Yesterday I looked at the actual story in the Old Testament book of Daniel chapter one, in which the Israelite Daniel and his three friends refused to eat the food offered to them at the Babylonian court, not for health reasons but because of their determination to adhere to Jewish ceremonial law even in a pagan culture. But there’s a further passage in this book that’s being used as the basis for several diet plans, and it comes in chapter ten, verses two and three:
At that time I, Daniel, mourned for three weeks. I ate no choice food; no meat or wine touched my lips; and I used no lotions at all until the three weeks were over. (NIV)
Other translations say that Daniel neither bathed nor shaved during the 21 days; it’s fair to say that none of the modern versions of this short-term diet plan includes that idea!
So why does Daniel do this? Note first of all that he’s not “fasting” in the true sense of the word, since that would stipulate a complete abstention from food. He eats no “choice food” and drinks no wine. Or, as The Living Bible says, “All that time I tasted neither wine nor meat, and, of course, I went without desserts. I neither washed nor shaved nor combed my hair.” So he’s basically following a meat-free, teetotal, non-hygienic existence. And his reason is that he’s in mourning because of what he’s been told in chapter nine about the continuing judgment on Israel. The last part of that chapter contains his prayer of repentance on the behalf of his nation and is one of the greatest examples of that kind of intercession in the Bible.
Once again, Daniel’s actions have absolutely nothing to do with trying to follow a healthy diet. He’s showing his broken heart over the fate of his nation. You may remember the phrase “sackcloth and ashes” from other biblical passages as a sign of distress. An ancient Israelite would wear rough clothing (the sackcloth, or burlap) and put ashes on his head when he wanted to show mourning. Daniel would be astonished to read about how his actions are being used today.
Since I started out with the Rick Warren program I’m going to continue using it as an example. So the original “Daniel diet” book laid out a 40-day program, the same length as Warren’s original “purpose-driven life” idea. (You’ll note that I am giving no links to any of this material; if you want to visit the website or the Amazon page you can easily google the terms.) But then someone—who knows who—decided that perhaps the 21-day program would have more appeal. If you sign up for the program (enrollment for which is closed right now), you pay $89 to get all sorts of resources—coaching calls, recipes, inspirational e-mails, etc. There’s quite a staff involved, 11 in all, with Drs. Amen and Hyman listed but not Pastor Warren or, thankfully, Dr. Oz.
Is it going to be helpful for those 21 days to get the nudges and the resources? Of course. Should people get paid for their expertise? Of course. Are those 21 days actually going to change your life? Almost certainly not. And the biggest problem is that using Scripture this way is not legitimate. It’s just a hook to get audience attention.
You don’t need to spend almost $100 to get started on a healthy lifestyle, and you don’t have to become a vegan, either. I quote here from a truly common-sensical doctor who shows up regularly on the “Milk Street Radio” podcast, Dr. Aaron Carroll* (and I do include a link to his book and recommend that you read it):
“There certainly nothing wrong with a vegan diet . . . the problems lie when we start to talk about the actual health impacts of a vegan diet. Now it’s entirely possible that you can eat a vegan diet that is incredibly healthful, that will be better for you than eating a diet that is chock-full of meat, but what people do worry about is it just saying a diet is vegan that makes it healthier? And the answer there is an emphatic ‘no.’ A lot of the alternatives—things that people are trying to buy that mimic regular food—things like vegan chicken nuggets, for instance, can be made without using any animal products, but often the way that those things get made require the use of things that are not necessarily good for you. . . . They’re just heavily processed.”
If you like a good overview of his totally common-sense (and therefore unprofitable) insights on healthy eating, here’s an excellent article that I hope will whet your appetite (ha) for Dr. Carroll’s book: “The Bad Food Bible: A Well-Written, Sensible and Science-Based Approach to Diet.”
May his tribe increase!