tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post4740603815114204652..comments2024-03-02T08:27:42.344+00:00Comments on Theological Scribbles: Should Christians Eat Beef Burgers? (Acts 15)Robin Parryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-65204709652793988112010-12-13T10:27:41.972+00:002010-12-13T10:27:41.972+00:00For those of you who are interested: here is a goo...For those of you who are interested: here is a good article on koshering meat.<br /><br />http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/82678/jewish/Koshering-Meat.htmRobin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-31658466559815904372010-05-21T21:25:21.331+01:002010-05-21T21:25:21.331+01:00Also, you guys know the blood drains/cooks out and...Also, you guys know the blood drains/cooks out and most animals these days aren't strangled, right? Mayhaps you have learned this in the last two years. ;)Jakeb Braseehttp://ninjagentlemen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-28384235508672396992010-05-21T21:24:15.920+01:002010-05-21T21:24:15.920+01:00Oh hi! I have arrived from the future to talk abou...Oh hi! I have arrived from the future to talk about this!<br /><br />What are your thoughts on this, Robin et al:<br /><br />Included with the blood and strangling, are prohibitions against food sacrificed to idols and against sexual immorality.<br /><br />But your error is in assuming that these restrictions are all of a kind. Paul makes it clear elsewhere that you CAN eat food sacrificed to idols without a worry or a care. He also makes it clear elsewhere that sexual immorality is absolutely forbidden. So it's pretty clear that these are not 100% pragmatic OR 100% principled. At least one of them is simply pragmatic, and at least one is simply principled (if pragmatic means doing it to help other people, and principled means avoiding what is inherently sinful).<br /><br />So the question becomes -- how do we know where the other two fall? Even their position in the list is unhelpful, sitting as they do between the definitely pragmatic and principled statements. Do we have any reason for choosing one grouping over another? Or maybe they belong to an entirely different category altogether? It may require some reconsideration.<br /><br />Your thoughts?Jakeb Braseehttp://ninjagentlemen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-57629855708670333532008-07-31T00:51:00.000+01:002008-07-31T00:51:00.000+01:00Robin,It seems to me the only people who argued ag...Robin,<BR/><BR/>It seems to me the only people who argued against your point on scriptural basis where preterist who believed that 70AD indicated a negation of these rules.<BR/><BR/>Did I miss any arguments, or is there no hope for we futurists who love burgers?<BR/><BR/>This grieves me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-8656947701054405142008-07-25T08:47:00.000+01:002008-07-25T08:47:00.000+01:00MikeThanks for the encouragementRobinMike<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the encouragement<BR/><BR/>RobinRobin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-26258756966348266062008-07-25T05:18:00.000+01:002008-07-25T05:18:00.000+01:00Great blog Robin,I have enjoyed reading every arti...Great blog Robin,<BR/><BR/>I have enjoyed reading every article.<BR/><BR/>I have taken the opportunity to highlight it at <A HREF="http://eclecticchristian.wordpress.com" REL="nofollow">Eclectic Christian</A>.<BR/><BR/>Looking forward to reading much more.<BR/><BR/>Mike BellAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-5245339285016694462008-07-17T18:01:00.000+01:002008-07-17T18:01:00.000+01:00Nathananother good question! Well, this is all new...Nathan<BR/><BR/>another good question! Well, this is all new territory to me but my answer would be 'Yes'. Of course, they are saved in Christ whether they do ot not but it seems to me to be the most appropriate mode of response.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that for hundreds of years Christians have presumed that Jews who accepted Jesus as Messiah should stop being Jews and become de facto Gentiles. <BR/><BR/>Both the Synagogue and the Church have acted as though we have two totally distinct religions here - Judaism and Christianity - and one must be in either one or the other. So a Jew who accepts Jesus moves from Judaism to Christianity and Jewish covenant regulations no longer apply.<BR/><BR/>Such an approach is utterly alien to the NT and I do think that we need to recover what we have lost here. This will require some serious rethinking.<BR/><BR/>RobinRobin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-71201452518710815492008-07-17T17:06:00.000+01:002008-07-17T17:06:00.000+01:00Thanks for getting back to each of us Robin. DId y...Thanks for getting back to each of us Robin. DId you know what you were letting yourself in for??!