Eat Like Yeshua: Returning to Kosher Christianity

Andrew L. Hoy
previous page next page

While some of the particular words used in translations above might be subject to scrutiny or debate, the two basic views of the translations as contrasted in Tables 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b might be simplified even further, as shown in Figure 1 below. 

 

Figure 1—Genesis 1 Food Translation Comparison

 

Although both views come from the same text and ultimately present the same nouns, the two views differ drastically with respect to the blessing’s perceived audience, perceived gifts, and perceived recipients. Thus, they differ in the qualification of objects, which are modified by different verbs, prepositions, and nouns.

Green Herb Gifts versus Green Herb Qualifications

How ought this complex string of compound conditions be understood? Were the “green herbs” intended to be “gifts” for the animals alone, or do the “green herbs” instead qualify animal types by their stomach contents or energy source, thereby indicating which types are suitable for human consumption?  Surely, the answers to such questions about Eden’s food blessing have far-reaching implications, ranging from a vegan animal kingdom to an eternal kosher worldview. 

While it may be rather bold—and even seem blasphemous—to criticize or even question assumptions driving popular English Bible translations, including those which have stood unchallenged within the Christian church for four centuries, it’s not as if the basis for doing so is trivial. To the contrary, the original Genesis language, the surrounding context, latter parallel scriptural teachings, laws of biology, logic, and the health and well being of humanity seem to collectively demand nothing less! 

As introduced in pages prior, there are numerous logical problems, like those of audience, dominion, instinct, chronology, and language, which inherently undermine the traditional “vegan blessing” views. In Genesis 1, Elohim spoke a blessing to humanity, declaring human dominion over animals, having created them hungry and with instincts and appetites the day before the blessing was uttered. Elohim spoke deliberately and coherently, to a species created with ears to hear, with an intellect capable of processing complex language, and the memory to retain the instructions; and Elohim spoke each word for a human purpose. Being an omniscient being, it only stands to reason that Elohim would put forth rational instructions to rational creatures; he did not create creatures with “dead souls”, and did not need to limit the green food to animals with “living souls” when it is impossible for “dead souls” to eat. Likewise, Elohim would hardly declare human food in the future tense saying “it will be for food”, while speaking of animal food in the past tense, saying, “for food it was so” to an animal audience of limited cognitive potential for the sake of posterity.  

Finally, a vegan Genesis worldview would seem to put either the Bible record or God’s competency at stake.  After all, it is written that when Elohim created all life forms, the creation was “good”. Furthermore, Elohim “created everything according to its kind”.  Yet the Bible never seems to go on record saying that Elohim “modified everything according to another kind”, as a Genesis 1 vegan view implicitly demands.  To suggest that there was a transformation between animal types is an argument from silence. 

Leviticus in Genesis

Further supporting an eternal kosher worldview, it is of note that the animal “kinds” that were created in Genesis 1 coincided with the four “kinds” of animals described later in Moses’ Torah, as introduced back in chapter 2. According to Leviticus 11, animals acceptable to eat also consist of four basic types:

 

 

While marine animals are casually omitted from Genesis 1:29-30, the verses do nevertheless establish the first overarching kosher principle, namely, that the clean eat green!  In the blessing of Eden, Elohim was not saying that every animal in creation is required to graze on green plants.146 He was saying that any air-breathing animals that exclusively eat green plants147 were given to humanity as kosher to eat—from head to hoof. Elohim wasn’t limiting man to a diet of beans and apples—either temporarily or eternally, while allocating only green grasses to animals. In the beginning, Elohim created complex ecosystems, which included all kinds of interdependent species. Elohim didn’t create a horse that didn’t love apples148, force the fruit bat to eat “green herbs” for a limited period, or introduce the vampire bat at a later time. Elohim didn’t expect the dolphin to starve to death or demand that birds fast for a day because he was sloppy in the timing or scope of his Genesis green food blessing. Likewise, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the great white shark was equipped or directed to dine on plumes of ocean algae prior to Adam and Eve’s misbehavior. 

