity with the requirements diasporan Jews had for sharing table fellowship with their
gentile neighbours, this is borne out by the accounts of gentile historians.
73
C.H Savelle, ‘A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15,’ p 460
74
The circumcision party (Acts 11, Galatians 2:12, Acts 15:1), and Pharisaic converts earlier seem to
present circumcision as the point at which true fellowship might be entered into.
75
R. Bauckham, ‘James and the Jerusalem Church,’ 458-460, Bauckham explores the exegetical
method of grouping passages of like phrasing to demonstrate that these four prohibitions were seen to
be those laws which gentiles must obey. He suggests the issue at play is broader than table fellowship,
and more in line with actual requirements for Gentile converts.
76
ibid, 464-466
77
C.H. Savelle, ‘A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15,’ 60-461
78
T. Callan, ‘The Background of the Apostolic Decree,’ 295-297
79
R.N. Longenecker, "Acts," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1981), 448.
the root of all Gentile immorality, though recognising that Gentiles were saved as Gentiles, not by first
becoming Jewish proselytes.80

Eat, drink, and be merry: Idol meals and “rising up to play”

Witherington (1998) suggests the Acts 15 injunctions have the function of prohibiting participation in
Roman socio-religious practices, suggesting that the four prohibitions were synonymous with temple
worship.81

This depends on establishing a link between sexual immorality and temple worship – whilst temple
prostitution did not exist in first century Corinth82 - it seems plausible that temple dining practices
would follow other models of “dining” addressed by Paul (1 Corinthians 6:12-20, 10:7, which again
has an Old Testament corollary in Exodus 32:6 – where idol worship, dining, and sexual immorality
are intrinsically linked). Pagan feasts in temples were likely to conform to this model of behaviour.
Rosner (2007) argues for a close association between sexual immorality and idolatrous temple
worship,83 and there is some support for this position from the Septuagint, where πορνεια is associated
with idolatry.84 While the council’s limitations no doubt served to prohibit the behaviour from those
locales, they cannot be limited to them. They also allow gentile converts to share fellowship with Torah
observing Messianic Jews, and to be a witness to diasporan Jews throughout the nations.85

Paul grounds his argument against idols in 1 Corinthians 10 in the teaching and life of Moses (10:1-
14).86 Hays (2005) suggests Paul’s argument is based on a realignment of identity that brings
Corinthian Christians typologically into Israel,87 and that idols presented the same hurdle to them that
they had to Israel under Moses, which is a logical link to the reference to the teachings of Moses at
Jerusalem (Acts 15:21). Paul reiterates the need to avoid sexual immorality in the context of dining and
idol worship in the midst of this argument (1 Corinthians 10:7-8).

80
R. Dickinson, ‘The Theology of the Jerusalem Conference: Acts 15:1-35,’ Restoration Quarterly, 32
no 2 1990, 65-83, 81, T. Callan, ‘The Background of the Apostolic Decree,’ 297
81
B. Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998), 462-465, also S.G Wilson, Luke and the Law, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1983), 94, Rosner, B.S, Greed as Idolatry: the origin and meaning of a Pauline metaphor,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), pg 114.
82
B.S Rosner, ‘Temple Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20’ in Novum Testamentum, Vol. 40, Fasc. 4
(Oct., 1998), pp. 336-351
83
B.S Rosner, Greed as Idolatry, 114.
84
C.H Savelle, ‘A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15,’ 457
85
C.H Savelle, ‘A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15,’ 467, suggests “The purpose of the
prohibitions was to provide a means of unifying Jewish and Gentile believers. On the one hand the
decree freed the Gentiles from any obligation to be circumcised and to become in effect Judaic-
Christian proselytes. On the other hand the Gentiles would be required to refrain from activities that
might be associ- ated with pagan worship, activities that deeply offended Jewish sensibilities.”
86
R.B Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 8, suggests this reference is an example of metalepsis, where the full force of
the quote is apparent only to the those familiar with the original story, so is tantamount an argument
from the story of Moses with the presupposition that his listeners are familiar with its context.
87
R.B. Hays, Conversion of the Imagination, 10
The cultic, sociological, ethical and theological roots of the Jerusalem Council’s prohibitions are too
often placed in opposition to one another.88 This scholarly angst can be mitigated somewhat through
adopting Winter’s approach to the δαιμονια in 1 Corinthians 10 described above, this allows elements
of each concern a seat at the interpretive table.89 There are sociological realities at play with regards to
the identity defining nature of dining and a desire for fellowship amongst believers, there are
theological at play with regards to the real dangers of participating in cultic activities, and there are
clear links to the Old Testament underpinning the intentions of the parties in Acts 15.90

Unity above Conscience: the common ground between Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8-11
“…if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do
not destroy the one for whom Christ died.” – Paul, Romans 14:15

