Was Jesus a Vegetarian?

[Quid est Veritas?]

Someone in another discussion seems to argue that Jesus was an unfallen human, ie was bodily Perfect as well, not just Spiritually. This made me think though, if you make this argument, shouldn't Jesus be vegetarian?

We see in Genesis that God commands Adam and Eve only to eat plants and the consumption of meat seems to be a part of the Fall. So shouldn't a perfect man then be vegetarian as well? Then again, the Israelites are permitted to eat certain meats in Leviticus. Isaiah then says that to kill an ox is similar to killing a man and later seems to argue that meat consumption will disappear in a perfect world - the Lion will eat straw and lie down with the lamb.

The lamb slaughtered for passover is an archetype of Christ: The sinless victim sacrificed for sin. Couldn't we read eating meat itself as another such archetype?

It seems Augustine and Origen mention vegetarianism being frequent amongst some Christians in their time and some works like the gospel of the Ebionites seems to point to some even considering Jesus to be one. I find the latter doubtful as Luke reports Jesus eating fish after His resurrection though, but apparently there is some dispute about this passage.

Regardless, it seems Adventists and a few other vegetarians argue Jesus was vegetarian as did some early Christian groups. Based on the idea that meat-eating seems to be a symptom of our fallen state according to Genesis and Isaiah, perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to discount it. Clearly vegetarianism is not commanded, but perhaps it falls in a category like slavery: permitted due to the fall, but morally murky.

What do people think?

Full disclosure: I am a meat-eater, not a vegetarian/vegan.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

This is a great question!

 

[Radrook]

Mankind was given permission to eat meat immediately after the Flood. So it was no longer a sin to do so.

Genesis 9:
3"Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.…
New American Standard Bible

So Jesus would not have eaten the blood along with the flesh because it would he have been a sin or going against his Father's will. There were also animals, such as the pig and fish without scales, which the Mosaic Law, prohibited as food. Since Jesus was under the Mosaic Law, eating any of those animals would also have been a sin. So we can be sure that he did not.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

Mankind was given permission to eat meat immediately after the Flood. So it was no longer a sin to do so.

Genesis 9:
3"Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.…
New American Standard Bible

So only if Jesus would have eaten the blood along with the flesh would he have been sinning.

But in the garden, it was not to be done, which was the original plan of God

 

[exitstageright]

Someone in another discussion seems to argue that Jesus was an unfallen human, ie was bodily Perfect as well, not just Spiritually. This made me think though, if you make this argument, shouldn't Jesus be vegetarian?

We see in Genesis that God commands Adam and Eve only to eat plants and the consumption of meat seems to be a part of the Fall. So shouldn't a perfect man then be vegetarian as well? Then again, the Israelites are permitted to eat certain meats in Leviticus. Isaiah then says that to kill an ox is similar to killing a man and later seems to argue that meat consumption will disappear in a perfect world - the Lion will eat straw and lie down with the lamb.

The lamb slaughtered for passover is an archetype of Christ: The sinless victim sacrificed for sin. Couldn't we read eating meat itself as another such archetype?

It seems Augustine and Origen mention vegetarianism being frequent amongst some Christians in their time and some works like the gospel of the Ebionites seems to point to some even considering Jesus to be one. I find the latter doubtful as Luke reports Jesus eating fish after His resurrection though, but apparently there is some dispute about this passage.

Regardless, it seems Adventists and a few other vegetarians argue Jesus was vegetarian as did some early Christian groups. Based on the idea that meat-eating seems to be a symptom of our fallen state according to Genesis and Isaiah, perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to discount it. Clearly vegetarianism is not commanded, but perhaps it falls in a category like slavery: permitted due to the fall, but morally murky.

What do people think?

Full disclosure: I am a meat-eater, not a vegetarian/vegan.

 

[exitstageright]

After Jesus rose from the dead,he asked his disciples to give him some meat.

By the way,Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Charles Manson is a vegetarian.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

After Jesus rose from the dead,he asked his disciples to give him some meat.

Apparently some extent versions says he asked for food and was given honey, not fish. This is the ambiguous passage in Luke I mentioned.

