Too Godly for God
Before we begin, please allow me to give my sincere gratitude to Abraham Cohen and his wonderful book, Everman’s Talmud, which is the major source of the following article.
There are many Christian denominations that place restrictions on what God has provided. Additional restrictions are seen as more godly, and some forms of asceticism are generally respected as honorable to God.
I have heard preachers teach that we should not only devote ten percent of our assets to the work of God; we should devote one hundred percent. Maybe those preachers missed reading Jesus’ warning to those who did just that in Matthew 15:3-9. Jesus clearly taught that a person can attempt to honor God by his or her excessive self-denial, and actually be practicing disobedience to God.
For the Jews of Jesus’ day, “Total abstinence was not considered a virtue” (Cohen, 232).
Though the sages gave clear warnings against excess, completely neglecting one’s self from the pleasures provided by God for the sake of holiness was actually counterproductive to that goal. Voluntary poverty, excessive fasting, and abstaining from wine were considered contrary to the virtue assumed by such behavior. The sages taught, “Where there is no meal, there is no Torah” (Aboth III. 21) and “Worse is poverty in a man’s house than fifty plagues” (B.B. II6a). The rabbis believed so much that God’s children were to enjoy the pleasures of His provisions that they would say, “In the Hereafter a man will have to give judgment and reckoning for all that his eye saw but he did not eat” (p. Kid. 66d).
The Talmud teaches, “At the head of all medicines am I wine; where wine is lacking drugs are necessary” (B.B. 58b). This brings to mind Rabbi Shaul’s (Paul’s) advice to Timothy for taking care of his stomach problems by drinking wine (1 Timothy 5:23). There were even atonements made for Nazarites because of their “sin” of abstaining from wine. Although abstaining from wine was a command of God to the Nazarite (Numbers 6:3), it was still considered sinful, just as killing is a sin though the Israelites were ordered to kill those living in the Promised Land when they crossed the Jordan River (Deut. 7:1-2).
It is interesting that our attempts at holiness would be considered unholy by the rabbis of Jesus’ day. In fact, our abstinence may even require ritual cleansing.
It may be wise to consider the wisdom of God’s ancient Bible teachers who said, “One who imposes vows of abstinence upon himself is as though he puts an iron collar around his neck; he is like one who builds a prohibited altar; he is like one who takes a sword and plunges it into his heart. Sufficient for you is what the Torah forbids, and do not seek to add further restrictions” (p. Ned. 41b).
Forever learning,
Johnny
© 2007 Jonathan P. Gainey and Flock’s Diner.
All Rights Reserved
August 20th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Perhaps, we do not fully understand what it means to be truly reconciled and restored to God. I would suggest that this could lead to a false sense of righteousness that would displease God. It makes me think of Annanius and Sapphira in Acts 5 and how they held back part of the proceeds from their property sale to elevate their spiritual status among the believers. Great thoughts!
August 21st, 2007 at 6:46 am
Hey Vance,
That is a good reference.
I’m pretty sure that most people know that there is something not fully honorable about preventing ourselves from enjoying the pleasures of life, but we just don’t know how to verbalize it.
Rob Bell’s book, “Sex God,” is an excellent source for this topic.
Blessings,
Johnny
August 21st, 2007 at 1:36 pm
“In the Hereafter a man will have to give judgment and reckoning for all that his eye saw but he did not eat” (p. Kid. 66d).
This will not be a problem for me.
August 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
>>Although abstaining from wine was a command of God to the Nazarite (Numbers 6:3), it was still considered sinful,
I don’t know how accurate it is, but the Wikipedia discussion of Nazarites seems to shed some light on sinfulness of Nazarites and touches on the issue of Jesus as a possible Nazarite
BTW, a month or so ago we touched on baptism as a continuation of Mikvah immersion, and someone suggested John the Baptist’s baptism of Jesus couldn’t have been a Mikvah because Jesus would not have needed ritual cleaning from uncleanliness.
Couldn’t the opposite approach be taken: some of our subsequently developed ideology of Jesus may be, ah, a bit overstated?
August 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
What if?
In my opinion, and according to historical and cultural beliefs of first century Jews, Jesus’ baptism was accepted as his choice to introduce the Messianic age as the Prince of Peace symbolized by his entrance into the Jordan River.
However, Jesus being called a glutton and a drunkard (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34) brings out the fact that, like the Phraisees, Jesus did drink wine. The Bible also tells us that he drank wine at the Passover. Abstaining from wine was not practiced by Jesus. With that said, I would point out that touching tax collectors, those who cleaned up dog dug from the streets, sinners, and others who were deemed ritually unclean would require a person (priest, prophet, rabbi, scribe, Torah teacher) to be cleansed in a Mikvah bath before serving at or entering the Temple. Jesus clearly defiled himself by his interaction with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors.
I would also add that a person who is ritually unclean is not considered a sinner. A woman who had recently given birth was required to bring a sacrificial offering and be baptized. Many women would wait months before they did this, as many of them lived far from the Temple and only visited during the Festivals. Ritual cleansing was not for those who were disgusting to God but for those who honored God by keeping the commandments of ritual cleanliness.
Walker, you bring up an interesting point.
Blessings,
Johnny
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
As I understand, there were life long Nazirites (Sampson said to be one) and short term Nazarites.
BTW, I understand that passage in M & L to be J’s example of how facts are misrepresented. Perhaps I am missing something.
And the Last Supper story is ambiguous as to whether He actually drank of the wine:
“27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine _from now on_ until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
The “from now on” is variously translated and I don’t think can be unambiguously taken as stating he had a little sip at that time.”
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Walker,
Good additions.
I find it interesting that even though a person took a vow as a Nazarite that some considered the vow of abstinence from wine to be sinful. That may be hard to accept for some of us, and I’m only going by what I am learning from ancient texts which are pointed out by writers such as Abraham Cohen. It would be a bit arrogant of us to completely disregard such important texts.
As far as Jesus saying that he would not drink wine again until he drinks it with the disciples in his Father’s Kingdom, Jesus’ words are to be understood with Jesus’ definition of his Father’s Kingdom which he brought to earth by his miracles and death. At the moment Jesus rose from the dead the disciples were with Jesus in his Father’s Kingdom, just as the thief on the cross to whom Jesus promised the same.
The confusion of that passage comes when we understand God’s Kingdom as only existing after our death or after the return of Christ.
Blessings,
Johnny
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
And as far as the Passover in the upper room, knowing that the passing of a cup was a way of forming an alliance with other Jews clarifies that Jesus would have had to have drink the wine from the cup he passed.
The one whose cup is being passed is the one to whom the alliance is being formed in honor of, therefore, the one whose cup is being passed was the first to sip from his own cup. This was a way of saying, “This is my cup of wine. Please take a sip from it as I have and be my partner in this or that.”
Marvin Wilson’s Our Father Abraham is a wonderful resource for the history of sharing the cup and breaking bread as an ancient, Jewish way of forming an alliance.
Blessings,
Johnny
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
>>And as far as the Passover in the upper room, knowing that the passing of a cup was a way of forming an alliance with other Jews clarifies that Jesus would have had to have drink the wine from the cup he passed.
Ah, but could that be that a back formation? Would it have applied to a “short term” Nazarite?
That is, if a Nazarite were within a group forging an alliance (or, perhaps-?- celebrating an existing alliance) would he or she be expected to break the Nazarite “vow” and tip the cup?
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
That would be an interesting thought. I’m just not convinced that Jesus took a Nazarite vow. I don’t know that he didn’t either. I’ll look into Jesus as a Nazarite. This is an interesting topic.
Blessings,
Johnny