I might be in error, but does Jesus eating food after resurrected change our theology of gluttony?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thomas_Goodwin

Puritan Board Freshman
I always understood it as Jonathan Edwards did. Food is only for the purpose of being fuel to work for God. We see this throughout his resolutions. Many other reformed thinkers take this view. But does Jesus eating food resurrected disprove this view? Jesus obviously didn't need food for fuel, but his eating was to the glory of God (so sinners might believe on Him). What does eating to the glory of God therefore mean?
 
Sorry, I'm a bit confused by the question. I understand the sentiment about food being for the purpose of God in refueling in order to live for Him and walk in good works as he has prepared them. Are the concepts of eating "for fuel" and eating "for enjoyment" mutually exclusive?

Like, if all I need is a piece of toast to be "refueled", is it then gluttony to put some jelly on that bad boy because I enjoy the taste?

What exactly is "our current theology of gluttony"?
 
Perhaps simplistic, but I always understood his eating post-resurrection as described in Luke was to prove that he was real and alive - to address the unbelief of the eleven. That he was real flesh and blood.
 
Perhaps simplistic, but I always understood his eating post-resurrection as described in Luke was to prove that he was real and alive - to address the unbelief of the eleven. That he was real flesh and blood.
Right. Eating's only purpose is not fuel to serve God?
 
Where do you get the idea that Jesus, in his resurrected body, does not eat for fuel? Eating seems to me to be a fundamental part of having a human body, which Jesus has. There was eating before the fall, and Scripture also speaks of feasting when it describes our coming life with Jesus (as in Isaiah 25, for example). It seems to me that eating can be many things: refueling, fellowship, celebration. Why will it not continue to be all these things when we are with our Savior in our resurrected bodies?
 
Sorry, I'm a bit confused by the question. I understand the sentiment about food being for the purpose of God in refueling in order to live for Him and walk in good works as he has prepared them. Are the concepts of eating "for fuel" and eating "for enjoyment" mutually exclusive?

Like, if all I need is a piece of toast to be "refueled", is it then gluttony to put some jelly on that bad boy because I enjoy the taste?

What exactly is "our current theology of gluttony"?
I'm no theologan and pretty poorly educated. The only thing I get this from is Edwards and Desiring God mostly, in additions to scripture (Proverbs namely, also the whole eat and drink judgment on themselves). Luther I think has a compeletely different view on it. Not to be all legalistic. Its probably a matter of conscience, but I think gluttony and wise judgment on eating is commanded in scripture. Here is Edwards:

20. Resolved, to maintain the strictest temperance in eating and drinking.
40. Resolved, to inquire every night, before I go to bed, whether I have acted in the best way I possibly could, with respect to eating and drinking. Jan. 7, 1723.

John Calvin said:
"Now Christ is the only food of our soul, and therefore our Heavenly Father invites us to Christ, that, refreshed by partaking of him, we may repeatedly gather strength until we shall have reached heavenly immortality” (in reference to Lord's Supper)


Desiring God says

Gluttony occurs when we go to food to satisfy our God-cravings. The glutton seeks satisfaction, or comfort, or fulfillment in food, while tossing God aside like decorative parsley on top of a sizzling steak

So before you reach for the cupboard, ask yourself: Will eating this make me feel more or less energized to do what God has called me to do today?

Christian, as those called and commissioned by Jesus, eat to fulfill their mission. As military soldiers on the battlefield eat nutrient-rich, calorie-dense meals, specifically designed to help them stay alert and have energy to complete their mission, we should eat in such a way as to fulfill ours.