“11And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12Thus,
sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.”
– Paul, 1 Corinthians 8:11-12

In Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8-10 Paul seems to speak out against the agreed instructions from
Jerusalem – positioning himself with the strong with regards to non-kosher meat in Romans (Romans
14:14, 20), and with regards to the nature of idols in 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 8:4,8). But while he
may appear to agree with the substance of the arguments put forward by these parties in both cases, he
rejects their conclusions with regards to meat (Romans 14:15), and urges the strong to forgo their civic
rights for the sake of their brothers (1 Corinthians 8:7-13). While the idols of 1 Corinthians 8 are false
and subject to conscience, Paul is explicit about participation in the cup of demons in 1 Corinthians
10.91 He sees the idolatry of Roman Imperialism as a real risk for the gentile flock. The lure of Roman
ideology and the danger of approaching idol food with an idolatrous heart are a Charybdis and Scylla

88
C.H Savelle, ‘A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15,’ p 462-464, J. Fotopoulos, Food
Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth, 4-37 contains a useful overview of scholarly opinions on the issue.
R.A Horsley, ‘1 Corinthians: Paul’s Assembly as an Alternate Society,’ Christianity at Corinth: The
Search for the Pauline Church, ed. E. Adams, D.G Horrell, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2004), 234 suggests that Paul’s injunction was sociological and not ethical.
89
Incorporating Paul’s genuine, salvific, concern for Gentile converts in the light of the Imperial Cult
gives extra theological weight to the 1 Corinthians passage, dealing with some of the scholarly
objectives to certain issues, and providing a bridge between others - Paul is simultaneously addressing
theological concerns about idols, salvation, and the identity of Gentile Christians while providing an
ethical framework rooted in his desire to see others saved.
90
The prohibitions, in all likelihood, served to keep gentile Christians away from idolatry, or the
appearance of idolatry, as all four prohibitions related to elements of idolatrous behaviour. See C.H
Savelle, ‘A Reexamination of the Prohibitions in Acts 15,’ 468
91
Some scholars suggest Paul was actually circuitously prohibiting any eating of meat overtly
associated with idolatry, that his argument is developed through chapters 8-10, with chapter 10 as a
conclusion rather than a related point, see D.E Garland, ‘The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1
Cor 8:1-11:1),’ Perspectives in Religious Studies, 30 no 2 Sum 2003, pp 173-174, Garland’s position is
weakened somewhat by the presupposition that Paul invents a hypothetical “weaker brother” as a
rhetorical device, p 187.
capable of shipwrecking these new converts. Paul wants his readers to steer through these obstacles,
and his real concern is to ensure that the weaker brother does not lose salvation as a result of the
exercise of freedom demonstrated by the stronger.92

In both cases Paul affirms the issues of idol food, conscience and unity in fellowship, as having salvific
ramifications for those turned astray (Romans 14:15, 1 Corinthians 8:11-12). In both cases the
injunctions against eating certain foods are in order to affirm the ecclesiological view of the church as
family, and the previously discussed sociological function of commensurate practices.

Paul’s concerns are that his readers in Rome and Corinth put first things first. Namely that they treat
one another as a new family forsaking external rights, do not lead a weaker brother into apostasy, and
present a witness to outsiders. Food isn’t an ethical question for Paul. Unity in the body is paramount. 93

Table fellowship with unbelievers: for the purpose of “winning some”…

As always, Paul’s goal is not simply to see believers maintain their faith, but also to see, through their
actions, others come into the faith. He cites his own apostolic example (1 Corinthians 9) in establishing
this argument94 – even his refusal to exercise his own rights (in contrast to the Corinthians wanting to
exercise theirs) is geared towards bringing outsiders inside.95

This is the purpose of his exemption for eating in the houses of unbelievers without questioning the
origin of the meat (1 Corinthians 10:27-28), and for his whole dining rubric (1 Corinthians 10:31-33).
Interestingly, the refusal to partake in idol food in a social context once it had been identified as such
would have placed the Christians in the difficult social position of causing offence to the host, hence
Paul’s instruction to eat without question.96

“When we are invited to a banquet, we take what is set before us; and were one to call upon his host to
set fish upon the table or sweet things, he would be deemed absurd.” – Epictetus, Golden Sayings,
XVII

He earnestly desires that the body of Christ might enjoy unity across ethnic barriers, while not
offending their Jewish and Roman neighbours.97

