In the November, 1995 issue of Chalcedon Report, a prominent journal of the Reconstructionist movement (1) , the editors chose to publish an article entitled "Vegetarianism: A Prevailing Heresy", written by Pastor Ovid Need, Jr. of Linden Baptist Church in Linden, Indiana. It is this author's intent to correct several problems with the article in question, not the least of which are its bizarre conclusions.

Briefly, Pastor Need believes vegetarianism to be a "doctrine of devils" that originated with Hindu sources and is now to be correctly labled "new age." In fact, he concludes that the mere practice of a vegetarian diet by a believer is unscriptural (except in cases of those with partially removed stomachs). The reasoning is that any believer following a vegetarian diet is "not trusting God," but is questioning the fact that God provided dietary guidelines for our health in His Word. (2) The goal of this present article is to reveal the serious problems, both Biblical and otherwise, with Pastor Need's teachings in this area. Having done this, a more balanced viewpoint will then be presented.

PASTOR OVID NEED, HIS SOURCES

No sooner has Pastor Need introduced his principal subject into his text is he quoting Origen (c. 185 - c. 254), probably the most influential "Church Father" from the Alexandrian School.

In the quote used by Pastor Need (3), Origen, like Paul in 1 Timothy 4, is obviously making reference to a vegetarianism that was being forced on others by command, leading to "an ostentatious exhibition of stricter observance." (4) What is important here is that Origen's comment has absolutely nothing to do with vegetarianism in and of itself.

Need's second (and primary) source is cause for concern in and of itself. "Dr." Rebecca Brown, a former associate of Chick publications, is quoted extensively throughout Pastor Need's article. Pastor Need does include a disclaimer of sorts, saying, "Though Dr. Brown is a woman, and this author cannot agree with all she says and does ..." The fact that Dr. Brown is "a woman" is not a consideration in what is being written here concerning her. She does, however, have many strange views that both contradict and go beyond what has been revealed in Scripture. (5) The fact that Pastor Need "cannot agree with all that she says and does" is a moot point. Surely he agrees with those portions of her teachings quoted in his article! These quotes, refuted below, contain much in the way of speculation, assumption and outright heresy.

"HINDUS" AND "NEW AGERS"

In his first use of Dr. Brown (6), Pastor Need quotes her to the effect that the health food industry in our country is controled by "Hindus" and "New Age" devotees. This author has spent time within this very industry on a management and purchasing level, and can testify that there is a large group of "new agers" frequenting the "health food scene." This is very true.

However, to make the health food industry per se part of the "New Age Movement" is ridiculous. As with most areas of interest, there are those of every persuasion pursuing an interest in a more natural form of health. Each individual approaches the industry within the boundaries of his/her particular world-view. Dr. Brown's assertion is another unsubstantiated part of the overall "New Age conspiracy theory" advocated by so many today. (7)

Furthermore, it must also be recognized that there is a large number of Evangelical believers (8) purchasing health foods, herbs, and vitamins. In fact, there have been and are several key figures in the health food industry that were/are not "Hindus" at all, but Bible-believers! (9)

"CURSED" HERBS?

Dr. Brown then gives stern warnings concerning the purchase and use of herbs by Christians. After all (Brown claims), "most" herbalists are involved in witchcraft and "curse" their herbs!

Even if this were true (and sometimes probably is), has Dr. Brown or Pastor Need ever read First Corinthians 8:4-13? In this passage, the Apostle Paul speaks of a parallel issue, the eating of meat that had been offered to idols by pagan worshipers. The Apostle concludes that "...to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him ..." (1 Cor. 8:6).

Dr. Brown then makes a rather ignorant statement when she writes that "Incantations are done over
the herbs, that is why they work so well." This statement borders on blasphemy! Herbs that work medicinally do so because the Sovereign Creator invested healing properties into the chemical make-up of the plant. The entire botanical kingdom was called "good" at the creation (Gen. 1:11) and given to man for his use (Gen. 1:29; see also Psalm 104:14). The Word of God tells us that herbs are, in fact, medicinal (Ezekiel 47:12; Rev. 22:1-2).

Dr. Brown, like many others today, gives far too much credit to our adversary! She should instead spend her time in God's Word, perhaps noticing verses like James 1:17: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights ..."

