Feodor posted a comment wherein he outlined what he believes to be flaws or contradictions in scripture. Seeing as how time, at present, is not something I have a great deal of, I chose to address just one point: Old Testament dietary laws; namely, are they still, in whatever fashion, applicable today?
What follows then is meant to clearly and directly outline what I see in scripture regarding the dietary laws specifically, and the entirety of Old Testament Law (all 613 of them) in general.
First of all let me ask, are there any old testament laws that you the reader feel are still in force? Any law that Grace does not wholly abrogate? No need to be specific, a simple 'yes' or 'no' will do. Since I can't imagine anyone saying 'no,' I'll come back to this later.
Jesus, in John 8:17 (referring to Deuteronomy 19:15) said, "It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true."
In an effort to move this train a little further down the track, I retreat now to a much much earlier post on a previous blog:
I've expressed the following idea several times before in various forms and locations. It's not new to me, but it surprises me how few people seem to have grasped it. To say that this is one of the greatest truths in the bible would be reaching, because the greatest truth of the bible is that God loved man so very much that he willingly took on mortal flesh to pay our debt of sin -- a debt we are wholly incapable of paying ourselves -- that we might be restored to fellowship with Him, our Creator.
God has spent almost an entire week working to bring His redemptive plan for mankind to an end. That's not a long time for God, but it's been in the neighborhood of six thousand years for us 1/2. God has made a lot of pronouncements, and quite a few promises, and the only real proofs of His faithfulness are His Word, His grace in our lives, and the physical universe itself and all it contains 3. God says this alone should be enough evidence to prove his love toward us, but man’s heart is, because of sin, hardened to these evidences.
So man asks, "Who is God? And why should we believe in Him?"
As to the first, God is the creator of the heavens and the earth, and Lord over all. The Universe is His creation: every light-year of real estate between here and the boundaries of the universe (if there is in fact a boundary), every galaxy, star, black hole, quasar, and pulsar... "Every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills." Psalm 50:10 KJV
As to 'why should we believe in Him,' the question implies much more than a simple "why," it asks, "what makes You worthy of our praise and worship?" Very bold words! But then man is rebellious by nature, and we have Adam to thank for that... not Eve 4.
So what is it man needs to know about God? Let's consider a rhetorical question posed by an Urban Myth. The story goes... A philosophy professor of my sister's, cousin's, best friend's brother, posed a question to the class last week... "Can God create a rock so large that even He cannot move it?" On the surface, this paradoxical question is framed to smash any pre-conceived stereotypical sentiments the class may have about God, and/or create doubt in the hearts of any would-be believers. If God is omnipotent, shouldn’t He be able to create a rock so huge even He couldn’t move it? But then, if it’s so huge He can’t move it, how can God then be omnipotent?
What a crafty question! But a question with one fatal flaw. It does not consider God's nature: God is Holy... The epitome of Holiness... The personification of Holiness... In fact, there is none more Holy than God. But what does this imply? What is the consequence of existing eternally in a state of perpetual Holiness?
Answer: There is absolutely no stain of sin in God.
Which means, despite His omnipotence, there are things even God cannot do. And, perhaps the most important thing, God cannot Lie.
So. Can God create a rock so large even He cannot move it? The answer is Yes. God, in reference to the throne of David says in 1 Kings 2:45, "...and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD for ever." In Isaiah 9:7 God says, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." The Lord God has said it. The Lord God cannot lie.
Proof of this is found in three places:
Numbers 23:19
Titus 1:2
Hebrews 6:18
Numbers 23:19 says:
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
The bible says, "Let God be true, but every man a liar"5, and, "There is none righteous, no, not one..."6. God is not like man; He does not lie. He has no need, and feels no need, to lie. Only man feels it necessary to lie; because man is sinful, and every lie he tells finds its root in either fear or malice... Fear of hurting another’s feelings; Fear of punishment, however slight; or maliciously, with the intent to hurt. God is neither fearful nor malicious. He is Holy and as such, without sin.
Titus 1:2 goes one step further:
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began…"
So, not only does God not have reason to lie, he simply cannot do it. Again, because He is Holy, and as such, without sin.
But Hebrews 6:18 seals the deal:
"That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us…"
Let's get this straight: God has no need to lie. He cannot lie. And, in point of fact, it is impossible for God to lie. This is very strong language, and extremely important if any of us are to have any measure of assurance that God will keep His word and save us from eternal damnation. To put it another way, it is as possible that God will ever tell a lie as it is for us to witness a goldfish leap out of it's bowl, place a sombrero on its head, pick up and strum a Spanish guitar, while belting out in perfect tenor Mozart's "The Marriage of Figaro..." It's simply never going to happen. It is simply not in this imaginary goldfish's nature to do these things—the whimsical imagination of Dr. Seuss notwithstanding. The same is true of God. It is simply not in the nature of a Holy God to tell a lie... He simply cannot do it.
There are a number of things God cannot do, or be made to feel, but they're irrelevant to this discussion. The point is, it is very important to understand that despite being limited in what He can do, He does not suffer because of it. In fact, we are assured that we can rely on God to always tell us the truth.
