You Are What You Eat? (Matthew 3:4)

What did John the Baptist eat in the wilderness? Locusts and wild honey.

John the Baptist appears in all four gospels as a forerunner to Jesus (Matthew 3:1; Mark 1:4; Luke 3:2; John 1:6). He is presented as an eccentric. Matthew and Mark include John’s diet among his idiosyncracies (Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6).

Now John himself had a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. (Matthew 3:4 NASB)

John subsisted on the seemingly odd combination of locusts and wild honey. Unlike his astringent dress (Matthew 3:4; Mark 1:6), John’s diet does not constitute an Old Testament allusion. The fact that John’s dietary practices are documented in Scripture is more peculiar than the items he chooses to eat. These provisions were not unusual fare for people living in the desert.

While honey is not an abnormal food to most western readers, locusts are cringe worthy to some. While modern translations almost universally render akris as “locusts” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV) or “grasshoppers” (CEV) there was once a prominent theory that John actually ate carob seeds. Carob seeds were prominent in the period, used as the standard measure of weight for gems and precious metals.

Scientists O.N. Allen (1905-1976) and Ethel K. Allen (1908-2006) explain the connection:

Some commentators are of the opinion that the “locusts” eaten by John the Baptist...were carob pods and not insects. An error is believed to have occurred whereby a transcriber substituted the Hebrew g for the r in the word “cherev”; this changed the word in translation to “locust” from “carob” (Harold Norman Moldenke [1906-1996] and Alma L. Moldenke [1908-1997] 1952). Accordingly, the tree was known as “Johannis brodbaum,” or St.-John’s-bread, in the Middle Ages. (Allen and Allen, The Leguminosae: A Source Book of Characteristics, Uses and Nodulation, 156)

There is now a consensus that John did indeed dine on migratory locusts. W.D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) write authoritatively, “There is no need to speculate that ‘locusts’ might mean something else, such as carob pods or dried fruit (Davies and Allison, Matthew: A Shorter Commentary, 39).”

Though John is the only Biblical character explicitly said to have eaten locusts, they are presented as ritually clean food in both the Old Testament (Leviticus 11:22) and rabbinic law (m. Hullin 8:1; m. Ta’anit 4:7). Though wild honey is referenced in the Old Testament, there are no Scriptural regulations regarding its consumption (Genesis 43:11; Exodus 3:8; Deuteronomy 32:13; Judges 14:8; I Samuel 14:25; Psalm 81:16; Ezekiel 27:17).

Locusts are unique in the Levitical law. John Nolland (b. 1947) notes:

Leviticus 11:20-23 distinguishes locusts as the only winged insects not to be treated as unclean. Their use as food is also noted in other ancient sources, notably among other wilderness dwellers at Qumran (CD 12:14). ‘Wild honey’ is presumably that produced in the wild without any role for a beekeeper...Though it is true that locusts did not count as meat (m. Hul. 8:1), any discussion of vegetarianism or oaths of abstinence, or any insistence that John has distanced himself from the sacrificial cult of the temple, is out of place here: Matthew makes no claim here that on principle he refused all food items other than locusts and wild honey. (Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 139)

Locusts are still eaten in parts of the world and there are many ways to prepare them. They can be cooked in salt-water, roasted on coals, and are often dried and ground into flour.

R.T. France (1938-2012) examines:

Locusts...are still eaten by those in whose lands they flourish. Pierre Bonnard (1911-2003)...speaks with remarkable authority on the subject: “This insect was highly prized as nourishment, either in water and salt like our prawns, or dried in the sun and preserved in honey and vinegar, or powdered and mixed with wheat flour into a pancake.” (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 106)

John’s food supply was abundant as all of it could be found in the wilderness in which he dwelled. Josephus (37-100) refers to an ampleness of bees in the region and locusts remain an important food source in many regions because they are prevalent even in the most desolate areas.

While many may find locusts unappetizing, William Shakespeare (1564-1616)’s Othello includes the line, “The food that...is as luscious as locusts (Act 1, Scene 3).” Perhaps not surprisingly, locusts do have many health benefits.

James A. Kelhoffer (b. 1970) catalogs:

Although perhaps unknown to the eaters, maybe the most significant benefit of eating locusts (and many other insects) is that they are a rich source of protein, and therefore plentiful in calories as well. Dried locusts comprise “up to 75 per cent protein and about 20 per cent fat; 100 grams of locust, when analyzed, showed the presence of 1.75 mg. of riboflavin and 7.5 mg. of nicotinic acid (vitamin B2 complex), demonstrating that they are also of value for their vitamins.” Such a high protein content, even in uncooked grasshoppers (7.6 grams/ounce), compares favorably with the level of protein in many meats—including blood sausage (4.1 grams/ounce), smoked ham (5.1 grams/ounce), and moose liver (6.9 grams/ounce)—which many poorer people cannot afford, or choose not, to consume. (Kelhoffer, The Diet of John the Baptist: “Locusts and Wild Honey” in Synoptic and Patristic Interpretation, 112)

Though John’s diet is limited, it is nutritious (all natural and relatively balanced) and readily available. Jesus will later compare John’s lifestyle to his own (Matthew 11:18-19; Luke 7:33-35).

Who can you think of who is known for their eating habits (e.g. Cookie Monster)? Have you ever eaten a locust? If your diet was described by two foods, what would they be? If you had to eat the same meal every day, what would you choose? What, if anything does your diet say about you? If you are what you eat, what does that make John the Baptist?

Since ancient times, much has been made of John’s eating habits. For Epiphanius (320-403), John’s diet was even an important factor in presenting him as the long promised Elijah (The Gospel of the Ebionites Panarion 30.13.4-5). A sect known as the Ebionites changed John’s diet to “honey cakes” to make him a vegetarian.

John’s eating habits have also fueled speculation that he was a member of various groups, most commonly the Essenes. In his article, “John the Baptist and Essene Kashruth”, Stevan L. Davies (b. 1948) admits that if John were an Essene he would be “required to eat only certain herbs and locusts and wild honey” in order to maintain Essene purity vows in the desert (NTS 29 [1983] 569-71). In arguing that John’s motive is ritual purity rather than asceticism, Davies counters that any Jew residing in the desert would have been forced to do so as it was all that was readily available. Like all human beings, John’s location in many ways dictates his diet.

Joan E. Taylor (b. 1958) adds:

It should be remembered that the Essenes are described by Josephus as eating bread loaves (War 2.130). The Community Rule describes the communal meal as being bread and wine (1QS 6:4-6; cf. 1QSa 2:17-21), and according to Luke bread and wine were precisely what John did not eat (Luke 7:33-34; cf. Matthew 11:18-19; Luke 1:15). (Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism, 34)

Daniel S. Dapaah concludes:

The description of John’s frugal diet of “locusts and wild honey” is reminiscent of the religious and philosophical ascetics of the ancient world, such as neo-Pythagoreans, neo-Platonists, vegetarians, magicians, and mystics, who abstained from meat, wine and sexual activity to rid themselves of ritual purity and defilement. The simple diet of locusts and wild honey (also eaten by the Qumranites, CD 12.14) was common among ascetic groups that roamed the Palestinian countryside (cf. War 2.143). The Qumran community was not the only ascetic and celibate group during the time of John...Several marginal Jewish groups and authorities (e.g., the Egyptian Therapeutae) practised celibacy and attracted disciples...Therefore, the possibility must be left open that John could have associated with any of those groups or individuals. (Dapaah, The Relationship between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth: A Critical Study, 51)

Many have seen John’s diet as a desire to remain ritually pure, perhaps in keeping with a Nazirite vow (Luke 1:15-16). Locusts and wild honey not only indicate a sparse diet but also a holy diet. Locusts insured that John ate no food from which blood had been drained and the honey meant that his life was devoid of wine, as honey is sugary like wine but nonalcoholic. John’s diet also insured that he be totally reliant upon God for his sustenance.

Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) notes:

John’s peculiar diet has occasioned...speculation...that his personal food law (or kashrut) was so strict that he could eat nothing prepared by human hands...According to Josephus, one Bannus, a desert hermit (c. 56 A.D.). “dwelt in the wilderness, wearing only such clothing as trees provided, feeding on such things as grew of themselves, and using frequent ablutions of cold water, by day and night, for purity’s sake (Life 2 §11). We read in the first-century pseudepigraphal work Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah (Mar. Isa. 2:10-11): “All of them were clothed in sackcloth, and all of them were prophets; they had nothing with them, but were destitute, and they all lamented bitterly over the going astray of Israel. And they had nothing to eat except wild herbs (which) they gathered from the mountains.” (Evans, Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Matthew-Luke, 66)

John’s spartan diet is certainly consistent with his message, a crude diet for an austere man. His eating habits are a reflection of his discipleship. Some have even seen John’s diet as a sign of his asceticism, underscoring a life of renunciation. George T. Montague (b. 1929) reminds, “A diet of wild honey (which could also be various types of tree sap) and locusts suggests desert life but not necessarily extreme asceticism, since an Assyrian bas-relief shows a servant offering the king a shish kebab of locusts as a delicacy (Montague, Companion God: A Cross-Cultural Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 38).”

John did not get distracted by the desires of the world and his diet is an exemplar of his singular focus. Warren Carter (b. 1955) comments:

John has good company in not letting food distract him from serving God: the levitical purity laws, the Nazirite refusal of strong drink (Numbers 6:3; Judges 13:4-5), heroes and heroines who maintained faithfulness to God in not eating meat (Daniel 1:12, 16; Judith 10:5, 12:2-4, 17-20), and the Rechabites, who renounced wine, houses, and agriculture (Jeremiah 35). Among Gentiles, Apollonius renounces a flesh diet and wine in favor of dried fruits and vegetables since flesh was unclean, gross, and endangered mental balance (Philostratus, Apollonius 1.8). Dio Chrystostom provides parallels with Stoic-Cynic philosophers (Disc 1.61-61, 4.70, 6.12, 12, 13.10-11, 60.7-8). Even John’s unusual food, then, attests a different way of life centered on faithfulness to God. It presents a critique of the economic extravagance of the powerful elite, who maintain their own abundance at the expense of the poor (see Matthew 11:8, 12:1-8, 14:13-21; for his critique of fine clothing and the palaces of the wealthy and powerful, see Matthew 11:9). (Carter, Matthew and the Margins, 95)

John is not overly concerned about what he will eat (Matthew 6:31; Luke 12:29), what we might call “quality of life”. He is clearly not in ministry for its material benefits. He is too preoccupied with the kingdom of God.

Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) expounds:

John’s diet...provides Matthew’s community a model of commitment. Some other poor people in antiquity also ate locusts...but locusts sweetened with honey constituted John’s entire diet. The sort of pietists that lived in the wilderness and dressed simply normally ate only the kind of food that grew by itself (II Maccabees 5:27; Jos. Life 11). In the wilderness, both refugees (Qoh. Rab. 10:8, §1) and pietists with special kosher requirements (CD 12.14; 11QTemple 48.1-5; cf. Davies 1983) might subsist on locusts. Matthew is explaining that John lived simply — with only the barest forms of necessary sustenance. This was not the only lifestyle to which God called his servants, but Matthew believed that God called some disciples to it (Matthew 11:18-19), and their lifestyle challenges all disciples to consider whether hey have staked everything on the kingdom (Matthew 13:46; cf. The emphasis in Luke 3:11, 12:33, 14:33; Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-35). (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 118-119)

In an era where prominent pastor Joel Osteen (b. 1963) claimed, “God wants me to be rich!”, it is worth asking, how comfortably should a Christian live? Does your lifestyle reflect your discipleship? Is one’s diet a spiritual issue? How much do you need?

“It is easier to change a man’s religion than to change his diet.” - Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

Drinking a Paycheck (Proverbs 23:21)

Who will come to poverty according to Proverbs 23:21? The drunkard and the glutton.

Proverbs 23:19-21 is an earnest appeal from father to son (Proverbs 23:19) admonishing not to associate with drunkards and gluttons (Proverbs 23:20). The father’s rationale is quite practical:

For the heavy drinker and the glutton will come to poverty,
And drowsiness will clothe one with rags. (Proverbs 23:21 NASB)

Midrash argues that a drunkard will eventually sell all of her possessions in the pursuit of wine (Leviticus Rabbah 12:1). This counsel stands in stark contrast to the opinion held by many that excessive comfort food and/or adult beverage relieve stress and lead to happiness.

While the motivation for abstinence or moderation here is pragmatic, elsewhere in Proverbs, drunkenness and gluttony are rejected on moral grounds. Tremper Longman III (b. 1952) notes:

Drunkenness and gluttony are here castigated. Elsewhere the rationale for criticizing getting drunk has to do with clouding one’s ability to think and make decisions. In other words, it disrupts one’s wisdom. The same can apply to overeating, which would lead to lethargic behavior, not the kind of diligent work so frequently encouraged in the book. However, the explicit motive given here against overdrinking and eating is that such overindulgence would lead to poverty. Spending too much money on too much food and too much drink would be foolish, not wise. For other teaching against overdrinking, see Proverbs 20:1, 23:29-35, 31:1-9. (Longman, Proverbs (Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms), 428)

