Perfect in Deed and Perfect in Feed
Christians of all denominations have shared a common belief for centuries. For nearly two thousand years, they have placed their faith—and their eternal destiny—in Yeshua’ redemptive work. Rather than depending on their own imperfect effort for their eternal salvation, they rely on Yeshua’ perfect life. Because of this, Christians will zealously attest to Yeshua’ flawless compliance with all of Moses’ Torah, accepting it as a prerequisite for their salvation.
Given Moses’ mandates, it follows that Yeshua’ righteous status was indeed contingent on what he ate; in other words, Yeshua would not have lived a perfect life if he ate things that Elohim forbade through Moses. The Christian redemption mechanism collapses if Yeshua did not keep all of Moses’ Torah, for Christian theology insists that an imperfect sacrifice would fail to meet the Father’s expectations. Therefore, Yeshua was bound by the entire Torah or ‘Torah’ of Moses—including the ‘kosher’ food laws of Leviticus; Yeshua couldn’t eat roadkill, blood, or animals slaughtered by strangulation, nor could he eat things like shrimp, lobster, scallops, or swine. Had Yeshua eaten such ‘foods,’ he would have violated Moses’ Torah, disqualifying himself and incurring guilt and sin. Yeshua’ failure to comply with Moses’ food laws would disintegrate the basis for Christian claims of messianic perfection; it would negate his pedigree and render his crucifixion meaningless. For Yeshua to be perfect in deed, he had to be perfect in feed.
Eating like Yeshua Did—WWJD?
As a matter of obligation, anyone participating in the popular W.W.J.D. (What Would Yeshua Do?) movement should investigate the candid gospel testimonies pertaining to all possible facets of Yeshua’ life—including his diet. The W.W.J.D. question demands that believers research gospel records of Yeshua’ life to understand what he actually did, lest the acronym embossed on so many bracelets, coffee mugs, and t-shirts amount to nothing more than vain rhetoric. Surveying the gospel texts for food and eating references, people will find that the accounts do not limit Yeshua’ diet to mere fruits, figs, and grains. In fact, the texts suggest that Yeshua ate both fish and lamb; he prepared fish for his disciples1 and the masses,2 and he ate the traditional Passover meal with his disciples.3 On the other hand, gospel writers never describe Yeshua as eating unclean foods or animal types forbidden by Moses; there is no evidence that Yeshua ever put pork on his fork.
Regardless of the positive sentiments fueling the W.W.J.D. movement, it is not practical or reasonable for people to believe that they can or should emulate Yeshua in every way. Gospel texts were obviously not written as fully detailed biographies; thus, it is impossible to know everything that Yeshua did. Moreover, many circumstances of modern life do not correlate with those of Yeshua’ life according to the ancient biblical accounts, making it all the more difficult to do what he did, much less to predict what Yeshua would do. Finally, there is the matter of individual identity and purpose; in professing to be the Son of Elohim, Yeshua didn’t encourage billions of followers to make the same messianic claims as he did. Obviously, Elohim does not expect everyone to turn water into wine, to ride into Jerusalem by donkey, or to curse nearby fig trees.
Eating like Yeshua Did—WDJS?
Fortunately, to the benefit of billions of believers, Yeshua never instructed his disciples to do exactly as he did in gospel texts; instead, he hoped his followers would do exactly as he said. Thus a W.D.J.S. (What Did Yeshua Say) campaign might be more prudent, since recalling Yeshua’ imperative instructions is far more practical than speculating W.W.J.D. from incidental gospel accounts. Yeshua never said, “Do everything that I do and exactly as I do it.” Instead he commissioned his followers to obey everything that he commanded them.4 Granted, it may be perfectly reasonable to deduce that Yeshua ate only kosher foods based on his messianic obligation to Moses’ Torah and on the ancient gospel descriptions. But it is by far more important for Christians to recall what Yeshua said about eating and food. After all, clear instructions and imperative statements are generally more effective in communicating divine expectations for humanity than relatively vague examples offered without specific and authoritative language.