<BR/><BR/>I look forward to David's response of course. But he's bound to be very clever - which I am not. So before we get to that, I'd love to ask something else from your response. If a nominal Jew (i.e someone who has never really followed the Torah, but is however Jewish) were to find themselves repenting of their sins and following Jesus, having an understanding that he stands on Jesus righteousness, rather than his own and in that way is now acceptable before God, would you then think it is the right thing for him to also start following the Torah? And if so, for what benefit?<BR/><BR/>Thanks<BR/><BR/>NathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-49501821600804519852008-07-17T10:55:00.000+01:002008-07-17T10:55:00.000+01:00GrahamPointless? Sorry - I forgot to comment on th...Graham<BR/><BR/>Pointless? Sorry - I forgot to comment on that part. Good point.<BR/><BR/>Well, in the sense that there is nothing inherently bad about eating meat with blood in it then it is 'pointless'. But then so are many symbolic actions and rituals. Perhaps the point is in what is symbolised (that life belongs to God) and this is how God tells us to remind ourselves of this point.<BR/><BR/>We also need to consider that it does not follow from the claim that "I cannot see a point to this action" that "there is no point to this action". So there may well be a good reason but we simply don't (yet) know what it is.<BR/><BR/>There is also the issue that if God forbade it then it is not silly to obey even if we never know the point if it. To suppose that it is our obligation to vet all God's commands before deciding whether or not to follow them is not necessarily a wise default mode.<BR/><BR/>I do see your point - indeed, I feel very similarly. But I would need a good theological reason to see the command as no longer obligatory (and that is from a lifelong burger-eater who is now reforming his ways)Robin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-9656775934356362052008-07-17T10:46:00.000+01:002008-07-17T10:46:00.000+01:00GrahamI love it! Strength to you brother!"And I wo...Graham<BR/><BR/>I love it! Strength to you brother!<BR/><BR/>"And I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you pesky preterites!"<BR/><BR/>My reply? Simply that from a biblical perspective redeemed humanity on a new earth is the resurrected people of God composed of redeemed Israel and the pilgrim nations.<BR/><BR/>It is a theological mistake, in my view, to imagine that because Israel and the Church are united as a new humanity in the body of the Messiah that all distinctions between Jew and Gentile are abolished or of no significance. They are of no soteriological significance (there is neither Jew nor Greek) but that does not mean that Christians are a 'third race' that are neither Jewish nor Gentile. In the same way, just because there is neither male not female in Christ it does not follow that we are a 'third sex' that is neither male nor female (so sex is still OK - phew!). <BR/><BR/>So I think that my reply to the point Andrew made (that you refer to) still stands. All I can do is point back to that and insite your reflections.<BR/><BR/>Peace out!Robin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-9225790117197745342008-07-17T10:21:00.000+01:002008-07-17T10:21:00.000+01:00'So here is my question - on what grounds do we fe...<I>'So here is my question - on what grounds do we feel that we can disregard the apostolic decree that bound all the early Gentile Christians?'</I><BR/><BR/>Because it's pointless?<BR/><BR/>If I had to make that sound more theological, I'd echo some of what Andrew's said and add that we are no longer Gentiles in Israel, but redeemed humanity on the New Earth.graham oldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02516464862589120674noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-63713107447242662212008-07-17T08:06:00.000+01:002008-07-17T08:06:00.000+01:00NathanI think that your comment raises some very c...Nathan<BR/><BR/>I think that your comment raises some very critical issues. I suspect that I am not the best placed person to answer them so I have invited David Rudolph, a Messianic Jewish NT scholar, to do a guest post addressing them (once he has finished moving house to Los Angeles).<BR/><BR/>Here are just a very brief and inadequate reply. <BR/><BR/>Yes we are all saved through Christ - both Jewish and Gentile believers. So Torah-obedience is not about getting saved. Nevertheless, it is (so I think) part of the appropriate mode of covenant loyalty for Jewish Jesus-followers.<BR/><BR/>2. Of course, everything boils down to how the texts that you mention are interpreted and related to each other. Your interpretation is the traditional Christian way of reading them and it has to be taken seriously - it is most emphatically not silly (indeed there are loads of NT scholars who would defend it at great length). But I am pretty inclined to think that we have misunderstood those texts. <BR/>I could comment on them all but as David did his Cambridge DPhil on the 1 Cor 9 passage that you mention and also covers Galatians 2 and Acts 10 (plus a host of other relevant texts) I think I will leave him to comment on how they might be read differently from the trad Christian view.