Posted on 03/17/2009 6:57:11 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Did you know that Joel Osteen is kicking it old school now? And by old school, I mean Old Testament. Straight outta Hebron!
The new-agey motivational speaker preacher at Lakewood Church took a bizarrely old-fashioned approach recently when he advised his congregation against eating both pork and seafood, saying that "...for our health's sake, we have to be willing to make some changes."
He further explained his newfound nutritional path to salvation with deeply theological phrases like "back in the Bible days" and "this is kinda gross" before launching into a detailed diatribe about the inherent filth and evil associated with porcine digestive tracts.
He appealed to his followers, "I know some of you love pork chops. You love ham and cheese sandwiches. I grew up on all that. I love...bacon." (The marked pause makes me think Joel doesn't really love bacon.) But that they should follow the example set by his family -- who now eats turkey bacon -- and give up pork "to honor God."
He goes on to declare that his congregation should also avoid shellfish: "Shrimp, crabs, clams, oysters, lobsters..." because they eat the "excreetment [sic]" of other animals.
One can only assume that someone inadvertently left a Bible in the men's room at Lakewood, opened to Leviticus, and Joel -- since he hadn't brought his copy of The Six Figure Speaker with him that day -- read it to pass the time.
And having little to no theological education -- by his own admission -- nor context within which to understand the Old Testament's strictly-defined dietary laws, Joel interpreted the Bible's weird front pages that no one ever reads to mean that pork and seafood should be off-limits to Christians. Because, clearly, other Biblical scholars have been mistaken about this for years.
Good work, Joel! I look forward to your next sermon, wherein you discuss the segregation of women into red tents during their scary menstrual cycle each month. In the meantime, I'll be eating a SCCOLBLT. That's a shrimp-crab-clam-oyster-lobster-bacon-lettuce-tomato sandwich, Philistine.
As the token Jew here who happens to agree with gentile Christians that Yeshua was/is the Messiah, I would concur that the balance of authorities is that Jews should continue to follow the Law, as that is special contract with the people.
I do it cheifly to avoid conflict with my family, who are extremely observant, and it keeps the peace.
One can imagine the same arguments coming from the judaizers of Paul’s day matching with these neo-judaizing arguments of today. Those who cling to the weak articles of the former law, and seek to enjoin others to the same, are clearly living in the old Jerusalem under the decayed commandments (Gal. 4:24,25; Heb 8:13). The covenant from Sinai is a covenant of bondage. The law was not a bringer of justification but a pointer to Christ, a schoolmaster to drive us to the Savior. It was temporary and God had accomplished His task by it once Christ appeared bringing salvation to His people.
Food laws in particular were intended by God to separate one physical nation, ancient Israel, from all others. That was its function under the old covenant, pure and simple. It was not about health or any other such notion. Those who wish to remain under the old covenant are the ones keeping these laws today.
But under the new covenant where redemption is brought to all the nations of the earth, there is no need for such food laws, etc., in fact such food laws are anathema to the true commonwealth that Christ is building by His sacrifice on the cross. We are all children of Abraham by virtue of our faith in Christ regardless of or ethnic background to personal practices in indifferent areas like food. Anyone pushing food laws today are trying to erect the wall that was torn down by Christ 2000 years ago. They need to be opposed as dividers of the body. There is neither Jews nor greek (Ga. 3:28,29) among God’s covenant people; a statement these folks don’t seem to like.
So, after two millennium, another generation who read the apostles through the lenses of rabbinism are foisting their crippling theology on the Church, even upon unsuspecting gentiles, some of whom are even going so far as to be circumcised to prove their dedication (1 Cor. 7:18; Phil. 4:1,2). What they mock as “supercessionism” is, contra their faulty reading, new covenant reality. Not replacement, expansion!
“For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.” (Heb. 7:18,19)
Not to jump in the middle, but TTR’s statement (of following certain aspects of the Law by Jewish Christians) is hardly taking text in isolation, and, in fact, continued observance of the Law by Jewish Christians(not Gentile Christians) was the accepted practice by most Jewish converts of the time, and today.
The entire “Judaizer” issue centered around the flip side of this; well-meaning Jewish Christians who were circumsizing gentiles and having them follow the Law. Such was incorrect, as gentiles were not under the Law of Moses, but rather under the Laws of Noah.
In that passage, Gentiles are instructed to continue the Law of Noah and Jews instructed to continue to follow the Laws of Moses -— for purposes of “not being a stumbling block” and general good practice.
Nothing at all to do with Salvation; everything with getting along in your community.
