“Real supernatural power is always found in the last place we want to look, the place of humble submission to God and His Law.”

Without fail, the simple passing of time exposes all the man-made isms for what they are: sophisticated attempts to obtain the blessings of God while avoiding obedience to the Law of God.

The more complicated something is, the more likely it is to be contrived. Even Christian bookstores are filled with complicated “how to” solutions. It’s a symptom of the wonderful pragmatism of our culture perversely allowed to step beyond its God-given bounds. [1]

Only a depraved heart prefers sophistry over simplicity. The problem with “simple” is its admission that we don’t have all the answers, its main ingredient being something we have no taste for: humility.

Tim Challies unearthed a quote from Thomas Chalmers that highlights how ordinary is the Biblical solution to our most perplexing problems, to our deepest fears, and even our fatal flaws:

While doing some research this week I came across this wonderful little quote from Thomas Chalmers. Here he discusses the central role of the very ordinary means of God’s grace.

In bygone days when God’s covenant people sought to strengthen their piety, to sharpen their effectual intercessions, and give passion to their supplications, they partook of the means of grace in all holiness with humble prayer and fasting.

When intent upon seeking the Lord God’s guidance in difficult after-times, they partook of the means of grace in all holiness with humble prayer and fasting.

When they were wont to express grief—whether over the consequences of their own sins or the sins of others—they partook of the means of grace in all holiness with humble prayer and fasting.

When they sought deliverance or protection in times of trouble, they partook of the means of grace in all holiness with humble prayer and fasting.

When they desired to express repentance, covenant renewal, and a return to the fold of faith, they partook of the means of grace in all holiness with humble prayer and fasting.

Such is the call upon all who would name the Name of Jesus. Such is the ordinary Christian life. [2]

______________________________
[1] This is also the problem with modern science. See Supermarket of Ideas.
[2] The Ordinary Means of Grace.

The Mosaic dietary laws were temporary. Just as a Nazirite made a temporary vow for the purpose of sanctification for holy war, so Israel’s purpose as a nation of holy warriors included certain abstinences prescribed by God. Once the war was over, the prohibitions were removed. “Bridal food” (the Feast of Tabernacles) was back on the menu in the first century.

The Nazirite vow was a symbolic form of death and resurrection, of the bridegroom going into the grave (short hair), slaying the serpents, and emerging from the chamber with His bride (long hair), whom He then presented to the Father. [1] The prohibition on the Tree of Knowledge was a temporary one. It began Adam’s holy war, but he broke the vow, failed to rescue the bride and was expelled from the Lord’s table. [2]

Jesus Himself said He would not drink wine until He drank it in the kingdom, after His holy battle. Although there were personal prefigurements of it (the vinegar, and most likely meals with the disciples after His resurrection included wine), that second “bridal” drinking is history, the wedding supper of the Lamb in AD70.

Christians, as holy warriors, abstain from things for the purpose of intercession — holy war — and then return to the “kingdom blessings.” We fast for others, and we fast for the purpose of holy war against our own members, bodily discipline. [3] But the death is always for the purpose of resurrection. God is a phenomenal foodie. As Robert Farrar Capon wrote, God made onions because He likes them.

So, the claim that a Mosaic diet is healthier has no basis in the Bible. In fact, such a view is the result of imposing the modern worldview upon Scripture, a worldview which denies that every part of Creation has a message for us. James Jordan writes:

…the Old Testament laws are being misused by persons who, with the best of intentions, want to find health hints in the Bible. My hope is that these studies will help redirect the focus of this concern and put matters back into perspective. The food law of the New Covenant is the Lord’s Supper, and sickness and health are indeed tied to its faithful observance (1Cor. 11:30). Sickness and health were related to the dietary laws of Moses for the same reason, but that reason is the Spiritual efficacy of the sacrament, not the biological mechanics of the human body.

The hygienic misuse of these laws arises, as do other misinterpretations, because of the pervasive influence of non-Christian philosophical viewpoints in our culture. It is clear that the laws of clean and unclean in the Bible are symbolic in nature. Peter’s vision in Acts 10 establishes a symbolic connection between the unclean animals and the Gentile nations, an association already set forth in Leviticus 20:22-26. No one denies this, but modern Christians are not accustomed to Biblical symbolism, with the result that full justice is not done to the laws of uncleanness.