By the way,Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. Charles Manson is a vegetarian.

Relevance? Genghis Khan was a good father, does this make being a good father somehow immoral? It is a fallacy to decry something merely by association.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Mankind was given permission to eat meat immediately after the Flood. So it was no longer a sin to do so.

Genesis 9:
3"Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.…
New American Standard Bible

So Jesus would not have eaten the blood along with the flesh because it would he have been a sin or going against his Father's will. There were also animals, such as the pig and fish without scales, which the Mosaic Law, prohibited as food. Since Jesus was under the Mosaic Law, eating any of those animals would also have been a sin. So we can be sure that he did not.

The question is whether this falls in the same type of category as slavery. Permitted by Mosaic Law, but not really morally acceptable. So not sin by the letter, but perhaps by the spirit of the law. The Eden and Isaiah references seem to suggest this.

As Jesus is our only example of Perfection, He would follow only the most moral course. I mean Jesus obviously would not have owned slaves nor condoned divorce except for adultery, but this would have been permitted under mosaic law.

 

[Radrook]

The question is though whether this falls in the same type of category as slavery. Permitted by Mosaic Law, but not really morally acceptable. So not sin by the letter, but perhaps by the spirit of the law. The Eden and Isaiah references seem to suggest this.

As Jesus is our only example of Perfection, He would follow only the most moral course. I mean Jesus obviously would not have owned slaves nor condoned divorce except for adultery, but this would have been permitted under mosaic law.

Jesus provided fish for his Apostles to eat and he is described as eating meat on the beach. So he obviously saw no sin in eating animals.

“And they rose that very hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the ELEVEN gathered together, and those who were with them, Saying, Truly our Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon. And they [two disciples] also reported those things that happened on the road, and how they knew him as he broke bread. And while they were discussing these things, Jesus stood among them, and said to them, Peace be with you...and as they still did not believe because of their joy, and they were bewildered, he said to them, Have you anything here to eat? They gave him a portion of BROILED FISH and of a honeycomb. And HE TOOK IT AND ATE BEFORE THEIR EYES” [Luke 24:33-43 KJV].

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Jesus provided fish for his Apostles to eat and he is described as eating meat on the beach. So he obviously saw no sin in eating animals.

“And they rose that very hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the ELEVEN gathered together, and those who were with them, Saying, Truly our Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon. And they [two disciples] also reported those things that happened on the road, and how they knew him as he broke bread. And while they were discussing these things, Jesus stood among them, and said to them, Peace be with you...and as they still did not believe because of their joy, and they were bewildered, he said to them, Have you anything here to eat? They gave him a portion of BROILED FISH and of a honeycomb. And HE TOOK IT AND ATE BEFORE THEIR EYES” [Luke 24:33-43 KJV].

Yes, this is the ambiguous piece I referred to. One can argue Jesus ate only the honeycomb, it doesn't explicitly say he ate the fish, only that those were the options presented and that he ate. Some textual variants here omit fish and some the honey, leaving me a bit perplexed. As I said in the OP, I myself doubt Jesus's vegetarianism but I don't think this passage is clear enough that we can explicitly do so.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Without doubt, Jesus did not eat pork. Any dissenting views? There are two (at least) passages showing Jesus eating fish. The Passover meal includes lamb; and as Jesus ate the Passover meal, He ate lamb. (Which is meat.)

God spoke to Noah and said all living animals who moved were permitted for food. One poster pointed out, "But in the garden, it was not to be done, which was the original plan of God". This implies God allowed eating meat due to popular demand. I find that thinking a bit questionable.

Christianity is based on Grace, not works of the individual. Refraining from eating meat - since it is clearly not considered a 'command' of God - is a 'work' of an individual.

The thread question is "Was Jesus a Vegetarian"? The answer is clearly 'No'.

 

[Radrook]

Yes, this is the ambiguous piece I referred to. One can argue Jesus ate only the honeycomb, it doesn't explicitly say he ate the fish, only that those were the options presented and that he ate. Some textual variants here omit fish and some the honey, leaving me a bit perplexed. As I said in the OP, I myself doubt Jesus's vegetarianism but I don't think this passage is clear enough that we can explicitly do so.