<BR/><BR/>I think that David will kick off a really fun and ferocious debate so I'll let him throw himself to the lions whilst I look on.<BR/><BR/>RobinRobin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-45385957134826355812008-07-16T16:19:00.000+01:002008-07-16T16:19:00.000+01:00Nathan - I will reply to your email tomorrow. You ...Nathan - I will reply to your email tomorrow. You raise some important issues. <BR/>RobinRobin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-12143694698962449992008-07-16T16:16:00.000+01:002008-07-16T16:16:00.000+01:00There goes the state of South Dakota...There goes the state of South Dakota...David Seruyangehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02586023781945095350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-8248252590962888892008-07-16T13:37:00.000+01:002008-07-16T13:37:00.000+01:00MikeOh dear! I have all these proper NT people res...Mike<BR/><BR/>Oh dear! I have all these proper NT people responding now and I only know about the OT. I've never really studied the NT properly so I am on shakey ground. But I'm all for throwing myself before the lions for a bit of fun!<BR/><BR/>Where do you derive the idea that the apostolic decree was to avoid offending Jewish scruples in mixed gatherings? <BR/><BR/>And if that was the rationalle why was this not mentioned? Indeed the ban allows Gentiles to eat pork and that might possibly be a problem at table fellowship so are you sure that the motivation is pragmatic? <BR/><BR/>Indeed if the pragmatics of table fellowship was the rationalle why does James' argument - if Bauckham is correct - seem to offer a principled exegetical basis for the ban rather than a simple pragmatic one.<BR/><BR/>In other words - the rationalle behind the ban is principled not pragmatic so on what grounds do you say that it is temporary? It seems to apply when Jews are not present (and Gentiles seemed to take it that way for quite a long time so far as we can tell).<BR/><BR/>I'll get back to you on 1 Cor 8Robin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-75179068761914602812008-07-16T13:19:00.000+01:002008-07-16T13:19:00.000+01:00AnthonyI mean David Rudolph (sorry - I was thinkin...Anthony<BR/><BR/>I mean David Rudolph (sorry - I was thinking Oxford Hotels at the time)<BR/><BR/>RobinRobin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-74539099992308500922008-07-16T12:56:00.000+01:002008-07-16T12:56:00.000+01:00AnthonyI am not saying that Gentiles Christians sh...Anthony<BR/><BR/>I am not saying that Gentiles Christians should follow Levitical food laws (we can eat pork, etc) but I am saying that Jewish Jesus-believers should. That seems presupposed by Acts 15. If the early Church thought that Jewish believers were liberated from following Torah then there would not even be a discussion about whether Gentiles should obey it.<BR/><BR/>On Mark 7:19 I am inclined to follow James Crossley and take it that Jesus is criticizing the Pharisees for going beyond Torah by insisting on hand washing for ordinary meals (see ch 7 of his book on the date of Mark's gospel). So Jesus is saying that all foods declared clean by the Torah really are clean and do not require a ceremonial handwashing. The oral Torah is adding to the traditions of men.<BR/><BR/>(BTW - on the traditional interpretation of Mark 7:19 Jesus is doing precisely what he criticized the Pharisees for doing in that very concersation - nullifying the word of God in the Torah. If he did that he is shooting himself in the foot)<BR/><BR/>Alternatively there is a good article in EQ by David Randolph that takes a different line on Mark 7:19 that still retains food laws for Jewish believers.<BR/><BR/>But this is all new thinking for me so I have yet to cross all my 't's and dot all my 'i's.<BR/><BR/>RobinRobin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-76117423470807351302008-07-16T11:30:00.000+01:002008-07-16T11:30:00.000+01:00Robin,The Jerusalem council was a via media that r...Robin,<BR/>The Jerusalem council was a via media that required Gentile believers to hold to the Noachide commandments in order to avoid idolatry and not offend Jewish scruples in mixed gatherings of believers. So its limitations were temporary and biding only in light of the situation that called for the council. Even so, in Revelation (2.14, 20) eating idol food is expressly forbidden, while in 1 Corinthians (8.1-13; 10.25-33) it is a matter of conscience in so far as it does not offend a ‘weaker’ brother. This arguably signifies different appropriations of the apostolic decree but both share a conviction that Christians should avoid idolatry.