Is Vegetarianism Biblically Commanded?

For some time there have been those who have advocated that when a person was in a right relationship with God, he or she would experience physical blessing which may have included good health. One of those was a man known as Father Divine. Father Divine even went to the extreme that if his plan of sanctification was followed, one would not even die. We now refer to Father Divine as the late Father Divine. Well, so much for his plan. Unfortunately, many today are still insisting that there are certain dietary regulations that the Bible prescribes, that if obeyed will extend life or at least extend the quality of life lived. There is modicum of truth to this teaching, but as with every lie, there always is a certain amount of truth upon which it is based.

It is beyond argument that the alcoholic will probably live a shorter lifespan simply because even if the effects of the alcohol upon their liver does not "get them", their impairment of judgment will endanger them in driving. But can the ingestion of certain foods, or the abstinence from certain foods that do not have the intoxicating effects of alcohol really extend or shorten one's life?

Generally speaking, those who hold that one's diet determines how long and how well they live are vegetarians. Some go beyond this and insist on only "natural" or "organic" foods. As with every other philosophy of living, these ideas must be subjected to biblical scrutiny. I am convinced that when this is accomplished, these ideas will fail.

Before proceeding however, it is necessary to state that anything that follows is not a criticism of anyone who simply loves vegetables and doesn't like meat. Nor am I advocating eating a junk food diet while trusting God to keep me healthy. And certainly if one has an allergy to certain foods or a physical condition such as diabetes or high cholesterol, they should not eat those foods that aggravate their condition. My only concern is with those who make all-inclusive dietary statements which they believe will positively affect the health of all for the good. My desire with this article is, as briefly as possible, to comprehensively search the Scriptures for its teaching concerning the diet of God's people.

A comprehensive study must begin at the beginning and end with the ending. So we will begin with Genesis. In the original creation of God man was a vegetarian; he was not permitted to eat meat. Genesis states God's own words to Adam and even concerning their diet:

“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

Adam and Eve had the best of the vegetables to eat. They were not tainted by pesticides or any pollutants in the air. They were truly organic! It could be said that God "grew" them Himself and therefore they had to be perfect. And what may initially seem like an argument contrary to my proposition, they could have lived forever on that diet. That is except for one thing- sin. In Genesis 3, sin enters the world and death by sin (Romans 5:14). Interestingly, they continued with the same diet. If the diet was capable of extending their life then they should not have died. We can only conclude that it was not the diet that gave longevity to their lives.

Subsequent to the Noahic flood, man's dietary choices changed by the direction of God. Moses records God in Genesis 9:3 as saying:

“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”

Undoubtedly there was a supply of vegetables and grains on the ark to allow Noah and his family to survive the 40 days and nights and it is very probable that there was ample supply for a time afterwards. But it would take a "season" at the very least for the earth to bring forth a new crop. Noah and his family were dependent upon the animals aboard the ark for their sustenance. And the animals they consumed were not given hormones nor had they ingested other animals. And since the ground was not polluted by pesticides and other pollutants the "grass" they ate was "pure".

Interestingly the longevity of man began to diminish following the flood. Can this be attributed to the ingestion of meat? Well, one thing that is evident is that it was not the "artificial" things in the meat that caused the decrease in man's length of life. In fact the meat remained relatively "pure" for a couple of millennia during which time David would write that man's life expectancy was to be between 70 and 80 years. It is highly doubtful the introduction of meat into the diet of mankind had anything to do with the decrease in life's longevity. When the children of Israel complained as they were wandering through the wilderness about the monotony of the manna, they were really complaining about the provision of God. God, in order to teach a lesson, gave them meat (quail) until they were sick of it. But Noah and his family were not complaining about their diet when God permitted them to eat meat. So the question must be asked whether God would purposely bring harm to his faithful remnant by allowing them to eat something that was hazardous to their health. It is inconceivable to think that He would!

Not only did God allow meat in the diet after the flood, but He even commanded it in the worship of Israel. As the children of Israel prepared to be delivered from their Egyptian captivity, God told Moses that they were to celebrate with the eating of the Passover Lamb. Not only were they to do this but every generation after them was to do the same. If eating meat was unhealthy, then God was guilty of promoting this sin against the body. How unthinkable is that?! And not only that, God's faithful priests were supported with the meat from the various sacrifices at His direction. Would God demand His people to supply some of the most important people in the nation with that which was detrimental to their health? I think not.

One more incident from the Old Testament that needs to be addressed is the passage found in the book of Daniel where Daniel and his friends refused the king's meat and lived on a vegetarian diet for a period of 10 days. At the end of the trial period it was found that Daniel and his friends looked a whole lot better than those who ate of the king's meat. Some have attempted to use this as proof of the benefits of a vegetarian diet. In reality, it does just the opposite. It was expected that those who ate the meat would be healthier looking than those who abstained based on experience. That Daniel and his buddies would be healthier required a miracle of God. The problem with the king's meat was not that it was meat, but that it had been offered in sacrifice to heathen deities and anyone who consumed it would then be participating in the worship of false gods- idolatry. As with the issue of the fiery furnace and the lion's den that required a miracle of God for their preservation, so here a miracle was needed. Naturally the fire and the lions should have consumed the Israelites and naturally the meat eaters should have been healthier, but God did that which was supernatural in each case.

Moving to the New Testament we first of all find that there are no prohibitions to eating meat, in fact, some of the specific restrictions in the Old Testament were removed. We also find that Jesus partook of meat and even made an analogy of receiving Him in faith as the eating of His body. In the same manner, the writer of the book of Hebrews criticizes those who were spiritually immature and living on the milk of the Word when they should have grown to the point where they could handle meat and become strong. If meat eating was detrimental to one's health then the analogy was terrible and made no sense. The Apostle Paul also in 1 Corinthians had to deal with the problem of whether one could eat meat offered to idols. The issue before the Corinthians would not have been an issue if eating meat was out of the will of God.

The last passage that needs to be examined is found in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. There Paul specifically states that the prohibition of certain foods was an end-time doctrine of demons; it was contrary to the faith. The passage goes on to state that God sanctifies all food when it is received with thanksgiving. I once had a conversation with a young girl who tried to convince me that eating meat has harmful to my health. She stated that so many scientific studies had been conducted and they all showed the vegetarians to come out on top. I then asked her if those tests considered all the variables. She was confused as to what variables there might be and I asked if there was a test group that gave thanks for their food before they received it. She scoffed at the idea that "saying grace" could have any affect on the food and its digestion, but I suggest that is exactly what 1 Timothy 4 teaches. Could it be that many of the health problems we are experiencing today come not from what is being eaten but from not being thankful for it. Again, this is not to suggest that if I know my body can not handle certain foods that I should ignore "common sense", give thanks, and expect the Lord to miraculously remove any harmful effects. To do so would be tempting God in the same way that the devil sought to do with Jesus in the wilderness (Matt. 4:6-7).

I appreciate those whose motivation is to glorify God in their bodies by maintaining a healthy diet. After all we are commanded to do so in 1 Cor. 6:20. But the error that many make is in citing "scientific studies" that show conclusively how refraining from meat makes one healthier. Remember, it is those same "scientific studies" that have "conclusively proven" evolution. As stated earlier, all things must be proven by biblical revelation and when it comes to the prohibition of meat from one's diet, the Bible simply does not teach such a thing.