If we're going to rely on the blood of Christ to wash us clean from all unrighteousness, thereby restoring us to fellowship with the Father, we have to know we can trust Him to keep His word. But let me make one thing clear. God is not limited in any way, by His inability. He is limited by His promise which, for anyone wishing to debate the semantics of 'limited,' is very different
"...hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
What was it Jesus said in John 8:17?
"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true." Great! But what standard of witness? John 8:18: "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." And also John 5:36, "...the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me," And John 10:25 "I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me."
As to The Law, what then did Jesus say?
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."
To fulfill. To make replete and complete, not to abolish outright. He said,
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Till when? "Till heaven and earth pass... till all be fulfilled." The book of Revelation ends before some of the prophets do, so the law is still applicable, in some measure/to some extent, even as I write this.
Going back to my question, are there any old testament laws that you the reader feel are still in force? The answer, as I alluded to above, is Yes. but in what context?
In terms of a Christian's righteousness; or better, in terms of a Christian's eternal state before God, eating pork will not prevent one from entering heaven... it will merely ensure that the Christian enters sooner than God will have liked.
In terms of the unbeliever, the eating of swine is part and parcel with the whole of the Law, and it is the Law that will judge them when they stand before its Creator.
What IS done away with, however, is the temple sacrifice; or rather, it is transformed [but I'll not go there right now]. Why? As numerous verses suggest-- and alluding to Abel's offering in Hebrews 11 --a more excellent sacrifice was offered; one that could take away sin rather than cover for a time.
But the sacrifice is still in effect. The furniture of the wilderness tabernacle still has meaning and relevance in Christ's sacrifice for us. Animals are no longer sacrificed because they are no longer needed.
It would appear then that some things HAVE changed, but not altogether abolished.
As to the dietary laws--
Bubba, in a comment here, said:
I believe that the external purity of kosher food has been fulfilled by the internal purity of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit."
I must take issue with this statement.
Firstly, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is to teach, guide, purify, and sanctify (among other things) the believer. But not necessarily the human body. The body is still subject to diseases like AIDS, Leukemia, Hodgkins, and Fibromyalgia. The Holy Spirit does not miraculously purify every believer of these diseases, though He certainly can, and sometimes does. What links all the diseases I mentioned and many many more besides? Diet and Environment, but primarily diet... in MANY diseases, though obviously not all. Also, our bodies are corrupt. In order to be perfect our bodies must "put on incorruption."
Secondly, we do not physically "eat" the Holy Spirit. We will die without physical food. And if the food is contaminated we will die sooner rather than later. Our bodies REQUIRE sustenance. And they demand QUALITY sustenance for optimum performance and longevity.
Paul did say in 1 Corinthians 6:12 "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." It is undeniably true that some foods will, if eaten to excess bring the body under its power. Obesity is a prime example. More specifically, in terms of what we ingest: Caffeine-- an addiction that with long-term use can result in damage to the body. The old adage, 'You Are What You Eat,' applies.
A caveat of sorts, in all of this, is that strictly adhering to old testament dietary laws will not make anyone holy or righteous in the sight of God. That path leads to legalism, and under bondage to the Law. But anyone who follows these laws will enjoy overall good health; free of disease and illness, for the most part.
Dan has asked the question many times: "Do we kill those who eat shellfish?" Of course not, "all things are legal, but not necessarily expedient." They kill themselves slowly-- or quickly, depending on the toxicity of the particular shellfish in question.
Now we arrive at Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4-6. We've had this argument here before; that these passages explicitly outline the kind of sexual relationship that is both ordained and condoned by God; that being heterosexual, between one man and one woman. We further find proscription against homosexual behavior in Leviticus.
We use these verses to point out the unrighteous and abominable behavior of men and women in terms of sexuality, but we blow off the dietary laws as irrelevant and not for our time? Where did God say the unclean foods are now clean and "expedient" to eat? Hmmm, He said, "I am the LORD, I change not," and the writer of Hebrews said, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Jesus himself said, as I related earlier, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Well, to be clear: heaven and earth HAVE NOT passed away, and all things HAVE NOT been fulfilled. If homosexuality is wrong, so too is bacon.
Think on this:
What is at the center of Man's greatly reduced lifespan? The Flood. Aside from the deluge itself, what in particular separates pre-flood man from post-flood man? Their diet. God allowed only for nuts, fruit and vegetables before the flood. Only after the flood was meat given to man to eat. And lifespans rapidly decreased from that point on. Can I prove that diet had an effect on lifespan? No. But I can prove that diet will severely shorten MODERN man's lifespan.
Our bodies were designed to live forever. Obviously that's not possible now, but what did the Lord say when He thrust Adam and Eve out of the Garden?
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."
--Genesis 3:22-24
I do not say, as did the Pharisees, that we must obey the Law to be saved/righteous. I do say, however, that if one would like to live a long and healthy life, honoring God with his body as well as his heart, mouth, and good works, returning to a diet that Daniel and others proved in Babylon; that an untainted diet will fare the body with greater wellness than all the kings meat and dainties, will go along way toward respecting the bodies God gave us.