This utilitarian argument for abstaining from excess fits the book’s perspective on poverty. Timothy Keller (b. 1950) acknowledges:

Another cause of poverty, according to the Bible, is what we would call “personal moral failures,” such as indolence (Proverbs 6:6-7) and other problems with self-discipline (Proverbs 23:21). The book of Proverbs is particularly forceful in its insistence that hard work can lead to economic prosperity (Proverbs 12:11, 14:23, 20:13), though there are exceptions (Proverbs 13:23) (Keller, Generous Justice: How God’s Grace Makes Us Just), 34)

Kathleen A. Farmer (b. 1943) summarizes:

The fourteenth “saying” (Proverbs 23:19-21) sees a relationship between overindulgences and poverty, as did several of the Solomonic sentences (e.g. Proverbs 20:12, 21:17). The drunkard, the glutton, and the chronically drowsy will all be clothed in rags, warns the sage. (Farmer, Who Knows What is Good?: A Commentary on the Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (International Theological Commentary), 111)

Here, extravagant drinking and eating are to be interpreted as a collective representing the epitome of overindulgence. The father’s message is that leading an extravagant lifestyle will eventually lead to poverty.

The Bible does not discourage drinking any more than eating. It is the excess that is frowned upon and this excess was a serious offense. The same words for “heavy drinker” and “glutton” are found in the Law characterizing a rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). If found guilty, the stubborn child was to be executed (Deuteronomy 21:21)! Passages like these underscore how heavy a charge opponents levied on Jesus in deeming him “a glutton and a drunkard” (Luke 7:34 NASB).

Given this aggregate interpretation, the proverb is reminding that time, energy, money and opportunity are often wasted in the pursuit of indulgence . Leonard S. Kravitz (b. 1928) and Kerry M. Olitzky (b. 1954) conclude:

Overindulgence will prevent a person from making a living, and poverty will be the result. The author needs to warn the reader that self-control in all things is a prerequisite for those wishing to counsel those in power. Lose control and you lose your power and your job. (Kravitz and Olitzky, Mishlei: A Modern Commentary on Proverbs, 228)

What did your parents teach you about alcohol and gluttony? What is the connection between excess and poverty? Has this proverb been proven true? Who can you think of whose extravagant lifestyle resulted in destitution? Have you ever known someone who gave up a vice for financial reasons? Is alcohol consumption more a moral or economic issue? Why does gluttony receive so little press relative to drinking?

Though the verse makes no distinction between gluttony and drunkenness, Proverbs does what most modern readers do when reading about drunkards and gluttons - it abandons gluttony and follows with a discourse on the dangers of excessive drinking (Proverbs 23:29-35).

Duane A. Garrett admits (b. 1953):

Those who live like Shakespeare’s Falstaff soon exhaust their resources. Christians should note that both drunkenness and gluttony are condemned. We often eschew the former and practice the latter. (Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (New American Commentary), 196)

Many of the arguments against excessive drinking also apply to gluttony. Max Anders (b. 1947) deduces:

Modern Christians often focus on alcohol, forgetting verses like these that speak against gluttons who lack self-control and gorge themselves on meat. In each case, the problem is the urge to indulge too much!...Either problem leads to the same result. The alcoholic pours all his resources into his drinking habit and eventually lands in poverty. The laziness and drowsiness that accompany such behavior lead inevitably to financial embarrassment. (Anders, Proverbs (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 198-99)

For all practical purposes, most do not perceive gluttony to be a sin. A gluttonous preacher railing against the depravity of inebriation is commonplace. This has not always been the case. In fact, gluttony was one of the seven deadly sins.

Perhaps the Enlightenment’s emphasis on intellect led to a modern docetism in which we accept things that harm the body more readily than those that affect the mind. Francine Prose (b. 1947) recounts:

As the Renaissance and later the Industrial Revolution and eighteenth-century rationalism refocused the popular imagination from heaven to earth and adjusted the goals of labor to include the rewards of this world as well as those of the next, gluttony lost some of its stigma and eventually became almost a badge of pride. Substance, weight, and the ability to afford the most lavish pleasures of the table became visible signs of vitality, prosperity, and of the worldly success to which both the captains and the humble foot soldiers of industry were encouraged to aspire. (Prose, Gluttony (The Seven Deadly Sins), 3)

Culture’s perception of gluttony has clearly changed. Has God’s?