There is no Biblical warrant whatsoever for renouncing any "hidden things of dishonesty" before using herbs, as Dr. Brown suggests. Nothing is "hidden" to our God and, furthermore, all such things were "renounced" in the victory of Christ, who was made "a curse" for us (Gal. 3:13).

Jesus made it very clear that no physical substance that enters our mouth can defile us spiritually (Matt. 15:11; Mark 7:15). As already alluded to, the Apostle Paul applied this same principle even to the eating of meat that had previously been offered to idols, which are demons (1 Cor. 8; 10:20). The issue here hinges on one's view of Divine sovereignty (1 Cor. 10:25-28).

Historically speaking, "doctors" (like Luke, for instance) were, in fact, "herbalists." It was not until our "modern age of medicine" that man, in his own wisdom (see Rom. 1:22), rejected the wisdom of his Creator and began to treat illnesses chemically rather than herbally. (10)

Yet even today our dependance on herbs for many of our most effective pharmaceuticals is evident as we scramble to save what is left of the world's rain forests! (11) Herbal medicine, along with nutrition therapy, is an important part of so-called "alternative" medicine. "Alternative" simply means natural.

Believers have the advantage here, being Biblical creationists. We realize that "natural" simply means as created by God and given to man. God's ways for our health and healing have been dominated by pagans for far too long. Believers, especially reconstructionists, should be the ones adhering to "natural medicine." (12)

SPIRITUAL WARFARE AND "HIGH QUALITY" PROTEIN

Next, Dr. Brown tackles the issue of protein and its alleged importance. In what is perhaps one of the most ridiculously subjective and contrived doctrines that this author has ever read, she asserts that "... Spiritual battling results in an acute loss of protein from our physical bodies. If we are not careful to increase our intake of high quality protein during times of intensive spiritual battle, we will become weak." There are a few issues to be adressed here.

First, Dr. Brown's view of "spiritual warfare" is along the lines of the mystical ideas propagated by what has been called the "spiritual warfare movement." This movement is especially prevalent in the highly subjective Charismatic Movement. The Biblical view of our warfare is far different.

Sensationalists today teach and write about direct confrontation with spirit entities as par for the course. Such conflict is indeed possible, but is not the scriptural norm. Our battle with the powers of darkness is over the minds of men, and chiefly consists in the preaching of the gospel and in the teaching of sound doctrine (believers should look to Paul's example in Acts 17 of normative
spiritual warfare). (13)

Secondly, read carefully again Dr. Brown's first statement, noticing my emphasis: "... Spiritual battling results in an acute loss of protein from our physical bodies." Oh? Even with this author's wholistic view of man's constitution, the question must be asked, exactly how does spiritual warfare result in the loss of protein from our physical bodies? This should be explained, but is not.

An important aspect of the kingdom of God is the "pressing in" aspect. The extension of God's kingdom is what spiritual warfare is all about, and in Romans 14:17 we are told that "... the kingdom of God is not meat or drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit ..." Food
has nothing to do with the kingdom or its extension!

Dr. Brown adds, "The scriptures have much to say on this subject." But not near as much as she apparently does! She questions the idea that beef is harmful, citing the fact that it was prepared by Abraham for God in Genesis 18:1-7. This point will be adequately answered below.

She says of the Levites that "... their diet was clearly high in beef and lamb." Really? Dr. Brown must know this by "revelation," because not one scripture is cited. Certainly, the Levitical priests ate beef and lamb, as allowed them by God's dietary guidelines (Lev. 11), but was their diet "high in beef and lamb"? This point also is treated below.

So what do the scriptures actually say? Much that refutes Dr. Brown's teaching. In Daniel 1:8-10, the "prince of the eunuchs" comes to Daniel and protests his refusal to eat the king's meat and drink his wine. Daniel had purposed not to "defile himself by doing so." The prince's concern clearly has to do with a healthful appearance and strength (verse 10).

Daniel speaks on behalf of himself and his companions in verse 12: "Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse (vegetables and legumes) to eat, and water to drink." Daniel is confident that his diet will prove superior (verse 13).

Indeed, "... at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat." (verse 15). From that point on, they were given vegetables to eat (verse 16).