Humanity could not be fruitful, multiply, or have the dominion over the entire earth as described in Genesis 1:28 without being offered the nourishment to do so; and nourishment for people is exactly what Elohim fully “gave” to all humanity, according to Genesis 1 verses 29 and 30.

 

 

Returning to Noah after Adam

Yet even after parsing out misleading translation addenda and restoring the original meaning to the blessings of Genesis, there are still more proofs testifying to a kosher blessing for the Noachian world. For example, it is undisputed that Elohim specifically gave humanity seeded vegetables ()149 and seeded fruit from trees () to eat per Adam’s blessing in Genesis 1, as shown several pages prior. Yet in comparing this to Noah’s blessing (per Genesis 9 Hebrew text above), it is clear that Elohim instead referred to green foliage ()150 in the original text. Thus, to assume from Noah’s Genesis 9 blessing that Adam’s diet was originally green herbs or foliage () is to suggest that Elohim only gave Adam green foliage to graze on—the same term to describe animal feed—instead of fruits and vegetables, as stated in Genesis 1. Because the blessing of Noah does not mention plants or fruits of a seeded variety for man, it is not reasonable to infer that Elohim was comparing Noah’s new omnivore animal diet upgrade with Adam’s primitive vegan diet.

In addition to erroneous vegetation association and the exaggeration of the give/gave verb count and verb tense, the English translations are further distorted as a result of the misinterpretation of a single preposition in Noah’s blessing. By ignoring or misappropriating a single “”, which is a prepositional prefix preceding the green herbs (), English translations (such as the previously cited NIV Genesis 9 text) fail to properly convey the original language’s qualification or causality. Rather than using the preposition to qualify the herbs, the NIV seems to use the “just as” preposition to qualify the “I gave” verb instead. However, if the “according to” preposition is properly incorporated in the translation, the kosher animal diet connections—as originally revealed in Genesis 1—are found to be reiterated in Noah’s Genesis 9 food blessing.151 

 

Every moving thing which lives for you, it will be for food according to the green herbs; I gave to you every such thing. (Gen. 9:3 AHT)152

 

Failing to recognize the ‘grazing herbivore’ principle and the contrasting vegetation types discussed in Genesis 1 and 9, even the popular King James Version inserts an “as” in the place of the “” preposition, thereby likening the edible animal types to the green foliage used for animal feed instead of conveying causality or qualification. While this preposition translation is listed as an equally permissible option per Strong’s Concordance,153 the context clearly dictates the use of “according to” over an “as” in the place of the “” preposition, for “according to” better conveys the conditional relationship between human dietary laws and edible animal types based on animal food types.154 After all, to say that “it will be food as (or like) the green herbs” upholds the old “you are what you eat” adage if applied to grazing animals, but it does not work for people who are not grazing on green herbs or foliage—as originally intended for animal feed.

Therefore, after comparing the blessings of Adam and Noah in Genesis chapters 1 and 9, it should be apparent that the combined blessing accounts do not lend themselves to dispensational interpretation; God’s kosher animal gifting to humanity was repeated to Noah in a perfect and eternal tense. In the new post-flood beginning, Noah was told essentially the same things155 as Adam,156 that man was to be fruitful and multiply, that man had dominion over the animals, and that only green-eating varieties of animals were acceptable for man’s food.157

 

Lifeblood versus Souls of Blood

The same animal diet and physiology arguments can also be used to disqualify certain animal types as food per the next verse of Noah’s blessing. 

 
But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. (Gen. 9:4)

 

However, in order to entertain arguments of animal diets and physiology within verse 4, it becomes essential to examine the text in the original Hebrew.

