Post Number: 855
|Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 7:13 am: || |
In preparation for the study of Isaiah that my bible study group will be embarking on next week I have been reading through Isaiah and came across that very text a day or so ago. I had to go back and read it several times because in context it is a statement with regard to the wedding banquet that we have been discussing regarding the 10 virgins. The text says just that, rich foods, fine wines, and the best of meats.
I was taught as an Adventist that the word meat does not always mean the flesh of animals, that it is simply an allusion to sustaining foods. I guess we will have to wait and see. All I know is that I have no intention to turn down anything my Lord and Master places on his table.
Post Number: 30
|Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 8:13 am: || |
Boy you are absolutely right Belvalew! No matter what the Lord gives me, it will be fine with me!! But I would like to be near my mother when He hands her a BLT!
After being in SDA schools all my life and of course only being allowed to socialize with other SDAs, my first job in the "real world" was quite a shocker. I remember having a discussion at lunch one day with some older women who were talking about meat in heaven. One woman, who was a pastor's wife, thought that it would grow on trees, just like fruit. For some reason that mental picture has always stuck with me.
Post Number: 1239
|Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 9:40 am: || |
Whatever food is or isn't in heaven, we KNOW our resurrected bodies will be different than what we have now. As interesting as it is to speculate about the unknown features of eternity, it seems odd to me to try to speculate about a potential "eternal" diet to sustain the mortal bodies we are in now. I suspect that whatever food is in heaven, it will also be different than our fallen world can provide. I'm sure it's because adventism focuses so much on food, but I don't think that will be a primary eternal focus ultimately.
Post Number: 1140
|Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 10:23 am: || |
But that Isaiah 25:6 reference is quite specific. There is nothing as satisfying to the palate as that midwest aged beef, Melissa, since you are from KC, and to go with it a rich aged red wine. Many ex-SDAs and current SDAs as well as so much of our culture in evangelicalism still can't get over the hangup that God created wine and food to gladden the heart of man as the Psalmist declares, and that Jesus would not only drink wine, but provide it for wedding guests! That sounds like heresy among so many fundamentalists even to this day. At the last supper Jesus spoke about drinking the wine of the New Covenant even when He comes in His Kingdom, so I am anticipating that the great wedding supper of the Lamb will be as it is described in Isaiah. But I know some good scholars who would try to spiritualize away many of these Messianic passages in Isaiah also.
It is very clear that Jesus in His resurrected body clearly ate fish and bread, so that I think indicates that we will have resurrected bodies that will enjoy the fine foods and drink described by the prophet Isaiah.
Post Number: 402
|Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 11:23 am: || |
Have you ever considered the basis for concluding that animals had before and will once again have eternal life?
I think it may be based on the false idea that we are no different than any animal--a popular idea in spiritualism, but one that isn't Biblical.
Post Number: 31
|Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 11:30 am: || |
Wow! No, I had never thought about that.
However ... my cat said to tell you that he resents your implication that he doesn't control the entire universe at his whim.
Post Number: 1240
|Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 11:43 am: || |
Stan, while I wasn't really responding to your specific post, I love that verse you quoted, but I know it would create a real stumbling block to some vegetarians, SDA or not. Kindof like Romans 14 saying weaker brothers are vegetarian. No matter how you try to spin it, weak brothers are equated to being vegetarian. I just know B has typically tied his "future" diet with why he is making his current food choices, and that's really what I was thinking of. We haven't have these types of conversations in my church, or in any church I've ever been in, so the heavy focus on food, what is "right" to eat and what we will eat in heaven, is somewhat confusing to me. The kingdom of God is not about food or drink.
I would meet you at my favorite BBQ spots anytime you're in town! That is someplace B never would go. As far as wine, being raised baptist as well as having an alocholic uncle, I did get a lot of negativity towards alcohol. Personally, I never drink. But that has more to do with a degree of fear over alcohol runamuck than religious issues. I never want to do to my kids what I saw my uncle do to his. It's just not worth the risk.