In addition to this remarkable story, one might also question how Dr. Brown's teaching is to be reconciled with the practice of fasting in the scriptures. The spiritual battle of all spiritual battles was surely the tempting of Jesus Christ by the devil, and we are told that Jesus prepared himself by fasting for 40 days (Matt. 4:2). Why didn't our Lord eat plenty of "high quality protein"? This same argument would, of course, hold true for all of the believers in scripture who fasted.

Thirdly, by "high quality" protein (emphasized above) Dr. Brown, of course, is referring to meat. This is a myth, and reveals that Dr. Brown does not understand the world of advertising very well nor the evil that the "love of money" can produce.

Milk "does a body good." Who says? The dairy industry. Cheese "makes it better." Who says? Again, the dairy industry. Beef : "It's what's for dinner." Who says? The beef industry. Pork: "the other white meat." Who says? The pork industry. Surely this makes a point! This author certainly agrees with Pastor Need when he asks, "Has not the media proved its usefulness to the powers of darkness in forming public opinion?" Indeed they have.

The whole idea that meat provides protein superior in quality to that of legumes and vegetables is simply not factual. Lancet, a medical journal, reported years ago, "Formerly, vegetable proteins were classified as second-class, and regarded as inferior to first-class proteins of animal origin, but this distinction has now been generally discarded." (14) It has been found that all of the essential amino acids can be obtained from vegetables and legumes when a healthy vegetarian diet is eaten. (15) In fact, soy products are some of the best protein available. (16)

How much protein is needed? Everyone (including children and pregnant women) is covered by a range with a low of 2 1/2 % and a high of a little over 8 %. (17) God has provided rapidly developing infants with only a modest 5 % protein in their mother's milk! Many vegetables, if eaten alone, would provide more than enough protein. Cabbage, for instance, would provide over double the maximum requirement (22 %). (18)

Dr. Brown, however, believes that it is Satan who is telling us that we do not need much protein in order to keep believers "weak and ill"! Yet there is much evidence today that excessive protein actually contributes to illness, including osteoporosis. (19) Societies with a high protein intake, especially animal protein, also show higher rates of cancer and arthritis. (20) The eskimo diet is a perfect example of this; a diet which is extremely high in animal protein (especially smoked fish) has resulted in one of the highest colon cancer rates in the world. Such an excess amount of animal protein also tends to produce skin toxins, contributing to psoriasis. (21) Concerning the proper treatment of infectious disease, Dr. Vogel even says "... it is advisable to refrain from eating protein ..." (22)

When we hear (and we have) that we all need excessive amounts of protein, we would do well to listen to Dr. David Reuban: "If you are an average American family, it will cost you about $40 a month to unnecessarily pump up your protein intake. That puts another $36 billion a year into the pockets of the protein producers." (23) When remembering this enlightening fact, also recall the scripture in 1 Timothy 6:10: "For the love of money is the root of all evil ..." Advice for the Christian? "...why do you spend your money for that which is not bread? and your labour
for that which does not satisfy?...eat that which is good." (Isaiah 55:2).

REBECCA BROWN, NUTRITIONIST?

The final point made by Dr. Brown requiring refutation is her claim to have "... searched medical literature carefully, and, despite all the publicity, there simply are no (emphasis her's) good studies that conclusively show that red meat is harmful."

It is highly doubtful that Dr. Brown's claim to have searched medical texts "carefully" is true at all. Has she ever heard of high cholesterol? Cholesterol is found only in meats, never in vegetable foods. High cholesterol is so common in Western countries that it has almost been accepted as a "part of life"! Other problems could also be mentioned, such as clogged arteries and colon cancer.

Dr. Brown may well be looking in the wrong place for her information, as medical doctors know very little about nutrition at all. The average doctor receives less than three hours of nutrition in his/her entire four years of medical school. (24) To her credit, Dr. Brown does mention that we should follow God's guidelines in His Word (Lev. 11) and not consume the fat. This is very true, but many problems can be caused by excessive consumption of meat, lean or otherwise (this is discussed in more detail below).

With Dr. Rebecca Brown refuted, it is now necessary to lay a foundation of both Biblical teaching and current facts about our food supply before concluding with a summary demonstrating the error of Pastor Need's conclusions.

