The Role Of Food In Ancient Religion

Some commentators of the early church assume that it was the food itself which had toxic effect on the consumers when eaten improperly (see e.g. Ignatius of Antioch, Gregory of Nyssa, and Irenaeus of Lyons), and some modern interpreters follow their suggestion.1 However, exactly this type of quasi-magical views about food is refuted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 10.23–33 concerning food sacrificed to idols.2 Paul considers food sacrificed to idols to be nothing extraordinary in itself (8:1–13; 10.19). In his view, the meaning that is attributed to the meal is the problematic part. It is therefore unlikely that Paul held this type of view with regard to food at the Lord’s supper (even though present in other ancient writers). Nevertheless, the implications of a meal is relevant, both in the cases of the Lord’s supper and of food sacrificed to idols (10.14–23). Participation in meals establishes and nourishes relations. “Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” (10.18). In his account of the Lord’s supper, Paul establishes the view that the Christ-believers, though many, are one bread and one body “for we all partake of that one bread” (10.16). The meal has significant relational implications. Similarly, Chrysostom states that Paul did not care that much about the food as such—Chrysostom himself was also prone to fasting—but on the faulty relations that the misbehavior at the supper established and unveiled.3 …show more content…
Doctrine is irrelevant, or, rather, behavior is doctrine. As Chrysostom puts