Conclusion: Horses for courses, or many courses for the same horse

92
E. C Still, III, ‘Divisions Over Leaders And Food Offered To Idols: The Parallel Thematic Structures
Of 1 Corinthians 4:6-21 And 8:1-11:1,’ Tyndale Bulletin, 55.1 (2004), p 36-38
93
D.G Horrell, ‘Idol-food, idolatry and ethics in Paul,’ 14
94
D.G Horrell, ‘Idol-food, idolatry and ethics in Paul,’ 8-9
95
David E. Garland, ‘The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1),’ Perspectives In
Religious Studies, 30 No 2 Sum 2003, p 189, D.G Horrell, ‘Idol-food, idolatry and ethics in Paul,’ 23
96
A.T Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth, 35, cites Epictetus, Fragment 17
97
D.G Horrell, ‘Idol-food, idolatry and ethics in Paul,’ 20
The decision by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, and Paul’s addresses to Gentile converts in 1
Corinthians 8-11, and to a mixed church of Jews and Gentiles in Romans 14-15, served to preserve
unity between the family of God, and to establish barriers to prevent Gentile Christians from falling
back into idolatrous Roman culture.

The three passages together present instructions for Jewish Christians in welcoming their Gentile
brethren, Gentile Christians in enjoying fellowship with their Jewish forbears, and for Gentile
Christians relating with one another, and their neighbours. These issues are tackled through the
presenting problems of table fellowship between the Jews and the first Gentile converts (Acts 15), a
Jewish approach to food laws (Romans 14-15), idol meat and temple dining (1 Corinthians 8-11) and
all are met with similar solutions with the end goal of unity.98 It is incorrect to speak of the different
approach to the issue of food as “horses for courses,” a more apt analogy would be of a jockey
determining the best way to run his horse on different tracks. The end goal is the same, but different
conditions call for a different approach.

While we may speak of a differing approach to the issue of food in each of these sociological contexts,
the unity of purpose, namely the purpose of unity, means it’s more appropriate to see Paul’s approach
as being consistently deliberate in fostering unity between believers, and avoiding unnecessary placing
burdens before new and incoming members of the family of God. This modus operandi is consistent
with the statements of the Jerusalem council.

Unity meant avoiding needlessly offending one another, caring for the weaker brother, avoiding the
real danger presented by idolatry, and eating together as the family of God, disavowing previous
identity defining practices.

98
B. Witherington III with D Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio Rhetorical Commentary,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), p 326
Bibliography
Ancient Texts
Cicero’s Ad Familiares (9.24.3), a letter to Paetus, from http://artflx.uchicago.edu/perseus-
cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=PerseusLatinTexts&getid=1&query=Cic.%20Fam.%209.24

Epictetus, Golden Sayings, from The Internet Classics Archives,

http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/goldsay.1.1.html

Josephus, ‘Against Apion 2,’ ‘Antiquities,’ from The Works of Josephus, Translated W. Whiston,
(Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 2006 reprint

Tacitus, Histories, from Internet Classics Archives, trans. A. F. Church and W. J. Brodribb,
http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/histories.5.v.html

Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, from Livius: Articles on Ancient History, http://www.livius.org/ap-

ark/apollonius/life/va_5_31.html#%A733

Pliny the Younger, Letters 2.6, To Avitus, from

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_plinyltrs2.htm#VI

Modern Texts
R. Bauckham, ‘James and the Jerusalem Church,’ The Book of Acts In Its Palestinian Setting, ed. R.
Bauckham, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995)

W. Braun, ‘Our Religion Compels Us to Make a Distinction”: Prolegomena on Meals and Social
Formation,’ Identity and Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean - Jews, Christians and Others –
Essays in Honour of S.G Wilson, ed. Z.A Cook and P. A Harland, (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007)

F.F Bruce, The Book of Acts, NICNT, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988)

T. Callan, ‘The Background of the Apostolic Decree: Acts 15:20,29, 21:25,’ Catholic Biblical
Quarterly, 55, 1993, 285-297

A. T. Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy, Journal for the Study of
the New Testament Supplement 176. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999)

R. Dickinson, ‘The Theology of the Jerusalem Conference: Acts 15:1-35,’ Restoration Quarterly, 32
no 2 1990, 65-83
J.F Donahue, ‘Towards a Typology of Roman Public Feasting”, Roman Dining: a special issue of
American Journal of Philology, ed. B.K Gold, and J.F Donahue, (Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press, 2005)

J.D.G Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galatians, (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1999)

B.N Fisk, ‘Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behaviour and Pauline Response in 1 Corinthians
8-10,’ Trinity Journal, 10 NS (1989) 49-70

J. Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Reconsideration,

(Tubingen: Mohr Siebek, 2003)

David E. Garland, ‘The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1),’ Perspectives In
Religious Studies, 30 No 2 Sum 2003, 173-197

D.E Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2003)

P. Garnsey, Food and Society in Classical Antiquity, Key Themes in Ancient History (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999);

P.D Gooch, Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in its Context, (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University
Press, 1993)

G.W Hansen, ‘Paul’s Conversion and His Ethic of Freedom,’ The Road From Damascus: The Impact
of Paul’s Conversion on His Life, Thought, and Ministry, ed. R. N Longenecker, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1997) 213-237