GOD'S DIETARY GUIDELINES

Few would argue that man as originally created was, in fact, a vegetarian. The fall in Eden affected the entire animal kingdom, as a careful reading of Genesis 3:14 reveals; the serpent was cursed "above" the other animals. This implies a "lesser" curse on the other creatures. Part of this curse was no doubt the division of all animals, originally all vegetarians, into herbivore, carnivore and omnivore. This is what we now call the "food chain."

Man, however, remained an herbivore, meat not being specified until after the flood (Genesis 9:3). The radical change in diet introduced to Noah should not surprise us; mankind was facing a very different life on a changed earth. Severe changes in environment normally alter the diets of God's creatures. (25)

It should also be mentioned that, even apart from Divine revelation, there is every reason to believe that man was designed a vegetarian. Man's teeth are more suited to the herbivorous pulverizing of vegetable matter than the tearing of flesh. His long gut is also that of a vegetarian. Furthermore, he still is able to digest vegetable matter and assimilate vegetable nutrients far better than animal foods.

Perhaps the most interesting clue is that now useless organ called the appendix. This organ is virtually identical to the cecum, an organ found in many herbivorous animals that aids in the digestion of large amounts of cellulose fiber. Over time, disuse has rendered the appendix useless, sometimes resulting in a diseased condition known as appendicitis. (26) This change in diet is an accomodation to fallen man, because all creation will be vegetarian again (cf. Isaiah 11:6-7; 65:25; Revelation 22:1-2).

However, although God did add meat to the diet, not all flesh could be eaten. God sets forth only certain foods as clean in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. Many meats, including pork, were forbidden. There are also restrictions against consuming even the clean meats with either the blood or the fat, both of which are ignored today (in spite of Acts 15:29).

God's dietary guidelines are for our health, regardless of theologians who claim a purely ceremonial purpose for Leviticus 11. (27) Others have done excellent treatments of the validity of the dietary law (28) and their arguments will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that the purpose of the dietary guidelines was in large part to insure the health of God's people, (29) principally by preventing illness in the first place. (30) Fawver and Overstreet write, "[God] knew that His world is filled with bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites, and He provided medical information that has withstood the test of time, continuing to be valid thousands of years after first being revealed." (31)

Thus, Christians today should be concerned with their physical health (1 Corinth. 6:19-20), although not to the point of ignoring their spiritual health (1 Timothy 4:7-8). For instance, the Pharisees of Jesus' time were so caught up with what was eaten and even the way in which it was eaten that they ignored the spiritual altogether. Jesus had to set their priorities straight by informing them that "... whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him (author: that is, spiritually); Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats ..." (Mark 7:18-19).

Our views of God's dietary guidelines should not divide us, because the spiritual aspect of life is to be our priority. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 really contain no "laws" at all, at least not "laws" as we today think of them. The benefits and penalties are physical. Western Christians do not "backslide" by eating pork, but their physical health suffers. (32) Believers are specifically told to glorify God in all activity, including eating and drinking (1 Cor. 10:31; see also 1 Cor. 6:19-20).

THE PROBLEM WITH MEATS TODAY

It is established by the Word of God that there is nothing wrong with meat in and of itself. There are, however, some problems not adressed by Pastor Need in his article.

As touched on above, modern believers (especially in the Western world) are violating God's health laws with regard to meats in three ways, all of which are very unhealthy. First, the unclean meats (pork, catfish, shellfish, etc.) (33) are eaten freely. Second, meats are eaten with the blood. (34) Third, meats are eaten with the fat (acknowledged by Dr. Brown; see Lev. 3:17; 7:23). (35) If all believers would listen to God before preparing and consuming meats, including the choosing of which meats to consume, it would greatly improve their health.

Gluttony is listed right along with other sins, but hardly ever preached on (see Proverbs 23:21; Romans 16:18; Phil'p. 3:19; Titus 1:12). The Apostle Paul laid down a principle for practical life in matters like this: everything lawful in moderation, nothing in excess (1 Cor. 6:12-13). Yet, instead of letting our "... moderation be known to all men" (Phil'p. 4:5), the consumption of meats is abused to excess.