 

 

(Gen. 9:4 ISA)

 

While the Hebrew in the verse above contains three separate pronouns, the association of the pronouns becomes a matter of prerogative for the reader or translator. In most translations, the pronoun (denoted by “” or vav) in and is assumed to refer only to the same animal. However, in recognizing how animal diets and animal physiology are used to qualify animals that are suitable for human consumption, as is consistent with Bible texts,158 it becomes apparent that the two Hebrew “” (vav) pronouns can concurrently refer to two different animals instead of the same one.159 In other words, if two references to “him” that the text includes are not tied to other common nouns in adjacent texts, the reference to “him” could be construed as ambiguous; therefore, the second pronoun appended to the term or “blood of him” might be just as easily—and perhaps more appropriately—be translated as “blood of another.” Given such ambiguity and alternate pronoun substitution, verse 4 might read quite differently, even portraying a hunter-prey relationship.

 

Only the flesh with another’s blood in its soul do not eat. (Gen. 9: 4 AHT)160

 

Instead of seeing this Genesis 9:4 text as yet another distinction between kosher and unkosher animals, Jews and Christians alike fail to see the false dichotomy, i.e., “either-or” commitments made in pronoun association. Thus, they typically attribute this text exclusively to the practice of draining the blood from animals post-slaughter.161

 

Lifeblood and Bloody Meat

While most translations assume that Genesis 9:4 pronouns are referring to one and the same animal, to assume that the text is only referring to post-slaughter blood drainage is perhaps presumptuous. Nevertheless, the favoring of the blood draining interpretation is apparent in the NIV translation as cited in the section above, as a superfluous “still” term was interjected in order to further allude to blood draining processes, even though the original Hebrew not does include words to imply “still” or “remaining.” However, it is also interesting that in this post-flood blessing context, no particular butchering, hanging, or salting procedures are prescribed for the sake of blood draining or evacuation, as is the case of other texts prohibiting blood consumption.162 Furthermore, it is also worth considering that any such blood removal processes are incapable of removing every last drop of blood from an animal, making absolute and literal blood evacuation fulfillment a difficult feat and the common pronoun interpretation more suspect.

While there is indeed biblical and scientific163 merit to the traditional blood draining interpretation, it is also likely that post-slaughter blood evacuation is not the greater intention of the message encapsulated within the original Genesis 9:4 Hebrew text. In fact, as the verses are paired together with a proper translation of the previous verse, it becomes even clearer that Noah wasn’t given “everything moving” to eat. To the contrary, the animals created for man were given for food because they ate green herbs and ate no blood.

 

Everything moving which lives for you, it will be for food according to the green herbs; I gave to you every such thing. Only the flesh with another’s blood in its soul do not eat. (Gen. 9:3–4 AHT)164

 

While there is good reason to recognize both the blood draining and the “another’s blood” interpretations in Genesis 9:4 as concurrently legitimate, as suggested by the two differing “” (vav) pronoun interpretations, it also stands to reason that the “blood of another” interpretation is consistent with the differing anatomical traits and dietary instincts of clean and unclean animals vaguely distinguished within the original Genesis creation account. Likewise, unclean animals with traits as described in Leviticus 11 are those that eat other animals or whose carcasses have short digestive tracts, which are also capable of rapidly processing the flesh and blood of their prey—unlike those feeding exclusively on greens and plant-based foods, which are equipped with long digestive tracts to process grasses and other forms of fibrous vegetation.

As a carnivore binges on another animal or decomposing carcass, it is possible that the blood of the victim directly shunts into the bloodstream of the predator. Whether the blood of the prey is digested in the stomach or passes into the bloodstream of the predator, either way it is inevitable that the blood of the prey enters into the unclean animal. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that unclean animals can be described as animals that “have the ‘lifeblood’ (of another animal) in them,” especially as many unclean animals are hematophagous by nature, feeding on the blood of their prey—some of them even doing so exclusively. 

After blessing humanity as the apex of creation in Eden—and after flood re-creation—Elohim gave them food. In the beginning, Elohim made some clean animals “living for” people to eat, which are those that ate green herbs. He also made unclean animals to clean up the road kill left behind by any other animals, including the “life-blood,” the guts, and everything else, which was not to be eaten by man.165 These principles held true in the time of Adam, Noah, and Moses, just as they remain true today. 

