ESV: "who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."
βρῶμα, “food,” is used elsewhere with various shades of meaning. Paul uses it in his discussions of food being a stumbling block to “weaker” Christians (Rom 14:15, 20; 1 Cor 8:8, 13). Paul's contrasting of food with milk in his discussion of spiritual immaturity (1 Cor 3:2) suggests that βρῶμα is solid food. Paul interchanges it with κρέας, “meat,” in similar discussions (Rom 14:15, 20, 21; 1 Cor 8:13: “If food [βρῶμα] is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat [κρέα]).
William Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Volume 46 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 12386-12390). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Also from the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology under the entry for βρῶμα
1. Lit. use. In the NT, as in the OT, food is a gift from God. We should ask for it daily (cf. Matt. 6:11) and receive it thankfully (cf. 1 Tim. 4:4). Ascetic and ritual tendencies, which classed certain foods as taboo, are rejected by the NT as false teaching (Col 2:16 - 17; 1 Tim 4:3 - 7; Heb. 13:9). No food is unclean as such (Mk 7:18 - 19; cf. Acts 10:14 - 15), and no food possesses any special significance for our relationship to God (1 Cor. 8:8; cf. 6:13). The kingdom of God is realized not in eating or drinking but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17).
But Christians can be commanded to avoid a particular food (e.g., meat offered to idols) if a fellow Christian by eating will be plunged into a conflict of conscience (Rom. 14:15, 20; 1 Cor. 8:13). Out of love for that tempted believer for whom Christ died, the "strong" Christian must be willing to forego a particular food.
This is all in the framework of anointed Christians?
ReplyDeleteYou might have to explain since I am not sure what you mean, but these words to Timothy are spoken about ones who deviate from the faith.
ReplyDeletePhilippians 1:21–23.
ReplyDeleteI am talking about motivations in context.
In my view, Philippians and 1 Timothy are 2 different contexts although both addressed to holy ones--but the words to Timothy pertain to a future time anyway. Finally, I don't think appealing to the heavenly hope fully explains the permission that Christians have to eat almost anything.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/nutritional-psychiatry-your-brain-on-food-201511168626
ReplyDeleteAnd frankly, I would expect no less & I have seen the affects that the gut and what we put in it can have on the mind.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-03/researchers-discover-cancer-causes-memory-loss/6908076
Defilement comes through actions and motivations but they are not independent of diet.
http://theconversation.com/why-nutritional-psychiatry-is-the-future-of-mental-health-treatment-92545
ReplyDeleteDuncan,
ReplyDeleteMaybe they're not independent, but I just find no justification in the GNT (CGS) for limiting dietary intake like we have in the Law outside of blood limitations, etc. I also don't consume cat or dog. :)
Http://biblehub.com/james/4-12.htm
ReplyDeleteHey My Brother.
ReplyDeleteI have a question to ask, I hope you find it here. I have been in a discussion with a fella that is not a Trinitarian but rather believes Jesus is God. His word became flesh. It's been interesting. Some strange ideas. But we were discussing Wisdom in Prov 8. In Prov 8 it appears every bible I have come across describes wisdom as Female. Calling it a she. So, he therefore says it is not about Christ because wisdom is a she. Why dos the NWT use "It" I know that it is common for an attribute like wisdom to be used in the feminine. I have discussed how is it that wisdom had to be created? Wouldn't God already be wise, and even it it was only just a poem why would it raise such questions. How is it that Wisdom became fond of men. To me Prov 8:22 is speaking of Jesus. But my question is Why Feminine. Is it only because in Hebrew it is Feminine, but then why would the son be described in the feminine and why would the NWT use It if it is not the proper rendering. Thanks in advance. I really enjoy your blog.
Hello my brother,
ReplyDeleteOthers might have something to add, but the short answer is that "wisdom" in Hebrew and Greek is grammatically feminine. Christ is called the "power of God" and the "wisdom of God" in 1 Cor. 1:24: both "power" and "wisdom" are feminine terms in Greek.
Compare the Hebrew term "Qoheleth" applied to the writer of Ecclesiastes (the Son of David). It too is grammatically feminine. But when we discuss wisdom in English, since wisdom is an attribute, we normally use "it" to describe the attribute.
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/05/biblical-languages-and-grammatical.html
Hey Edgar.
