Peter-Ben Smit
Berne
1. INTRODUCTION
2. FOUR CONTEXTS OF ROM. 14:17
3. CONCLUSIONS: PAUL AND SYMPOSIASTIC IDEOLOGY IN VIEW OF ROM. 14:17
1. Introduction
The present paper aims at contributing to a better understanding of the Pauline interaction with meal etiquette and thus with the contemporary discourse on symposiastic ideology. In the discussion about this, most attention is commonly given to 1 Cor. 8, 10, 11:17-34, and Rom. 14:1-23. Of these texts, 1 Cor. 8, 10 and Rom. 14:1-23 deal with the question of eating sacrificial foodstuffs (especially meat) and 1 Cor. 11:17-34 deals with the 'etiquette,' or, for that matter, liturgy, of the Corinthian κυριακὸν δεῖπνον (1 Cor. 11:20). The overarching interest of all four texts is similar: securing the unity and order of the respective communities expressed as it is in their communal meals: the 'weak' should not be outplayed by the 'strong' as soon as it comes to eating foodstuffs sacrificed to 'idols' (1 Cor. 8, 10, Rom. 14) and class differences should play no role at the celebration of the Eucharist (see 1 Cor. 11:17-34, compare Jas. 2:2-5).
As the title indicates, here the focus will be on Paul's characterization of ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ as it surfaces within his discussion of the Roman Christians' diet (Rom. 14:17). Commonly, this vs. is interpreted within the context of Pauline theology,[1] in which the concepts of δικαιοσύνη,[2] εἰρήνη,[3] and χαρά[4] are, in descending order of importance, anything but insignificant concepts. This is, naturally, legitimate. The same applies to attention for the concepts of δικαιοσύνη, εἰρήνη, and χαρά as part of (popular) Hellenistic philosophical discourse, within which they were not insignificant.[5] This paper merely aims at broadening up the interpretative perspective by showing that all three concepts are also parts of contemporary symposiastic ideology, which means that, despite Rom. 14:17a Rom. 14:17b draws on the image of a(n ideal) symposium as the blueprint for the communal life of the community in Rome, just as much as 1 Cor. 11:17-34 does. The association of Rom. 14:17 with symposiastic ideology suggests itself because of the occurrence of terminology central to contemporary symposiastic thought within the context of a conflict about precisely meal fellowship. By drawing attention to this aspect of Rom. 14:17 a lacuna in contemporary research may be filled up.
2. Four Contexts of Rom. 14:17
2.1. First Century Meals
First century Mediterranean society was in most if not all parts a society structured through and maintained by meal fellowship.[6] The symposium, as the generic term for the (formal) dinner, was pivotal to much, if not all social interaction and constituted an important 'carrier' of values (in the form of etiquette) at the same time.[7] The hierarchy of the strongly stratified society was maintained by meals (seating order,[8] distribution of portions,[9] etc.), peer groups were delineated by means of them (the extension or non-extension of invitations and their acceptance or refusal was a highly sensible issue as not only Mt. 22:1-10 / Lk. 14:16-24 / Gos. Thom. 64 show.[10] Furthermore, one's identity was to a large extent determined not only by with whom, but also by what one ate, in this respect the early (Jewish-)Christian struggle with dietary prescriptions hardly needs to be illustrated, and Seneca's embarrassment about his youthful vegetarian aberrations is just another eloquent example (Ep. 108:32).[11]
The significance of most of these matters has largely been recognized for early Christianity as well.[12] The historical Jesus' controversial meal fellowship (see Lk. [Q ] 7:33-34, Mk. 2:13-17parr.), the intensive Lk. usage of symposium scenes,[13] and Paul's critique of the Corinthian community concerning both diet (1 Cor. 8, 10) and etiquette (1 Cor. 11:17-34) are but three prominent and representative examples in this respect. The NT authors may be assumed to have been fully conversant with—since part of—the first century discourse on meals and meal fellowship, including matters of etiquette and diet.
2.2. The Kingdom, Eating and Drinking, and the Meal in the NT
At first sight, there can be no greater discrepancy, than between Paul's claim in Rom 14:17, that the Kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking, but rather about righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, and traditions found in the synoptic Gospels[14] and the Apc.[15] referring to the so-called eschatological meal and the, probably exaggerated but still illuminating, thesis of John D. Crossan that Jesus was crucified because of the way he was eating. Three texts, Mk. 2:13-17, Lk. (Q ) 7:34 and Lk. (Q ) 13:29-28, which are commonly thought to belong to the oldest strands of early Christian tradition, i.e. to Jesus' own teaching, conveniently illustrate this: both Jesus' preaching could find its (social) embodiment in his meal praxis, whereas his eschatological expectation could be conveniently expressed when using the metaphor of a meal as an image of the kingdom. As indicated, this use of meals, both on an earthly as well as on a heavenly level, continues in the Synoptics, Acts and the Apc. Also for Paul, precisely in Rom. 14, preserving the authenticity and unifying character of the communal meal is high on his agenda (see further 1 Cor. 8, 10, 11:17-34). Placing the vocabulary of Rom. 14:17 in the context of first century symposiastic ideology will aid to dissolve this apparent tension.