We are free to eat whatever we want, but common sense tells us some foods are only good in moderation and some only as rare treats. And considering what is put into much of our modern "manufactured" foods [propylene glycol, for instance: an ingredient in many brands of antifreeze and some motor-oils], a more natural diet makes good health and financial sense-- eating a natural diet devoid of biblically unclean foods is demonstrating good stewardship in that, eating healthily prevents most diseases and saves thousands of dollars in the long run, in medical bills.
This notion that disease is inherited is not altogether true. For the most part we are susceptible to a family-history of disease; diabetes, heart-disease, etc., because we inherit the eating patterns of our parents, along with their weakened DNA, and immunity systems. We are susceptible to cancer not primarily because our mother or father had cancer, but because they taught us what to put in our bodies; we inherited their diet.
In conclusion, many diseases are curable through diet alone. Many conditions are reversible. We can eat all the bacon we want, and it will not change our relationship with God except that when illness enters our body because of our diet we become less effective in our service to the individual purposes He has given us all. We turn the temple of the Holy Spirit into cesspools of disease and malady. We dishonor Him, but still he loves us. Our bodies are, quite literally, temples. We should treat them as such, with an equal measure of respect.
So, enjoy your Thanksgiving. I sincerely mean that. I began cooking yesterday... two pumpkin pies with no processed sugar [with Stevia instead]. Cornbread Dressing with Organic Chicken Stock. Corn Pudding. Today I'll make the Green Bean Casserole, and the Cranberry Sauce [also with Stevia]. That'll leave the Turkey and fresh Whipped Cream topping for the pies, Mashed Potatoes, and Gravy from the drippin's on Thanksgiving day. Is my meal more healthy than yours? Who cares? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but here's what IS wrong with it.
Canned Pumpkin instead of fresh.
Evaporated Milk instead of unpasteurized cream.
Pie Shells made with Shortening instead of unpasteurized FRESH butter.
Onions and Celery from sources NOT organic.
Canned Green Beans instead of Fresh Organic.
Fried Onions that contain, wonder of wonders, propylene glycol!
Pasteurized almonds [dead almonds].
A turkey that most certainly had injections of harmful antibiotics and hormones.
The whipped cream topping? Also pasteurized, and unhealthy as hell because of it.
Potatoes from a source NOT claiming to be organic.
And gravy. Hello! I said gravy! So what if its fresh?
The only item in all this that might have pork in it is the pie shells, though it's unlikely. I believe these were made with vegetable shortening, which is just as unhealthy as lard.
Enjoy your Thanksgiving Day feasts, everyone, and rest assured that God will not send you to hell for enjoying that Honey Baked Ham. But just so you know, God doesn't want you eating that stuff. He'd rather we all honor Him in everything we do... which includes our diet.
22 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your dedication and concern for nutritional health as an aspect of spirituality is impressive and admirable. And I do not take that lightly.
Happy Thanksgiving.
First, the "argument from shrimp," as I call it, doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is the first time I've seen it invoked positively:
If homosexuality is wrong, so too is bacon.
I typically see it invoked negatively -- to argue that, since bacon is permitted, homosexuality should be permitted, too -- but the connection between the two is very, very slight, for a number of reasons.
1) The Ten Commandments explicitly included restrictions on sexuality (the prohibition of adultery) but nothing on food.
2) The Hebrew words in the Old Testament describing violations of sexual restrictions and violations of kosher dietary regulations were different.
3) So were the punishements: the former entailed death or at least exile, while the latter meant you were unclean for a couple days.
4) While Christ affirmed God's original intentions for human sexuality, reiterating, in Matthew 19, the plan outlined in Genesis 2, and even strengthened those intentions by equating mere lust with adultery, there are no similar statements affirming kosher regulations. On the contrary, Jesus Christ taught in Matthew 15 that what we eat does not defile us.
5) In all the Apostles' lists of sinners -- e.g., Paul's list in 1 Cor 6:9-10 of those who won't inherit the kingdom of God, "Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers" -- sexual deviants are frequently mentioned, but I don't believe those who don't eat kosher are ever mentioned.
6) More about this later, but the concluding summary of dos-and-don'ts in Hebrews 13 treats sexual morality and dietary regulations quite differently.
We're under a new covenant, Eric. If the terms of that covenant are identical to the old covenant, then it's hardly new. The "if homosexuality, then bacon" argument -- and your writing at length about how God doesn't lie -- presumes that the terms of the old covenant carry over, that God would be a liar if they didn't. And that's simply not a reasonable presumption.
Nor is the presumption consistently invoked here. I believe we both affirm progressive revelation, and you admit that God issued a different command about what we could eat after the Deluge. If He revealed one dietary law to the Patriarchs and their post-deluvian ancestors, and another law to the ancient Israelites under the new covenant given to Abraham but codified at Sinai, then why can't a new law be given for the new covenant?
It seems to me that there are three possible arguments to be made for kosher Christianity:
I. The idea that all the terms of the old covenant carry over to the new covenant.
II. The idea that, though some terms don't cary over, dietary regulations do.
III. The idea that the new covenant doesn't explicitly involve any dietary regulations, but prudence and good stewardship suggest that we should eat healthy, and kosher diets are healthier than most alternatives.
