When Food Leads to Idolatry
“You are what you eat.” Evidently this saying was coined by the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach, who was intending to make the point that humans are material beings and no more. We are composed of the equivalent stuff with which we stuff ourselves.
Then there is the “foodie” spin on this phrase, “You are what you eat.” What you eat (and also where and how) proves one’s sophistication and refined tastes. One food critic quips, “The unexamined meal is not worth eating.” The preparation and eating of meals have transformative potential, both psychologically and socially. According to an article in New York Magazine, “Food is now viewed as a legitimate option for a hobby, a topic of endless discussion, a playground for one-upmanship, and a measuring stick of cool. ‘It’s a badge of honor,’ says one young person: ‘Bragging rights’ ” (March 25, 2012).
Christians may enjoy food of all sorts as God’s gift (Gen. 9:3; 1 Tim. 4:4). Such is the commendation of the sage preacher: “There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink and find enjoyment in his toil. This also, I saw, that it was from the hand of God” (Eccl. 2:24). Yet at the same time, believers are reminded that “the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17).
What is the difference between the godly appreciation of food and “foodie-ism,” or gluttony? As a form of idolatry, gluttony assigns a transformative value to good that it inherently lacks. Do you expect what’s on the table in front of you to change and renew your inner nature? In connection with this, what is consumed can end up being one’s all-consuming focus. Are you serving your tastebuds and seeking to satisfy your stomach at all costs? Peter writes, “Whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved” (2 Peter 2:19). Augustine observes, “It is possible that a wise man may use the daintiest food without any sin of epicurism or gluttony, while a fool will crave for the vilest food with a most disgusting eagerness of appetite.”
As we read the Gospel accounts, we find rather uncanny resemblances between foodie-ism and Pharisaism. The Pharisees were consistently critical of Jesus and His disciples regarding food and related matters—suspiciously observing what the Lord and His followers ate, how they ate it, and with whom they ate. The shared supposition of foodies and Pharisees is that “filling ourselves with ‘clean’ food will translate into making us ‘clean’ people.” If we take into ourselves what is good and pure, then we will produce what is good and pure. It’s that easy and simple.
-
Gay Weddings & the Christian
While we cannot signify any approval of homosexuality, we can still prayerfully find dozens of ways to keep blessing, befriending, and loving our gay friends and family and seeking to tell them of the only Savior for sinners (Matt 9:36–38; Col 4:2–6). We must also take their questions sincerely and give them gospel answers with patience and respect (1 Pet 3:15).
Many have been asking lately, “Should a Christian attend a gay wedding?” The biblical answer is extremely nuanced and highly complex: Never, no, not under any circumstances. In the eyes of God and according to His Word, any such pseudo-wedding is an abominable, blasphemous profaning of marriage and a pagan celebration of the sodomy that destroys lives, ruins society, makes a mockery of Christ, and merits eternal punishment (Gen 1–2; 19; Lev 18; Rom 1:18–32; 1 Cor 6:9–10; 1 Tim 1:10; Eph 5:22–33).
None can dodge this as merely some “American fundamentalist” issue. Last Sunday in our church in Johannesburg, I asked for a show of hands from those who have been invited to attend an LGBTQ-affirming wedding or event of some kind, and easily half of our congregation raised their hands—some 100+ people. As Carl Trueman said, “You may not be interested in the sexual revolution; but the sexual revolution is very interested in you.”
As our local association of churches, Sola5, declares in Core Value #5 on Marriage and Sexuality:
God created mankind male and female, and ordained marriage as a life-long union between a natural man and a natural woman (Gen 2:18–25). . . . We further affirm that marriage is by nature heterosexual (Gen 2:24), and that any expression of sexual intimacy is holy only in the covenant of marriage (Exod 20:14; Heb 13:4). We deny the legitimacy and permissibility of homosexuality, lesbianism, fornication, adultery, pornography, paedophilia, bestiality, prostitution, incest and other forms of sexual perversion (Rom 1:24–27).