2.3. Rom. 14:17 in the Context of Romans
Rom. 14:17 is part of the bipartite paraenetical ch. 14,[16] followed by Rom. 15:1-6,[17] dealing with the question of dietary behavior preserving the unity of the Roman community. The first part of this ch. (Rom. 14:1-12) calls the members of the Roman community to mutual acceptance and patience with one another (Rom. 14:1-9) and rebukes them for judging and despising one another (see especially Rom. 14:10-12).[18] The weak, favoring a more restricted diet, should not judge the strong (see vv. 3b-4.10a) who eat and drink everything and the latter should not despise the former (see v. 3a.10b).[19] As indicated earlier, the issue at stake is most likely the consumption of foodstuffs, primarily meat, sacrificed to idols on the one hand, and on the other hand it might well be the case that other ascetic and / or early Jewish dietary preferences played a role (see especially 14:2.21).[20]
Rom. 14:13-23 continues Paul's teachings on the same subject, but now with a focus on the offenses which might be caused by consuming certain foodstuffs (see v. 15). Even though Paul himself should clearly be counted among the 'strong' (see v. 14),[21] he advises the divided community to adapt to the weak, following the rule that mutual love[22] and the building up of the community should be the overarching concerns and not pushing a certain (more extensive) diet (see vv. 15.17.20-21), thus offending one's 'brother.' Paul attempts to arrive at a situation in which all members of the community can act according to their conscience (v. 23), be it that some have to keep their opinions quiet (v. 22) in order not to make anyone stumble. In this context Paul brings Rom. 14:17 as a (traditional)[23] 'rule of thumb,'[24] placing things in perspective: characteristic of the kingdom of God—here this seems to function as a cipher for the community[25] as well as for a future and over-arching entity determining it[26]—are righteousness, peace, and joy,[27] not eating and drinking, i.e.: not a certain kind of diet, as that is the issue at stake in Rom. 14. As becomes clear from the context, particular diets should be subordinated to the building up of the community. In this way, Rom. 14:17 is central to Paul's line of argument.[28] This impression is confirmed, when the verse's connection with Rom. 14:16.18 is considered: it follows upon the preceding vs. as its supporting fundament, and in the subsequent vs. the trias mentioned in v. 17 is so much as the space within which the true service to Christ takes place.[29]
2.4. Rom. 14:17 in the Context of Symposiastic Ideology
2.4.1. Eating and Drinking Is No Meal Even though the context of Rom. 14:17 clearly indicates that not so much eating and drinking as such is at stake, but rather the abstinence from certain foodstuffs, the formula used by Paul to refer to the disruptive nutritional behavior is a well-known cipher for referring to meals as such. Being able to eat and drink indicates physical, social and psychical well-being. However, as was a commonplace in the first century discourse on meals: eating is not the same thing as a meal.
This may be illustrated by the following citation from Plutarch, emphasizing the social component of dining:
But the most truly god-like seasoning at the dining-table is the presence of a friend or companion or intimate acquaintance—not because of his eating and drinking with us, but because he participates in the give-and-take of conversation (…). (Mor. 697D).[30]
The NT provides a full parallel to this concept, as it juxtaposes in Lk. 12:35-40.42-48 an utopian meal scene (Lk. 12:37) with the abusive behavior of an untrustworthy steward, who eats and drinks alone (deprivating others), thus rendering communion impossible (see Lk. 12:45). The meal may therefore be regarded as the locus of the realization, expression and experience of community with all that belongs to it.[31] In first century society (as well as earlier and later), the symposium could be regarded as a 'model' of the πόλις, i.e. of society, with obvious consequences for the significance of the ideals related to it.
Therefore, 'merely' eating and drinking is highly deficient when compared with the social event of a meal and only a part of it. If eating and and drinking (particular foodstuffs) even disrupts community, as is the case in Lk. 12:43 and Rom. 14:17, this does certainly not make matters look better. For this reason, many writing in the 'meal-centred' first century Mediterranean world were extremely concerned about having well-ordered and well-organised dinner parties (the early Christians are here no exception), giving them the enjoyment of full κοινωνία.
For the achievement of true κοινωνία more is needed, however, than merely the presence of one eating person. As (for example) Klinghardt has convincingly argued, the Hellenistic symposium was the embodiment of a dense web of concepts and values,[32] the most significant were, apart from κοινωνία, φιλία, and χάρις. The three concepts characterizing the kingdom in Rom. 14:17, δικαιοσύνη, εἰρήνη, and χαρά can be convincingly interpreted within this context, as will be shown below.
2.4.2. Symposiastic Ideals: Justice, Peace and Joy
2.4.2.1. Justice / Righteousness
Δικαιοσύνη is in many early theories of law the principle around which the law revolves. Consequently, as the ideal law is always the law of an ideal πόλις, this is also the basis of the ideal state,[33] which is, as indicated, reflected in the (ideal) symposium. Without being able to discuss the issue here in any appropriate depth, it should be pointed out, that this issue surfaces in contemporary discussions about how to organize the ideal symposium in relationship to two themes especially: the seating order and the distribution of portions as both reflect to a certain extent the attribution of honor (δόξα) to the diners and thereby the (just) structure of society.
The fact that meals and especially formal banquets always contain a hierarchical element needs little further justification, as this has been firmly established within the field of sociology of the meal, as well as much earlier. As Mary Douglas puts it: 'Meals require […] a seating order […]'[34] and it is precisely with the word 'order' that one reaches a problem which was much discussed in antiquity: the relationship and tension between order (τάξις) and equality (ἰσονομία) as a justly ordered (εὐκοσμία) community (κοινωνία) ought to do justice to both.[35] Put differently: the question is how a highly stratified society which is as such not necessarily problematized, can be related to the equally clearly articulated idea of equality (ἰσονομία) in such a way that εὐκοσμία is achieved, a well-ordered whole, in which all receive the honor due to them according to one's άρετή. Applied to a meal situation, it can be argued with Plutarch, that it is only as an εὐκοσμία that a table can truly function as a 'maker of friends,'[36] i.e. a κοινωνία characterized by φιλία is established.
It will be obvious, that, when reading Rom. 14:17 in its context of a discussion about the right organization of a community's symposium, not only the question of justification (central to Rom., see 3:21-26, 4:1-15, 6:12-23, 10:1-10), but all the more the question of the community's inner harmony, threatened by the mutual disrespect of the weak and the strong (i.e. lack of φιλία) is addressed: Christ has died for all, and all should be honored accordingly (see Rom. 14:15).[37] This egalitarian emphasis—not at all a matter of fact—is not a random fact, rather, it derives directly from Paul's theology of, indeed, justification, echoing in Rom. 14.17[38] and as elsewhere doing away with all kinds of prerogatives, including diet, both in a 'libertarian,' as well as in a 'judaizing' sense (see Gal. 2:11-14, compare Rom. 14:14). This theological (and more than merely symposiastic) aspect is in Rom. 14:17 for all three of its positive values indicated directly by the qualification ἐνπνεύματιἁγίῳ, which relates to all three elements.[39] It is fitting therefore, that righteousness or justice is paired in other enumerations of eschatological gifts of salvation with peace (2 Cor. 3:11, Phil. 4:7) and joy (2 Cor. 1:23, 1 Thess. 1:6) as well, just as all the three of them occur in a similar sense in Gal. 5:22.
2.4.2.2. Peace
Peace, as opposed to anything causing strife or disorder, is an appropriate companion for the ideal of εὐκοσμία.[40] The image of the peaceful symposium is the counterpart of war, and fights and drunkenness at the symposium. The latter is variously interpreted as a result of giving in to the seduction of ὔβρις. These issues all constitute a danger for the just order of the ideal symposium,[41] at which even the conversational topic of war is not appreciated.[42] This can be illustrated variously, but Theognis El. 885-886 (see also 757-764) constitutes an especially eloquent example:[43]
ΕἰρήνηκαὶΠλοῦτοςἔχοιπόλιν, ὄφραμετ᾽ ἄλλων
κωμάζοιμι· κακοῦδ᾽ οὐκἔραμαιπολέμου.
Peace being a precondition for true fellowship, its occurrence in Rom. 14:17 suits its context more than well, contrasting the aggressive dietary behavior of both parties in Rome, consisting of 'eating without fellowship,' mutual deprecation and condemnation with one of the core values of true (meal) fellowship. The reader of Rom. has already encountered the concepts of εἰρήνη a number of times, and in all of them, it refers to the similar kind of utopian condition enabling fellowship and prosperity: this may well be the background of the wish of God's peace (= םוֹ&holamhb;לשָׁ) for the Romans in Rom. 1:1 (see 15:13.33, 16.20, compare 8:6), the opposition between peace and war sketched above occurs in Rom. 2:9-10 (see 3:13-17), whereas Rom. 5:1 may well indicate a quality of the newly found communion with God in Christ (through justification!), and Rom. 14:19 unmistakably equates striving for peace and the building up of community, be it that peace is only one of three characteristics (compare Jas. 3:18).[44] Symposiastic ideal and theological concept shake hands once more, its earlier occurrences in Rom. echo in Rom. 14:17,[45] thus mutually fertilizing each other. The significance of the concept of peace in the paraenesis in Rom. 14-15 becomes clear as it is, together with joyfulness, repeated in the concluding wish in Rom. 15:13.