The first I reject, as outlined above. The second would need to be argued. The third is pretty reasonable, but it doesn't suggest a Christian diet that is kosher because the old covenant was kosher: it suggests a healthy diet that is almost incidentally kosher, because kosher happens to be healthy.
You seem to combine the first and third arguments, Eric, and I wish you would clarify your position. If the old covenant carries over, it doesn't matter whether kosher food is healthy. Or, if it doesn't carry over, don't suggest that God would be made a liar if His second covenant didn't include every aspect of the first.
Besides Christ's teaching that what we eat doesn't defile, Peter's vision and the epistle to the Hebrews probably provide the strongest arguments that the new covenant doesn't include dietary restrictions.
Certainly, the point of Peter's vision was to open the Gospel to the Gentiles, but I don't believe the way that point was conveyed can be dismissed as purely figurative. What God has made clean, you must not call profane: the context shows that this teaching applied to something more than what we eat, but I think it's a stretch to say that it applied only to something other than what we eat.
And, in Hebrews 10:1, the writer teaches that the law has only "a shadow of the good things to come." If that's true for the sacrifices which do not make us justified before God, is it not also true for the food which does not make us clean before God?
Remember: the Old Testament didn't teach that kosher food made you healthy, it's that it made you clean. It was a matter of ritual cleanliness, and if you agree that it doesn't make a Christian clean -- as you seem to do -- then avoiding pork because it's unhealthy is beside the point. You're still admitting that ritual cleanliness from eating certain foods is a thing of the past and the old covenant.
What justifies us before God and makes us forgiven? It's not the blood of animals, which "can never take away sins." (Heb 10:11) That was just a shadow of what was to come, true forgiveness through the blood of Christ.
And what sanctifices us, what makes us clean before God and separates us from the world? I would argue that it's not the ritualistic, external cleanliness from eating kosher food. That is just a shadow of the internal cleanliness that comes from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
For this I'm not just arguing from silence, and that leads me back to the conclusion of Hebrews. After spending so much time distinguishing between the old shadows and the new reality, the writer gives some practical ethical advice. And what does he write?
Let mutual love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it. Remember those who are in prison, as though you were in prison with them; those who are being tortured, as though you yourselves were being tortured. Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers. Keep your lives free from the love of money, and be content with what you have; for he has said, "I will never leave you or forsake you." So we can say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can anyone do to me?" Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you; consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings; for it is well for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by regulations about food, which have not benefited those who observe them. We have an altar from which those who officiate in the tent have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. Therefore Jesus also suffered outside the city gate in order to sanctify the people by his own blood. Let us then go to him outside the camp and bear the abuse he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. Through him, then, let us continually offer a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name. Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God. Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing—for that would be harmful to you. - Hebrews 13:1-17, emphasis mine
"Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.
"Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings; for it is well for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by regulations about food, which have not benefited those who observe them."
"If homosexuality is wrong, so too is bacon"?
By all appearances, the writer of Hebrews would probably disagree.
To be sure, it's better to eat healthy, both in portions and in the particulars of what we choose to eat: but that's an issue of prudence and stewardship for those of us under the new covenant. It doesn't make us ritualistically clean.
Pigs did not miraculously change from unhealthy to healthy with the new covenant. It was unhealthy then, it is still unhealthy. God wants us healthy, ergo... treat your body in a manner that honors both the temple He dwells in and by keeping yourself strong and healthy to carry out the work He has given you.
Perhaps I went about my argument the wrong way.
But the old covenant prohibited eating pork, not because of concerns for health, but because of concerns about external, ritualistic cleanliness.
Pork was unclean then, but it is no longer unclean under the new covenant.
It might still be prudent and a mark of good stewardship to avoid or at least limit the consumption of pork, but that doesn't mean the dietary restrictions from the old covenant is still binding, that we avoid the same foods for the same reasons.
It wasn't that eating the meat itself was an abomination - the word "abomination" (toevah) addresses a cultural preference rather than a moral concern, or so I'm told - but the fact that it is what others in the region did, others from whom the Hebrews were to be distinct.
There is some discussion of the term here (although in reference to homosexuality, it's still applicable to the discussion here). I don't believe that the OT is talking about something that is morally wrong in these cases, but rather, culturally wrong at the time.
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. - Lev 11:10-11
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. - Lev 18:22
...but they most certainly DO NOT use the same Hebrew word. The passages regarding kosher eating use the term sheqets, the passages regarding sexual immorality use the term tow`ebah, and I am not aware of any passage that suggests they are synonymous or interchangeable. I believe the webpage you cite is playing fast and loose with the Hebrew language.
I've read that in multiple places.
Like here
here
here
My apologies. Responding too quickly again.
Here's what that source had to say:
Then sheqets is often used parallel to or together with to`ebhah of that which should be held as detestable, as for instance, of idols and idolatrous practices... It is used exactly as [to`ebhah] is used as applied to Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, which is spoken of as the detestable thing sheqets of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5). Still even in such cases to`ebhah seems to be the stronger word and to express that which is in the highest degree abhorrent.
