Choice of food is certainly relevant to healing – even for Christians

Deutsch

Anyone who touches another person’s roast pork or sausage sandwich, or even mentions it as a mistake, is generally ostracized. How dare anyone do this? In the defense of the beloved salami, it’s completely lost sight of the fact that the choice of food is indeed of medicinal relevance. This is true in many different aspects.

Very unpopular topic

One of the hottest topics in Christianity is the subject of nutrition. Unfortunately, the question of how much and, more importantly, what one eats is rarely discussed. However, it only remains quiet and peaceful until “someone” raises their voice and admonishes that God’s dietary laws are still relevant today. This applies to all people, and especially to those who call themselves Christians. One may eat anything, according to the prevailing narrative. The purity laws apply to Jews, so the argument goes, but not to Christians.

But beware of giving the impression that you’re disputing someone’s salami on a roll. Then it’s “the end of the fun.”

The claim that the dietary law is irrelevant for Christians cannot be true. This becomes clear from the Gospel when one reads the relevant passages in context, rather than selecting the verses that seem appropriate to one’s own preferences. Thus, some (idiosyncratic) interpretations can no longer be sustained simply by understanding the verses before and after them. Only then does a proper context emerge.

Popular attempts at justification

A frequently used justification is the statement made by Jesus Christ himself: “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” (Matthew 15:11)

Boom! There it is! No food contaminates humans!

Jesus actually made it clear

But the fact that Jesus wasn’t addressing food, not even “surprisingly as a metaphor,” but was directly criticizing the unspeakable traditions of the Pharisees, only becomes clear if one reads this chapter from the beginning. The reason was the Pharisees’ obligatory washing of hands before every meal. After all, this was a “tradition of the ancients” and must be observed accordingly.

After this statement, Jesus repeated to the disciples what all this meant, ultimately incensing the Pharisees. The next statement is also one of the most popular statements used to justify eating unclean food. “Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?” (Matthew 15:17).

Viewed in isolation, it’s certainly interpretable this way, but not when one grasps the actual context. The immediately following verses quickly put the interpretation of literal eating into perspective. “But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.” (Matthew 15:18-20)

Literally in, but spiritually out?

This clarifies it repeatedly. Jesus is referring neither to the bread nor to meat, nor to any food at all, but to the spiritual aspect. It takes a lot of effort to interpret what goes into the mouth as a “salami pizza,” but to judge what comes out of the mouth as spiritual. It’s either one or the other. If one were consistent, one would have to assume that Jesus must have been referring to vomiting with what comes out of the mouth.

You can wriggle as much as you like, but it won’t help. The dietary laws given by God, the division into clean and unclean, have remained unchanged and are binding to this day (more info).

Creation – Animals never intended as food

Unclean animals weren’t first explained to the people of Israel; Noah had long known this important distinction. He was instructed to bring one pair of each type of unclean animal and seven pairs of each type of clean animal into the ark. “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.” (Genesis 7:2)

God’s purpose for mankind, newly created on the 6th Day of Creation, was to give him all the seed-bearing fruits of the trees for food. The green plants for the animals (Genesis 1:29-30). There’s not even a mention of lions hunting gazelles for food, or sharks hunting smaller fish. That was simply not intended. Before the Fall in the Garden of Eden, death did not yet exist.

Only after Noah and his family left the ark after the Flood did meat officially become part of the menu. But only pure animals! At the same time, God took away the animals’ trust in humans. Instead, they were supposed to fear humans. But even pure animals were not allowed to be eaten with their “skin and hair.” The blood of animals must never be eaten, as it contains life (Genesis 1:1-5). In the detailed instructions for the sacrificial service given to the later people of Israel, it also became clear that animal fat was also taboo.

