Case 12.4: Going Vegetarian?
You are friends with several people in your community who are committed vegetarians. You have always eaten meat and not really thought much about it until you became friends with some of your current peer group. They have challenged your views on eating meat and have encouraged you to join them in going vegetarian. Some have gone a bit further and gone vegan, which means that they use no animal products at all. They maintain that it is a healthier diet and that you’ll feel better once you make the transition. But the main reason they give is that they don’t want to contribute to the mistreatment of animals that are kept and processed for food. According to your friends, the animals have the right not to be abused or killed for food. They cite the abuses that come from factory farming of animals and urge you not to violate your conscience with the food you eat. Some of these friends are Christians. They remind you that at creation the first human beings were vegetarians, and when the kingdom of God comes in its fullness at Jesus’ return, there will be peace in the kingdom and there will be no predator-prey relationships. They maintain that minimizing meat today might be a way to anticipate life in the fullness of God’s kingdom.
· How do you respond to your friends who are vegetarians/vegans? Do you think they have a valid point? Why or why not?
· What do you think of their theologically based reasoning for their views?
· What do you think of their views on animal rights not to be mistreated?
Case 12.4 concerns the moral legitimacy of eating meat and the arguments in support of the supposed moral superiority of vegetarianism. I will argue that the moral imperative to vegetarianism is incorrect, and that Christians should feel no guilt in eating meat. Toward this end, specific focus will be directed to the teaching and example of Jesus Christ. A brief look at a few apostolic texts and a consideration of Isaiah 11 as used by pro-vegetarian interpreters will be addressed.
A brief word about the focus and methodology of this paper. I am primarily speaking to Christians who affirm something of the authority and relevance of the scriptural teaching as found in the Bible. Space constraints forbid a fuller answer that could be developed without dependence on Scripture.[1]
Key Foundational Beliefs
Although space will not allow a full treatment, the following points should be seen as foundational for any Christian understanding of how to approach meat-eating. First, humans are distinct from animals by virtue of being created in the image of God (Genesis 1.26-28). As such, humans have more value than animals and have “dominion” over the animals. Second, animals throughout the entirety of the Old Testament are used for sacrifices and for food; this is all divinely sanctioned. Third, although the Scriptures do speak against cruelty to animals there is a distinction that is assumed between “suffering” and “cruelty.” Animals may be used for food and thus undergo “suffering,” but this is morally legitimate. As Stephen Vantassel argues, “In one sense everyone could agree that human actions with animals can cause suffering, but should they agree that this suffering involves moral guilt?... I can concede that the animal is suffering, but I do not concede that the action is necessarily morally evil or unjust.”[2] This distinction will be helpful in considering the teaching and example of Christ Jesus since he seemingly allows for a certain amount of suffering for animals. “For if, as many animal rights activists subtly suggest, the killing of animals is, by definition, cruelty, then we have, in effect, made Jesus Christ a participant in cruelty and thereby besmirched his character.”[3]
Jesus and the Apostolic View of Meat-Eating
For Christians, the person and practice of Jesus of Nazareth is paramount in understanding who God is and what he desires. When one examines the biblical evidence, the portrait and practice of Jesus is not one who endorses the premises of the “animal rights” position. Consider the following items that demonstrate Jesus’ view of animal use and suffering.