2.4.2.3. Joy
When turning to the third characteristic of the kingdom in Rom. 14:17, χαρά, it can be observed that this noun, as well as other words belonging to the same semantic field was, as part of the overarching concept εἰρήνη used to characterize the preferred atmosphere at a symposium.[46] This can be elucidated by referring to the wish for the absence of the counterpart of merriment: somberness was not appreciated: it was agreed upon that rather cheerfulness (εὐφροσύνη) or joy (χαρά) should dominate the scene.[47] This could be elaborated further, but what has been outlined here suffices for an appreciation of the occurrence of χαρά in Rom. 14:17: it underlines another aspect of the two earlier characteristics of the ideal symposium / πόλις / kingdom. The inner unity of χαρά and εἰρήνη is indicated in Rom. by the juxtaposition of both in Rom. 15:13 (compare 15:12) as gifts of the God of hope,[48] more precisely the cause of this joy is probably justification and reconcilation (see Rom. 5:1-11, 8:31-39).[49] Furthermore rejoicing and mourn-ing together is put forward as one of the characteristics of fellowship in Rom. 12:15 (see 16:19). In Aristotelian tradition, precisely this is a characteristic of true φιλία (see Eth. Eud. 7.6.9),[50] designated as something coming into being at the (ideal) symposium. Joy, joyfulness and rejoicing (in the Lord) occur in other Pauline writings as the preferred attitude in all situations, and the effect the fellowship of the Christians in various communities with Paul (and others) should have.[51] The contrast with the sadness mentioned in vs. 15 could not be clearer: sadness troubles community. In this way, just as in the cases of δικαιοσύνη and εἰρήνη, Pauline theological concepts and symposiastic ideology mutually illuminate one another, as it remains significant for Paul that the joy he calls for is, in Rom. 14:17, pneumatological and elsewhere christological. Both aspects are hardly mutually exclusive as the subsequent 'trinitarian' vs. 18 shows.
3. Conclusions: Paul and Symposiastic Ideology in View of Rom. 14:17
Thus, Paul calls in Rom. 14:17 upon the Romans to preserve meal fellowship, and not to disrupt their community by disrupting the meal fellowship through disapproving of each other's diet. Well in line with a contemporary symposiastic commonplace, he points out that not so much the consumption of foodstuffs is the heart of the matter, but rather fellowship, which he indicates by referring to three of its core characteristics: δικαιοσύνη, εἰρήνη, and χαρά. These three concepts are not only current in contemporary discussions about the ideal symposium and hence ideal community, they occur throughout Rom. also as significant, if not central concepts of Pauline theology: all three occur as (eschatologically oriented) gifts of God in Rom. as well (see Rom. 3:21-26, 5:1-5, 12:12, 15:13).[52] Both vocabularies mutually interact, i.e.: Paul articulates his—not uncommon—ideal of fellowship using a vocabulary that is perfectly understandable for everyone conversant with symposiastic ideals (i.e. practically everyone in Rome), simulta neously integrating precisely this vocabulary into overarching theological concerns, which have been discussed to a lesser extent here, suggesting that the concerns of the symposium are, understood correctly, precisely the core concepts of his theology. This theology receives in this way a new sounding body, and it may be stated that a central part of what Theobald calls 'theologische Kriterien glaubenskonformen Handelns' are expressed in terms of symposiastic concepts: the kingdom of God, qualified by the trias 'righteousness, peace, and joy,' as 'das höchste gemeinschaftsbildende "Gut" der an Christus Glaubenden', is communicated in precisely this double way.[53]
These observations not only contribute to an understanding of Paul's use of symposiastic ideology and the way he used these concepts to propagate his own theological concepts, simultaneously it is shown that the opposition between the traditions of the eschatological banquet (Synoptics, Apc.) and Jesus' earthly meals (Synoptics), and Rom. 14:17 as constructed above, is a false one: both utilize the fantasy of ideal fellowship in order to make theological points. The Synoptics and the Apc. primarily use the concept of the eschatological meal to underline the necessity of living up to one's invitation to this eschatological banquet in order to gain access to it (in Pauline terminology: to enable a community in which δικαιοσύνη, εἰρήνη, and χαρά set the tone). Jesus' earthly meal fellowship is characterized by openness and joyfulness.[54] Paul, however, contrasts the significance of what is eaten with the aim of eating together: (earthly) fellowship (= meal fellowship), which Paul describes by using a symbol of ideal community: the kingdom of God (Rom. 14:17), the (eschatological and pneumatological) 'space' within which the ecclesiastical life of mutual service should take place (Rom. 14:18).[55]
1) There are no exceptions known to the author.