Biblically, red meats never formed the major part of the diet of God's people. Consumption of beef was usually reserved for special occasions (as in Luke 15:23), with vegetables, legumes, grains and breads forming the main part of the diet. (36) Modern believers, in contrast, are eating far too much meat and not near enough vegetables and fiber. This is excessive gluttony, and is extremely bad for the human body. This excess is what causes high blood pressure, cancers, atherosclerosis (= heart disease), and obesity.

The meat eaten today is not the same meat pronounced "clean" by God in the book of Leviticus. For the most part, those flesh foods pronounced "clean" by God have been rendered unclean by fallen man. We no longer kill and process our own meat, nor even know those who do. This, like health-care and the education of our children, has been taken out of our hands. We no longer have to "worry" about it. Oh, but we had better!

Beef today is raised in unnatural confinement, never allowed any movement and intentionally fattened up. This creates a much fattier meat. Cows are given steroids to make them bigger. Hormones are also used (like the controversial Bgh) (37), many of which may cause cancer.(38) Stimulants and antibiotics are also common, which increase the spread of disease by rendering viruses immune to our medicines. (39) Two of the most commonly used chemicals are nitrofurazone (a known carcinogen) and chloramphenicol, which can kill susceptible humans (we are assured that this is an "insignificant" minority). (40) This is to say nothing of the pesticides present in the food fed to the animals. (41) The genetic engineering of foods will probably be a major worry in the next decade.

Other modern flesh-foods fare no better. Poultry is fed many of the same chemicals, and is also given dosages of radiation to "kill bacteria." (42) Our rivers, lakes and oceans are so polluted that much seafood is chemically unsafe, high mercury levels in fish being especially prevalent.

Yet, according to Pastor Needs, Christians must eat this poison or they are "not trusting God"! To the contrary, as Dr. Vogel writes, "Only unadulterated, unrefined foods should be eaten, just as the Creator provided them in nature." (43)

Some believers rationalize an unhealthy diet by believing that if we pray over our food God will keep us safe. This is the same logic used by snake-handling Pentecostals, and is in reality satanic. In Matthew 4:5-7, Jesus is told by Satan to leap off of the temple because, after all, "God will protect him." Rather than do this, Jesus answered with Deuteronomy 6:16, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

God gave us minds, and expects us to act on pertinent information which we receive. While He does often deliver us in his mercy from our ignorance, He is not a genie who stands by waiting to save us from willful stupidity! To put it another way, we cannot expect our Lord to part the Red Sea if there is already a perfectly good bridge. Furthermore, if we can all purify our food and make it clean with a "magic prayer," why couldn't the Old Testament believers do this?

REFUTING PASTOR NEED

Pastor Need's allegation concerning a Hindu origin for vegetarianism is false; man was created a vegetarian in Genesis. Of course, Pastor Need realizes this, and is ready with an answer (albeit not a very good one): the longer life spans enjoyed before the flood are proof that disease was not as prevalent; after the flood, meat (i.e., more protein) was prescribed as God's answer to now prevalent disease. This is total speculation.

Besides which, we know today that many of our most serious illnesses in the "civilized" West are the result of our modern diet, with its excessive consumption of meat and refined foods. (44) The post-flood reduction in man's lifespan most probably has much to do with his change in diet! (45) Even if Need were correct, his argument would be a classic "guilt by association" argument, and thus, invalid.

The scriptures, in 1 Timothy 4:1-5, make it clear that to command men to abstain from meat is indeed a "doctrine of demons." Such a command, much like the command to eat meat by Pastor Need, destroys the liberty of the believer (see Romans 14:15-20), coming under the category of the "touch not, taste not, handle not" rules rebuked by Paul in Colossians 2:20-23. The command to abstain is the false doctrine, not the abstainance itself.