 

Green is Clean, Red is Dead, & White may be Right

Although Noah had ample foreknowledge, he was nevertheless reminded after the flood that as a general guideline, the “green meat” (grazing vegetarian diet) animal varieties were clean and acceptable to eat;166 the “red meat” (carnivorous diet) animals were unclean and forbidden to eat. It’s a simple system: green is clean and red is dead. Like traffic lights, green is “go,” and red is “no go.” Green eggs are fine to eat, but green ham must be rejected as a work of fiction—not even remotely suitable for a child’s entertainment. The earth’s ecosystems are dependent on these relationships; cycles of life cannot be completed without both animal types. There is no reason to invoke miracles and infer changes to animal anatomy or physiology in pre-flood times or while the animals remained in the ark. Likewise, there is no evidence, be it derived from Scriptural, scientific, or secular sources, to suggest any sort of animal transition at the time of the flood. Unclean animals are designed—from the very beginning—to eat clean animals with the unique exception of fish, which are for good reasons not described in either the Adamic or Noahic blessing.

As far as kosher animal types are concerned, fish fit into a special category, as they are constantly immersed in water and not restricted to vegetarian diets, unlike their clean green-eating, air-breathing counterparts. Like their kosher air-breathing, green-eating counterparts, finned-and-scaled clean fish varieties do not dine on decomposing matter, even though many of them do regularly dine on unclean aquatic species. While unclean aquatic creatures, such as shellfish, sharks, eels, catfish, and other fish types without scales and fins, are generally willing to scavenge on decomposing creatures, their flesh is white and not laden with blood. Likewise, the flesh or meat of the clean fish is not full of blood. Thus, meat derived from clean fish cannot be described as fish with the “lifeblood still in it,” or as flesh with another’s blood in its soul. In other words, as far as fish are concerned, “white is all right” for human food, provided there are fins and scales surrounding the white meat.

Given this contrast between aquatic and air breathing creatures, it is interesting that Peter’s vision coincided with distinctions in food blessings to Adam and Noah. While Peter’s vision included quadrupeds, birds, and crawling things, he makes no mention of fish in his visions, even though he was a fisherman by vocation.167 Thus it is reasonable to assert that all of the three food-related blessings where food types are qualified—including Adam’s, Noah’s, and Peter’s— are equally misinterpreted and abused to undermine a kosher worldview!

Wild and Domestic—According to their Kinds

In addition to describing the four principal animal types based on their domains, the Genesis account makes subtle allusion to clean and unclean “kinds.” Although many readers may legitimately interpret animal “kinds” as species variation within animal kingdoms, the text may certainly also refer to “clean and unclean” when it speaks of animals created according to their “kinds.” As a help to Adam, Noah, and all later generations, Elohim created two animal kinds with distinct natural traits such that casual observers of nature might distinguish between them and make use of their observations. 

Inherently practical to domesticate, the clean and edible kinds of non-aquatic animals may be described as:

 
 

Though the English term livestock may lack direct biblical correlation or equivalence to any Hebrew word, the term has great value in describing clean animals suitable for domestication. Clean animals can serve as an excellent living store of nutrition and can survive on dry grass during winter or drought.

In contrast, unclean animals have radically different demeanors. Most unclean kinds may be described as:

 

 

Even though the English term wild may lack perfect correlation with Hebrew animal terms in the Bible, the word does nevertheless describe most unclean animals. Whereas clean animals serve as excellent livestock, unclean animals are instrumental in keeping undomesticated clean animal herds within healthy natural limits, even cleansing the earth of the remains of the dead. Obviously, each animal kind is created according to its purpose, just as each animal kind is given the demeanor to match. Noah surely understood this before the storm brewed or the rain fell, just as Adam did as he named the animals in the beginning.