2) See the occurrence of the noun δικαιοσύνη in: Rom. (29), 1 Cor. (1), 2 Cor. (7), Gal. (4), Phil. (3), and the verb δικαιόω occurring in Rom. (14), 1 Cor. (2), and Gal. (6).
3) See Rom. (10), 1 Cor. (4), 2 Cor. (2), Gal. (3), Phil. (3), 1 Thess. (3), Phlm. (1).
4) Compare χαρά in: Rom. (3), 2 Cor. (5), Phil. (5), 1 Thess., (4), and χαίρω in Rom. (3), 1 Cor. (3), 2 Cor. (8), Phil. (7), 1 Thess. (2).
5) See for example Albrecht Dihle, "Gerechtigkeit," RAC 10 (1978), coll. 233-266, Erich Dinkler / Erika Dinkler—von Schulte, "Friede," RAC 8 (1972), 434-505, Otto Michel, "Freude," RAC 8 (1972), 348-418.
6) See Matthias Klinghardt, Gemeinschaftsmahl und Mahlgemeinschaft: Soziologie und Liturgie frühchristlicher Mahlfeiern TANZ 13 (Tübingen: Francke 1996) 156: "Es ist überraschend, in welch hohem Maß Gemeinschaft als Mahlgemeinschaft realisiert wurde, denn zunächst ist Koinonia ein ganz umfassender Wertbegriff für alle Formen sozialen Zusammenlebens, der beispielsweise in den antiken, an der Polis orientierten Staatstheorien eine zentrale Rolle spielte." See further also: Pauline Schmitt-Pantel, La cité au banquet. Histoire des repas publics dans les cités grecques, Collection de l'École Française de Rome 157 (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1992) 1-13, Katherine M. D. Dunbabin, The Roman Banquet. Images of Conviviality (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2003) 1-10.
7) See William J. Slater, "Sympotic Ethics in the Odyssey," in: Oswyn Murray (ed.), Sympotica. A Symposium on the Symposion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990) 213-220, and in view of the interrelationship of Pauline etiquette and ethics: Matthias Konradt, "Die gottesdienstliche Feier und das Gemeinschaftsethos der Christen bei Paulus," JBTh 18 (2003) 203-229.
8) A good impression of the variety of options is already achieved when comparing Jesus' utopian meal fellowship which seems to have been rather egalitarian to the contemporary ideas about ideal table fellowship in Qumran, which is highly hierarchically structured: 1QS 6:1-23, lQSa 2:11-22, and also to the discussion recorded by Plutarch on the very same subject: Timon, Plutarch's brother, defends against Plutarch and his father the ideal of an egalitarian seating order, which, however, results in chaos, leading Plutarch to conclude, that an ideal symposium must have some kind of (hierarchical) structure. See Plutarch Mor. 615C—619A. See also the Lk. ideal, compare for example Lk. 14:12-14, 20:45.
9) See only the complaints of Martial: Epig. 1:20, 3:49.60, 4:68.85, 6:11, Pliny the Younger, Ep. 2:6, see further: Juvenal, Sat. 5:24-28, Lucian, Sat. 17-18, Merc. cond. 26, within an early Christian context: 1 Cor. 11:17-34, on which: Gerd Theißen: "Soziale Integration und sakramentales Handeln," NT 16 (1974) 179-206, Klinghardt, Gemein schaft smahl, 269-371. The suggestion that not everyone got exactly the same is supported by Suetonius' description of a distribution of foodstuffs as gifts among the Roman populace by the same emperor, see Dom. 5. See on emperor Trajan's convivial habitudes: Pliny the Younger, Pan. 49:4-6.
10) See especially: Willi Braun, Feasting and Social Rhetoric in Luke 14, SNTSMon 85 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995) 73-97.98-131. Emily Gowers, The Loaded Table. Representations of Food in Roman Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) 220-310 studies Latin invitation poems, which show a considerable interest in elaborate formal invitations, compare for example the (partially mock) invitations: Catullus, Epig. 13, Martial, Epig. 5:78, 10:48, 11:52, Pliny the Younger, Ep. 1:15. Telling are also the anecdotes Plutarch recounts in Mor. 148A.F, 511D-E.
11) See in general the discussion by Catherine Osborne, "Ancient Vegetarianism," in: Wilkins / Harvey / Dobson (eds.), Food, 214-224.