In both cases, though, it seems to be about ritual or cultural uncleanness, not suggesting that the food itself is bad.
The former appears only 11 times in the Old Testament, so let's look and see if any of those 11 appearances occur near a single instance of the latter.
Sheqets appears 9 times in Leviticus: once in chapter 7 and the rest in chapter 11.
Tow'ebah appears 6 times in Leviticus: all but one appearance is in chapter 18, the remaining appearance is in chapter 20.
Those aren't exactly proximate uses.
Sheqets appears once in Isaiah, in chapter 66, nowhere near the three occurrences of tow'ebah (ch. 1, 41, 44).
The closest that the two words come is in the last use of Sheqets, in Ezekial 8:10, where it appears near five of the 41 verses in which tow'ebah appears. But, even then, the usage isn't parallel.
Here are the verses in question, Ezekial 8:6-17. I'll put the multiple uses of tow'ebah in bold, and I'll put the one use of Sheqets in BOLD CAPS.
He said furthermore unto me, Son of man, seest thou what they do? even the great abominations that the house of Israel committeth here, that I should go far off from my sanctuary? but turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations.
And he brought me to the door of the court; and when I looked, behold a hole in the wall. Then said he unto me, Son of man, dig now in the wall: and when I had digged in the wall, behold a door. And he said unto me, Go in, and behold the wicked abominations that they do here. So I went in and saw; and behold every form of creeping things, and ABOMINABLE beasts, and all the idols of the house of Israel, pourtrayed upon the wall round about. And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up. Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth.
He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do. Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD'S house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these. And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east. Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.
Every time tow'ebah is used here, it's in reference to the acts of wicked people. The one time sheqets is used, it's to describe the animals -- their uncleaniness, almost certainly not their wickedness.
I stand by what I said: I am not aware of any passage that suggests they are synonymous or interchangeable.
The more full text of what you quoted gives a pretty lengthy list of references.
Then sheqets is often used parallel to or together with to`ebhah of that which should be held as detestable, as for instance, of idols and idolatrous practices (see especially Deuteronomy 29:17; Hosea 9:10; Jeremiah 4:1; 13:27; 16:18; Ezekiel 11:18-21; 20:7,8). It is used exactly as [to`ebhah] is used as applied to Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, which is spoken of as the detestable thing sheqets of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5). Still even in such cases to`ebhah seems to be the stronger word and to express that which is in the highest degree abhorrent.
That list -- Deuteronomy, Hosea, Jeremiah, etc. -- appears to be in reference to a different word, shiqquwts, which apparently has the same root of shaqats but is nonetheless a different word.
That root word, shaqats, is used in relation to cleanliness and dietary restrictions -- in Leviticus 11 and 20 -- and it appears only once more in Deuteronomy and once more in Psalms.
But, with the briefest glance at each of the appearances of shiqquwts, I can say that it doesn't appear that the term is used with dietary restrictions.
And that text is preceded by what a claim for what would be a strong correlation...
Another word rendered "abomination" in the King James Version is sheqets or shiqquts. It expresses generally a somewhat less degree of horror or religious aversion than [to`ebhah], but sometimes seems to stand about on a level with it in meaning. In Deuteronomy 14:3, for example, we have the command, "Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing," as introductory to the laws prohibiting the use of the unclean animals (see CLEAN; UNCLEANNESS), and the word there used is [to`ebhah].
...but Deuteronomy 14 doesn't use sheqets or shiqquwts OR shaqats. The first doesn't appear in the book at all, the second only once in chapter 29, and the third only once in chapter 7. Deut 14 uses a whole different word for "unclean": tame'.
Dan, you could argue that tow'ebah is used in parallel to tame' in Deuteronomy 14, and then that tame' is closely coupled to sheqets, which appears to be the case in Leviticus 7 and 11.
Or, you could argue that tow'ebah is used with shiqquwts, which shares a root with sheqets.
But there appears to be no direct connection between the two words, the first webpage you cited seems to be making a somewhat less-than-precise argument to the contrary, and the other two pages don't appear to argue a connection at all.
I'd have to agree with Bubba, there. It was unclean - an abomination! - to eat pork and shellfish, among other things. But from what I have read, it seems more having to do with rituals and with the fact that these are the things that the "pagans" in surrounding places took part in and they need to separate - make holy - themselves from the surrounding people.
We agree. The dietary laws were more about cultural taboos than any specific problem with the food.
In OT times, they did not have the technological know how to preserve and process food that they had later. Eating shrimp or lobster, or crawfish directly from the Dead Sea (for example) might well have been ...er...deadly to the Hebrew children.
Later people learned to properly clean these things. And learned which foods would cause serious side effects if not cooked properly, like pork.
I always assumed God knew better than His people which things were good for them and which things were not.
Food when preserved, processed, and cooked properly, while not necessarily good for our general health in the long run, nevertheless, is not deadly. Otherwise, it isn't food. It's poison.
The same principle can be applied to homosexuality. It is not healthy to engage in homosexual acts. The introduction of protein found in semen into a ruptured (ruptured by the forcing of an erect penis into a orifice too tight to accept it)rectal wall (which, unlike other tissue membranes found throughout the human body, is paper thin, thus, easily ruptured) causes a particuarly nasty infection which leads to certain death. It has a medical term, but I dont know what it is. That, not to mention AIDS, makes homosexual acts not only still deadly, but still incurable.