ReplyDeleteThank you so so much for the quick response. Its much appreciated and makes so much sense. And just for that i will send a link of myself and other brothers playing on a tour boat that went around Toronto Harbor last summer at the International Convention. I may have sent you the link before, if so I apologize. Myself and some brothers I play music with had this great privilege. After a long vetting process and auditions at Bethel, we got chosen to play on the boat. It was amazing. It showed me what such an amazing brotherhood we truly have. we met brothers and sisters from the U.S. Scotland, France, Ireland, Britain etc. We played the Wednesday, Thursday and Friday before the convention and the Monday after. The brothers ans sisters from the southern states were so much fun. They were up dancing and singing all around us. Was the best gig ever. here are the links. On Tuesday and Wednesday we had a brother from my Cong sing with us. On Thursday we had Simon , which we usually play with. Simon was in the Gala at the Sony Center in downtown Toronto on the other days so couldn't sing with us. But Thursday there was no show at the Sony center so him and Demo Cates on sax joined us on the boat. Demo is amazing on Sax. Has been nominated for Juno awards which is like the Grammy's in the states. Enjoy Thinkin out loud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--ZohQ2E5Tc
Aint no sunshine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nui1WqDlRo
Lean on me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8C0MRuGWvQ
Summer time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB5kWMg7Nr4&t=130s
Stand by Me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Jz28hfJm0
A few songs with Alex Munro from the Tuesday
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZWq1dvcLxk my girl Alex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5UayRl2NVY Stand by me Alex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UklvVHaFDc&t=13s joy of conventions Alex had some Sisters crying. That was our goal..ha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy1VD6wjEyQ Summertime Alex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j_iLykwa8U Ain’t no Sunshine Alex
Oh. I am the guitar Player..ha
A few examples from modern Hebrew but the principles are basically the same for ancient Hebrew.
ReplyDeletehttps://blogs.transparent.com/hebrew/hebrew-nouns-gender-how-to-distinguish-feminine-from-masculine/
Edgar, I posted an incorrect link above. It should have been https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol13/james_evans.pdf
ReplyDeleteguitarsatele: I will look at your videos soon. Thanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteDuncan: the main point I took from the article was that James uses "law" ambiguously (possibly), so the writer suggest five possible meanings and seems to decide on a mixture of law meaning some of the Mosaic law mixed with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is my perception of the article.
On the other hand, Paul's letter to the Romans emphatically argues that works of the law do not result in anyone's justification before God. Historically, some have wanted to pit Paul against James, but I find that move unnecessary and so do many GNT scholars.
We do have evidence of disputes (Acts 15:2). One does not have to be redeemed by Torah (the teachings) - Isaiah 48:17.
ReplyDeleteThe dispute in Acts 15 was resolved and letters were sent abroad (Acts 15 & 16). We know the famous words in Acts 15:20, 28-9. My claim is that we're not redeemed by Torah since Christ is Torah's telos (Rom 10:4). We're not redeemed/justified by what we eat or drink per se.
ReplyDeleteGood point on that Edgar, really the redemption comes from obedience, to obey is better than many sacrifices. Christ does end the the law, still as you know believing in the Lord only is not enough either. So the writings of Mark say Jesus made all food clean by his statement as to what defiles a man. And Acts 10 helps to see this as well. Therefore we are not under law and we can eat just about anything except blood.
ReplyDeleteThanks
Philip, I wholeheartedly agree. Romans 6 equally indicates that not being under law does not mean being enslaved to sin.
ReplyDelete"What follows? Are we to commit a sin because we are not under law but under undeserved kindness? Certainly not!" (Romans 6:15 NWT)
Peter also speaks about not using one's freedom as a blind for badness. We have great latitude in many areas--diet and consumption of beverages included--but Christian freedom is not absolute, but relative to God's standards.
All the best, my brother.
The article "THE WAY OF HAPPINESS - Physical Health and Resilience" is useful.
ReplyDeleteContextualizing Mark 7 , v2 - "and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed." - is this non kosher foods? Are we to assume this is talking about meat, non kosher meat or even non kosher raw meat?
ReplyDeletePaul preached throughout ALL CREATION.
So when someone says ALL, do they actually mean ALL?
Gluttonous eaters of flesh are eating significant amounts of blood.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-safety-of-heme-vs-non-heme-iron/
https://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/diet-cancer/nutrition/iron-the-double-edged-sword
Dairy as liquid meat with blood:-
uaf.edu.pk/downloads/2nd_path/Blood_in_milk.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4774734/
Note, "exotic cows" are the vast majority of commercial dairy cows used in the world today.
The ACTS example demonstrates a dispute but was easily resolved within the time frame of the writing of the book itself based on TORAH:-
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199793563.001.0001/acprof-9780199793563
Blood iron:-
ReplyDeletehttps://allaboutblood.com/2014/01/18/intestinal-iron-absorption/
https://nutritionfacts.org/2017/06/15/plant-versus-animal-iron/
Duncan,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to stick with the questions revolving around God since that's the main purpose of this forum. I have allowed links that don't immediately relate to the question at hand, but I respectfully ask that any future submissions to this thread deal with theology, exegesis, Bible.