Pastor Need's interpretation of 1 Timothy 4 cannot be correct, if accepted Biblical hermaneutics (i.e., principles of interpretation) mean anything. One such rule of interpretation is that scripture never contradicts scripture. If Paul is teaching that vegetarianism in and of itself is a "doctrine of devils" then he has contradicted his own clear teaching in Romans 14:2-3: "For one believes that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eats herbs. Let not him who eats despise him who eats not; and let not him who eats not judge him that eats: for God has received him." (46)

IN CONCLUSION

An ideal scriptural, healthy diet for the believer should follow God's guidelines (Lev. 11), eating smaller portions of the "clean" meats in moderation if properly killed and prepared (i.e., minus fat and blood) and balanced with an abundance of vegetables and fiber. (47)

If at all possible, the most chemically free flesh-foods should be sought. Chemical-free and "free-range" beef and poultry are becoming increasingly more available today. Fish should be either chemical-free and "farm raised" or at least the deep sea varieties (less chemical residues).

The passage in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 does not forbid the believer from pursuing a vegetarian diet, but does forbid teachers from legalistically commanding to abstain from meats. If the believer freely chooses for himself a vegetarian diet, he is scripturally free to do so and should not be judged by others (Romans 14:1-23). Likewise, the meat-eating believer should not be judged by the vegetarian, but both should pursue their diets in a healthy manner; the vegetarian should eat more than junk food, and the meat-eater should follow God's guidelines and seek out natural, chemical-free meats. In this way, all of us can benefit physically as our brother John desired (3 John 2), walking together without condemnation.

(1) Although the eschatological convictions of the present author tend more to the Amillenial position, I have gleaned much from Reconstructionist authors and in no way wish this paper to be misinterpreted as "anti-Reconstructionist."

(2) To Pastor Need's credit, he does accept the validity of Leviticus 11 for God's people today; on this point we agree.

(3) Need quotes from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 285.

(4) Ibid.

(5) "Dr." Rebecca Brown has been adequately exposed and refuted by the concerned believers at Personal Freedom Outreach in numerous articles contained in their quarterly journal. Most of these articles have been compiled into a booklet entitled Drugs, Demons and Delusions- A Christian Investigation of the Testimony and Claims of Rebecca Brown, M.D., available from PFO. Most recently, Dr. Brown was taken to task by PFO for the "curse theology" advocated in her new book, Unbroken Curses- Hidden Source of Trouble in the Christian's Life (see The Quarterly Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, July-Sept., 1996 pp. 5-11).

(6) All of the quotes used by Pastor Need and being responded to here come from Rebecca Brown's book, He Came to Set the Captives Free, originally published by Chick Publications and currently being reprinted by Whitaker House. This author has read the entire book and can testify that it is given to sensationalism and propagates the same view of spiritual warfare and "demonized christians" now being popularized by such teachers as John Wimber, C. Peter Wagner and those of the Word of Faith movement.

(7) Teachers like Constance Cumbey and Texe Marrs have caused much confusion among undiscerning Christians with their wild fictionalizations of reality. Certainly, there is a loosely organized but discernable movement today that incorporates many different "Americanized" Hindu beliefs commonly called "new age." Such teachings certainly deserve Biblical refutation. However, the Church should ever seek to deal with fact and to represent sanity. The piecing together of facts and statistics to form "global conspiracies" is unacceptable.

(8) The Seventh-Day Adventists contain a number of Evangelicals who should be commended for their dietary views. In addition, many more "mainstream" believers are now seeking healthier diets. This is a common-sense reaction to the rate of serious disease in the Western world, and believers should be at the forefront.

(9) For example: Dr. Jethro Kloss, the inventor of vegetarian soy substitutes and author of the influential book, Back to Eden, in publication for well over 50 years; Dr. H.C.A. Vogel, founder of BioForce (a Swedish manufacturer of herbal supplements and foods) and author of The Nature Doctor; and Julian Whitaker, M.D., currently a prominent author and speaker. Mention might also be made of certain health food manufacturers, such as the Food For Life bread company (makers of "Ezekiel" breads) and the Braggs (makers of Braggs' brand Apple Cider Vinegar and "Liquid Aminos").

(10) The classic tragic example of this shift in medical practice found in history is the many deaths resulting from the use of the poison mercury as a medicine. Regardless of events like this, the "chemical medicines" theory continues to the present day, with natural herbal remedies being viewed as "quackery." The fact, however, is that in seeking to improve upon the healing available for all in God's creation we have failed. The short-term relief of symptoms by use of synthesized chemical medicines only undermine our health in the long run. Dr. Vogel has written, "... it is better to use
chemicals to clean your windows and floors ... but do not take them as medicines." (The Nature Doctor, publ. by Keats, p. 32).