In short, the OT laws given, by God, to the Hebrew children, were specifically designed to save lives. Laws that protected the people against ingested deadly toxins have been logically revised since we have since learned to prevent and cure those diverse maladies caused by the ingestion of toxins in seafood and shellfish and pork et al. We still have not cured the maladies caused by homosexual activity. Thus, it's now OK to eat shellfish, but not OK to practice homosexual sex.
As I have always seen it, the incident in Acts wherein God told Peter that he can now eat what was formerly considered unclean has both a symbolic meaning and a literal meaning. Yes, he can now eat "unclean" food, but he can also preach to the Gentiles.
But, I'm probably wrong about all that. Bubba and Eric are probably right. I just try to logically respond to the old "shellfish argument" so typically presented by homosexual apologists. Seems a reasonable response to me.
I'm still trying to figure out the thing about killing a disobedient son, but I assume it has to do with keeping the people of the time in line. Perhaps the consequences of disobedience were much more severe in those days? Like...If a child wanders off a little too far unsupervised, he might be eaten by a lion or a tiger or a bear? Oh my!
I don't know. Perhaps Eric or Bubba can address this conundrum better than I.
I'd have to agree with Bubba, there. It was unclean - an abomination! - to eat pork and shellfish, among other things. But from what I have read, it seems more having to do with rituals and with the fact that these are the things that the "pagans" in surrounding places took part in and they need to separate - make holy - themselves from the surrounding people.
We agree. The dietary laws were more about cultural taboos than any specific problem with the food.
On this point, stated twice, I largely agree. I believe the dietary laws created the cultural taboos rather than the other way around, and I believe the point was more about separation -- holiness; external, ritualistic purity -- than it was about health.
More later, when I have the time.
This discussion is a sign of the destructive effects of nineteenth century frontier biblical criticism. Proof text derived, literally driven, legalistically motivated, what of any worth - aside from historical - is gained by the question of whether ancient Hebrews ate in a cultic way or worshipped in a culinary way. Especially when when the points being made are by people who have no real study in ancient near eastern cultures?
To my constant point, what Eric details for us is not worth much as far as biblical criticism is concerned by quite worth something as far as someone who is reinterpreting biblical witness in an analogical way to bring food, nutrition, and the whole impact of contemporary food production under a spiritual discipline of reflection and practice.
If we are truly conscious that we are participating in and promulgating a malevolent process of feeding ourselves and others that results in disease and excessive cost for society and the world's population (the consequences of excesses of sugar, salt, fat impacting numbers of diabetes, obesity, cancers, regional starvation, etc.) you better bet that God will judge us as unclean.
Eric may not agree that he is analogizing biblical witness for his own spiritual ends, but it is my contention that that is the only truly meaningful thing he is doing. And I think it is a tremendous effort to be admired.
Otherwise, the remainder is only shooting in the historical dark of antiquity for conjectures about the etymology of Hebraic gastronomy. And what spiritual life is there in that? Nothing if the above discussion is any indication. Only decayed legalistic contention.
First, from Bubba:
"I believe the point was more about separation -- holiness; external, ritualistic purity -- than it was about health."
And that's the rub, isn't it? "I believe..." ?
God never commands anything arbitrarily; without purpose... direct, specific purpose. Proof of this can be seen outside the chronological events of the bible. For example, during the black plague, circa 1348-9, while Europeans were dropping like flies, the Jews were overwhelmingly unaffected. As a result the Jewish community was persecuted and accused of being the source of the plague. Because the Jews weren't getting sick they must be responsible-- witchcraft was the primary accusation.
Why didn't the Jews get sick? "Ritualistic" laws surrounding food and cleanliness. How much disease could be prevented today if EVERYONE practiced ritualistic cleansing?
In Isaiah 53 we read "with his stripes we are healed." One can say that the meaning in this is spiritual, but physical healing is something the Old Testament speaks of, as well as spiritual healing. And in verse 5 of Isaiah 53, spiritual healing is covered specifically in addition to physical healing.
Does it not occur to anyone here that God cared about the physical well-being of His people in addition to their spiritual health? Why did Jesus spend so much time healing the physical? [Matthew 4:23, 9:35; Luke 9:,6 11] Could He not have demonstrated who He was by calling downs legions of angels to stand behind Him and declare His glory? Would not the Pharisees have then believed? Your physical health and well-being are very important to God. The forgiveness of sin is more important, but it's not the only aspect of our lives God wants a part in.
If God said, 'don't eat swine' He had a good reason beyond the 'because I said so' or the 'because I want you to be different than these others whom I have NOT chosen.' It stands to reason, especially in light of what we know about microbiology, in terms of certain meats, even today that some food are unhealthy... unprofitable for good optimum health. Pigs do not sweat, their flesh retains the poisons they consume-- "you are what you eat" is certainly apropos in this regard. Oysters, as they are grown and harvested here in the U.S. are daily exposed to waste and toxins, AND in the eating of them raw, we consume their intestinal tracts... same with shrimp, lobster, crabs, etc. All these animals feed on refuse and dead things.