Jonathan Edwards modeled this well. On top of making several resolutions to maintain a strict diet, Edwards’s early biographer, Sereno Dwight, noted how Edwards “carefully observed the effects of the different sorts of food, and selected those which best suited his constitution, and rendered him most fit for mental labour”

Hope I am somewhat helpful
 
Where do you get the idea that Jesus, in his resurrected body, does not eat for fuel? Eating seems to me to be a fundamental part of having a human body, which Jesus has. There was eating before the fall, and Scripture also speaks of feasting when it describes our coming life with Jesus (as in Isaiah 25, for example). It seems to me that eating can be many things: refueling, fellowship, celebration. Why will it not continue to be all these things when we are with our Savior in our resurrected bodies?
"So our Saviour's flesh was flesh that could not suffer, —flesh that had extraordinary powers about it, —flesh however, that could eat, although it was under no necessity to do so." -Charles Spurgeon

I may be wrong and I am somewhat spin foiling, but eating is emblematic in needing to be filled. Though we are as empty vessels here, we shall be completely filled in Christ (not needing anything at all) (we shall be completely sanctified therefore completely satisfied and filled in Christ). Jesus fasted for 40 days.

Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.


I may be wrong so please be merciful.
 
Where do you get the idea that Jesus, in his resurrected body, does not eat for fuel? Eating seems to me to be a fundamental part of having a human body, which Jesus has. There was eating before the fall, and Scripture also speaks of feasting when it describes our coming life with Jesus (as in Isaiah 25, for example). It seems to me that eating can be many things: refueling, fellowship, celebration. Why will it not continue to be all these things when we are with our Savior in our resurrected bodies?
also Jesus' body was then glorified if Im not mistaken. Is he not the forerunner of the type of body we will have? May be wrong. I am honestly not sure.
 
That's not how the church understood gluttony. Gluttony is an inordinate desire for something like food. In any case, Jesus' eating fish doesn't mean we can go hog wild.
 
The title of your thread is about gluttony. Your posts, however, are more about can we eat food besides fuel for the body. The two are not the same.
No I was quoting a specific understanding of gluttony. Some Christians who do have weight and lived lives to the glory of God identify the root underlying cause of gluttony as eating food not for the purpose of fueling a life of service to God, i.e. Jonathan Edwards. So for example, if I eat a lot of food, it would be sin according to this view because the food does not serve as fuel but an object of pleasure, an idol. While I still think gluttony is idolatry and sin, I was wondering how we understand gluttony. While I agree its a wise precept, we know that cannot be the underlying reason for gluttony.
 
No I was quoting a specific understanding of gluttony. Some Christians who do have weight and lived lives to the glory of God identify the root underlying cause of gluttony as eating food not for the purpose of fueling a life of service to God, i.e. Jonathan Edwards. So for example, if I eat a lot of food, it would be sin according to this view because the food does not serve as fuel but an object of pleasure, an idol. While I still think gluttony is idolatry and sin, I was wondering how we understand gluttony. While I agree its a wise precept, we know that cannot be the underlying reason for gluttony.

I see. When you say "eat a lot of food according to this view," it's hard to get a handle on it. In traditional Christian ethics, gluttony is a form of love for sustenance that is perverted into an obsession, usually with food. That is gluttony, full stop.

So is "eating a lot" gluttony? Maybe, but it is hard to define the line between "enough" and a lot.
 
I see. When you say "eat a lot of food according to this view," it's hard to get a handle on it. In traditional Christian ethics, gluttony is a form of love for sustenance that is perverted into an obsession, usually with food. That is gluttony, full stop.

So is "eating a lot" gluttony? Maybe, but it is hard to define the line between "enough" and a lot.
That's what I was sort of asking. Eating a lot would be an outward sign of an obsession or inordinate desire for food (idolatry).
 
I am not sure why someone would think food is only meant for nourishment. Two examples from the Scriptures, one OT and one NT. Deuteronomy 14:22-26 (specifically v26) and John 2:1-11 (he made the best wine). If we are only to eat for nourishment, then why did Jesus feast with others? Why not only eat bland food. Our God certainly cares about more than nourishment, simply from the Scriptures. He cares about gluttony, for sure! But the abuse of something does not equal the negation of a good thing provided. If one struggles to make food into an idol, then that one should be careful when eating. But the same thing goes for anything in life. One may sin in away another does not. It is the heart that is the problem, not the external item.
 
I absolutely agree with the above, we eat and drink to the glory of God, enjoying His good gifts to us!
Are we not in danger of a type of asceticism in viewing food as merely a necessary fuel? Colossians 2:20-23 comes to mind.

And ultimately we recognise that these good gifts are wholly subservient to life in Christ. “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top