First, in Luke 5.1-11 Jesus kills fish “for the sole purpose of demonstrating his power, and possibly enriching the disciples.”[4] Stephen Vantassel draws out the ethical implications of this action:
Christ’s acceptance of fishing provides a useful rubric by which to investigate the issue of the treatment of wild animals and trapping. Animal activists contend that fishing is cruel because fish suffer during the capture process. Despite the pain fish underwent, Christ never condemned fishing.[5]
Furthermore, Jesus commands his disciples to fish in order to obtain tax money (Matthew 17.27). Vantassel notes that the crucial issue is not whether the fish died but “the important fact is that Christ would permit the fish to suffer the pains/stress of being hooked and removed from its natural environment in order to recover a coin and pay a tax.”[6]
Second, Jesus’ approach to the sacrificial system and food laws of his time do not align with those who promote the animal rights perspective. Vantassel perceptively notes, “If Christ was so concerned about the suffering of animals in food production then why didn’t He condemn the sacrificial system as immoral and add further restrictions to the laws of kashrut regarding clean meat (Mk 7:19).”[7] In fact, Jesus actually commands a recently healed leper “to go show yourself to the priest and make an offering for your cleansing, just as Moses commanded, as a testimony to them” (Luke 5.14). Such a command was, essentially, a command to go kill an animal in that the directive in Leviticus 14.1-20 required the death of a bird and two lambs. Furthermore, Jesus’ teaching in Mark 7 is taken by Mark to entail that Jesus “declared all foods clean” (Mark 7.19). This truth effectively expands the dietary choices of God’s people—not narrow them. Finally, in concert with the point above, the book of Acts depicts the risen Lord Jesus as saying, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” (Acts 10.13). This is a direct command from Jesus to kill animals and eat them.
Third, Jesus feeds thousands of people on at least two different occasions with fish (feeding of 5000: Matthew 14.13-21; Mark 6.30-44; Luke 9.10-17; John 6.1-14/feeding of 4000: Matthew 15.32-39; Mark 8.1-10). Someone may object: “These were not live fish which were killed; thus, there is no suffering.” This is true, but one still needs to explain why Jesus would use an object lesson of fish which reinforces meat-eating. Taken in conjunction with the above points about Jesus killing fish and commanding disciples to fish, this takes on added significance.
Fourth, Jesus himself eats fish after his resurrection (Luke 24.42; John 21.9-13).[8] He does this to help demonstrate his actual resurrection; that he is truly an embodied being, risen from the dead.
Fifth, Jesus is not above allowing demonic activity to influence and kill 2000 pigs. This does not directly address the issue of eating meat, but it does reinforce the principle that people are more valuable than animals. In this case, 2000 pigs are sacrificed to save one human.
Sixth, Jesus’ examples used in his teaching presuppose the moral legitimacy of eating meat. In Luke 12.24 Jesus states, “Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; they have no storeroom nor barn, and yet God feeds them; how much more valuable you are than the birds!” As Paul Copan notes, God provides for ravens by giving them meat to eat.[9] “Perhaps we could paraphrase here too: ‘If God provides meat for the ravens, will he not do so for you, who are much more valuable than they?’”[10] In other parables, Jesus mentions the eating of oxen and fattened livestock at times of celebration (Matthew 22.4; Luke 15.23).[11] These positive representations of killing and eating animals seem to presuppose their moral legitimacy by Jesus.
In turning to the apostolic witness regarding meat-eating there is nothing that is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus on this issue. A full discussion is not possible here of all the relevant texts, so a few key passages will be noted. In Romans 14 the apostle Paul is addressing the issue of eating meat versus eating vegetables. His context revolves the Jew/Gentile differences resulting from upholding the ceremonial food laws. Paul recognizes that the one who is strong in faith “may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only” (Romans 14.2). Later in this text he echoes the thought of Jesus when notes, “All things indeed are clean” and, thus, are morally allowable if done in a manner with consistent with love toward another person’s conscience (Romans 14.20). There is no hint of any moral prohibition on meat-eating in principle.
Another Pauline text of relevance is 1 Timothy 4.1-5.
1But the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2by means of the hypocrisy of liars, seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, 3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 4For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; 5for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.
Although the background to this text is the familiar Jew/Gentile split and the food laws, Paul’s express teaching allows for the acceptance of all kinds of meat. Such foods are recognized as good and to be received with gratitude. Especially noteworthy are the strong words regarding those who would forbid such food. These words need to be heeded by all those who seek to place an ethical limitation on what foods are acceptable in God’s sight.