 

Shepherding Flocks outside of Eden

To assert that ancient knowledge of clean and unclean animals in the pre-flood world and other dining stipulations was inferior, or completely lost forever in the sands of time — or in the waters of the flood—is fishy doctrine as farfetched as it is unbelievable. In the time between Noah and Moses, there is no reason to believe that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were deprived of such ancient foreknowledge; they were not known for herding pigs and eating pork. To the contrary, the knowledge of these blessings was, at a minimum, carried orally from the time of Adam to Noah’s day, much as information would later be relayed from Noah to Abraham. 168 In fact, it is evident that Cain and Abel lived in accordance with the very same dining blessings given to their father Adam.

Little is recorded in Genesis about Abel, Adam’s son, the second born in the human race. Yet from the little that is written, it is only prudent to conclude that Abel consumed kosher animals.169 The Genesis account reads,

 
But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. Yehovah looked with favor on Abel and his offering. (Gen. 4:4)

 

This text, however minuscule and trivial it may appear, reveals interesting facts directly pertaining to the timeless kosher argument. From this text, it is easy to deduce that:

 
 

These few isolated facts pave the road to several questions and discussions, all of which lend credence to interpretations that support the notion of everlasting human kosher omnivore diets.

 

 

Abel’s Leftover Animals

A simple proof contrary to the Genesis “first family” vegan or vegetarian view is one of animal surplus. The first question raised by Genesis 4:4 might be, aside from the portion offered in sacrifice, what did Abel do with the surplus animals in his flock? If Abel was sacrificing only the fattened firstborn of his flock, what did he do with the rest of the animals?

Those promoting a vegetarian worldview and opposing the ancient use of surplus animals for kosher culinary purposes may reason that Abel kept his surplus herds exclusively for clothing. But this argument begs another question: why wouldn’t Abel grow cotton or hemp to make linen garments instead of using animal-based materials, such as wool or leather?

Most scholars seem to share the opinion that before the flood, the earth’s climate was temperate.170 If this is the case, the suitability of Abel’s vocation relative to the environment must be considered. If he kept flocks exclusively for making sacrifices and clothing, did he use the animals for leather or only for wool? A clothing-shepherd explanation of Abel does not consider that there are valid substitute plant-based materials, such as cotton or linen, which are arguably more suitable for wearing in temperate environments. But this begs another more important question: what of Adam and Eve’s garments relative to Abel’s vocation?

 

Eden’s Tannery and Textiles

Much like Cain made an unacceptable fruit-based offering, so too did Adam and Eve try using plant-based garments—leaves from a fig tree—to cover their naked bodies. For whatever reason, Elohim deemed the fig leaves insufficient; and in response, he gave Adam and Eve leather garments to wear.171 The animal type used by Elohim is not identified, but it is clear from the Genesis account, however curious it may be, that Elohim expected Adam and Eve to wear leather. It may be extreme to propose that Adam, Eve, and their offspring were forbidden to wear fabric derived from plants, like cotton or linen, but clearly, the use of animals for clothing materials, whether leather or wool, is not without divine precedent. Elohim would not break his own “no killing animals for utilitarian purposes” rule, as inferred and promoted by vegans dedicated to dogmatic religious persuasions, to clothe Adam and Eve while expecting Adam’s children to do otherwise.

Furthermore, the clothing-shepherd explanation fails to address the question of quantity, need, and surplus of Abel’s flock. After all, how much leather or wool could Abel possibly use to clothe himself and his family? Granted, Adam and Eve may have needed little clothing, if the cartoons that show them in skimpy fig-leaf costumes are correct, even though there is reason to believe they were wearing modest animal hides for the majority of their lives. As for Abel, regardless of the size of the loincloths he made, how large could his wardrobe possibly have been? Would he have needed multitudes of flocks to clothe himself, given the climate? Did Abel curtail the size of the flock to meet his needs as a textile maker, tailor, or leather smith?