Radical decline in life expectancy

What is immediately striking is that the life expectancy of people declined radically after the Flood. Noah lived another 350 years after the Flood and reached a total age of 950. His descendant Arpachshad only reached the age of 438. Serug only 230, and Abraham only 175. It’s quite an interesting constellation that Abraham was already 58 years old when Noah died (graphic chronicle). They were thus contemporaries, and who knows, perhaps they met. But Noah was certainly known beyond subsequent borders. He and his three sons came from the “old world,” and for everyone after him, Noah was grandfather, great-grandfather, great-great-grandfather, etc.

It’s as if Henry I (1068 to 1135) of England were still alive today, and one could ask him personally whether his father, William the Conqueror, was actually called William the Bastard before his conquests. Or whether this was merely an expression of antipathy on the part of the Anglo-Saxons. It’s fascinating.

With the radical change in people’s diet, their life expectancy fell just as drastically. Even if the connection doesn’t prove anything, a clear correlation can still be seen in this anomaly. Environmental toxins, lack of exercise, obesity, and the “diseases of civilization” that have suddenly appeared since modern times are ruled out as possible causes. What would be completely unrealistic, however, is the assumption that the type and quantity of food consumed has nothing to do with the condition of the human body. The body doesn’t develop by extracting carbon from the air and digging catalysts from the soil.

Is the choice of food relevant to salvation?

This entirely legitimate question is quickly answered.
Indirectly: Yes!
Directly: Yes!
So: Yes!

Yes, because God clearly stated which animals can never be considered food. These are not (only) spiritually unclean, but also physically harmful to the human body. Many of these animals are nature’s cleaners. They eat carrion and other debris. They clean the seabed, and some even consume what they’ve just deposited “at the back.” This includes rabbits. Many people giggle when they read Leviticus 11:6:
“And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.”

A “ruminant” rabbit? Yes, that was the term used back then for animals that not only regurgitate grass like cattle to chew it repeatedly, but also for rabbits, which also repeatedly chew their droppings. When food is scarce, horses are also inclined to “recycle” their own droppings. Hence, unclean.

Simply not intended as food

God created everything “very good,” even unclean animals. They are far from imperfect just because the “gourmet” simply wants his pork, his roast rabbit, his frog legs, or his crabs, crayfish, and scampi on his plate and should actually avoid it. These animals are simply not intended for cooking, just as all clean animals were never intended as food at the origin of God’s creation.

Whoever eats such things is an abomination to God! E.g. “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:” (Leviticus 11:10).

“Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.” (Leviticus 11:12)

The prophets knew exactly

The prophet Ezekiel tried to ease his heavy burden somewhat and emphasized before God that he never ate unclean meat: “Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.” (Ezekiel 4:14)

Does it say something about “only all Israelis or Jews” or does it say something about “all flesh”?

That observance of God’s dietary law is directly relevant to salvation is demonstrated by Isaiah’s glimpse into the future: the day on which God will judge humanity. Among other things, it says:
“For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many. They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.” (Isaiah 66:16-17)

Auch im Neuen Testament, nach der Himmelfahrt Jesu, ist der klare Hinweis zu finden, dass es die Wahl der Nahrung durchaus relevant ist. Petrus verteidigte sich: “Petrus aber sprach: Keineswegs, Herr! denn ich habe noch nie etwas Gemeines oder Unreines gegessen!” (Apostelgeschichte 10,14).

You are what you eat

The dietary law is also indirectly relevant to salvation. This applies to meat in general, including that of clean animals. God created man to rule over the rest of creation (Genesis 1:26; Psalm 8). He also ruled over the animals in the air, on land, and in the water. But he was not to hunt them down and eat them. The human organism wasn’t designed for that. All seed-bearing fruits of trees, that was the ideal. Well, before the Flood, there was certainly more variety and, above all, healthier food than what remained after the Flood, let alone what is available in supermarkets today.

There should be no doubt that the human body is completely dependent on externally supplied nourishment. It should be equally clear that the constant ingestion of industrial waste labeled as food will result in a body that looks more like a rusted container than what God actually created. Any ailments or symptoms are then treated with remedies manufactured by those who are in close proximity to the manufacturers of the body fillers labeled as food. One hand washes the other, so the uncritical omnivore is trapped in a costly vicious cycle.

