FLESH FOR FOOD by M. C. W.

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Feb 11, 1889

FLESH FOR FOOD.

By M. C. W.

A CORRESPONDENT wishes to know if flesh meat is healthful according to the Bible, and requests an explanation of Gen. 9:3, 4, which reads as follows: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.”

It was not God’s original design that man should eat flesh. No life would have been taken if he had not sinned. For food he was given grains and fruits. Gen. 1:29. This food was the best adapted to meet all of man’s necessities, and perfectly preserve his health. If this were not so, a wise heavenly Father would have provided otherwise. In all probability those who were faithful to God did not eat flesh before the flood, although the distinction between clean and unclean beasts was recognized in the sacrifices which were made.

The text contains a general statement, limited by what others may have to say on the same subject. Therefore, as the distinction between the clean and unclean existed in Noah’s day, he would understand it as referring only to the clean beasts, those best fitted by their nature and habits to furnish food for man. It was a permission given to Noah, not because it was the best food, but because there was little or no other, the flood having destroyed all vegetable life. It also destroyed all unclean beasts, with the exception of enough to propagate the species. But provision was made of the clean for sacrifice and food, fourteen of each being saved in the ark. These distinctions between the clean and unclean are more fully revealed in Lev. 11 and Deut. 14. And we do not know why the same principles upon which the beasts were anciently adjudged to be clean and unclean will not apply now.

The fourth verse of Gen. 9 forbids the eating of blood. Although the flesh of clean beasts was permitted to be eaten, the blood was not. Those who had forsaken God ate the flesh of beasts strangled, the blood, of course, remaining in the flesh, but this was contrary to the command of God.

There are doubtless cases, especially among invalids, where a limited amount of animal food is better than exclusively vegetable food; but experience and history demonstrate that the health of mankind, physically, mentally, and morally, would be greatly augmented by a vegetable diet, by which we refer to fruits, grains, etc. If flesh had been the most healthful, the Lord would have given it in the beginning. He condemns “riotous eaters of flesh,” classing them with drunkards (Prov. 23:20, 21); while the faithful Daniel was especially blessed on his strictly vegetable diet. Dan. 1:12-20. Fruits, grains, and vegetables are certainly much less liable to disease than animal food, and much better fitted to build up a temperate and noble character. M. C. W.