Finally, the question of timing must be considered. As for the surplus animals that Abel withheld from sacrifice and may have used for clothing, did he slaughter them or wait for them to die of natural causes before harvesting the leather? And if he slaughtered them for the sake of leather, did Abel—supposedly born as a pre-flood vegetarian—leave the meat to rot in the field, or was he obligated instead to feed it to some unclean wild animal that he had dominion over, which supposedly was created as vegan also? Even if Abel were using leather hides for tent construction while his brother Cain was building a brick-and-mortar city, he eventually would have exhausted his need for leather canvas, and his flock, if he was indeed a strict vegan.

 

Abel’s Fattened Flock

While it may be idealistic and heartwarming for some people to entertain vegetarian-clothing-shepherd views of Abel and the rest of ancient humanity, only the explanation that ancient humanity were kosher omnivores is compatible with the Genesis 4:4 text. After all, the Scriptures say that Abel offered the “fat portions” of his flock. As described in other texts, the fat portions were those most desired for eating and were reserved for divine allotment or special celebration. Conversely, the fattened animals are not revered anywhere in the text for being exceptional milk, wool, or leather producers. This view of the fattened calf being favorable for food is consistent with numerous portions of Moses’ Torah and the Psalms, just as it is with gospel accounts.172 Thus, to suggest that Abel was not eating kosher meats—from the beginning—is every bit as ridiculous as suggesting that he was a hobby farmer who kept his surplus sheep for pets and occasional religious or recreational sacrifice. Suggesting such implies that there was nothing special about the fattened animals Abel offered.

Finally, if Adam and subsequent ancient generations were not permitted or blessed to use animals for food until after the flood, but only green-seed plant life, why would Elohim be pleased with Abel, given that he was working as a shepherd? To suggest that early humanity ate nothing more than apples after being ejected from Eden is hardly valid. Such a vegan-man view is unacceptable and even akin to advocating Cain’s unacceptable fruit sacrifice; it discounts Abel’s honest shepherding vocation, his superior offering, and God’s favor toward him.

 

Shiny Rotten Apples of Eden

Children and adults of all ages are equally perplexed by the Adam and Eve “forbidden fruit” account. From the standpoint of logic or human intuition, the injustice isn’t obvious or apparent—it’s almost foreign to the imagination. It incites curiosity and leaves people flustered. What was it about that fruit? Why was it forbidden? Was the fruit poisoned? Was it somehow evil? Why didn’t Elohim issue “more important” commands to Adam and Eve like “don’t steal” or “don’t murder”? At one time or another, almost everyone has wondered why the fruit wasn’t kosher, or why it was forbidden. Even standing from today’s vantage point with 20/20 hindsight, people reluctantly accept the fact that eating the forbidden fruit caused death.

Believers today are given the grace by which to make a different choice; they can respond to the mysterious kosher commands in reverent humility or with rebellious hostility.

As for the fruit of Eden, there was a particular tree in the middle of the garden that was clearly not kosher to eat at any time, despite the earlier Genesis endorsement of all seeded fruits for human consumption. Even before the fall, Elohim disqualified some particular fruits as food, deeming them to be unkosher.

 
And Yehovah Elohim commanded the man, ”You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” (Gen. 2:16–17)

 

As the story goes, the man took no action to compel the woman to refrain from eating the fruit. The Genesis text reveals, 

 
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. (Gen. 3:6)

 

As for color or type, nobody knows what the forbidden fruit looked like. Artists commonly portray it, for whatever reason, as an apple, perhaps because apple begins with the first letter of the English alphabet and is synonymous with the remedial learning of early Genesis, which describes things that were “in the beginning.” Usually depicted as red in color and lush in appearance, the apple is striking, universally recognized, and unlike any other fruit. 