Let’s take an example that will show how differently people in the ancient world thought from the way we think today. This story will show us that if we are to understand Biblical symbolism, we shall have to learn to think in Biblical categories, and set aside our modern worldview.

When Jacob returned to the promised land after his sojourn in Mesopotamia, he was met by the Angel of the Lord. God wrestled with him all night, and when the Angel “saw that he had not prevailed against him, he touched the socket of his thigh; so the socket of Jacob’s thigh was dislocated while he wrestled with him” (Gen. 32:25). This dislocation, with Jacob’s subsequent limp, constituted a sign of Jacob’s victory. He had wrestled “with God and with men” and had prevailed (Gen. 32:28). Like a father training his child, so God had wrestled with Jacob for nearly a hundred years, using Esau, Isaac, and Laban as His tools to strengthen His son for service. Now, as a token of His grace, He gave Jacob a limp.

What does this mean? For an explanation we can look to Genesis 3:15, where we are told that the serpent’s head will be crushed, while the heel of the Seed will be bruised. It is possible to trace this imagery through the scripture, and what emerges is that because of sin, all men must suffer some wound. The head wound is for God’s enemies, while a mere foot wound is for His friends. Accordingly, Jacob’s limp was a sign of his victory and salvation, a sign that, with God’s grace, he had crushed the serpents in his life.

Now, would it occur to you or me to draw any culinary conclusions from this episode? Doubtless not. Yet we read in Genesis 32:32, “Therefore, to this day the sons of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is on the socket of the thigh, because He touched the socket of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew of the hip.” Notice what the verse does say:  It does not say that God commanded the Israelites to memorialize this incident by refraining from eating this muscle. Rather, it says that the sons of Israel drew an inference from the event: They inferred that it would be improper to eat this particular muscle.

Does this inference make sense to us?  Does it go along with the way we twentieth-century people think? Clearly not.

My point is that twentieth-century readers are not at home in the worldview of the Bible. We do not understand how people thought and reasoned, because we do not share their presuppositions and outlook. The result is that we are prone to misinterpret the meaning of significant parts of Scripture, and this is particularly true of the Mosaic dietary laws. If we are to understand the real meaning of the Levitical code, we must acquire the mindset of the ancient Israelite, which is the mindset of the Bible. When such passages as Genesis 32:32 begin to make sense to us, we will be in a position to investigate Leviticus 11, but unless we become familiar with the “inner logic” of Genesis 32:32, the other dietary laws in the Bible will continue to be somewhat obscure to us. [4]

______________________________________
[1] See The Fruitful Field.
[2] See Touch Not, Taste Not, Handle Not and The Greatest Consumer.
[3] I have summarised Arthur Wallis’ book on fasting here [PDF]. See also Fasting as Sacrament.
[4] James B. Jordan, Studies in Food and Faith. Document included in the Complete James Jordan set.

.
God knows us infinitely better than we know ourselves. God has said that celibacy is “not good.” It is not good for the man and not good for the church. A celibate clergy will distort the gospel in subtle ways without meaning to do so, because they are living in an unsatisfactory situation.

If we look at Buddhism and other pantheistic religions, we see that they celebrate sterility, fasting, celibacy, virginity and other anorexic, world-rejecting practices. The same was true of the religions of the Mediterranean at the time Christianity was born.  It is not surprising that such world-rejecting  counterfeit spiritualities infected the Church. The Reformation wisely and rightly  returned to the world-affirming, earthy, joyous,  musical-instrument-worship, wine-drinking, cigar-smoking pro-marital worldview of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Reformation was profoundly correct; Rome and Orthodoxy are profoundly wrong.

(I mentioned fasting. In the Bible, the goal of fasting is to break the fast when the Bridegroom arrives, just as the purpose of virginity is to get rid of it with the bridegroom. In anorexic religion, fasting and virginity are prized statically for their own sakes.)

James B. Jordan, The Liturgy Trap: The Bible Versus Mere Tradition in Worship.

or Feeding the Correct Dog

THIS POST HAS BEEN REMIXED AND INCLUDED IN GOD’S KITCHEN: THEOLOGY YOU CAN EAT AND DRINK

You must be logged in to see the rest of this post.

Join now for a year for $15!