Could it be that certain animals are here, by design and purpose, to be garbage disposals? To collect waste? Why do many birds feed on carrion? Why don't they get sick eating such things?
I have said before-- and I'll repeat it ad nauseum if necessary --I do not advocate returning to the LAW for salvation or holiness. That can only be found in Christ Jesus. But health-wise, there is still some merit in following the old testament rules surrounding diet. The difference then and now, however, is I can have pepperoni on my pizza on occasion and it not be a detriment to my overall health, but were I to make pork a staple of my diet, I would be in trouble in no time. You can eat it if you wish, and God won't strike your name from the Book, but you eventually get sick and become LESS effective in your witness, and ministry. There will be nothing to distinguish you from the rest of the world who, like the woman with the issue of blood, suffer many things of doctors, are not cured, and in fact grow worse.
I spent two years on diabetes medication, and thousands of dollars in medical and emergency room visits. I thought to myself, there has to be a better way. So I looked. The simple truth is-- and yes, it IS quite simple --if you follow a biblically based diet, and assuming the damage to your body is not too far gone, you will heal with relative quickness. Your body needs certain requirements: oils, proteins, carbohydrates, minerals, vitamins, hormones, enzymes, etc., and if you don't give your body what it needs you will get sick. If you don't give your body what it needs it can't heal itself. Just about ANY disease can be healed by the body alone, if the body has what it needs to fight the infection, virus, disease, whatever. What was it Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine said?
"Let your food be your medicine, and your medicine be your food"
Wise words, those.
Well, come to find out, diabetes is not about sugar-- though sugar certainly exacerbates the condition --rather, it is about fat. Too much of the wrong kinds of fat clog the insulin receptors and the cells cease to take in sugar to metabolize. Sugar-- which is internally corrosive --builds up in the blood stream damaging and destroying the organs and eyesight. Drug treatments only mask the symptoms.... They. Only. Mask. The. Symptoms. Treat the cause by returning to a healthy diet using only healthy fats (extra virgin coconut oil is one of the best in the world... by the way, one tablespoon of extra-virgin coconut oil can instantly-- within 20 minutes actually --reduce blood-glucose levels by as much as 75 points, though never below normal) and in time the body will correct itself.
Here's my point in terms of physical health and how the body functions: The body never does anything wrong. It acts in response to what we do to it. Diabetes is not a disease per se, in as much as it is an adaptive response to what YOU put into your body. Your body only knows how to do one thing, and that is perpetuate its life to the best of its ability according to the tools you give it. Give it junk, it'll give you junk. Garbage in... Garbage out.
Say what you will about why God told the Israelites not to eat certain foods, but common sense tells anyone willing to hear, that some food are simply not healthy. God knew, and told His people what to eat not simply because He decided arbitrarily what they should and should not eat, but rather He told them what was best for them; what would give them the best overall health, though He did not state it specifically.
As to today's diet, just read the list of ingredients of the packaged foods on the grocery aisle. Hamburger helper! We're poisoning our bodies for convenience... for the sake of saving time in kitchen. Why are girls reaching puberty earlier and earlier? Could it have something to do with all the hormones being pumped into our meat supply?
I've read a lot of "I don't think" and "I don't believe" here, in terms of what the Bible is telling us about diet, but the Bible says what it says. And there is no verse that specifically states you can eat whatever you want without any qualifier whatsoever. Peter's vision in Acts 10 was NOT about food.
Second: Feodor
"If we are truly conscious that we are participating in and promulgating a malevolent process of feeding ourselves and others that results in disease and excessive cost for society and the world's population (the consequences of excesses of sugar, salt, fat impacting numbers of diabetes, obesity, cancers, regional starvation, etc.) you better bet that God will judge us as unclean."
I couldn't have said it better. But I have to object to your conjecture: 'decayed legalistic contention'. There is nothing legalistic in what I've offered here. You have all misconstrued my intent; you saw what you wanted to see.
I'm not interested in becoming a Jew or living under the Law. What I am interested in is offering my body as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God, which is my reasonable service. Part and parcel with that sacrifice, that 'reasonable service,' is treating the gifts He has given me with respect. My body is the greatest physical gift from God I have. He says certain foods are unclean. They were unclean then, and are still unclean, despite modern "cleanliness" and pasteurization processes (which destroys what makes foods good in the first place... almonds, for instance).
Did you know that whenever you eat fruit or vegetables raw, you are getting from that food the enzymes necessary to optimally digest that specific food? Cook those foods and the enzymes are destroyed forcing your body to work harder and expend its own stores of enzymes to digest the cooked foods you've eaten.
Seriously. In heaven, do any of you believe we'll eat meat? I'm not a vegetarian, but neither do I think vegetarians are necessarily unhealthy because they abstain from meat. They look thin, but could be simply because I'm so used to seeing "fuller bodied" people?