Yet perhaps the apple is portrayed as the forbidden fruit for an even deeper reason—its deceptive potential. Behind that shiny skin, the fruit’s flesh is assumed to be crisp, juicy, and sweet. Still, when it comes to eating apples, everyone has been duped by false appearances. At times, even though they look great on the outside, apples are soft, grainy, or sour, making them suitable only for applesauce, apple cider vinegar, or animal food. Worse yet, a healthy-looking apple can serve as food and lodging for a worm or other parasite. Such is the case with dispensational teaching. After all, much dispensational teaching looks great on the surface, but in the end, the flesh of such fruit is unclean and worm-infested to the very core.

 

Deceiving the Woman

Regardless of the type of fruit growing on Eden’s forbidden tree, a deceitful appearance is cited as one of the two factors that contributed to Eve’s deception, the other being the pursuit of wisdom apart from God’s commandments. Eve was tricked into thinking that ‘food’ was in the eye of the beholder. Rather than deferring to her husband to clarify the divine revelation, she embarked on an independent path of lawlessness and moral relativism, contrary to what she knew was right, in hopes of liberating and elevating herself. Because it looked like ‘food’ to her, Eve ate the fruit. No doubt it was appealing, and she might have even enjoyed the taste. Nevertheless, the forbidden fruit should never have been considered ‘food.’

As Eve’s protector and her original source of the forbidden fruit revelation, Adam’s failure in Eve’s deception should not be dismissed as trivial.  Having been given the Torah directly, as well as the responsibility of Eve’s care and direction, Adam’s complacency might be likened unto apathetic clergy overseeing a vulnerable church. Like Adam, most clergy has largely opted to ignore God’s protective commandments, failing to faithfully fulfill their calling in the capacity of leadership, protection, and teaching. 

Whether leader or follower, those consenting to dispensational dining views of various Scripture narratives have, in effect, been deceived, and have eaten forbidden, unclean, and unkosher ’food‘ as Adam and Eve did. Tricked by crafty dispensational serpents and ignorant shepherds, congregants have been enticed to disregard the list of forbidden foods in Leviticus 11— in the same way that Eve was fooled into eating the forbidden fruit of Genesis chapters 2 and 3—by half-truths and out-of-context citations.  Rather than asking, “Did Elohim really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” dispensational theologians are now applying different tactics. They tamper with New Testament texts, asserting, “Didn’t Yeshua declare all foods clean? Didn’t Elohim say that Peter should get up and kill and eat everything? Didn’t James say that only strangled animals were to be avoided as food? Didn’t Paul say that all foods are clean?”

Instead of reverting to original sources to process or resolve such inquiries, most people accept half-truths at face value, failing to discern the deadly deceptions. Generally, people agree on what ‘food’ is; more important, however, they ignore or reject teachings on what food is not. Rejecting divinely-inspired ideas about what food is not and eating forbidden ‘food’ doesn’t bring wisdom—it brings death.

Surely, there is no greater irony. Given the countless volumes dedicated to Eden exegesis by dispensational theologians, seldom is it acknowledged that the first two commandments in all of Scripture are in fact dietary! God’s first words to man include blessing and conditional eating instructions, while the second commandment in history is a prohibitive dietary instruction. Although the second commandment is frequently used to demonstrate God’s sovereignty in all moral human affairs, dispensational Christendom remains convinced that no universal or standing dietary commandments could possibly exist or still apply to mankind.

 

Sober Priests and Bible Food

While people usually associate kosher commandments with Moses, the responsibility of kosher teaching and oversight actually went to Moses’ brother Aaron and his sons, who were appointed by Elohim to serve as priests. Although Aaron and Moses received the divine dietary regulations concurrently,173 it is probable that Aaron was more likely to take them to heart than was Moses. Unfortunately for Aaron, he would hear these commandments not long after witnessing divine judgment fall on two sons who failed to properly perform their duties.174 To say the least, this sobering event would leave both the circumstances and the commandments strongly imprinted in his mind.

Expecting priests to minister with discernment and their full mental faculties, Yehovah first prescribed the unique priestly expectations to Aaron and his family, providing a priestly charter statement.