If we believe that statement is a biblical and unchanging truth from God, it cannot be diluted, softened, or weakened no matter how personal the matter becomes. If my precious grandchild begs me to attend their gay so-called “wedding” twenty years from now and I am tempted to compromise and capitulate, I may need you to send me this article I wrote long ago!
Read More
Related Posts: -
Moses Raising and Lowering His Hands
As we zoom out from this story and behold the canonical trajectory of types and shadows, we can say that Moses typifies Christ, the one who would ascend the mountain and lift his hands to a cross to accomplish victory. Though wearied and weakened physically, the Lord Jesus prevailed because he acted with divine authority.
I’ve argued previously that the New Testament does not identify all Old Testament types. I’ve illustrated this point by discussing the famous example of Rahab’s cord and whether that cord has anything to do with the cross.
In this post I want to consider the narrative in Exodus 17:8–16, when the Israelites defeat the Amalekites as Moses raises his hands with the staff of God. How might we teach this passage in light of the person and work of Christ?
Consider the scene itself in Exodus 17:8–16. The Israelites had to fight the Amalekites. Moses told Joshua, “I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand” (17:9). We’ve seen this staff before. The “staff of God” was involved in the exodus plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, and—most recently in Exodus 17—in the striking of the rock from which water flowed.
So up the mountain Moses went. But then we get an intriguing description of his movements. When Moses’s hands were raised the Israelites prevailed, but the Amalekites prevailed whenever he lowered his hands (17:11). Why would the position of Moses’s hands have anything to do with winning or losing the battle below? Because Moses’s hands held the staff of God. The point was the staff, not Moses’s hands. As shown in previous stories in Exodus, the staff represented the divine authority and power of God.
As the battle unfolded below, Moses was on the mountain acting as the mediator and intercessor for the Israelites, raising the staff of God that symbolized divine power and authority.
Read More
Related Posts: -
Five Barren Women in the Old Testament
The children born from these formerly barren women are significant. Abraham begets Isaac, Isaac begets Jacob, and Jacob will have sons as well. The first three barren women in the Old Testament (Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel) are all wives of patriarchs—three generations in a row! In other words, the generations of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all face the obstacle of barrenness, an obstacle the Lord overcomes by his promise-keeping power. It is the Lord’s power that sustains and advances his covenant promises.
Whenever the biblical authors describe a woman as barren, you can rest assured she won’t be barren for long. The reason for this confidence is the pattern of God’s reversal of the state of barrenness.
The Old Testament authors describe five women as barren. Let’s zoom in and see who they are.
Five Barren Women
First is Sarah. She’s Abraham’s wife. Genesis 11:30 tells us, “Now Sarai was barren; she had no child.”
Second is Rebekah. She’s Isaac’s wife. In Genesis 25:21 we read, “And Isaac prayed to the LORD for his wife, because she was barren.”
Third is Rachel. She’s Jacob’s wife. According to Genesis 29:31, “Rachel was barren.”
Fourth is Manoah’s wife. She’s unnamed. The writer says in Judges 13:2, “And his wife was barren and had no children.”
Fifth is Hannah. She’s Elkanah’s wife. The writer says in 1 Samuel 1:2 that “Hannah had no children,” and the reason is in 1 Samuel 1:5: “the LORD had closed her womb.”
Sometimes interpreters have suggested that Ruth was barren. Ruth 4:13 says, “So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.” I don’t think the language is clear enough about barrenness to include Ruth in the list, so I’m contending that five—not six—barren women are identified in the Old Testament.
Barrenness Overcome
There were certainly barren women before and after the ones named above. So why do the biblical authors draw attention to the barrenness of these five women?
In every case where a barren state is identified, the Lord overcomes the woman’s barrenness.
The Lord had promised that “Sarah shall have a son” (Gen. 18:14). And the Lord “visited Sarah as he had said, and the LORD did to Sarah as he had promised. And Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age at the time of which God had spoken to him” (Gen. 21:1–2).
Read More
Related Posts:
