The growth of veganism in the options menu restaurant industry is now ubiquitous, and its speed is dizzying. It has struck a chord with many Christians, who are concerned about environmental degradation and animal suffering, and its message resonates with their hearts. Discussions about veganism are becoming more common among people of faith. The question of whether it is a heated debate or a light-hearted exchange often arises in conversations, whether on social media or in person, with phrases like “Jesus didn’t eat meat, but” being frequently mentioned.
The only logical conclusion to the concept of Jesus consuming meat is that we are allowed to consume meat. Surely, this does not undermine any faith-based ethical argument for veganism if Jesus, the epitome of moral excellence, consumed animals. After all, Christian vegans may feel unsettled by what seems to be a divinely sanctioned endorsement of consuming animals. It is only natural.
An obvious retort is to note that there were many undesirable elements to living in 1st century Palestine. People of the time were lawfully permitted to keep slaves but that doesn’t mean we should do likewise! Also what would a church equality opportunities board say if Jesus’s choice of disciples, an exclusively male and monoethnic selection, was adopted as a model of church leadership today?
Is it true that a steak is a steak and a spade is a spade? To comprehend the type of meat he might consume, we must understand how he compares it to the meat in our supermarkets. He might choose to eat a certain kind of meat to delve deeper into the issue of eating meat and Jesus. The question of why relevance remains intriguing in helping us make our choices, and Jesus chose the food he ate nonetheless.
(Without explanation) In Genesis 9:3, God allows Noah and his family to consume animals as a result of human sin, but this permission is only temporary. This marks a significant change from the pre-fall world described in Genesis 1, where eating without taking lives was considered the perfect state of Eden. Now, let’s examine the initial occurrences of meat consumption in the Bible and provide some background information.
(Gen 9:5) “From each creature, I will demand it, and from humans, every person is accountable for the life of another” will certainly necessitate a reckoning: “Regarding the consumption of animals for sustenance, I will grant permission but with a stern warning. “The fear and apprehension of you shall be upon all creatures of the earth, birds of the sky, every creeping thing on the ground, and all fish of the sea” is rather portrayed as a lamentation: In fact, the concession made in Genesis 9 notably excludes the acknowledgement that God deemed it ‘good’. In contrast to Genesis 1, the allowance to consume meat is not an unrestricted invitation for humans to indiscriminately kill and devour as many creatures as they desire.
Whilst permission is given to consume flesh, even the most impassioned BBQ lover may uncomfortably shift to begin thinking of it as a demanding God’s “reckoning” for taking the life of an animal. The regulations, although strict and detailed, were established around the principle of consuming flesh.
This startling warning underlines the fact that eating flesh is not part of God’s original intentions for creation. Indeed, it is one of a number of regretful activities (e.g. the keeping of slaves, permission for the Israelites to take women in war, capital punishment, etc) which Jesus referred to as “not so in the beginning” (Matthew 19:8), that is to say, permitted but only because of “our hardness of heart”. This tension surrounding meat eating is key to understanding what sort of meat might have been found on Jesus’ plate.
It seems entirely plausible to assume that Jesus consumed meat, especially at the Passover, since the animal sacrifice was required by the law. It is important to perceive the gulf between the lamb found at your local carvery and the lamb of the Passover, as the meat consumed at the Passover was highly regulated with strict conditions applied to its consumption in accordance with the Mosaic Law. Only animals of a particular species, without any blemishes or spots, were suitable for sacrifice, and the slaughter could only take place at the center of cultic worship in Jerusalem, Shiloh, and Mispeh. The blood was understood to contain the “life” of the animal, so it was to be eaten when consuming the body, with no consumption of blood or fat. The meat of the sacrificial animals was also to be roasted, not boiled, resulting in a mushy and unappetizing stew with bits of gristle, which gourmets aspiring to be sons of Eli would trouble themselves to insist on not having, as it seemed to undermine the understanding that the sacrifice was an act of solemnity and atonement, not just an excuse for a fry-up.
Even today, some Jews continue to refer to this as the “lust of meat.” In Numbers 11:4, it is mentioned that the people fell into a great plague while lusting for flesh, with the meat being between their teeth. This marked the beginning of a rebellion against God, characterized by law-breaking, wickedness, and lust. The original Hebrew scripture in Deuteronomy 12:12 unfavorably regarded the consumption and killing of animals outside of the sacrificial system, while permitting it for religious purposes. However, there was another type of meat known as “secular meat” that was available to Jesus and was consumed for non-religious purposes.
