Meat and Flesh | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 20, 1872

Meat and Flesh.

From the manner in which these words are used at the present day, they have come to be regarded in the minds of the generality of the people, as synonymous terms. Whenever flesh is intended, the term meat is now almost invariably used. Anciently, however, this word was used in a different sense; and to apply the modern definition to the ancient usage, is to give a wrong idea.

In the New Testament, for instance, the word meat is frequently used; but it is in every instance from a Greek word which includes in its definition fruits, grains, and vegetables, as fully as it does flesh. It is invariably from the word broma, except in Luke 24: 41, where it is from brosimos, which literally signifies “anything eatable.” The word broma is defined by Robinson to mean, “eatables, food; that is, solid food as opposed to milk,” by Liddell and Scott, “that which is eaten, food.” It is never defined as meaning flesh exclusively.

When the New-Testament writers wish to speak of flesh only, they use two other words to designate it. The first of these, kreas, is used when flesh is spoken of as an article of food. It occurs twice in the New Testament: first in Rom. 14: 21, where Paul says, “It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine;” and, secondly, in 1 Cor. 8: 13, where Paul says, “I will eat no flesh while the world standeth.” The other word, sarx, is used to designate “the flesh” in opposition to the spirit; as, “the works of the flesh,” &c.

From these facts, the reader will see that the meat of the New Testament is not the meat of our modern markets. U. S.

The above statements relative to meat, and flesh, by the editor of the Review and Herald of this city, are penned because the writer knows them to be true. The fact that the word meat in the New Testament means simply food, takes the wind out of the sails of those who, in their ignorance of the facts in the case, are forever harping upon certain expressions in the New Testament, in opposition to the vegetarian diet. They will quote the following words of Paul with apparent confidence of success of demolishing all theories restricting diet:

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” 1 Tim. 4: 1–3.

Suppose the word meat, used by the apostle, means flesh, then, in that case, we assure our opposing friends that we are not the men referred to by Paul. We do not command any one to abstain from flesh. This is not our business. We teach that flesh is not the best article of food, and recommend a change from flesh-meats to a diet consisting wholly of grains, vegetables, and fruits.

But in view of the fact that the word “meats” is simply foods, then what? Some apply these words of Paul to Papists; others to Spiritualists. Their fulfillment may be more clearly seen in the future of Spiritualism. For a clearer fulfillment than we can now see, we wait. But their application to those who adopt the vegetarian diet is most absurd. Paul continues:

“For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” Verses 4 and 5.

Here our opposing friends take strong ground against us. In justification of their beef, mutton, and pork-eating, they quote with emphasis the phrase, “every creature of God is good.” This, they assure us, must include the swine. And why not include dogs, cats, rats, mice, skunks, and rattlesnakes, quite as well?

Our friends, by this time, may safely call in question their application of the words of Paul. It is evident that he is not speaking of flesh-meats, but of foods, such as God made for man to eat. In this light only could the apostle say that “every creature of God is good.”

“Creature,” says Webster, “That which is created; every being besides the Creator, or everything not self-existent. The sun, moon, and stars; the earth, animals, plants, light, darkness, air, water, &c., are the creatures of God.” It would not be sensible to suppose that Paul instructed Timothy to teach all Christians that they might indiscriminately eat all creation, refusing nothing. If so, then, according to Webster’s definition, the supposed freedom of the gospel, as it relates to habits of life, gives them, indeed, a very liberal diet.

But if restricting the words of Paul to those things created for food for man be objected to, and if it be contended that the phrase, “Every creature of God,” must include the flesh of dead animals, then convert the men of China to the Christian religion, teach them to say grace at the table, and they are all right with their “Rats and Puppies for Pies.”—Health Reformer.