For those in the younger audience, there were NO plastic bottles then at least in my grocery store.
Yes, it is like my wife, who is ex-catholic, when she visits the family in Chicago and goes to the Catholic Church with them, still recites stuff, uses the kneepad thingee and takes the wafer and wine. None of that is “against” Christ to do those things, but she sees them as mere window dressing and no longer believes in tha eucharist stuff, but very MUCH believes in communion.
She does NOT pray to Mary though. For Christians, CHRIST is the Intercessor, not Mary.
BTW, regarding the “special contract”, in Christianity I do not believe there is a “special contrct” between God and some Christians and not others. I think what we are primarily talking about regarding Jews who are now Christian, is “religious culture” differences. After all, there is “neither Jew nor Greek...”.
In rereading your post I realized that when you said “...Jews should continue...” I incorrectly inferred “Christian Jews”.
I cuncur with your post.
Does he also advocate stoning adulterers to death?
That is a highly debatable statement. What kind of historical/statistical evidence would you offer in support?
The entire “Judaizer” issue centered around the flip side of this; well-meaning Jewish Christians who were circumsizing gentiles and having them follow the Law. Such was incorrect, as gentiles were not under the Law of Moses, but rather under the Laws of Noah.
But yet there is segment within the so-called messianic movement that recommends (if not provokes) non-Jewish believers to keep the law of Moses, esp. wrt Sabbath practices, feast/holy days, food, etc.
In fact, some estimates suggest that there are more non-Jews in the so-called messianic movement than authentic ethnic Jewish converts to faith in Messiah
In that passage, Gentiles are instructed to continue the Law of Noah and Jews instructed to continue to follow the Laws of Moses -— for purposes of “not being a stumbling block” and general good practice.
Are you referring to Acts 21? There is nothing said to Jewish believers about the necessity of keeping the law of Moses. The charge against Paul was that he was telling Jews they must STOP keeping the law. He never told them that. That was a lie. At the same time, he never told them they MUST continue to the keep the law of Moses. That would also be a lie to say that he taught that view.
In seems from the context that Paul was doing what he was doing to make his missionary efforts among his Jewish brethren more effective, rather than as some sort of obligatory, ongoing old covenant ritual (1 Cor. 9:19-23). Paul knew the status of the old covenant wrt the new. He understood its temporary nature, a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. Once Christ is obtained, graduation happens and the schoolmaster serves no further function.
That is why these temporary aspects of the Mosaic law are spoken of as being annulled and decayed, passing away (Heb. 7:18; 8:13).
Nothing at all to do with Salvation; everything with getting along in your community.
That sounds OK. But works-righteousness is a subtle evil. It is very easy to use indifferent things as evidence of righteousness before God.
And when it is made to be a club to show “gentile Christians” how inferior their behavior is because they do not practice certain things, then there is a problem. Or worse yet, when it is used as a club against Jewish believers who recognize their freedom and liberty in Christ under the terms of the new covenant and no longer walk in their former ways. They are made to feel guilty because they do not see the light and covert back to old covenant practices.
If we agree that this is a matter of being effective witnesses for Christ in whatever setting we are placed rather than as an expression of works that are pleasing to God, then I think we are on the same page.
” rather than as an expression of works that are pleasing to God”
Certainly not my contention.
Well put.
Do you believe that eating certain types of food can "polute" (make unclean according to the law of Moses) a person?
I don’t believe in “secret” versions of the Bible which conveniently support special agendas. Even without the comment from St. Mark, it’s still clear that the Lord meant that evil, sin, uncleanness is in our hearts, not in our stomachs.
When Satan originally sinned I believe he (and his demons) became impure and unclean [Matthew 10:1] before God. As previously indicated, elsewhere in this thread, the word for unclean in the Greek is "AKATHARTOS" and it means....not purified.
So.....even before the creation and the establishment of mankind at Eden there were unclean spirits in existence and there were also in existence at that time....clean spirits [Job 38:4-7].
When God, therefore created flesh and blood animals, He created them in two categories which represented the two categories of the spirit kingdom.....clean and unclean. Even if mankind would have never begun to eat meat....there would still be "clean and unclean" animals. These two types would represent the clean and unclean spiritual reality already in existence at the time.
God really does have a purpose for everything He does. He is totally aware of His creation.....where our understanding is almost beyond comprehension. Think about [Matthew 10:30] and you'll see where I'm going with this.