Do you feel gluttony is a sin? If you had to presume a hierarchy of sin, which is worse, drunkenness or gluttony? Why? What are other sins associated with drinking and gluttony? What is the connection between the body and soul?

“Our fear of hypocrisy is forcing us to live in a world where gluttons are fine, so long as they champion gluttony.” - Jonah Goldberg (b. 1969), “Booking Bennet”, May 5, 2003

Manna: Day Old Disaster (Exodus 16)

Name the day old bread that was no bargain. Manna (Exodus 16:19-20)

During their 40 years wandering in the wilderness, the Israelites faced difficulties in meeting basic human needs and typically responded by groaning against their leadership. One such need was that of food and in the face of the limited supplies they cited longing for the wonderful cuisine they ate while enslaved in Egypt (Exodus 16:1-3). God met their need for sustenance through a mysterious substance known as manna (Exodus 16:4).

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that I may test them, whether or not they will walk in My instruction. (Exodus 16:4 NASB)

In the Old Testament worldview, dew descended from heaven (Deuteronomy 33:28; Haggai 1:10). As such, manna emerged “from heaven” with the morning dew (Exodus 16:13-14).

Manna was a mystery food, its name literally means “What is it?”. Its modern equivalent might be “whatchamacallit”. As is common when describing divine things, the Biblical writers were left to analogies to describe manna as there was no exact correlate. Manna is characterized as “a fine flake-like thing, fine as the frost on the ground” (Exodus 16:14 NASB) and “like coriander seed, white, and its taste was like wafers with honey” (Exodus 16:31 NASB). Manna was a wonder bread with frosted flakes.

Honey was one of the resources that made the promised land so appealing (Exodus 3:8, 17, 13:5, 33:3) and manna can be seen as a foretaste of the Promised Land. Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) explains that “describing the manna as ‘like wafers made with honey’ was tantamount to saying that it ‘was the most delicious food imaginable’ (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary, Vol. 2), 384).” The bread from heaven was given to replace the distorted nostalgic view the Israelites had of their Egyptian nourishment (Exodus 16:3).

Some have seen a natural explanation for manna in that sap from a tamarisk tree native to the region that interacts with a lice plant creates a similar product. Though scientific explanations have been supplied, manna possessed the supernatural qualities of always producing the exact amount needed (Exodus 16:17-18) and having twice that amount only on the day before the Sabbath (Exodus 16:5, 22). Its name also signifies that the substance was previously unknown.

The gift of manna did come with some responsibility - God capped the manna intake. God was explicit that the Israelites gather only enough for one day with the exception of the day prior to the Sabbath (Exodus 16:4-5, 16-19). The prohibition was clearly stated and easy to comply with yet it was given in one verse and violated the next (Exodus 16:19-20). The unnamed violators quickly learned the hard way that manna did not have a long shelf life - “it bred worms and became foul” (Exodus 16:20 NASB).

What modern products have minuscule shelf lives? Was the prohibition against hoarding manna due to the perishable nature of the item or was the food’s character created for the prohibition? Why did God limit the amount of manna one could collect? Why did the people violate this law? Are the answers to the last two questions different?

Some have speculated that one of the reasons for the mandate was to spare the people from the food’s quick degeneration. In this way, it fits with similar food consumption laws (Exodus 12:10, 29:34; Deuteronomy 16:34). As God selected the food, it could have just as easily been a nonperishable item. The fact that manna miraculously endured two days when necessary (Exodus 16:5) indicates that quick decay was not one of manna’s intrinsic properties.

Others have suggested that manna taught the Israelites not to waste or hoard and to be content with subsistence. Others have reminded that the way that God supplied manna required the Israelites to work six days a week and in doing so, no one could eat without working (II Thessalonians 3:10).

Before bestowing manna, God acknowledged that the food would provide a test for the Israelites (Exodus 16:4). In providing manna on a daily basis the Israelites had to trust God for their daily bread (Matthew 6:11; Luke 11:3). Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) comments, “Israel was taught that this bread came ‘morning by morning’, in God’s time, according to his plan. It could not be stored ‘just in case...’ If one came too late, it had vanished with the heat of the rising sun (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 289).”

As such, for the Israelites, food and faith were intimately related.

Do you trust God to provide your daily bread? Do you recognize that when you eat, God has provided the meal no less directly than for the Israelites in the wilderness?

“There are people in the world so hungry, that God cannot appear to them except in the form of bread.” - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)