12) See for example Klinghardt, Mahlgemeinschaft, 523-534, Dennis E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) 1-6, Andrew McGowan, Ascetic Eucharists (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) 1-17.
13) See especially Dennis E. Smith, "Table Fellowship as a Literary Motif in the Gospel of Luke," JBL 106 (1987) 613-638. If Q is assumed, these scenes may well derive from it (Lk. 7:34, 11:19, 13:26.28-29, poss. Lk. 14:16-24), Mk. (Lk. 5:27-32.33-39, 9:10-17, 22:14-18.21-23), Lk. special tradition (Lk. 16:19-31, 19:1-10, 22:19-20, 24:13-35), and Lk. red. (Lk. 7:36-50, 10:38-42, 11:37-54, 12:37, 15:1-10, 22:30).
14) See especially Lk. (Q ) 13:28-29, Lk. 22:28-30 / Mt. 19:28 (Q 22:28.30), Mk. 14:25 / Mt. 26:29 / Lk. 22:16.18, Lk. 12:37, Lk. 14:15, Lk. 14:16-24 (eschatologial banquets), of which a special kind is the eschatological wedding banquet, compare Mt. 22:1-14, Mt. 25:1-13 and see also: Mk. 2:18-20par. as well as Apc. 19:7-9, 21:1-8, 22:9-22:5. Further relevanttexts include: Lk. 6:21a / Mt 5:6 (Q 6:21), Mk. 6:32-44par, Mk. 8:1-10par.
15) See Apc. 2:7.17, 3:20, 7:16-17, 19:7-9.17.19, 21:1-22:5.
16) See for the structure of Rom. 14:13-23: Michael Theobald, "Erkenntnis und Liebe. Kriterien glaubenskonformen Handelns nach Röm 14,13-23," in: idem, Studien zum Römerbrief WUNT I.136 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 481-510, especially: 481-487.
17) See Dieter Zeller, Der Brief and die Römer RNT (Regensburg: Pustet, 1984) 223.
18) See Zeller, Römer, 222, notes, Rom. 14:1-15:6 is something like a "case-study" in the consequences of Paul's concept of ἀγάπη outlined earlier (compare Rom. 12:9, 13:8-10, and also 14:15), which should be displayed towards one's neighbor or "brother" (see 15:2, compare 12:10 and 14:10.13.15.21).
19) See Walter Schmithals, Der Römerbrief (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1988) 491.
20) This issue can be left undecided here, as the focus will be on the terminology of Rom. 14:17, not on the theological opinions held by the members of the Roman community. See the extensive discussion by Mark Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak SNTSMon 103 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), especially 1-23 for an overview of research, and 200-220 for Reasoner's own proposal. His considerations are attractive, as he seeks to combine social and religious aspects, suggesting that the strong are both rich and oriented towards a Gentile Christianity, whereas the weak are the opposite. Compare also the recent discussion by Gary Steven Shogren, "Is the Kingdom of God about Eating and Drinking or Isn't It?" (Romans 14:17),' NT 42 (2000) 238-256, especially 242-251, and further: Schmithals, Römerbrief, 489-494
21) See for example Theobald, "Erkenntnis," 481.497-498. This is not merely a didactic or paedagogic move of Paul, so however: Zeller, Römer, 223. Rather, this is Paul's own conviction, as also 1 Cor. 8:8 shows (Schmithals, Römerbrief, 505).
22) Preventing grief (λυπέω), just as the kingdom is charactirized by joyfulness (v. 17). See Theobald, "Erkenntnis," 498. Not emotions, but a fundamental quality of community is in view.
23) For its traditional character, see for example the considerations of Theobald, "Erkenntnis," 488-489: the vs. can be transmitted indepentently, it has a parallel in the traditional vs. 1 Cor. 4:20, the kingdom is not a favorite Pauline concept, the general references to "eating and drinking" and "righteousness, peace, and joy" transcends its immediate context, and the central place of the vs. in the composition of Rom. 14:13-23 might also suggest tradition. Similarly for example: Schmithals, Römer brief, 505. The use of a piece of tradition at this point of an argumentation reminds of Rom. 14:8. If the thesis that the Sitz im Leben of the Pauline traditions about the kingdom is the early Christian baptismal paraklesis expressing the turn from that what is not the kingdom to that what it is, the polemical use Paul makes of this tradition here may be even more powerful, as it constitutes a reminder of a fundamental moment in the life of the believer: his incorporation into the body of Christ. See for this for example Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer 3 EKK 6.3 (Zürich: Benzinger, 1982) 93, Theobald, o.c. 489-491.