It was not God's intent to give Israel a sacrificial system. Jeremiah explains it this way: [Jeremiah 7:22-23] For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. Nevertheless, God had already built into His creation a system that would allow sacrifices. By now, everyone understands that "Unclean" animals were never acceptable to God as a sacrifice. The "Clean" animals on the other hand represented something holy, righteous and innocent. Our Savior, many times is referred to in that context: [Revelation 13:8] And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
This text is referring to the foundation of human society. This means that His sacrifice also covers the sins of Adam and Eve.....and everyone since. When they sinned in the garden lambs were already considered "Clean" animals. When Abel brought the firstling of his flock [Genesis 4:4] to God as a sacrifice I'm sure it was a little lamb. Abel knew his sacrifice had to be a "Clean" animal. This type of a sacrifice pointed to the eventual need for a savior but the type of sacrifice offered by Abel was more of a voluntary thing than part of an organized sacrificial system.
We are told in [Galatians 3:19] why this system was put in place: Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. This entire system, commonly called "The Law of Moses"....was given to Israel in the second year after the Exodus from Egypt and represented a new set of laws......that were added. The original concept of a "Clean" animal sacrifice, however had been set in place at Eden.
Enter Noah: [Genesis 7:2] Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. This is about a thousand years before the Exodus and this classification dealt with three types of animals; four-footed, fowl and fish. Two attributes that are common with clean four-footed animals are "They parteth the hoof and cheweth the cud" [Leviticus 11:3]. We'll concentrate on this classification for now.
Most animals will never again be concerned with something they have eaten......except ones that "Cheweth the cud". The ones that chew the cud never totally absorb something at first but after they have processed their food thoroughly a number of times they then can fully absorb this food into their bodies free of many harmful things which have been eliminated by chewing their cud.
These same animals which have cloven hoofs leave a different track and are easily differentiated. Unclean animals just swallow their food (sometimes whole) but clean animals bring it back up again and very carefully chew it until it is completely ground down.....and easily absorbed and digested into their system.
Thus....when God designed unclean animals He did not have human consumption in mind for them. Clean and unclean only apply to animals....not to plant life. There are poisonous plants....but no unclean plants.
The question many folks have is "Why did God go to the trouble of showing Israel all these things about "Unclean" meat?" [Leviticus 11:44] For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves, with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
In other words....make oneself clean and show oneself to be holy. The people of Israel were to be sanctified by abstaining from unclean meat much as we are told in [I Corinthians 6:11] and [Hebrews 13:12]. God wanted Israel to be set aside for a holy purpose as He also wants His Church to be set aside as well. We....in His Church are indeed set apart on a far higher level than was ancient Israel but this does not give us any reason to ignore His dietary instructions given to Israel to set them apart also. Eating unclean meat today still pictures the same thing as receiving nourishment from unclean "Spirits" just as it did in the Old Testament.
Again.....God had created clean and unclean animal before He created Adam. Even if Adam had not sinned there would still be these two classifications. This points directly to Satan and his demons and has nothing to do with the sins of human beings.
[I Timothy 4:1-3] Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. What meats do you think this is referring to? I still know certain folks who will not eat certain meats....on a Friday. It is this same group that also forbids some of their participants to marry. This scripture does not give mankind Carte Blanche to eat any meat of his choosing. It says that God created some meat for human consumption and it should be received with thanksgiving.
[Hebrews 7:11-13] If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. This means that nearly everything that the Levitical Priesthood dealt with.....has been eliminated under the new Covenant. But......by reading through Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 you will find that the injunction against eating unclean animals was not the responsibility of the Priesthood.....but rather a pronouncement from God Himself. The law that was changed was not the law regarding the consumption of "Unclean" animals. It was the law whereby clean animals were sacrificed as an expiation for sin by the Priesthood.
“There are poisonous plants....but no unclean plants.”
Well, to be a stickler, there are TWO unclean plants.
But they are only of technical concern, as they are heavily guarded, and location, while we know the general area, is unknown.
Can you guess them?
Do you have an approximate location you could share with us.....anyway?
I would guess one as being....the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which of course isn't a literal plant, but I can't think of the other. What are they?
You are both correct; and I respectfully disagree that the “trees” are not “literal planta.” Certainly not NORMAL plants, but plants nonethelesss.
The plants:
Gensis 2.9: Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden . . . In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The location, somewhere around Syria/Iraq, et al:
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin [e] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. [f] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
Forbidding of the first tree:
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
Forbidding the second tree:
22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
The guard:
23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side [e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
“but then that doesn’t seem reasonable since they are never called “Unclean””
Ah, but “unclean” is the English translation. “Forbidden” is the better definition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.