<BR/><BR/>Me, personally, I'm eating my bacon and double beef delux burger with extra cheese to the glory of God and to hasten my entrance into glory.Michael F. Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-61281249507788884362008-07-16T10:20:00.000+01:002008-07-16T10:20:00.000+01:00Hi Robin – great to have you blogging, and I’ll be...Hi Robin – great to have you blogging, and I’ll be checking in regularly. On the presenting issue, I’d be curious to know how Mark 7:19 figures in your thoughts...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-1504844166894960302008-07-16T09:11:00.000+01:002008-07-16T09:11:00.000+01:00I think I'm really going to enjoy this blog.Welcom...I think I'm really going to enjoy this blog.<BR/><BR/>Welcome to blogdom RP!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-75210418886910820202008-07-16T02:57:00.000+01:002008-07-16T02:57:00.000+01:00Welcome to blogging! I think the short answer, to ...Welcome to blogging! I think the short answer, to parody what most Christians probably think and few if any will openly omit, is "These burgers are <I>so</I> tasty and smell <I>soooooo</I> good, God can't possibly have prohibited them." When we all agree in liking something, we find ways of making sense of the Bible that allow for it. When we don't like something, all it takes is a single verse to convince us that the thing in question is "unbiblical".<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, as I recall Philo explained the prohibition of pork in terms of it being so tasty, and thus the prohibition was to teach self-denial. The same could apply to Burger King flame broiled burgers, but by this rationale one could probably eat at McDonalds without qualms.<BR/><BR/>If all other attempts to justify one's burger habit fail, one can always selectively quote Paul: "Eat whatever is set before you, asking no questions..." :)James F. McGrathhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02561146722461747647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-85717658892088354462008-07-15T23:48:00.000+01:002008-07-15T23:48:00.000+01:00Robin,Good to see you on the blogosphere!Robin,<BR/>Good to see you on the blogosphere!Michael F. Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09713482855679578651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-80772900774389607542008-07-15T22:48:00.000+01:002008-07-15T22:48:00.000+01:00Nice to see you blogging Robin. It's a good opport...Nice to see you blogging Robin. It's a good opportunity for stretching the mind! Hope you don't mind a bit of musing from me...! <BR><BR><BR/><BR/>I have to say, I've always favoured the understanding that those restrictions by James were purely to help relations between Jews and Gentiles at a time where everything suddenly looked very different. Acceptance before God wasn't to be found through observing the law any more, but instead it was to be found completely in Jesus. You see Peter working through the change being bold as anything earlier in the Acts passage you mention here but then needing a rebuke from Paul (in Galatians) because he'd become slightly hypocritical, not eating with his Gentile brothers. <BR/><BR><BR><BR/>To me these commands fit squarely in the category of not causing your brother to stumble and "becoming all things to all men" as Paul says. <BR><BR> If you feel as 'Aliens"we should be observing these commands, do you think that Jewish Christians should also be observing the rest of the Torah? <BR><BR>Thanks for listening! NathAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-28071250327641882102008-07-15T22:17:00.000+01:002008-07-15T22:17:00.000+01:00Robin, As someone who has eaten countless burgers,...Robin, <BR/><BR/>As someone who has eaten countless burgers, and worked as a short-order cook for a number of years, I can assure you that if you cook the meat until it's well-done then there is no remnant of blood in it. I don't know if you've ever eaten in Kosher restaurants, but you can get a good beef burger in any number of them, the blood will just be cooked out (and don't ask for cheese on it because you won't get it!) So keep on eating! <BR/><BR/>Chirpy, <BR/><BR/>Gentiles would keep them for eating and sacrifice to idols. Remember, that story took place in the Decapolis which was largely Gentile territory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-18547674903054055842008-07-15T14:08:00.000+01:002008-07-15T14:08:00.000+01:00Paulactually - we don't even know why God forbade ...Paul<BR/><BR/>actually - we don't even know why God forbade certain foods to the Jews (I never found the health explanation very convincing. Was it Philo who first suggested that one?). We know that there was nothing inherently unclean about pigs, for instance (as even an ultra Orthodox Jew will tell you). It was simply the divine command that made the pig unclean for Israel. It sounds arbitrary and yet ...<BR/><BR/>hmmm (deep though) HMMMM<BR/><BR/>RobinRobin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.com