24) Or, with Theobald, "Erkenntnis," 483: "Definitionssatz." Similarly: Schmithals, Römerbrief, 505.
25) With this emphasis for example: Schmithals, Römerbrief, 505. Similarly: Brendan Byrne, Romans SP 6 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996) 417.
26) This double aspect of the kingdom in Paul's thought is confirmed by the other occurrences of the expression ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ in his writings. It is (primarily) related to the present in 1 Cor. 4:20, (primarily) to the future in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 15:50, Gal. 5:21, Eph. 5:5, and both in 1 Cor. 15:20, 1 Thess. 2:12. See for the kingdom in Paul the overview offered by: Günter Haufe, "Reich Gottes bei Paulus und in der Jesustradition," NTS 31 (1985) 467-472. See for its double aspect also: Heinrich Schlier, Der Römerbrief HThK.NT 6 (Freiburg. i.B.: Herder, 2 1979) 415.
27) Nevertheless, characteristics, rather than certain actions are in view primarily in Rom. 14:17, see for example Schlier, Römerbrief, 415, Grant R. Osborne, Romans (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2004) 370. Different: Zeller, Römer, 227.
28) See Theobald, "Erkenntnis," 484-489.
29) See for example Schlier, Römerbrief, 416, Schmithals, Römerbrief, 506.
30) See Edwin L. Minar / F. H. Sandbach / W. C. Helmbold (trans. and ed.), Plutarch's Moralia 9 LCL 425 (Cambrige, MA: Harvard University, 1961) 4: Δείπνου δὲ καὶ τραπέζης θειότατον ὡς ἀληθῶς ἥδυ σμα φίλος ἐστι παρὼν καὶ συνήθης καὶ γνώριμος οὐ τῷ συνεσθίειν καὶ συμπίνειν́ ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι λόγου μεταλαμβάνει καὶ μεταδίδωσιν. Two other citations can be added to this: "It is worse to take away the pleasure of conversation at table than to run out of wine' (Mor. 679A), and, with the words of a person, who had just been eating his meal alone: 'I have eaten, but not dined today." (Mor. 697C).
31) See so, with Mary Douglas, "Deciphering a Meal," in: idem, Implicit Meanings (London:Routledge, 2 1999), 231-251, McGowan, Eucharists, 4-5.
32) See Klinghardt, Gemeinschaft smahl, 153-174, stating that: "es ganz unabhängig von speziellen religiösen Aspekten so etwas wie eine gemeinsame, griechischpagane Mahltheologiegibt, die sich zunächst nicht in Kategorien wie Theoxenie, Theophagie, Mysterienmahl,Opfermahl usw. (also in einer wie immer gedachten göttlichen Präsenz im oder beim Mahl) äußert, sondern in einem konsistenten Komplex von Wertvorstellungen, die traditionell mit Symposien verbunden sind: Ruhe und Frieden, Reichtum und Fülle, unbeeinträchtigte Gemeinschaft, Gerechtigkeit, usw." (173-174).
33) See Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) 130.189-197, emphasizing that in antiquity righteousness / justice was generally thought to be the principle of law. Compare the overview of theories of justice by Dihle, "Gerechtigkeit;" exemplary is: Plato, Resp. 4:433A: the principle of the ideal state is δικαιοσύνη. For a similar perspective on the HB / OT, see: Walter Dietrich, "Der rote Faden im Alten Testament," EvTh 49 (1989) 232-350.
34) Douglas, "Deciphering," 236.
35) This can be well illustrated by referring to Plato's idea of a double ἰσονομία: an absolute one: everyone is equal, and one according to ἀρετή, see Leg. 756E-758A. This double ἰσονομία is necessary, as it would be unjust to give the same honor to those who have acquired much ἀρετή and to those who have not done so, compare Resp. 8:558C. See also Klinghardt, Gemeinschaft smahl, 160-161.
36) See for example Mor. 149A-B, 158C, 621C), even if these friendships should be thought of in pragmatic, rather than emotional terms (see: Plutarch, Mor. 616A, compare Mor. 660B-C).
37) See for example Reasoner, Strong 230-233, James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 WBC 38B (Dallas: Word Books, 1988) 832.
38) See especially Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans AB 33 (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 697.