There is no scriptural reason to suggest Jesus ate such meat and it is unlikely He did. In fact, contemporary to Jesus, were particularly religious men who took a ‘Nazarite vow’. Detailed in Numbers 6, this vow was not dissimilar to a monk taking holy orders and required the abstinence from certain lawful but spiritually unprofitable practices such as drinking alcohol and eating secular meat. This tradition, the adherents of which were especially ‘separated’ or ‘holy’ to God, included Samson and Samuel no less. Whilst secular meat was lawful (much like keeping a slave was lawful), it simply was not the sort of thing respected holy men did in the 1st century. Rather like a vicar visiting a strip club – lawful but decidedly frowned upon!
It is likely that Jesus supplemented his diet with fish, considering how fish falls outside the categories mentioned above. In the 24th chapter of Luke, the resurrection account plus the laws under the Mosaic covenant, fish is regarded differently and not used as a sacrifice in the same way as other meats. Fish is also not regulated in the Noahic covenant and is distinguished from other flesh, as seen in the Bible. The final piece of meat left on the table is fish.
It was permissible for men to set sail on their small wooden boats for a short period of time due to the necessity of catching fish. Many fishermen in this arid area had no other choice but to rely on fishing as they couldn’t feed their families or engage in mechanized farming without the benefits of modern irrigation. It is striking to see how different these approaches to eating animal flesh are compared to today’s norms.
Discarded nets, containers, buoys, tipped boats, fridges, pallets, and canisters result in the loss of marine life and severe environmental damage. The fishing sector is accountable for 46% of plastic pollution in the oceans. These vessels create shifting wastelands of gravel, sand, and mud, leading to the death of numerous dolphins, sharks, and turtles, as well as causing catastrophic environmental effects. Massive ships utilize nets that extend up to 2.5 kilometers to trawl or dredge the sea, capturing a majority of the fish found in our supermarkets.
The fish processing facility employs workers who disassemble trout, rainbow trout, eel, as well as sea bream and sea bass species. This information is copyrighted by Jo-Anne McArthur.
The severity and duration of their suffering during capture and subsequent processing will be significantly high for both wild-caught fish and farmed fish. It is highly likely that most wild-caught fish will perish due to being crushed in nets or experiencing suffocation, freezing, or live dissection after being landed. This process may take several minutes, or even hours. Additionally, a large number of the world’s farmed fish are also subjected to slow and inhumane methods of killing, which goes against the teachings of tsa’ar ba’alei Chayim, a principle in the rabbinic/Talmudic tradition that prohibits causing suffering to any living creature. Given these circumstances, would Jesus choose to consume a fish that has been captured under conditions of extreme suffering and contributes to environmental degradation, or would he instead choose a more compassionate alternative?
The shrewd identification of meat with “desire” cuts to the core of an industry that is heavily focused on meat. The danger of lust lies in its selfish pursuit of pleasure, causing lasting suffering and harm to those around us. By moving towards a secular focus on meat, we might learn from the warning in Hebrew scripture and Genesis 9 about the concern for pleasure in eating.
A pig is being transported for the purpose of being slaughtered. © Jo-Anne
In our desire for meat, solely driven by our desire for meat, the frightened occupants’ gazes, if He were positioned at the entrance of the slaughterhouse, what expression would Jesus have on His face? It truly makes one ponder. Such methods of meat production would be completely inconceivable to individuals residing in the first century. Disfigured and confined in unsanitary, overcrowded environments, female animals endure forced impregnation and subsequent separation from their offspring. In our craving for meat, pigs, sheep, cows, chickens, ducks, geese, and other animals are subjected to relentless and routine acts of cruelty, causing them immense suffering throughout their brief existences.
Finally, we know that there is no longer a need for the sacrifice of meat or the Passover. According to the Gospel of John, the significance of these events underlines Christ’s role as the Lamb of God, who willingly sacrificed himself to bring reconciliation, peace, and freedom to all of creation. We remember Christ with the breaking of bread, not with the lust of the flesh or the blood of the Passover lamb.
In conclusion, in deciding to pop a cut of meat into our supermarket trolley, should muttering “but didn’t Jesus eat meat?” satisfy our conscience? The fact is, the item in the trolley, is a piece of one of God’s beloved creatures, bred in horrendous conditions and cruelly slaughtered for nothing other than the financial profit of the seller and gastronomic lust of the consumer. Such a “product” is not something anyone living two thousand years ago could have conceived of much less eaten. Maybe, as we peruse the supermarket aisles, we should ask ourselves a different question. Indeed for we, who are not living in first century Galilee but rather in a time and country when meat eating necessitates terrible suffering and the devastation of the environment, perhaps the key question to ask is, “what would Jesus have us eat now”?
Written by Sarx staff writer with special gratitude to Dr Philip J. Sampson for his research and guidance.