Tag-Archive for » kashrut «

Freedom or Slavery

Saturday, August 18th, 2012 | Author:

Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but rightouesness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.  Romans 14:16-17  NASB

Good thing – What is the emphasis of Paul’s statement?  Is it on the “good thing”?  When it comes to interpreting this verse, many exegetes act as if the most important element of the statement is the freedom found in the “good thing.”  In other words, they would claim that Paul wants us to experience this “good thing” and not get caught up in what we eat and what we drink.  Therefore, this verse is used to support an anti-kashrut theology (no dietary regulations).  But is that what Paul is really saying?

Paul argues that righteousness, peace and joy are the goals of the Spirit and the objectives of the community.  The kingdom of God doesn’t consist of regulations about eating and drinking.  But don’t draw the conclusion that eating and drinking have nothing to do with the Kingdom.  First concentrate on the most important matters.  Those happen to be submission to God and compassion toward others.  Paul’s point, in perfect alignment with Yeshua, is that we who follow the King are not acting as He would act if we seek the freedom to do as we wish.  Freedom devoid of concern for others is not a good thing.  If we employ what we call a good thing in such a way that it becomes a sign of the lack of righteousness, a cause for dissention and the absence of joy, then we have defeated what the Spirit intends.  Our “good thing” becomes the occasion for calling what we do evil.

The point is this:  righteousness, peace and joy should be the goal.  Then no one can claim that what we consider good for us causes any breach in the community.  Paul is not endorsing those who claim their freedom is good and therefore unimpeachable.  It is not a good thing to do what those outside the community do.  Gentiles who came into the believing community might have thought that their prior practices were perfectly acceptable since they now had a relationship with the one true God, but Paul says otherwise.  Coming into the community means adapting to the ways of the community, and in this case, the community expressed its life through Torah observance.  Following Yeshua HaMashiach means living in such a way that my behavior is acceptable to God and approved by men – not all men, obviously, but by those men who are also aligned with the Kingdom.  This means the standard by which I live is not my so-called freedom or my assessment of my “good thing.”  The standard is what promotes righteousness, peace and joy – and that is the exact purpose of Torah.

Righteousness is not defined by me.  Righteousness is what God calls righteousness.  Peace is what results from living in harmony with others, a harmony that implies common standards of behavior.  And joy is the exuberance of being accepted by both God and men.  None of this can happen if I use my “freedom” to oppose the ways of the fellowship.  In our contemporary culture, where freedom is the sine qua non of human existence, we ignore the context of fellowship in an ancient Semitic culture.  In that culture freedom is not the essence of humanity.  Responsibility for others is what makes me human.  And I can hardly express my humanity if I claim that I am free to live as I choose, unless, of course, I choose to be apart from the Semitic culture.

Topical Index: freedom, good thing, eat, drink, kashrut, diet, Roman 14:16-17

Who Says?

Friday, May 11th, 2012 | Author:

“because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) Mark 7:19 NASB

Clean – What a mess this verse has created!  Why it became a mess is a study in the program of self-identity that the Church undertook in the third century.  Suffice it to say that the early fathers of the Church made deliberate attempts to remove themselves from Jewish origins, and dietary laws were front and center in that battle.  But third century exegesis does not make good first century commentary.  There is more here than meets the eye, especially if you are wearing “Christian-dogma” colored glasses.

In the past we have noted Tim Hegg’s excellent article on the problems with the Greek text, and the misinterpretation of this text based on the addition of “Thus He declared.”  No such subject occurs in the Greek, making the dangling participle (cleansed) awkward.  Hegg points out that a perfectly legitimate translation of the text would focus on the bodily cleansing process of elimination, contrasting this process with the defilement of the heart which is not cleansed through normal elimination.

But Daniel Boyarin provides an even clearer solution to this difficult passage by treating it for what it is in context.  Yeshua is engaged in an intramural debate with other Pharisees over the precise requirements of the purification of food.  Boyarin points out that in the first century some Pharisees advocated strict observance of the oral Torah which added stipulations about handling kosher food so that it might not be contaminated by contact with unclean substances.  As Boyarin notes, the debate is not about the necessity of kashrut (kosher eating).  Boyarin observes that the dialog never challenges the need for dietary laws.  The dialogue challenges the Pharisee’s added requirements about handling food (and in Torah, anything not kosher is not food).  Boyarin indicates that “the system of purity and impurity laws and the system of dietary laws are two different systems within the Torah’s rules for eating.”[1]  Yeshua is addressing the former, not the latter.  Yeshua simply says that the Pharisees additional requirements concerning hand washing are unnecessary since no impurity is attached to what God has already designated as “food” simply because a man doesn’t wash his hands before touching it.  Such supposed impurity cannot defile a man because it passes through him.  Yeshua recalls the emphasis of the written Torah, noting that only what comes out of a man can defile him.  And Torah is quite specific on what those things are (menstrual blood and semen).  These things, and only these things, that come out of the body can render someone impure.  Food cannot do so.  Thus, concludes Yeshua, the additional requirement of hand-washing is not only superfluous, it is not found in Torah.