39) Rightly so: Wilckens, Römerbrief, 93, Zeller, Römer, 227, Theobald, "Erkenntnis," 483, Fitzmyer, Romans, 697, Byrne, Romans, 417, Shogren, "Kingdom," 253. Indeed Rom. 14:18 seems to confirm this thesis. Compare Gal. 5:22: ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη χαρὰ εἰρήνη, μακροθυμία χρηστότης ἀγαθωσύνη, πίστις. Fitzmyer's statement, however, that v. 17 makes clear that "the essence of the kingdom does not consist in freedom from such things as dietary regulations, but in the freedom of the Christian to react to the promptings of the indwelling Spirit" is in danger of neglecting the fundamentally communal nature of the three 'promptings' mentioned in v. 17 (compare v. 18!). See Fitzmyer, o.c., 697. Similarly: Osborne, Romans, 370-371. Byrne, Romans 417, rightly emphasizes that the communal aspect of fruits of the Spirit (see Rom. 8:23, compare 2 Cor. 1:22, 5:5) as indicators of the shape of full and eschatological salvation is here used to correct contemporary nuisances in the Roman community. It does not seem to be the case, however, that Paul considers the Holy Spirit as an agent in Rom. 14:17 in the sense that Paul calls upon the Holy Spirit to transform the Roman community according to the trias mentioned in v. 17. So, however: Osborne, Romans, 370.
40) So Klinghardt, Mahlgemeinschaft, 169-172. See for the following in general: William J. Slater, "Peace, the Symposium and the Poet," ICS 6 (1981) 205-214.
41) See for example Slater, "Ethics," 214-215, the classical example of this kind of ὔβρις is the unhappy ending of the wedding celebration of Peirithoos and Hippodameia to which the Centaurs had been invited as well and who get gloriously drunk (compare Slater, o.c. 216, further: Homer, Od. 21:295-304). Slater himself proposes convincingly that in the Odyssey a contrast is made between the ideal symposium of the Phaeacians on the one hand (Od. 8) and the celebrations of Penelope's suitors, all through the Odyssey. George Paul, 'Symposia and Deipna in Plutarch's Lives and in Other Historical Writings,' in: William J. Slater (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1991) 157-169, underlines that disorderly conduct was closely associated with symposia, especially with those associatedwith collegia (see for example Plato, Leg. 2:671A, Plutarch, Alc. 4:4-6, Athenaeus, Deipn.12:534E-F).
42) See Anakreon fr. 9 (Diehl). Oswyn Murray, "War and the Symposium," in: Slater (ed.), Dining, 83-103, surveys the association of drinking fellowship and military fellowship, however.
43) Text taken from: Jean Carrière (ed. and trans.), Théognis. Poèmes élégiaques (Paris: Les belles lettres, 1975) 106. See for an overview: Klinghardt, Mahlgemeinschaft, 168-172.
44) There is no reason to subsume the three concepts mentioned in Rom. 14:17 under the heading of 'peace' as Byrne, Romans, 417, does.
45) So: Fitzmyer, Romans, 697.
46) The semantic field includes εὐφροσύνη (see for example Acts 2:46, 14:17), τέρπομαι (for example in the acclamation πῖνε καὶ τέρπου), ἐρατός, and θαλίη. Illuminating is also a Jewish engravement at the rim of a cup: ΠΙΕ ZHΣHΣ ΕΛΑΡΕΣ (= CIJ 517). A combination of these concepts occurs in Theognis 773-782, see similarly: Bacchylides fr. 4 (Maehler), Xenophanes fr. 1 (Diels / Kranz), Hesiodus, Erg. 115. Compare: Klinghardt, Mahlgemeinschaft, 168-169.
47) So Slater, 'Ethics,' 213-214, compare Plutarch, Mor. 612E, Lucian, Par. 51 and further Xenophanes, fr. 1 (Diels/Kranz), Homer, Od. 9:5-10. and also Acts 2:46, 14:17.
48) According to Klinghardt, Mahlgemeinschaft, 171-172, related to the symposium as well, as there is hope precisely for the symposiastic values of (a.o.) χαρά and εἰρήνη.
49) See Theobald, "Erkenntnis," 498.
50) See on this, with respect to Paul's Letter to the Philippians: John T. Fitzgerald, "Philippians in the Light of Some Ancient Discussions of Friendship," in: Idem (ed.), Friendship, Flattery, and Frankness of Speech. Studies on Friendship in the New Testament World, NTSup 82 (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 141-160, especially 146.
51) Compare note 4 above.
52) See Zeller, Römer, 227, Schlier, Römerbrief, 414-415, Schmithals, Römerbrief, 506.
53) See Theobald, "Erkenntnis," 481, respectively 500.
54) An independent exploration of (the descriptions of ) Jesus' meal fellowship from the perspective of symposiastic ideology cannot be offered here, nevertheless, it would be worthwhile exploring the possibilities of relating its openness (see Mk. 2:13-17parr., Lk. [Q ] 7:33-34) to the concept of δικαιοσύνη and its joyful character (see Mk. 2:19parr.) to the symposiastic ideal of χαρά.
55) See for example Schlier, Römerbrief, 416.
Masih adakah waktu buat Tuhan ?
13 tahun yang lalu
