A New Testament Perspective on Eating
Is salvation enacted directly by God as He looks on the faithfulness of His Son and the faith of those who loyally recognize Him...or is salvation mediated through the eating of foods consecrated by a priest at an altar? In this post we will look at some explicit New Testament statements about eating. Doing this we can shape a kind of New Testament "doctrine of eating." This will provide a stable starting point from which to judge some of the more divergent teachings of "sacramental eating" that are developed outside of the prophetic scriptures.
In the Gospel some Pharisees and Scribes criticized Jesus' disciples for eating without performing ritual washings, Jesus called the multitude together and responded. "Hear Me, everyone and understand: There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear (Mark 7:14, 15)!" The disciples, unsure that they understood the full import of His teaching, asked for further explanation. Jesus responded with more on the subject of eating: "Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated (Mark 7: 18,19)?" Notice that Jesus is making a distinction between that which is physical -the food and the stomach, and that which is non-physical -the heart. As recorded in Luke's gospel, Jesus Christ instructs His followers with anxiety-excluding-wisdom, and this wisdom points to the life of faith in God over against the peripherals of food and clothing. "For this reason I say to you, do not worry about your life, as to what you will eat; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing (Luke 12:22, 23)."
In the passage above, Jesus speaks of eating in a non-mystical...even rationalistic sense. Jesus' rational view of eating does not prevent Him, however, from using "eating food" as a powerful metaphorical illustrator of spiritual truths; as in the following three examples:
1)"I have food to eat that you do not know about...My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work (John 4:32-34)."
2)"Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal....This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent (John 6:27-29)."
3) "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst (John 6:35).
The New Testament perspective of eating does give room to the importance of the intimate fellowship and the relational aspect of a shared meal. Under this aspect we properly understand the revelation to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), The stern warning against selfish class distinctions at Corinth (1 Cor.11:17-34), and the frequent shared meals in the book of Acts.
The New Testament perspective on eating, not being weighted with religious ceremony or mysterious power, stands out in contrast to the backdrop of both Judaism and to the Hellenistic Idolatry of the Gentiles. The New Testament understanding of the Kingdom of God gives rise to this contrast: "...for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14:17)."
In the passage cited below the Apostle Paul, addressing the issue of Idolatrous rituals, undercuts the validity of Hellenistic sacramental thought. The popular thought in idolatrous circles was that eating consecrated foods offered before idols would confer saving power to the participants. So Paul says, "But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat (1 Corinthians 8:8)." In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the author speaks of New Testament liberty from the Mosaic ceremonial laws which: "...relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation (Hebrews 9:10). And the message of Hebrews is reiterated with this: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those who were so occupied were not benefited (Hebrews 13:8-9)."
Aware of the New Testament perspective of eating which is behind these passages, the student of true religion is better prepared to grapple with, and reject, the catholic synthesis between the doctrine of Christ and Hellenistic religion; especially as that synthesis popularizes a distraction from the way union with Jesus is actually effected. That is, by loyal-acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, chiefly manifest in a submitted embrace of His teaching.
Posts
"You already agree that there is theological development concerning the Bread and the Cup"
ReplyDeleteNope!
"Jesus is making a distinction between that which is physical -the food and the stomach, and that which is non-physical -the heart."
ReplyDeleteJesus is not claiming that the biblical heart has no physical component.
"In the passage above, Jesus speaks of eating in a non-mystical...even rationalistic sense."
There is nothing non-mystical or rationalistic about not caring about food and shelter, my friend. Go tell a first century peasant that it's rational to ignore food and shelter! This is a radical teaching with a mystical reality; mystical, not mysterious.
"The New Testament perspective on eating, not being weighted with religious ceremony or mysterious power, stands out in contrast to the backdrop of both Judaism and to the Hellenistic Idolatry of the Gentiles."
You have not demonstrated that reproving against reliance on material food precludes the spiritual and bloodless worship of a Real Eucharist.
Nor have you demonstrated what the Gentile or Jewish perspectives were that you claim Jesus disapproved of. Why don't you cite a Mithraic text? Didn't I give you some sources earlier?
St. Paul explains the relationship between the Eucharist and pagan sacrifice. Just as prayer is not wrong just because it can be offered to pagans, Paul says:
"Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. Look at the nation Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices sharers in the altar? What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than He, are we?"
You can pray to demons, serve the poor for demons, offer thanksgiving to demons. Just because you can ape God's command toward the demons does not mean the command is worthless.
Re-posted from the Justin Martyr blog entry:
ReplyDeleteDo you acknowledge that St. John used the Hellenistic concept of the Logos, connecting it to the Old Testament D'var YHWH? He's not quoting Jesus when he does this, and the connection had been previously made in Hellenistic works. If you're saying the Gospel of John is true only because it quotes Jesus, even though it isn't all Jesus quotes, then you must accept the Didache because it also quotes Jesus.