My point is that while speculation is interesting, to somehow try to imply that we can figure diet out and get some sort of a headstart on eternity is perplexing given we can't get our eternal bodies even if we could get the so-called eternal food. Food is a constant issue in my house when B is around. There is tension from what to give Jonathan to drink, to any snacks to his meals. If Jonathan says he wants milk, or ham (one of his favorites), his dad will actually turn his face away and become very cold and distant to him. Jonathan can't yet detect it, but I can see it. What an awful thing for a father to do to his son because of food. I can't think the angst it creates is how God really wants any of us to live.
(I know it may seem narrowly focused, but I do tend to think of how these issues will one day affect Jonathan. If I can understand it from that angle, maybe I'll be better prepared for what may come down the road someday. Ultimately, I'm trying to understand to help me be a better parent.)
(Message edited by melissa on January 05, 2006)
Post Number: 276
|Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 1:25 pm: || |
Ric, I've always just considered (and took great comfort) in the immortality of animals in Heaven just from the fact that there won't be any death?? right?
Post Number: 3160
|Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 2:19 pm: || |
Melissa, you do have such a difficult and painful situation with Jonathan and B. I totally know how rigid and difficult those "no snacks" and vegan rules are. When our boys were young, we still had those lingering beliefs about no snacks--especially Richard, who grew up in a home where a strict "Counsels on Diet and Foods" diet was a major issue.
I tried to walk a middle ground of giving the boys fruit/juice or sometimes something like peanuts, etc. when they came home from school FAMISHED. It seemed to satisfy them for a while, and Richard could see that they had to eat something or they'd have never been able to do their homework and practicing, etc.
Today, however, the absurdity of the "no snacks" rule is totally clear to him. In fact, I find it quite interesting that the no-sweets, no-snacks rigidity in his childhood home did not yield conscientious abstinence on his part. Quite the opposite; he would collect bottles, redeem them, buy candy on the sly, hide it under his mattress where his mom couldn't find it, and eat it totally in secret.
Now there's an example of ethical, moral, and healthy living! And he prided himself on possibly being the best Adventist his age that he knew! (And judging from my experience, he probaby was!)
It's all so ironic...
Post Number: 543
|Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 5:28 pm: || |
The passages, Isaiah 25:6 and Isaiah 66:23, create a problem of inconsistency for Adventist apologists. They quickly tell us that the author of Isaiah 25:6 is simply utilizing familiar metaphors so that the initial reader could better understand. However, they don't apply the same reasoning to Isaiah 66:23. These passages provide a classic example of their proof-texting method that allows them to pick and choose whatever they need to support their aberrant views.
Post Number: 1144
|Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 6:16 pm: || |
Dennis, There are a lot of different views on what these passages mean. The dispensationalists would say that both of these texts are talking about the literal millenium reign of Christ when a Jewish Messianic kingdom will be in place and according to this line of thought, the Jewish system of worship including New Moons and Sabbaths, and offerings would be reinstituted during that time period. The Reformed amillenial position would spiritualize these passages as all fulfilled in Christ, with the only prophetic event left being the second coming. Liberal Adventism would say that a different Isaiah wrote those two different passages you mentioned.
Post Number: 3162
|Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2006 - 6:53 pm: || |
Dennis, I had had that same thought! It's "Adventist pick and choose..."
You know, I'm currently (who knows what I might perceive months from now!) of the opinion that we just don't really know exactly what the events of the future will look like. In retrospect, for example, we can "see" Christ's incarnation quite clearly in the OT. Before it happened, however, much of that and of the gospel was veiled in mystery.
The churchóthe inclusion of the Gentiles--Christ in us, the hope of glory, life and immorality, etc.--were not clearly revealed prior to Jesus' finished work.
I have a hunch that the futureóthe coming "ages" or "age" as Paul says in Ephesiansówill surprise us as well. I pray that I will not be deceived and not see because of my pre-set opinions! While clearly there are things we can read and hints we can get, still there is much that is still hidden in mystery.
What I do know is that Hebrews 1:2 says that in these last days, God has revealed Himself through Jesus. He is God's last word to us for "this age" (as opposed to the "coming age" when we will see face-to-face 1 Cor. 13:12).