Where does it mention options instead of fish? Had Jesus considered eating fish a sin he would not have offered the fish to his disciples. There is nothing in the Mosaic law that prohibits eating the type of fish Jesus would have been offering to his disciples. Only the Devil offers Christians things that are sinful-Jesus would never do that. That sounds like a very subtle idea concerning our Lord and Savior which might be traceable to a sinister source. I suggest extreme caution.


1 Timothy 4:1 ►
New Living Translation
Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Where does it mention options instead of fish? Had Jesus considered eating fish a sin he would not have offered the fish to his disciples. There is nothing in the Mosaic law that prohibits eating the type of fish Jesus would have been offering to his disciples. Only the Devil offers Christians things that are sinful-Jesus would never do that.


1 Timothy 4:1 ►
New Living Translation
Now the Holy Spirit tells us clearly that in the last times some will turn away from the true faith; they will follow deceptive spirits and teachings that come from demons.

The verses say he was shown fish and honey (or only one of the two in some textual variants) and then that he ate - not explicitly 'He then ate the fish'. It can be interpreted as Jesus eating only honey, as Adventists and Christian vegetarians apparently do.

Jesus isn't offering his disciples fish here, they are offering Him fish and honey.
The only place I can think of Jesus offering someone something is when he multiplies the bread and fish to feed the crowds, but this does not imply that he approved of eating fish anymore than his healing the centurion's slave implies he approved of slavery.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Without doubt, Jesus did not eat pork. Any dissenting views? There are two (at least) passages showing Jesus eating fish. The Passover meal includes lamb; and as Jesus ate the Passover meal, He ate lamb. (Which is meat.)

God spoke to Noah and said all living animals who moved were permitted for food. One poster pointed out, "But in the garden, it was not to be done, which was the original plan of God". This implies God allowed eating meat due to popular demand. I find that thinking a bit questionable.

Christianity is based on Grace, not works of the individual. Refraining from eating meat - since it is clearly not considered a 'command' of God - is a 'work' of an individual.

The thread question is "Was Jesus a Vegetarian"? The answer is clearly 'No'.

What other passage shows Jesus eating fish? You mention two, I am only aware of one?

Its a good point that Jesus ate the passover meal, but that again might just be sacramental in nature, not necessarily imply acceptability today, like if Jesus offered a sacrifice in the Temple. I also don't think any passage explicitly says he ate of the meal himself (thinking of the Last Supper).

 

[exitstageright]

But in the garden, it was not to be done, which was the original plan of God

If God did not intend for humans to eat meat,then why would he have created and given bicuspid teeth to humans? Bicuspid teeth are for tearing meat.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

If God did not intend for humans to eat meat,then why would he have created and given bicuspid teeth to humans? Bicuspid teeth are for tearing meat.

God could have created it, because he knew the results of what would happen in the garden, and the effects it would have.

 

[exitstageright]

Apparently some extent versions says he asked for food and was given honey, not fish. This is the ambiguous passage in Luke I mentioned.

Relevance? Genghis Khan was a good father, does this make being a good father somehow immoral? It is a fallacy to decry something merely by association.

I may have used that out of context. I have no problems with vegetarians. But,whenever a vegetarian gives me a "holier than thou" attitude,because they do not eat meat,I remind them that,just because one an vegetarian,does not automatically makes one better than one who eats meat.

 

[exitstageright]

God could have created it, because he knew the results of what would happen in the garden, and the effects it would have.

That is a logical possibility.I cannot argue with that.

 

[PrettyboyAndy]

That is a logical possibility.I cannot argue with that.

Thanks brother
God bless you and your household

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I may have used that out of context. I have no problems with vegetarians. But,whenever a vegetarian gives me a "holier than thou" attitude,because they do not eat meat,I remind them that,just because one an vegetarian,does not automatically makes one better than one who eats meat.

Check the OP. I am not a vegetarian. I am merely asking a question, extending the benefit of the doubt as it were.