Vegetarianism in Anticipation of the Eternal Kingdom: A Valid View?
The argument that minimizing meat-eating is a way to anticipate the eternal kingdom has been made based on Isaiah 11.6-9:
6And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little boy will lead them. 7Also the cow and the bear will graze, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. 9They will not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.
There are, however, several problems in appealing to this text for the conclusion that one ought to minimize or, even, outright deny meat-eating.
First, according to Vantassel, this passage should be read as an “anthropocentric blessing.” He elaborates:
We would suggest the passage is not about the cessation of animal death (i.e., a time when sheep would no longer be eaten by humans), it is about the cessation of predation and animal attacks that harm human interests. In other words, in the messianic age, shepherds will be liberated from the burden of having to guard their sheep at night (Lk 2:8). The reason this observation is overlooked is likely due to the urban context of most biblical interpreters. When one is not familiar with the challenges of raising livestock where hungry predators roam, it is difficult [for] readers to appreciate how great a blessing the conversion of predators to grass eaters would be.[12]
This anthropocentric perspective by itself may not overthrow the pro-vegetarian reading of this passage but it does give one pause. This pause is further extenuated by other passages in Isaiah which may be reasonably taken to refer to the future state and in which there is indication that eating meat may be involved. Consider Isaiah 25.6: “On this mountain the Lord Almighty will prepare a feast of rich food for all peoples, a banquet of aged wine—the best of meats and the finest of wines” (NIV).[13]
Second, this passage may not require that every element of it be taken literally. The main point is that there will be no harm for God’s people. One reason to think that perhaps there are non-literal elements in it is that later in Isaiah it is said, “No lion will be there, nor will any vicious beast go up on it” (Isaiah 35.9). This leads Paul Copan to ask, “So which do we take literally—feasting on fine meats, lion with lamb, or no lion at all?”[14]
Third, even if it is granted that there will be no meat-eating in the new creation there are still reasons to avoid the conclusion that one ought not to eat now. Jesus’ bodily resurrection is the beginning of the new creation and yet, as was seen above, he ate meat in his resurrected body. Furthermore, since marriage is not going to be a part of the new creation, should we, by this logic, also forbid (or, at least, discourage) marriage now? Would it not be a good thing to live out this ideal state now? In light of 1 Timothy 4.1-5, which mentions both abstaining from certain foods and marriage in a negative light, the answer to those questions should be “no.” Paul Copan concludes, “If we admit that marriage has a vital place for humanity up until the new heavens and earth arrive (as part of the ‘dominion’ task), then the ‘dominion’ of meat-eating should also be included up until the very end.”[15]
Conclusion
[1] This footnote will have to serve as a guide to this literature. The work of Tim Hsiao utilizes a “natural law” perspective which argues for the moral legitimacy of eating meat. See the following articles (the first two are popular in nature whereas the remaining are peer-reviewed, full expositions): “There is Nothing Morally Wrong with Eating Meat,” in What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat, eds. Wes Jamison and Paul Copan, (Florida: Castle Quay Books, 2019), 51-60; “Human Lives Matter: Reflections on Human Exceptionalism,” in What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat, eds. Wes Jamison and Paul Copan, (Florida: Castle Quay Books, 2019), 61-71; “In Defense of Eating Meat,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28.2 (2015), 277-291; “Industrial Farming is Not Cruel to Animals,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30.1 (2017), 37-54.
[2] Stephen M. Vantassel, “Animal Suffering Should Not Trump Environmental Stewardship,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 53.3 (2010), 463.
[3] Stephen Vantassel, “A Biblical Assessment of Andrew Linzey’s View of Animal Rights,” Emmaus Journal 12 (2003), 192-193.
[4] Stephen Vantassel, “A Biblical Assessment of Andrew Linzey’s View of Animal Rights,” Emmaus Journal 12 (2003), 190.