The Mark passage does not distinguish between the Word of God ALONE and the tradition of men. It also distinguishes between the Commandments of God and the traditions of men. The Commandments of God. Jesus says in Matthew 23: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice."
The Holy Tradition of God does not contradict the Scriptures; rather, the Scriptures are a part of it. St. Paul says "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle."
You said there is Sacramental Theology that was part of Holy Tradition of The Church that was error. Or is that not what you meant?
ReplyDeleteSo Nicholas just out of curiosity what would you use as a criteria for rejecting any tradition?
ReplyDelete1. No, Marcion started his own sect outside of the Church that rejected the Old Testament and most of the Gospels. He was a Gnostic who despised eating and drinking as a vulgar part of the "inferior" material world, practicing a rigid asceticism from all food and wine. His abstinence from the latter was why he rejected the "cup" part of the Eucharist.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Jesus was using "commandment of God" and "Word of God" as alike in meaning.
ReplyDelete"thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." (Mar 7:13)
Several criteria. If it contradicts the Holy Scriptures, the collective witness of the Fathers and Mothers, for one.
ReplyDeleteWe must ask what else in the faith has to change to accommodate a given tradition if it is permitted, how fast the change was implemented and how it was implemented, whether or not it was believed everywhere, always and by all, or is a valid restatement or re-presentation of that belief (I.E. referring to the Son as 'begotten, not created')
However, it's not really my business to consciously sift through the collective Holy Tradition with a magnifying glass like a scientist pinning butterflies to corkboard. Holy Tradition is a "bottom-top" affair, being preserved by the collective witness of common people from generation to generation, living simple lives of faith in the Tradition of God.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that the Scriptures are the only thing that can be called the Word of God? Do you believe they are all equal in authority?
ReplyDeleteYou said: But the sacramentology you reject cannot be extrapolated logically from what St. Justin Martyr wrote. In fact, such errors did not emerge until much later in the history of Western Christianity.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I am relieved that I no longer think it is my buisness to consciously sift through the collective holy tradition either.
ReplyDeleteThe word "believe" is a little nuanced in my thinking because it along with "faith" is used to translate the pistos/pisteuo word group in the New Testament. I think it would be better translated loyalty/loyally-acknowledge. And in the New Testament sense "believe" is most suited to have God and Jesus as personal objects rather than a list of propositions as impersonal ones. I would like to understand the prophetic scriptures of the New Testament the same way that Jesus understood the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings, of the Old Testament.
ReplyDelete"You said: But the sacramentology you reject cannot be extrapolated logically from what St. Justin Martyr wrote. In fact, such errors did not emerge until much later in the history of Western Christianity."
ReplyDeleteYep. A limiting of Mystery and Grace to seven Sacraments, facilitated via Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic metaphysical operation, (the use of the term "Sacrament" breeds error as well, as it implies a juridical oath), separation of the efficacy of mysteries from Faith, and the tied-in Thomistic notion that direct encounters with God Himself are not possible.
I certainly reject all of that as contradicting the Scriptures and the Holy Tradition of God.
"I think it would be better translated loyalty/loyally-acknowledge. And in the New Testament sense "believe" is most suited to have God and Jesus as personal objects rather than a list of propositions as impersonal ones."
ReplyDeleteWell said, I agree.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious, now that the subject of Persons vs. impersonal abstractions has been broached. Do you affirm the doctrine of the Trinity?
ReplyDeleteOnly the scriptural part.
ReplyDeleteI added this to the other post: "Justin Martyrs description does not prove there was no meal before or after but his is the first description that lacks reference to the meal context."
ReplyDeleteJeff,
ReplyDeleteWhat part of the Trinity doctrine is unscriptural, as you understand it?
To your second post: It makes sense that Justin would lack such a description, as the point of his First Apology was to refute accusations against the Christians. It contains the disputed behavior, not the undisputed behavior. Besides, we can see the fellowship meal persist throughout Christian history up until the present day, as made manifest through Holy Tradition.
"Yep. A limiting of Mystery and Grace to seven Sacraments, facilitated via Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic metaphysical operation, (the use of the term "Sacrament" breeds error as well, as it implies a juridical oath), separation of the efficacy of mysteries from Faith, and the tied-in Thomistic notion that direct encounters with God Himself are not possible."
ReplyDeleteInteresting, but isn't that sifting?
Sifting in what sense?
ReplyDeleteSifting tradition...with a screen that allows some Holy Tradition and rejects other Holy Tradition?
ReplyDeleteWould'nt it be extra-scriptural to say someone cannot worship God unless they use the word "Trinity" for example?
ReplyDelete1. No, not if one rejects the late medieval Latin tradition as Holy Tradition.
ReplyDelete2. One cannot worship God in Spirit and in Truth without praying to the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but the Apostles and early Fathers certainly did so without using the word "Trinity".