Ugh. That article reeks of western theology and the familiar old Christian anti-Torah remarks. Especially this bit:
"The Christian community’s new position vis-à-vis food is recapitulated in Peter’s vision in Acts 10-11. Jesus’ new command regarding purity is stated directly by God to Peter in a dream- “What God has made clean you must not call profane.” Clearly, something new is happening. Peter is encouraged to eat these foods in his dream not simply for the sake of reconfiguring Jewish dietary law, but because it is a way forward for full table fellowship with the Gentiles. What God calls clean (certain heretofore forbidden foods) Peter hears as a gospel message freeing him to relate to the “unclean” Gentile Cornelius. The consistent theme, beginning in the gospels and the witness of Jesus, continuing in Acts through the actions of the early Christian community, and then reaffirmed by Paul in his epistles, is that the Christian community is subject to new dietary laws and freedoms precisely because the Christian community now embraces people groups previously excluded under the “old” covenant."
It's that old common Christian expansion thinking that explodes this vision from its real meaning (that is, Jesus is for the entire world, not just the Jews), into some theological point made to spite the Jews and the Law (that is, the Law is now abolished). Maybe I'm being too defensive, but that's honestly how I read these things now.
I don't see the Law being abolished, frankly. Do you, Chris? Jesus never pushed such a view (see Jesus' own words in Matthew 5:17!), neither did Paul, even though some folks mistake Paul's focus on grace-before-works to mean the Law is abolished.
The article mistakenly attributes Jesus' words about things inside of a man making him unclean to eating of grain picked on Sabbath. Wrong story there, Jesus was replying to Pharisees who were condemning Jesus and the apostles for not doing the Talmudic washing of the hands (something not found in the Law). Regardless, Jesus is right, what comes out of a man is what makes him unclean. Does that mean the Law is abolished and what God said in the O.T. is now irrelevant? Does it mean it has no bearing on us in our new, enlightened religion?
I think we're too full of ourselves in Christianity. Eating faithfully is now relegated to the curious hardliners, instead of being a mark of our set apart lives for God. That's what the word 'holy' means; from the Hebrew 'kadosh', we are to be set apart. Unfortunately most Christians can't be bothered with such nonsense; we don't want to be set apart, in fact, we want to fit in.
In regards to dietary laws, at the very least gentile Christians ought to be following the Noahide laws (which are a subset of the Law) according to the apostles decision in Acts. IMO, we ought to be "doing what Jesus did", and what did he do? He followed the Law perfectly. Of course, no right-minded Christian would ever suggest such a thing lest he be accused of legalism and losing his "freeness in Jesus."
First off I think both Clint and you are saying that "Jesus is for the entire world" you just said it more susinctly than "the Christian community now embraces people groups previously excluded." Notice Clint is actually Jew friendly in that he puts quotes around "old" covenant, as he, I would assume, goes with the Marva Dawn crowd and calls it the 2nd covenant or something like that. To your issue with the pharasees and what is put into your body makes you unclean... Matthew's (the arguably more Jewish gospel) gospel agrees with you and says, but Mark 7:19 would differ, as according to it "Thus he (Jesus) declared all foods clean." I hae to say I have the Noachide laws on a card in my wallet, but I keep Paul and Peter's understanding in mind and simply try not to offend other Christian's or Jews with my eating habbits (a Jew to the Jews, a Vegitarian to the Vegitarians, not to make the linkage between those two groups too strong). Thanks for the comment, I'll think some more on this. Peace, Chris
2 comments:
Ugh. That article reeks of western theology and the familiar old Christian anti-Torah remarks. Especially this bit:
"The Christian community’s new position vis-à-vis food is recapitulated in Peter’s vision in Acts 10-11. Jesus’ new command regarding purity is stated directly by God to Peter in a dream- “What God has made clean you must not call profane.” Clearly, something new is happening. Peter is encouraged to eat these foods in his dream not simply for the sake of reconfiguring Jewish dietary law, but because it is a way forward for full table fellowship with the Gentiles. What God calls clean (certain heretofore forbidden foods) Peter hears as a gospel message freeing him to relate to the “unclean” Gentile Cornelius. The consistent theme, beginning in the gospels and the witness of Jesus, continuing in Acts through the actions of the early Christian community, and then reaffirmed by Paul in his epistles, is that the Christian community is subject to new dietary laws and freedoms precisely because the Christian community now embraces people groups previously excluded under the “old” covenant."
It's that old common Christian expansion thinking that explodes this vision from its real meaning (that is, Jesus is for the entire world, not just the Jews), into some theological point made to spite the Jews and the Law (that is, the Law is now abolished). Maybe I'm being too defensive, but that's honestly how I read these things now.
I don't see the Law being abolished, frankly. Do you, Chris? Jesus never pushed such a view (see Jesus' own words in Matthew 5:17!), neither did Paul, even though some folks mistake Paul's focus on grace-before-works to mean the Law is abolished.
The article mistakenly attributes Jesus' words about things inside of a man making him unclean to eating of grain picked on Sabbath. Wrong story there, Jesus was replying to Pharisees who were condemning Jesus and the apostles for not doing the Talmudic washing of the hands (something not found in the Law). Regardless, Jesus is right, what comes out of a man is what makes him unclean. Does that mean the Law is abolished and what God said in the O.T. is now irrelevant? Does it mean it has no bearing on us in our new, enlightened religion?
I think we're too full of ourselves in Christianity. Eating faithfully is now relegated to the curious hardliners, instead of being a mark of our set apart lives for God. That's what the word 'holy' means; from the Hebrew 'kadosh', we are to be set apart. Unfortunately most Christians can't be bothered with such nonsense; we don't want to be set apart, in fact, we want to fit in.
In regards to dietary laws, at the very least gentile Christians ought to be following the Noahide laws (which are a subset of the Law) according to the apostles decision in Acts. IMO, we ought to be "doing what Jesus did", and what did he do? He followed the Law perfectly. Of course, no right-minded Christian would ever suggest such a thing lest he be accused of legalism and losing his "freeness in Jesus."
First off I think both Clint and you are saying that "Jesus is for the entire world" you just said it more susinctly than "the Christian community now embraces people groups previously excluded." Notice Clint is actually Jew friendly in that he puts quotes around "old" covenant, as he, I would assume, goes with the Marva Dawn crowd and calls it the 2nd covenant or something like that.
To your issue with the pharasees and what is put into your body makes you unclean... Matthew's (the arguably more Jewish gospel) gospel agrees with you and says, but Mark 7:19 would differ, as according to it "Thus he (Jesus) declared all foods clean."
I hae to say I have the Noachide laws on a card in my wallet, but I keep Paul and Peter's understanding in mind and simply try not to offend other Christian's or Jews with my eating habbits (a Jew to the Jews, a Vegitarian to the Vegitarians, not to make the linkage between those two groups too strong).
Thanks for the comment, I'll think some more on this.
Peace,
Chris
Post a Comment