But even after carefully examining Yeshua’ life as described in the four gospel texts, it becomes evident that he said very little about food—and even less about eating. In fact, Yeshua never listed types of foods that were acceptable to eat;5 neither did he list foods that were forbidden to eat. However, it is clear that Yeshua had extraordinary reverence for the Torah of Moses. Yeshua repeatedly underscored the divine authority behind Moses’ words, and he also touted the eternal validity of Moses’ writings.6 Such statements should logically leave the gospel audience to conclude that Yeshua would defer to Moses’ Torah in all dining and dietary affairs. A proper Christian response to a gospel diet study, therefore, might be to inquire, “W.D.M.S.?” (What Did Moses Say?); after all, Yeshua made direct reference to Moses’ writings on dozens of occasions.
New Testament Food and Dispensational Folly
Nevertheless, a host of popular yet counterfeit Christian doctrines portray Yeshua’ teachings7 and New Testament ‘food theology’ in a radically different light; many Christian institutions even insist that Yeshua overturned the dietary laws given through Moses. Such doctrines and teachings can be grouped under the large umbrella of dispensational theology.
According to dispensational theology, God’s commandments and moral expectations for mankind shifted between Old Testament and New Testament eras, or historical “dispensations.” Such theology presupposes that New Testament teachings are drastically different in substance and spirit when compared with Old Testament texts, and newer revelations are assumed to replace earlier divine mandates.
While some may perceive a dispensational approach to Bible interpretation to be practical and beneficial on many levels, dispensational theology is wrought with logical complications and carries dangerous implications. First of all, dispensational theologians inherently portray a fickle god—one devoid of stability, without moral absolutes, and with a cheap and pliable notion of justice. Unstable and unpredictable, the dispensationalists’ god is perceived as a capricious prankster, making men of certain eras pursue pointless things —including unproductive superstitious rituals —as a result of fear. Since he lacks foreknowledge, the dispensationalists’ god is not a competent one and has insufficient control over human history. Instead, this is a god whose rogue creation took him by surprise and thwarted his original plan. This is a god who makes moral standards too unreasonable and too hard to follow, then changes these standards in response to humanity’s inability to observe them. Devoid of reason, the dispensationalists’ god is a far cry from the one true Elohim, who says, “I change not!”
Dispensational Portraits
Subtly sown dispensational seeds have been scattered throughout all of Christendom and Western society. They sprout in all forms of media, from Sunday sermon series to artistic caricatures in Sunday morning newspaper comics. Where dispensational thinking has taken root, Elohim might be portrayed in Old Testament contexts as an angry old man on a throne, dispatching awful things like plague, famine, and lightning bolts to unequivocally express his wrath. He inspires more fear than love, and he is depicted as an authoritarian deity, pronouncing condemnation over lawbreakers with a stern and intimidating voice.
Unlike the Father or Elohim of the Old Testament, the New Testament Yeshua is predominantly portrayed as a benevolent deity within dispensational venues. Yeshua is often made out to be a pacifist or peacenik, smiling and lighthearted, mystical and illuminated, full of grace and mercy, often hugging small children and holding little lambs. Unlike an aging and overbearing father, this Yeshua can be cool, friendly, and fun. He is depicted as a hero who kept the Torah for the sake of humanity—so humanity could attain salvation without having to carry such a cumbersome burden or preoccupy itself with such complicated legal detail.
While dispensational doctrine and imagery might vary in its degree or extremity, the effects of dispensational thinking are clearly far-reaching and of great influence. In particular, kosher food laws are treated with indifference and contempt by dispensational theologians—even though such laws were given to humanity for the benefit of human health.
Regardless, dispensational theologians have created an entire ‘dining theology’ by extrapolating beyond Yeshua’ teachings and other New Testament accounts, permitting and sometimes even encouraging their congregants to eat defiled or unclean food.8 This is particularly ironic given the striking parallels between dispensationalism and the New Testament prodigal son9 parable. After all, it was the rebellious prodigal son who abandoned his father’s rules and wound up tending unclean swine in foreign lands!