I know how hard this is. My top weight was 330. I am currently 250, and I still need to lose 70. I'd be happy with 51 more pounds, just so I could say I weighed under 200. This is not a religion for me. It is not Legalism. It is finally, after many years of excess, recognizing what my body was designed to do... and what it was NOT designed to do. If nothing else, by reaching my goal of 180lbs and maintaining a diet free of unclean foods and rich in healthy nutrients I will reduce my medical costs.
Cancer can be cured without radiation or Chemo. Diabetes can be cured. Fibromyalgia ca be cured. Crohn's disease? Cured.
In closing. My girlfriend works at the local WalMart. One of her co-workers has been bleeding vaginally without ceasing for the last 3 months... just like the woman with the issue of blood. She has spent thousands of dollars with doctor after doctor, who have given her prescription after prescription, and finally have recommended a full hysterectomy... that is until my girlfriend, who know a lot more about natural healing than I do... told her to buy progesterone creme and apply it to her wrists twice a day. Imagine that! A bottle of creme that cost under $20 in only four days stopped her from bleeding!
The greatest crime being perpetuated on the people in this country specifically, is Western Medicine. That poor woman was on the verge, at only 31 years of age, of have these witch doctors rip out her reproductive system.
That's criminal. There is a better, and God has already told us what is best for us.
I'm not going to take the time to edit this for typos, so I hope you'll just take them in stride.
By "decayed legalistic contention," I did not have in mind the suggestion that you are reimposing or restoring the old law in a Christian framework. Your caveat that you do not want to be interpreted as imposing Christian law is clear.
I was referring, rather, to the kind of argument that thinks it can transfer scriptural prescriptions from antiquity to today without needing to situate the prescription in cultural context that may no longer make any kind of sense. Legalism wants to find a purpose for today to every verse, for example Paul's prescription to the church in Corinth that "women should remain silent in church." For many people who treat the Bible with idolatry, they must find a reason for the same rule today.
One of my suggestions to you regarding the preamble in your post is that you consider the limitations of language when it comes to talking about things that do not have material or ideational existence. Namely, it is ultimately paradoxical to describe God with any attributes because language is a rude approximation to God's "being."
The problem of whether God can create a rock too large for God to move is a problem that exists only in human logic because of the createdness of human language. Human language is, in the end, only metaphor. "Chair" is not a chair. But "chair" is an approximate idea of chairness.
"Omnipotent," though, is neither actual omnipotence nor an approximate idea of omnipotence. How can we, really, have anything like an approximate idea of omnipotence or holiness or the good or the whole or God? The Wisdom literature of the OT is poetic, metaphorical, analogical, and many other imaginative and intuitive approaches to God because Israel was in a position to finally create literature to deal with the big, abstract questions of who God is.
One of my complaints with the cheap protestant use of the OT is that we generally focus ourselves backwards in the development of the Hebrew genius in describing their relationship with God. We focus on decayed legalism because we are still fighting decayed nineteenth-century biblical theology wars.
I'm reminded of people who argue that language is inadequate to discuss objective reality. They almost always make an implicit exception for their own words.
They don't really mean, language is inadequate to discuss objective reality.
What they mean is, language is inadequate to discuss objective reality except for statements like, "language is inadequate to discuss objective reality."
Theological language is more limited than all others because we are trying to talk about the ineffable. (You may want to look that word up, Bubbs.) In fact, contemporary theology often accepts that language about God is all metaphorical where it concerns God but more helpful where it concerns us. Thus, the rhetorical problem of God and the big rock is not really a problem worth talking about or helpful in logic. It is nonlogical.
But here is Bubbs again entering into a conversation sideways because he wants to gum up the works but can't join honestly. He misdirects while talking in misdirections.
Feodor seems to be more interested in making statements about language in general than in examining whether these statements undermine their own credibility, and a substantive discussion of the issues continues to have a lower priority than what is apparently Feodor's favorite hobby: being an insufferable ass.
WHOA!!! Eric, dude! Kudos on your progress thus far. With the dietary points you're making, I've no doubt you'll reach your goal.
I totally agree with your take on diet and disease, as you may recall my saying so in the past. I currently am wallowing in excess girth (top weight only 230, but quite disgusting enough for me). I'm looking to just get around 190, but haven't yet mustered the motivation to make the changes I know I need to make. I've been quite the lazy slug these days (I was born that way, damnit, and I demand state sanctioning). I'm just trying to keep things from getting out of hand during the HolyDay season. Then it's back to the program.
I also agree that God tells us much that works on at least double levels. Just check out any of Christ's parables. Though each is a spiritual message, He uses "real world" examples in His analogies. From planting seeds, to kneading dough, to building a house on a firm foundation, to fixing your Buick with genuine GM parts (?), no parable was based on something that wouldn't actually work in the real world. I believe that we see a definite improvement in the world wherever God's Will is put into practice. How much fewer problems would there be if more people, if not everyone, restricted their sexual activity until marriage? Even such things regarding anger have benefits in the here and now beyond the connection to things like murder and such. When one gets angry, one is obviously more emotional. When emotion rises, intelligence falls. (Thus, I suspect Feodor is often angry when he posts a comment.) Why wouldn't the same concept apply to food in the OT? I believe it does as well in just the manner you suggest. I think if everyone understood how food affects us, more would agree.