The brain is also a part of the body

The human brain, unfortunately, has to be emphasized again and again, is a part of the body. Not just a filler for the gap between the two ears, but also the center of thought. Feelings and emotions are “somewhere” in the middle, and the mind is just behind the forehead. The brain is not only, relative to its size, the largest consumer of carbohydrates, but also the organ with the greatest oxygen hunger and also has the highest demands on the quality of the available building materials.

Now, it’s a simple quiz for elementary school students to ask them whether a house looks more stable, robust, and even more beautiful when built with clean, orderly bricks, or whether this is the case when it’s built with garbage bags. How can a brain develop to its full potential if it’s fed with garbage? Most drivers worry about the best gasoline, the purest motor oil, and the most effective windshield washer fluid, but what they do to their bodies seems merely irrelevant in comparison?

Daniel & friends set an example

Daniel 1 also demonstrates the profound difference between what food can do to one’s cognitive abilities. Daniel, still a young man, was taken from Jerusalem to Babylon along with numerous other people. There, he, three of his friends—Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah—and other young people were sequestered to study the Babylonians’ knowledge. They were to become something of themselves. King Nebuchadnezzar ordered them to be fed the finest food Babylon had to offer. Royal food, what an honor. But Daniel and his three friends refused.

The fine foods and fine wine were tempting, but not to be consumed. These foods consisted of meat, including unclean meats, and fermented wine (containing alcohol) was absolutely taboo. Thus, the typical food of the Gentiles. A no-go for Daniel and his friends. The reason was not only God’s clear declaration that all this was an abomination, but also the reasoning behind it.

In a conciliatory tone

Daniel behaved kindly but firmly. He suggested to the eunuchs in charge that he and his friends abstain from the royal meal for 10 days, and then see how they fared compared to the others who indulged in these foods and drinks. Nebuchadnezzar himself was the evaluator of the results. He noted: “And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.” (Daniel 1:20)

Ten times wiser, ten times more insight

There is only one true gospel, as it is written. There are countless false teachings, misinterpretations, and even completely false assumptions. Some of the things circulating are so insane that one wonders how the apologists can even find fertile ground with their material. But it’s actually the case.

Now, rhetorically: Is it possible that in this day and age, in the late era of lies and deception, a mind that would be ten times better, that would provide ten times more insight, could be of enormous advantage in recognizing the truth and thus also identifying the deceptions as such? One is immediately inclined to answer “Yes, logically.”

Therefore, it is also justified to describe the choice of food as indirectly relevant to salvation. What is now referred to as “brain fog” has been on the rise since around 2021. The actual origin may be debatable, but it may be a potentiating effect on what was already latent. A clouding of thinking without one being (or still being) truly aware of it. In this case, only “clean food” would help to clear the brain.

Just dare to start

Daniel and his three friends ate vegetables (Daniel 1:11). The change in one’s own life doesn’t have to be so radical. However, a very good start would be to immediately stop eating unclean animals (an abomination to God). The blood of meat should also be taboo from now on, as should the fat. Lean-free meat is impossible with pork anyway. In addition to the external fat, pork also has the ability to store fat within its cells. This process can (and should) be continued step by step until meat is completely eliminated from the plate.

Anyone who has ever fasted for three or four days, meaning the complete abstinence from food, generally knows that after about the third day, the mind appears with a usually unexpected clarity (Info). Suddenly, one can think clearly again. This is also a basic prerequisite for understanding what God wants to communicate to us through His Word.

God judges what ends up on our plates as either an abomination or as acceptable. A truly big difference, because Isaiah 66 is crystal clear about this. Clinging to the unclean will not end well. And it affects our ability to think. Either we become clouded or we become clear about what is being placed before us, and we have the necessary sound judgment to determine whether this is even in line with the gospel.

Therefore, once again: The diet is anything but unimportant, but in many aspects essential for human salvation.

Bible verses from King James Version (1611)