Christianity Redefined
Nevertheless, as many mainstream Christian institutions have been commandeered by prodigal thinkers, Christianity has been defined according to dispensational standards. In fact, dispensational theology is the norm in Christian education; it is promoted in Sunday schools, private grade schools, and seminaries, as well as in weekly sermons. Likewise, most religious materials are influenced by dispensational thinking; books, church constitutions, worship liturgy and song, and even Holy Bible translations10 are replete with dispensational ideas. Consequently, entire Christian congregations are forged into dispensational molds.
But the problem of dispensational precedents predates modern religious institutions and Bible translations; it was not conceived over the course of the latest generation. To the contrary, the public has been saturated with dispensational theology for centuries; and as a result, it is fair to say that Christianity today is no longer a religion defined by its point of origin. Rather than being defined by specific teachings of Yeshua or particular Scriptures, Christianity has instead become a religion of creed, human doctrines, and manmade church constitutions. In some cases, it has even become a religion of public opinion.
While it may sound radical to suggest that Christianity has been redefined by public opinion, modern dictionary descriptions testify to the ongoing redefinition of Christianity. According to the dictionary excerpt on the first page of this preface, it is clear that Christianity is somehow defined by secondhand or third-party processing. According to the definition, the words of Messiah and sacred writ are not what define the religion; instead, the tenets of Christianity are a matter of institutional derivation and profession—derivation being a matter of somebody’s preference, and profession being a zealous expression of such preference.
But Christianity need not—and must not—be defined or redefined according to the preferences of theologians or in keeping with dispensationalists’ worldviews. If Christianity is not defined and constrained exclusively by biblical texts, there is no assurance that the Christianity derived or professed by anyone will be authentic; and if it is not authentic, it must be rejected as something misclassified, mislabeled, or misrepresented. After all, Christianity in a secondhand and institutional sense has been associated with a host of problems, including holy wars, crusades, dictatorial manipulation, political perversions, human traditions, and even choirboy molestation; whereas Christianity in an authentic or fundamental biblical sense cannot be identified as the root cause of such problems.
Defining Kosher Christianity
Because Christianity has been radically redefined by so many different entities, kosher and Christianity are words unlikely to be found together in religious contexts. Therefore, the term Kosher Christianity is likely to be perceived as an oxymoron by Christians and Jews, or possibly even heretical by those reared in traditional religious environments. After all, the term kosher is not used biblically in Christian texts or establishments; instead it has been used in food contexts by European Jews, as many dictionary definitions indicate. But ironically, the term is never used in Old Testament food or eating contexts either, even though the word kosher is of Hebrew origin.11 Regardless, so-called kosher food selection and dining principles are deeply rooted in ancient Old Testament Torah, and they are still meticulously applied in Jewish communities throughout the world to this very day—much like they were thousands of years ago. In stark contrast, both contemporary and traditional expressions of Christianity have had little, if anything, to do with that which is kosher, at least since the term was introduced in dining contexts.
Despite any initial orthodox religious perceptions and connotations, in this book the term Kosher Christianity is used in a hopeful sense in this book to describe a new future or potential reality; it does not refer to a dispensational prodigal son. The dichotomy of the term is entirely dependent on how people define or perceive the two words—and how determined they are to remain committed to their original perceptions and definitions. By no means are the words kosher and Christianity merged to arbitrarily qualify today’s dispensational or yesteryear’s traditional religious institutions as ‘acceptable’ from an Old Testament or Jewish standpoint, even though many institutions bear Christian titles. This is exactly where distinctions must be made; tradition and dogma must be parsed from Christian doctrine. As used in the pages of this book, Kosher Christianity refers to a non-dispensational view of the Christian faith and approach to Bible interpretation.