R.B Hays, The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005)

D.G Horrell, ‘Idol-food, idolatry and ethics in Paul,’ Barton, S.C. (ed.) Idolatry: false worship in the
Bible, Early Judaism, and Christianity, (London: T&T Clark, 2007)

D. G Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A contemporary reading of Paul’s ethics, (London: T&T
Clark, 2005)

R.A Horsley, ‘Consciousness and Freedom among the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 8-10,’ The Catholic
Biblical Quarterly, 40, 1978
R.A Horsley, ‘1 Corinthians: Paul’s Assembly as an Alternate Society,’ Christianity at Corinth: The
Search for the Pauline Church, ed. E. Adams, D.G Horrell, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press,
2004)

C. H. Kim, "The Papyrus Invitation," Journal of Biblical Literature, 94 (1975): 391-402

H-W Kuhn, "A Legal Issue in 1 Corinthians 5 and in Qumran," in Legal Texts and Legal Issues:
Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge,
1995; Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. Moshe Bernstein et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1997)

T.M. Lindsay, The Church and Ministry In the Early Centuries, (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1902)

R.N. Longenecker, "Acts," The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1981)

W. A. Meeks, "Corinthian Christians as Artificial Alien," in Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism

Divide, ed. T. Engberg-Pedersen (Lousiville: WJK, 2001)

J. Murphy-O’Connor, ‘House Churches and the Eucharist’, Christianity at Corinth - the Quest for the
Pauline Church ed. E. Adams, and D.G Horrell, (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004).

D. Newton, ‘Food Offered to Idols in 1 Corinthians 8-10,’ Tyndale Bulletin, Vol 49.1, 1998, pp 179-
182

C. Osiek and D.L Balch, Families in the New Testament World, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1997)

P. Parker, ‘Once More, Acts and Galatians,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, 86 no 2 Je 1967, p 175-182

M. Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World – The Greek and Roman Documents quoted by
Josephus Flavius, (Tubingen: Mohr Siebek, 1998)

T. Rajak, ‘Was there a Roman Charter for the Jews?’, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol 74 (1984) pp
107-123

T. Rajak, ‘The Location of Cultures in Second Temple Judaism,’ The Book of Acts in its Palestinian
Setting, ed. R. Bauckham (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995)
B.S Rosner, Greed as Idolatry: the origin and meaning of a Pauline metaphor, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007)

B.S Rosner, ‘Temple Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20’ in Novum Testamentum, Vol. 40, Fasc. 4
(Oct., 1998), pp. 336-351

L.V. Rutgers, ‘Roman Policy Towards Jews’, Judaism and Christianity in First Century Rome ed. K.P
Donfried and P. Richardson, pp 93-116

H. van de Sandt, ‘An Explanation Of Acts 15.6-21 In The Light Of Deuteronomy 4.29-35 (LXX),’
Journal for the Study of the New Testament, vol 46 (1992), 73-97

C.H Savelle, ‘A Reexamination of the Prohibitions of Acts 15,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 161, Oct-Dec 2004,
449-468

J. Schwiebert, ‘Table Fellowship and 1 Corinthians 5:1,’ Journal of Biblical Literature, 127 no 1 Spr
2008, 159-164

J. Shelton, As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History (2d ed.; Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998)

G.S Shogren, ‘Is the Kingdom About Eating and Drinking or Isn’t It (Romans 14:17)’, in Novum
Testamentum, Vol. 42, Fasc. 3, July (2000), 238-256

J. Smith, ‘These Necessary Things – Acts 15:28-29,’ Restoration Quarterly, 4 no 4 1960, p 247-250

E. C. Still, III, Divisions Over Leaders And Food Offered To Idols: The Parallel Thematic Structures
Of 1 Corinthians 4:6-21 And 8:1-11:1, Tyndale Bulletin, 55.1 (2004), p 36-38

O.M. Van Nijf, The Civic World of Professional Associations in the Roman East, (Amsterdam: J.C
Gieben, 1997)

S.G Wilson, Luke and the Law, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)

B.W, Winter, Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as benefactors and citizens, (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1994)

B.W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001)

B.W. Winter, ‘Gallio’s Ruling On The Legal Status Of Early Christianity (Acts 18:14-15),’ Tyndale
Bulletin, 50.2, 1999, 213-224
B.W. Winter, ‘Rehabilitating Gallio And His Judgement In Acts 18:14-15,’ Tyndale Bulletin 57.2
(2006) 291-308.

B. W. Winter, "Theological and Ethical Responses to Religious Pluralism—1 Corinthians 8-10,"

Tyndale Bulletin 41, 1990, 209-226

B. Witherington III, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998)

B. Witherington III with D Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio Rhetorical Commentary,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004)