Eat Like Jesus, by Andrew Hoy

[Note: This book was provided free of charge by the author in exchange for an honest review.]

It is emblematic of the strengths as well as the weaknesses of this book that the book advocates a return to “Kosher Christianity” in such a way that combines sound and unsound biblical exegesis. There is a large amount of material in this book that I can endorse wholeheartedly and that reflects my own biblically supported doctrinal beliefs. There is also, unfortunately, some material that is blatant speculation and other material that is contrary to the Bible. As is the case with the dispensational translations and interpretations that this author passionately refutes, this book is a mixture of good and evil, sound and unsound, wise and foolish. A wise reader cannot digest the material in this book without discernment in order to ingest what is helpful and sound and to reject and purge what is unsound and unbiblical. Incidentally, in some key aspects one must treat this book and its materials like the dispensational translations that also must be treated with caution. This author, in short, is a lot like his critics in being a mixture of godly and ungodly, even if the godly outweighs the ungodly by a considerable margin.

The author candidly, and honestly, admits that “Kosher” is not itself a biblical term. What the author means by this is not kosher in the strict sense as would be require by Judaism, but rather a loose sense of meaning “clean” or “original” Christianity, properly understood as being in congruence with the Bible’s laws. Most of the book contains sound exegesis about biblical passages (namely Mark 7, Acts 10, Romans 14, and 1 Corinthians 8) that are commonly mistranslated by dispensational Christians to support unbiblical doctrines, be they a support of a vegan diet or a support of a diet that includes unclean animals. These passages are dealt with ably, and with a fair amount of criticism and sarcasm towards translators and interpreters, and they would by and large represent my own views. Included with this is some unsound and speculative discussion about the Council of Jerusalem that fails to recognize the importance of the consensus building that this council represents, even if it represents a sound interpretation of what that council actually said in terms of pointing Gentile believers towards the synagogue and towards the Torah. Where it is unsound is in its criticism of consensual dealings inspired by the love and unity that believers are to have with each other, and in its mistaken chronology about Peter’s visit to Antioch being before seeing the vision in Acts 10. What is more likely, albeit less praiseworthy, is that even after seeing a vision calling no man unclean, Peter struggled with his own racism. Incidentally, this is often the case with believers and corrupt mindsets in general. The author, by positing a false cut and dry and quick change of heart, fails to do credit to the gradual way in which believers must overcome their prejudices and poor backgrounds. Likewise, his interpretation of Romans 9 to 11 fails to do credit to the full meaning of the unity of Gentile believers of every tongue and background with Jewish believers of a biblical grounding (which is, incidentally, the point of Acts 10).

The book is particularly sound, and deserves a great deal of credit, for the way in which it shows, through a sound exegesis of the Greek and Hebrew texts in question, of a consistent biblical doctrine of clean and unclean meats from Genesis to Revelation, as well as pointing out the failures of the Pharisees and their traditions to meet the standard of the Mosaic law. These sections of the book (particularly the comparison between the Bible’s position on foods as opposed to the dispensational understanding of it), deserve to be better known–the chart of comparison should be a poster, for example. Lamentably, the last section of the book contains an unsound and unbiblical (see Nehemiah 8, Acts 2, 1 Corinthians 12) criticism of biblical translation, failing to recognize that while translation has been greatly abused by various interpreters, it has been an essential aspect of godly behavior since the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, at the latest. By taking a laudable goal of defending Hebrew thinking and biblical ways too far, this book goes to heretical excess and itself merits the same sort of criticism deserved by dispensationalists and Judaizers alike. This is a shame, as this book could have been so much more if it said a little less.