(11) Lorenzo's Oil, made into a movie some years back, tells the incredible true story of two parents who, with no medical training, research and find a cure for their son Lorenzo's "incurable, terminal" illness. The cure was not found by mixing chemicals in a laboratory, but in a plant-derived oil found naturally in God's creation.

(12) Ironically, Chalcedon Report, the very journal which published Need's article, offered
an excellent treatment of this very issue in No. 367, February 1996. The article is entitled "The Reconstructionist View of Health and the Body" and is written by Jonathan Studer, M.D.

(13) An excellent detailed treatment of these issues by one who is himself a Charismatic is the book Making War in the Heavenlies: A Different Look by Pastor Bill Randles. All Charismatic believers should read this book!

(14) The Lancet editorial, London, 2:956, 1959.

(15) This must be stressed. Many vegetarians today adhere to such a diet because they believe it to be morally wrong to kill animals for food (a view this writer does not hold). Some vegetarians of this type spend their life eating candy bars and drinking soda; such a diet is unhealthy for anyone and cannot be expected to yield sufficient anything, including protein.

(16) Years ago, the lives of many in China were saved when soy beans were used for protein during a severe protein shortage.

(17) See the article, "An Analysis of Past and Present Recommended Dietary Allowances for Protein in Health and Disease" by N. Scrimshaw, publ. in The New England Journal of Medicine, Jan. 22, 1976.

(18) This is used simply to make a point. Such a single-food diet would cause a person to miss several other equally important nutrients.

(19) See "Effect of Level of Protein Intake on Urinary and Fecal Calcium and Calcium Retention" by N. Johnson in Journal of Nutrition, 100:1425, 1970. Also, "Protein-Induced Hypercalcuria..." by L. Allen in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 32:741, 1979.

(20) The Nature Doctor by Dr. H.C.A. Vogel, publ. by Keats, p. 264. This fact is also collaborated by Elson M. Haas, M.D. in his book, Staying Healthy with Nutrition, publ. by CelestialArts, p. 61.

(21) The Nature Doctor, p. 176. Dr. Kloss concurs in Back to Eden, Back to Eden Publ., p. 422.
(22) The Nature Doctor, p. 85. This position is to be found in all naturopathic treatment books consulted by the author in preparation for this article.

(23) Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Nutrition by Dr. David Reuban, publ. by Avon Books, 1978, p. 155.

(24) See To Cherish All Life by Philip Kapleau, publ. by Harper & Row, 1981, p. 59; The McDougall Plan by John McDougall, publ. by New Century, 1983, p. 7; Staying Healthy with Nutrition, p. 4-5.

(25) Improper farming in Africa during the late 1800s resulted in the drying up of the continent to such an extent that the wild baboon population, formerly existing on a diet of insects and roots, began killing goats. Originally used only as a source for milk, the baboons eventually incorporated goat flesh into their diet (as reported by Eugene Marais in his book, My Friends, the Baboons, Methuen, N.Y., 1939). The eskimo diet, though unhealthy, is also the result of adaptation to a severe environment.

(26) This information on the appendix is based on the research of George A. Dorsey and Claude A. Villee, as reported by Arthur C. Custance in The Doorway Papers vol. V: the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation, Zondervan, 1976, p. 23; The Doorway Papers vol. VII: Hidden Things of God's Revelation, Zondervan, 1977, p. 314; and The Doorway Papers vol. IX: The Flood: Local or Global?, Zondervan, 1979, pp. 124 and 206.

(27) Gordon J. Wenham, for instance, opts for a purely "ceremonial" interpretation in his
commentary on The Book of Leviticus from The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, publ. by Eerdman's, 1979, pp. 166-171. In this same set of commentaries, however, both Harrison (same volume, p. 124) and Peter C. Craigie (volume on Deuteronomy, p. 231) hold that the guidelines are primarily for health reasons.

(28) See God's Key to Health and Happiness by Josephon; Revell; 1976; pp. 81-90. A proper interpretation of Peter's vision in Acts 10 and Paul's warning in 1 Timothy 4 do not change God's Word in Leviticus 11. These issues are treated in another article by this author.