[5] Stephen Vantassel, “Should Wildlife Trapping Have a Place in a Christian Environmental Ethic?” Evangelical Review of Society and Politics1.2 (2007), 41.
[6] Stephen Vantassel, “A Biblical Assessment of Andrew Linzey’s View of Animal Rights,” Emmaus Journal 12 (2003), 190-191.
[7] Stephen M. Vantassel and Nelson D. Kloosterman, “Compassionate Eating as Distortion of Scripture: Using Religion to Serve Food Morality,” Evangelical Review of Society and Politics 5.1 (2011), 41. Vantassel explains in a footnote that Josephus in ‘Wars 6:423-424’ “says, the number of sacrifices for Passover numbered 254,500, suggesting a first century equivalent of industrial agriculture.” Consider, also, the words of Wes Jamison, “There is simply no way the Jews could have raised and slaughtered the number of animals commanded by God without intensive agricultural practices… Although the Old Testament sacrifices differed quantitatively from modern intensive animal slaughter, there is little qualitative difference.” This, as Jamison notes, helps to answer the charge by philosopher John Hare, “There is nothing in ancient Israel like our factory farming and how we treat chickens and veal calves.” See Wes Jamison, “Joy or Grief? Understanding the Challenges to Christian Meat-Eating,” in What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat, eds. Wes Jamison and Paul Copan, (Florida: Castle Quay Books, 2019), 40.
[8] In that this example, and many of the above, revolve around fish, Paul Copan’s words are worth hearing: “Some may argue that fish are not technically considered ‘meat’ according to certain modern regulatory (or other) standards; for example, vegetarians of the pescatarian variety will include fish in their diet but avoid all other meat. But why think that modern regulatory standards are relevant for inhabitants of first-century Palestine? This is an arbitrary imposition. Clearly Jesus is cooking and eating animals. Ultimately, all such trivial distinctions are rendered irrelevant by the fact that Jesus ‘declared all foods clean’ or kosher (Mark 7:19).” Paul Copan, “What Would Jesus Eat? From Kosher to Everything,” in What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat, eds. Wes Jamison and Paul Copan, (Florida: Castle Quay Books, 2019), 98.
[9] “In the wild, ravens are opportunistic feeders and their diet varies based on habitat and available food sources. They are omnivorous and will feed on everything from small mammals to nesting birds, eggs and berries. They will also eat carrion, scavenge from other predators and even from human landfills. A group, or a flock, of ravens will raid seabird colonies, consuming the eggs and young of these colonies.” Smithsonian’s Natural Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, “Common Raven: Fact Sheet” (no date)—online: https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/common-raven#:~:text=They%20are%20omnivorous%20and%20will,and%20young%20of%20these%20colonies. The biblical narrative also illustrates this when ravens bring bread and meat to Elijah in 1 Kings 17.6.
[10] Paul Copan, “What Would Jesus Eat? From Kosher to Everything,” in What Would Jesus Really Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Meat, eds. Wes Jamison and Paul Copan, (Florida: Castle Quay Books, 2019), 100.
[11] Vantassel adds this interesting note: “I also think that Luke 15:27 ‘fatted calf’ also provides some additional insight. If we look at Prov. 15:17 as the stall fed calf, isn’t is possible that the fatted calf was a stall fed calf? While the calf certainly didn’t suffer the degradations of the alleged actions of modern veal manufacturing, certainly the calf was treated a certain way to develop tender meat.” Stephen Vantassel, “Should Wildlife Trapping Have a Place in a Christian Environmental Ethic?” Evangelical Review of Society and Politics 1.2 (2007), 41.
[12] Stephen M. Vantassel and Nelson D. Kloosterman, “Compassionate Eating as Distortion of Scripture: Using Religion to Serve Food Morality,” Evangelical Review of Society and Politics 5.1 (2011), 40-41.
[13] The phrase “best of meats” is more literally translated “rich food, filled with marrow.” See J. Alec Moyter, The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary (Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 209.