I also want to say in the spirit of mildness that eating (IMO) is largely a personal affair. We've covered the Scriptures on the subject, so I won't repeat myself.
Regarding Mark 7:2, I doubt that the disciples of Jesus were eating non-kosher meats. No devout Jew would have done such a thing. But when Mark reports that Jesus ritually cleansed "all foods," at the very least we can infer that all foods once forbidden under the Law (or all kinds of foods) were now deemed clean. Under what reading of Mark 7:19; 1 Tim. 4:1-5 would someone claim that pork remained unclean (non-kosher) even though Jesus cleaned all foods?
As for the word "all," we know what the Greek lexica state. We pretty much know how one determines when "all" is relative and when it's absolute.
When someone says "all," he/she presumably means "all." But "all" can be used relatively or absolutely. "All people in the Kingdom Hall" (probably absolute) versus "All things are possible with God" (probably relative).
Who determines what's gluttonous? What's gluttony for one person might not be gluttony for another. Like drinking too much. Is drinking 3 beers too much? What about a 6 pack? That is, assuming there's nothing wrong with drinking in moderation.
Do I think Jehovah is going to judge me or any other Witness for consuming blood while eating meat regarded as safe by the government? What does the Bible say about such matters? Do we have the freedom to eat meat or not? Remember Paul's words about consuming "everything" in the "shambles" (KJV) without asking questions? Other verses speak about one brother/sister eating vegetables while another decided to eat meat--neither is wrong in God's eyes.
The Acts dispute was resolved after consideration of Torah and how Jehovah was working among the nations. It was not just based on Torah, but other factors came into play. And the council's decree was that no further burden would be placed on the ecclesia, except things viewed as "necessary."
In response to your reference to beer:-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.vox.com/2018/4/24/17242720/alcohol-health-risks-facts
Mark 7:19 still needs to be framed in context - The words usually placed in brackets, are the enforced by another gospel and are they the words of Jesus?
Bear in mind that as far as I understand at the moment that Mark was the least distributed gospel in the early church. Do you know otherwise?
Here is what Dr. Carl Conrad (former classics professor) writes in his online Mark commentary about Mark 7:19:
ReplyDeleteWhile the Greek is awkward here (the best MSS have the masculine nominative singular participle καθαρίζων here, which can only be construed with Jesus as the implicit subject of λέγει at the beginning of verse 18. At one sweep here Jesus declares null and void the kosher dietary laws restricting foods that may be eaten and eating practices generally, on grounds that these restrictions have nothing to do with God's will and that they are ordinances ordained by human beings and imposed by them upon other human beings. Rather, insists Jesus, it is evil behavior motivated by sinful attitudes that profanes a person. It should be noted that in this instance in Mark Jesus is more radical than he is in Matthew, whose parallel story (chapter 15) does not include this phrase, more radical too than he is in Luke. Luke does not have this story or these sayings of Jesus, and it is only in Acts 10 that it is revealed to Peter in a dream that foods traditionally deemed "profane" or "unclean" (κοινά) should not be so deemed.
[END QUOTE]
I'm not endorsing all that Carl asserts, but the main reason I cite him is for help with understanding the syntax/potential meaning of 7:19.
One also needs to contextualize Acts 10.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I'm not advocating drinking 1/2 beers a day or any for that matter, but my point is that what's gluttonous or immoderate drinking may be partly subjective. Both things could be relative to the eater or drinker. Any study undertaken by humans will also suffer from inherent limitations as history shows. As I've made clear previously, I'm not anti-science; however, nor do I read scientific studies uncritically.
ReplyDeleteThe words in brackets (or parentheses) in 7:19 might not be the words of Jesus. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean they're not inspired by God. Cf. John 2:19-22.
I also wonder just when we started requiring that words in one Gospel be reinforced or occur in another Gospel before we accept them as Christ's teaching. That would drastically alter the GNT, especially where John's concerned.
I'm not sure if Mark's Gospel was the least distributed Gospel, but how is such a determination made? And how does being the least distributed affect what we know about early Christian dietary practices?
I agree that Acts 10 has to be contextualized. I have not relied heavily on that account to make my case, but I think it does provide evidence that Jesus had cleansed all foods, making what was once non-kosher now kosher. Yet if a brother or sister do not want to eat meat--that is the freedom given by Christ and his Father.
For one explanation of Mark's textual history, see https://larryhurtado.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/p45-and-mark.pdf
ReplyDeletehttps://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018/04/07/which-new-paradigm/
ReplyDeleteIn the Hurtado link I posted, he writes that Mark was widely circulated in the early period. With the link you submitted, Hurtado says Mark was not cited or copied as often, but those actions differ from circulation.
ReplyDeleteIsn't acts 10:28 the actual context along with the fact that the dream occured during the preparation of food. Food as an analogy.