(29) See None of These Diseases by S. McMillan, Spire Pub.

(30) See the article, "Moses and Preventive Medicine" by Jay D. Fawver and R. Larry Overstreet in Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 147, No. 587, July-Sept., 1990, pp. 270+.

(31) Ibid., p. 270 (emphasis mine).

(32) See my unpublished article, The Validity of God's Dietary Guidelines.

(33) These flesh foods are designated "unclean" for a dietary reason. The "split hoof" and the "chewing the cud" of the "clean" animals have to do with proper digestion and elimination of poisons, as do the presence of "fins and scales" on sea life (cf. Prevention magazine, September, 1972, article entitled "Shellfish Are Dirty and Dangerous." Also, check out the fine print concerning oysters on your menu next time you eat seafood!). Pork is the worst meat to consume (cf. The Nature Doctor, p. 244-245), and specifically is known to carry parasitic trichina larvae (Biblotheca ..., p. 273). There is no inspection for this, such testing being judged impractical by the FDA. Thus, the average pork eating American is thought to consume at least 200 infested pork cuts during their lifetime. If the parasite gets into the system it results in trichinosis, for which there is no cure.

(34) Jewish "kosher" meats are much healthier. The "blood" contains the quality of life. Diseases and viruses travel in the blood, as do poisons and waste.

(35) "America's love for fatty foods has contributed to numerous medical complications, including hypertension, heart disease, strokes, diabetes, and lung disease." (Bibliotheca ..., p. 272).

(36) See Smith's Bible Dictionary (Thomas Nelson) under "Food" (p. 197).

(37) Bgh is a hormone used to increase milk production. Its use is unecessary since the American government already has to buy surplus milk each year. The hormone received much press in 1993-1994, especially after it was revealed that FDA members involved in its approval were formerly with Monsanto, the manufacturer of Bgh (Bovine Growth Hormone).

(38) Handbook of Livestock Management Techniques by Battaglia and Mayrose, Burgess Pub., 1981.

(39) Dr. Vogel writes of antibiotics, "This is where the danger lies. In the first place, the body accustoms itself to these substances and the germs develop a resistance or immunity to them until, finally, they prove useless in the fight against them when one's life is in danger. Secondly, the constant use of antibiotics, in time, harms and destroys the intestinal flora, the useful bacteria present in the intestines." (The Nature Doctor, p. 88-89).

(40) Few American citizens are aware that the FDA uses such "lifeboat ethics," damning the "minority" that will get sick or die.

(41) It should be noted that herbicides and pesticides on our fruits, vegetables, legumes and grains are also a major health problem, especially for children. This author whole-heartedly recommends the purchasing of "certified organic" fruits, vegetables, legumes and grains. These are grown and processed without the use of man-made chemicals.

(42) Food irradiation uses gamma radiation from nuclear waste products, and can affect us on a cellular level for generations. See Staying Healthy ..., pp. 470-471.

(43) The Nature Doctor, p. 269 (emphasis mine).

(44) The refined, chemical-laden modern diets of "civilized" countries have destroyed man's ability to know which foods his body needs to correct vitamin deficiencies. This ability is still present to a large extent in nature (cf. The Doorway Papers vol. III by Arthur C. Custance, Zondervan, 1976, p. 63).

(45) Arthur C. Custance considers this idea in The Doorway Papers vol. V ..., pp. 23-25. Although the tenor of his comments is speculative and tentative, his ideas were first published 20 years ago and written long before that. Today, modern research has established several dietary links to human longevity. Such factors, when highly pronounced and joined with other pre-flood environmental differences (such as the possible "water vapor canopy" producing a "greenhouse effect") could easily account for the longevity of our Biblical ancestors.

(46) Such a vegetarian believer in Paul's time would indeed be seen as "weak," because he abstains from meat because of the meat itself (chemical additives were not used then). Today, however, there are other reasons that commend abstinence (already covered above). Need's allegation that such a believer is "not trusting God" overlooks this matter of harmful chemicals entirely. By his reasoning, vitamin supplements would also be sinful, not believing that God had provided all of the vitamins that we need!

(47) It is significant that God does not simply approve the eating of meat in Genesis 9:3, but also reminds Noah of vegetables.