Inspiring a Return to Kosher Christianity
Of course, asking people to investigate the Christian faith from the perspective of Kosher Christianity is no trivial matter. Not only is reading an entire book a considerable investment in time, but to expend such effort exploring a radically different perspective, as proposed in EAT LIKE JESUS, may be perceived as a daunting task. It is human nature for people to believe that their preexisting or preconceived notions are correct, and it can be difficult to entertain the possibility of misguidance or deception, lest they feel betrayed by Elohim himself. In this way, personal ego and pride can represent potential barriers to objective investigation. Finally, in surveying an alternate viewpoint, readers might encounter some resistance, being alienated or ostracized for even considering an unconventional view of the New Testament or of the Christian faith. But to EAT LIKE JESUS is not to deny the faith—it is to embrace it with more honesty and enthusiasm.
It is possible that those committed to dispensational theology will suggest that this book attempts to “Judaize” Christian believers and even advocates so-called works-based salvation. To the contrary; those aspiring to earn a guaranteed open-ended ticket to eternal life if they EAT LIKE JESUS will not find their hopes validated in this book. Nevertheless, a failure to EAT LIKE JESUS may well reduce not only a person’s quality of life, but their overall life expectancy, thereby hastening the person’s arrival at his eternal destiny! After all, carnivorous, scavenging, and cannibalistic animals avoided by Yeshua and forbidden by Moses—such as swine and shellfish—exhibit higher decomposition rates, accumulate more toxins, and are higher in pathogens and allergens than are foods derived from kosher sources.
Furthermore, because “zeal without knowledge is not good,”12 it is reasonable to assert that Bible-believing Christians are in some way obligated to investigate alternate minority views. In fact, the book of Proverbs insists that a person weigh both sides of an argument, such as those represented by Kosher Christianity, before rendering a decision.13 Likewise, John’s epistle demands that believers “test the spirits”14 or the teachings, lest they be misled by isolated dogma or a single point of reference. Of course, intelligent readers understand these principles intuitively, and choose to read books that expand their understanding—not those that merely reinforce whatever they have been previously taught. Academically curious, honest readers understand that knowledge should precede action, lest their zeal be misdirected toward unproductive or destructive ends.
In the end, the motivation for returning to Kosher Christianity is a matter of individual decision. Above self-preservation, and apart from health, fear, or guilt, people are also inspired by greater ends, such as obedience and love. Knowing that love is the greatest motivator, and that love makes obedience a joy as opposed to a burden, Yeshua himself said, “If you love me, you will obey what I command.”15 Love inspires people to emulate those they admire; thus, love should be among the reasons to EAT LIKE JESUS.
Clearing the Path to Kosher Christianity
Given that the path to Kosher Christianity has become obscured by dispensational doctrines and obstructed by deceptive mistranslations, this book is written to empower the reader to digest biblical food texts with kosher reasoning. Because key excerpts of Matthew, Mark, Acts, Romans, Corinthians, and Colossians16 are dogmatically used to espouse anti-kosher rhetoric, these texts will be examined in their original contexts and languages and compared with Leviticus and Genesis texts, so that a more comprehensive biblical dining theology might be presented. As these texts are examined, this book will reconsider answers to the following questions:
However, before Scripture is scrutinized to resolve these stomach-centric questions, the reader is presented with a greater question: “Is it reasonable to assume that Elohim is good, and that he gave good laws through Moses for the good of man?”
If a reader is compelled to answer “no” to this question, insinuating that Elohim is ill-intended, there is little hope that the content of this book will be capable of mending such emotional wounds. Subsequent pages are not written to those committed to a prodigal attitude—being determined to remain estranged from the Father, eating among pigs in a distant land. Objecting to the possibility of God’s goodness is to remain on a broad superhighway leading to destruction. It is to brand Kosher Christianity as a fallacy without due consideration.
Conversely, readers willing to affirm the goodness of Elohim are those willing to step onto a narrow path, leading to a tree of life. To answer “yes” to the question of God’s goodness is to take a leap of faith; it is to “test the spirits” and weigh positions that favor traditional and dispensational dining dogma against scriptural arguments that oppose them. It is to respond openly and impartially to the appeal to EAT LIKE JESUS. To answer “yes” is to accept the possibility that Kosher Christianity might be the only honorable legacy for the entire family of faith.