Then Yeshua makes an object lesson of this event.  He explains to his disciples that the added requirements of the Pharisees have missed the point.  What matters when it comes to purity is the condition of the heart.  This is not a statement about kashrutKosher still applies.  No one in the circle of this conversation ever doubted that.  When Mark adds the editorial, “Cleansing all foods,” he was not abrogating kashrut.  He was explaining that food touched by impure substances does not render the consumer impure.  Any food (and that means kosher) is already cleansed because God has already designated it food.

Boyarin puts to rest the tortured exegesis of Christian apologists who wish to claim Yeshua abolished kashrut.  Everyone present on that day was Jewish.  Everyone was Torah observant when it came to kashrut.  Yeshua never suggested otherwise.  He simply took issue with the Pharisaical practice of hand-washing as a useless addition.  If Boyarin, a Jewish scholar, can see that this is the heart of Yeshua’s comment, then why do Christian theologians insist on adding “Thus He declared,” as Origen did in the 2nd century?  Could it be that they want to be rid of kashrut even if Yeshua doesn’t say so?

Topical Index:  clean, kashrut,  kosher, Mark 7:19, Boyarin



[1] Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Gospels, p. 113.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | One Comment

Kashrut

Saturday, April 21st, 2012 | Author:

Don’t let anyone pass judgment on you in connection with eating and drinking . . Colossians 2:16 (The Complete Jewish Bible – David Stern)

Eating and Drinking – David Stern correctly notes that Paul is not talking about all eating and drinking.  He is addressing the assembly in Colossae, an assembly consisting of Jews and Gentiles.  Therefore, his message is about kashrut, that is, kosher food and drink.  Stern notes, “here it appears that Gentile Judaizers  . . . have set up arbitrary rules  . . . about when and how to eat and drink,”[1]  Stern argues that these added rules are rejected by Paul because they do not follow Torah.  Paul is only interested in the observance of Torah in the community.  Anything else is outside the bounds set by God.

But Stern introduces this remark with a claim that Paul teaches “Gentile believers are free to observe or not to observe rules about dining and Jewish holidays.”  Stern claims Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 clearly support this view.  I am not convinced.  If Paul teaches that Gentiles are grafted into the commonwealth of Israel, that Israel is the root and the Gentiles are the wild branch, that he himself never deviated from Torah, and that those in Christ are equally children of the Father, then where is the teaching that the “adopted” Gentiles are not expected to live like the rest of God’s elect?  God does have a special role for Israel.  They are the chosen priests to the nations.  They are the ones God uses to bring His message to the rest of the world.  But how can it make sense to say that there are two classes of citizens in the Kingdom; those who follow Torah and those who are free not to follow Torah?  How are the Gentiles supposed to provoke Jews to jealousy if they are free to ignore Torah?  This is, unfortunately, precisely the problem in the Church today.  Heschel once said that a Jew without Torah is obsolete.  A Christian without Torah is irrelevant.  Christians without Torah are exactly what Jews claim they are: converts to some new religion unrecognizable as Jewish.  The idea of two Torahs, one for Jews and one for Gentiles (the optional one), lacks Scriptural basis.  It doesn’t square with the theological or cultural position of Paul.  It strains credulity to think that Yeshua didn’t mean “keep Torah” when He said, “teaching them to observe all the mitzvot I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:20)

It seems to me that Stern has allowed the theology of the “replacement” Church to influence his interpretation of this verse.  To make Torah observance optional removes any distinctiveness in Kingdom behavior, obliterating the purpose of the Kingdom on earth.  Furthermore, how will Stern decide which of the Torah commandments are optional and which aren’t?  It’s a problem, isn’t it?

To be Jewish is to be part of God’s revelation of Himself to the world.  To be grafted into the commonwealth of Israel is to voluntarily decide to adopt the constitution God established at Sinai.  In other words, to convert from paganism to Messianic Judaism is to be different, by choice, certainly, but not optionally.

Topical Index:  kashrut, Torah, David Stern, Colossians 2:16



[1] David Stern, New Testament Jewish Commentary, p. 610.