What I believe about laws of health vs. remedies

I do believe there is a problem in how we understand and apply the term, “laws of health.” A wide-spread acronym used to describe what people call the “laws of health” is NEWSTART (Nutrition, Exercise, Water, Sunshine, Temperance, Air, Rest, Trust in God). This acronym is derived from the following passage in MH 127.2, “Pure air, sunlight, abstemiousness, rest, exercise, proper diet, the use of water, trust in divine power—these are the true remedies.”

In the paragraph before this quote, arguably the most famous “medical missionary” quote on disease is found: “Disease is an effort of nature to free the system from conditions that result from a violation of the laws of health.” What many of us (I include myself, because I have taught this for many years) have done is take the phrase from the first paragraph, “Disease is an effort of nature to free the system from conditions that result from a violation of the laws of health,” and then assume that the “laws of health” are what is listed in the following paragraph, namely: “Pure air, sunlight, abstemiousness, rest, exercise, proper diet, the use of water, trust in divine power.” But after this list, Ellen White specifically calls these eight things “the true remedies.” 

We must ask ourselves, “Is there a difference between a remedy and a law, and if so, what?” When is a law (natural or moral) applicable? All the time. And when is a remedy applicable? When it is needed. Would there be guilt for not using a remedy when a remedy is not needed? No. Would there be guilt for not obeying a law of nature? Education page 196 tells us, “the laws of nature are the laws of God—as truly divine as are the precepts of the Decalogue. The laws that govern our physical organism, God has written upon every nerve, muscle, and fiber of the body. Every careless or willful violation of these laws is a sin against our Creator.” Clearly, the answer is, “Yes!” 

If the NEWSTART components are remedies, then they are applicable when needed and there is no guilt for not using them when not needed. If the NEWSTART components are laws, then they are always applicable and there is sin/guilt when they are not followed, even to the slightest degree. So, are the NEWSTART components remedies? Or are they laws? Or are they both? How can we understand it?

It is clear that each of the NEWSTART components is something that humans need. And natural laws govern or dictate needs. So, from this standpoint, they ARE laws. The problem comes in how we apply them. Do we apply them as a remedy? Or do we apply them as a law?

Let us compare the life of Jesus with NEWSTART and see what is or isn’t possible. Clearly, Jesus never sinned. He never sinned in doing what He shouldn’t do or in not doing what He should have done. He never sinned in anything spiritual/moral, and He never sinned in anything physical. In other words, He never broke God’s laws, either moral or natural, not even slightly. He is our perfect example. What can we learn about NEWSTART in the light of Jesus’ life? 

Nutrition: Jesus fasted to the point of almost dying (Mattew 4:1-11, DA 131). He personally ate fish, honeycomb, and lamb (Luke 24:36-43, Matthew 26:19,26). His meal times were erratic or skipped altogether (RH June 9, 1904, par. 2). And He provided wine (grape juice), fish, and bread for others (John 2:7-10, Matthew 14:19). 

Exercise: He led an outdoor, active life, with a lot of walking from place to place. 

Water: He was not always fully hydrated (John 4:6-7,28). 

Sunshine: He led an outdoor life with frequent sunshine exposure. 

Temperance: He overworked to the point where His family and disciples “feared that His life would be sacrificed.” (MH 55). He worked late into the night relieving suffering (DA 259). 

Air: He led an outdoor life with lots of exposure to fresh air. 

Rest: He spent hours alone with His Father each evening and each morning (ST, July 15, 1908, par. 3), and frequently He spent the entire night in prayer (2SP 270), which implies that He was not sleeping at those times. He would not sleep the following day but would minister to the needs of the people throughout the day. 

Trust in God: As we all know, He perfectly trusted in His Father and never deviated from His will. 

Did Jesus ever violate a law of God, whether natural or moral? No! If He did, He would be a sinner and fail to be our perfect example. Did Jesus eat a plant-based diet? No. By current definitions, His diet would be classified as pescatarian or semi-vegetarian. Did He always eat on a regular schedule, taking a regular break from His work of teaching, preaching, and healing so He could eat? No. Did He always maintain optimal hydration? No. Did He conform to our ideas of temperance in work? No. Did He regularly get as much sleep as we advocate people should get for optimal health? No. 

But was Jesus ever sick or diseased? No! Sickness and disease are the result of sin, and sin is the violation of God’s law, whether natural or moral. Jesus never violated God’s law, so He was not subject to sickness and disease. 

I am not saying that Jesus would be a pescatarian or semi-vegetarian now. But if we think that a plant-based diet is a natural law, then it has always been a natural law (for natural laws do not change), and Jesus would have been in violation of it, which would make Him a sinner. If the natural law is that you should get between 7-9 hours of sleep each night, then to get 6 or 10 hours of sleep would be a violation of natural law and would constitute sin. If maintaining optimal hydration is a law of nature, then to be dehydrated would be a sin. 

Do you need water? Yes! Do you need food? Yes! Do you need rest? Yes! All of these are needs. And from that standpoint, they ARE laws. There is no getting around the fact that we need these things. But, when we begin to specify how much someone should take in, when they should take it in, how they should take it in, and under what circumstances they should take it in, then we have gone beyond the law. We are now dictating to someone else something that is their own personal stewardship of the body temple God has given them. We are dictating for others what is between them and God alone. 

If someone has violated law, and as a result, they are sick or diseased, is it helpful for them to pursue optimal nutrition, hydration, rest, sun exposure, fresh air, and the rest of the NEWSTART components? Absolutely! These remedies will aid in recovery. But, when we take the remedial use of these components and then call them laws, we then expect everyone to consistently and constantly live according to how it would be used as a remedy. 

Now, if someone is not optimally hydrated, they are in sin. If someone is not eating exactly as we think they should or when we think they should or how we think they should, they are in sin. If they are not getting as much sleep as we think they should, they are in sin. And now, we make ourselves judges of our neighbors, looking at their plates, mentally measuring what they eat, eyeing their beverages, and so on. And when we measure Jesus by our “laws of health” test, He fails the test. This is why I believe there is a problem with how we understand and apply the term, “laws of health.” Jesus was able to summarize the moral law in one statement: love God and love others. Are you able to summarize the “laws of health” in one statement? I believe the proper summary of the “laws of health” is this: Take what you need from nature so you can most effectively give—take to give. We see that Jesus was always taking from His Father so He could give to others. Whatever was needed (eating or not eating, drinking or not drinking, sleeping or not sleeping, etc.) in order to be able to take to give, that is what He did. And doing this, He was always inside of His Father’s will, He never violated a law, either moral or physical, and He was our perfect example.

Mark Sandoval