ReplyDeleteThe kind of studies I have quoted are nothing new, much of which have a hundred year pedigree of research that is generally ignored. As for being critical on dietary studied I leave that to the experts at peer review. Most studies promoted in the general media are publicised prior to peer review and the debunking gets little or no circulation, thats why so many people get confused and give up on diet all together assuming their is so much contradiction in the science when their really isn't.
We know this because large scale double blinded placebo & newer methods very difficult to misenterpret keep proving the points, over and over.
It took 6000 studies demonstrating that smoking kills before anyone reacted - I expect it's going to take much more with something so imotive.
"It appears that P45 and Codex W form a small group of their own and attest a particular kind of text of Mark that circulated in Egypt (and perhaps elsewhere)."
ReplyDeleteEvidence does not start with a perhaps.
I don't see much to convince in that paper.
I agree that food is used as an analogy in Acts 10. Yet a double-entendre is at work here too: God declares gentiles and non-kosher food clean. Peter eats with people of the nation's until men from James arrive.
ReplyDeleteThere is plenty of contradiction in scientific studies--most of them--and great room for doubt. But this is a theological blog anyway.
Eating meat is not the same as smoking. Not is drinking in moderation. The only thing I want to say about Mark is I see no evidence it was the least distributed.
Here is an extended quote taken from Craig Keener's Acts commentary pertaining to Acts 10:15:
ReplyDeleteThe primary point, in any case, is not the cleansing of foods but the cleansing of people who eat them (Acts 10:28).[442] Not calling foods impure in context refers to not calling Gentiles impure,[443] but there is a reason that the image for Gentiles involves cuisine.[444] The image of pure foods represents the Gentiles in two ways. First, because ancient moralists used the language of external “purity” also for the soul and moral behavior,[445] the analogy between “pure” foods and pure people was a natural one.[446] But second, table fellowship between Jew and Gentile was a major factor in emphasizing Gentiles’ impure status. Food purity is related to the basis for table fellowship with Gentiles (cf. esp. 15:20, 29) and is an important issue in Peter’s interaction with Cornelius, at least from the perspective of its critics within the Jerusalem church (11:3). Both in Rom 14:2–23 (in the entire context of Romans) and in Mark 7:19 (if closely related to its following context), the debate over pure foods also addresses the welcoming of Gentiles into the Jesus movement. Part of the original purpose of the kashrut was separation (Lev 11:44); various nations had their own respective food customs (see comment above on Acts 10:12). Acts 10 does not forbid the usefulness of kashrut for Jews, but it forbids making food rules (except the minor ones in Acts 15:20, 29) a basis for eating together.
I'll post one more quote to make the point that Acts 10:15 is probably operating on two levels: God cleanses food and Gentiles. This quote is taken from the Acts commentary by F.F. Bruce:
ReplyDeleteThe abolition of barriers was pressed home in the vision with special reference to Jewish food restrictions, but Peter soon learned that its range was much wider.¹⁹ Perhaps, as he thought about the vision, he remembered hearing similar words on an earlier occasion, though he had not then grasped their import. No doubt he was present when his Master, in a debate with Pharisees and scribes, insisted that it is not what goes into someone’s stomach that conveys defilement, but what comes out of one’s heart (Mark 7:14–19a). This was in effect an abrogation of ceremonial food laws and much else of the same character, but it was not until later, as a result of his experience on the roof at Joppa, that Peter appreciated this. It may well be to Peter that we owe the comment appended by the evangelist to Jesus’ pronouncement on this subject: “Thus he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19b). The divine cleansing of food in the vision is a parable of the divine cleansing of human beings in the incident to which the vision leads up. It did not take Peter long to understand this: “God has taught me,” he says later in the present narrative, “to call no human being profane or unclean” (v. 30). Within the framework of the vision it is food that God has cleansed by dominical pro- nouncement, but in the wider narrative it is men and women, even Gentiles, whose hearts he has cleansed by faith (cf. 15:9). Yet the cleansing of food is not wholly parabolic: there is a connection between the abrogation of the levitical food restrictions and the removal of the barrier between believing Jews and Gentiles, for it was in large measure the Gentiles’ eating of food which was “unclean” (not kosher) by Jewish law that made association with them a source of “defilement” for Jews (cf. v. 28).
As for the FF bruce commentary - " It may well be to Peter that we owe the comment appended by the evangelist to Jesus’ pronouncement on this subject: “Thus he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19b)."
ReplyDeleteSo did Jesus say these words? εκπορευεται
If by "these words," you mean the fact that he declared all foods clean, then I would say the words might very well be editorial or parenthetical. But we see this kind of thing routinely throughout John's Gospel like the example I gave previously in John 2:19-22. The words became part of the inspired canon.
ReplyDelete