 
You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. You must distinguish between the holy and the common, between the unclean and the clean, and you must teach the Israelites all the decrees Yehovah has given them through Moses. (Lev. 10:9–11)

 

The first half of the vocational charter that was assigned to Aaron and his sons as priests was to teach the Israelites to distinguish between the unclean and the clean. The remaining half of the charter was dedicated to teaching other commandments. Even though there are no sons of Aaron actively presiding over the office of the priesthood today, surely the emphasis and scope of the priestly charter must not be disregarded as irrelevant. Citing offensive and dysfunctional religious authorities more than two thousand years ago, Ezekiel spoke in the first person and on behalf of Elohim himself, saying,

 
Her priests do violence to my Torah and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean. (Ezek. 22:26)

 

Because the Torah of Moses remains in effect and because no New Testament figure came to overturn that Torah,175 it stands to reason that Aaron’s charter for ministers and Ezekiel’s prophetic indictment of substandard ministry remain relevant to this day. Ministers of modern times—who are not priests—might take note of Ezekiel’s rebuke and Aaron’s charter; anyone professing to teach the word of Elohim will ultimately be critiqued on their ability to uphold the charter of distinguishing between the clean and the unclean, while instructing their audiences to do the same. In accordance with these texts, apostate ministers who are committed to teaching contrary to Moses’ Torah must be called to account. After all, Yeshua could never be revered as a “priest on the order of Melchizedek”176 or as the “prophet likened unto Moses”177 if he could not do something as simple and prudent as distinguish between the clean and the unclean, as Aaron and Moses did. Moreover, according to gospel texts, those claiming to teach and follow in Yeshua’ footsteps while eating unclean foods and teaching that there is no difference between the clean and the unclean will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.178

 

Rules and Reasons for Children

Perhaps this kosher message is most difficult for clergy and congregants to accept because unimpeded and unprecedented gluttony has become the norm in Western civilization and churches; people cannot fathom that Elohim would impose or maintain any dietary restrictions. Adam and Eve’s single failure didn’t make the fruit acceptable to later generations, nor did Yeshua’ crucifixion remove forbidden food from the planet. A response of rebellion to such plain and simple truths is nothing less than childish. Theologians who say something like, “Go ahead; put anything in your mouth!” must be flagged for endorsing suspicious and reckless behavior; such clergy have obviously failed to learn and accept the most rudimentary Genesis lesson of Adam and Eve. Such theologians are doing exactly what the serpent did.

Children are rightly conditioned and corrected in response to a dangerous behavior that starts even before they learn to speak. Even prior to learning how to crawl, children are told time and time again, “Don’t put that thing in your mouth!” Of course, parents understand what children do not—that food is not defined by the mouth’s mere ability to receive it, and that sampling things with no guidelines or discretion can be downright deadly. Any parent knows that something does not automatically become food just because it can be tasted, chewed, swallowed, or digested.

Fortunately for young children, parents are loving, patient, and not quickly angered when they experiment without comprehension, putting nonfood or dangerous items into their mouths. Despite repetition of dangerous behavior, children receive unconditional forgiveness because of their ignorance or undeveloped powers of comprehension.

However, ignorance is no excuse in the case of an older child, who can comprehend, or an adult, who should know better. Ignorance is forgivable, but rebellion against good laws established by a good Elohim is just plain stupidity. While the prophet Hosea said, “My people perish for the lack of knowledge,”179 the prophet Samuel likened rebellion to witchcraft.180 Ignorance is one path to destruction, but it is probably safe to say that rebellion is a faster route to much greater devastation.

Only after being expelled from the Garden of Eden would Adam and Eve consent to view food from the proper divine perspective. Surely for centuries following their ejection from Eden, they would stop and think twice before putting something into their mouths. And they wouldn’t pay much attention to snake oil salesmen pushing bad theology and asking, “Did Elohim really say that?” Instead, they would listen to their Father, who said in the beginning, “Don’t eat that because I said so!”and even, “Don’t eat that because it will kill you!”

 

 

Table of contents

previous page start next page