Christian vegetarianism has not been a common dietary choice throughout Church history. Nevertheless, "there is a long-standing tradition of vegetarianism in Christian history." The two most prominent forms are a spirituality-based vegetarianism (where vegetarianism is adopted as an ascetic practice, or as a way of opposing the sin of gluttony, in the hope it will draw the person to God) and an ethically based vegetarianism (where it is adopted for ethical reasons; for example, those to do with the treatment of non-human animals).
Old Testament One of the most important passages for Christian vegetarians is the
creation narrative in the
Book of Genesis. After creating humans, God addresses them in
chapter 1, verses as follows: God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food". And it was so. In this passage, God prescribes a
plant-based diet not just for humans, but for all land-based non-human animals. Christian vegetarians and vegans point out that it was this creation – where all creatures ate plants – that God then declared "very good" in verse 31. Moreover, that God's initial creation was a vegan creation suggests that this is how God intended all his creatures to live. This idea – that God intended for all his creatures to eat plants – is sometimes further supported by noting that the vision of the
Peaceable Kingdom found in the
Book of Isaiah suggests that, one day, God will restore the creation to such a state of universal vegetarianism: The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze, their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder's den. They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain; for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. Some Christian vegetarians have suggested that this eschatological view provides reasons to adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet here and now. Moreover, the point has often been made that the
dominion which humans are given over the non-human animals in Genesis 1:26–28 must be understood in light of Genesis 1:29–30 which decrees a plant-based diet for all creatures. Genesis 1:26–28 has, it is acknowledged by Christian vegetarians, often been used to justify the eating of animals. But this is a mistake, they suggest. Once it is recognized that humans are given dominion over creation, and that in the very next verse humans are prescribed a plant-based diet, it will become apparent that
dominion should be understood in terms of
stewardship or
servant-hood: humans are called to rule creation in the sense of caring for it and seeking its flourishing, just as a good Sovereign would seek the flourishing of his or her realm. In a survey of the scholarly literature on the relevant Hebrew terms, Carol J. Adams lists
governing,
ruling,
shepherding,
caring-for,
nurturing, and
leading about as potential ways of understanding
dominion, and notes that the common characteristic of these concepts "is their benignity". The opening chapters of Genesis are, of course, only the beginning of the biblical story. And just as there are passages which can be cited in support of a Christian vegetarianism or veganism, so there are passages which suggest that eating animals is morally permissible. The most problematic passages for Christian vegetarians are those which include an explicit permission to eat animals. Genesis 9:3–4 is the first such example. In this verse, God tells Noah and his family that animals will now be their food, although they are not to eat animal flesh which contains blood.[] However, the context of the passage remains contentious to the morality of eating Animals. "I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done." Indicating that God has deemed Humanity 'evil from youth' and perhaps within the context of this understanding, says he will not smite them for doing evil, potentially such as eating meat. Similarly "The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered" Others interpret the permission given to Noah and his family in Genesis 9:3–4, not as a free pass to kill animals for food because "no matter what you do you can never remove all the blood from the flesh of a slaughtered animal", but as an invitation to scavenge for and eat dead animals if any are found. These approaches are put under pressure, however, with the sheer number of passages which appear to presuppose the legitimacy of eating animals, and the normalcy with which meat eating is treated. Another approach to these texts is to suggest that God reluctantly permitted the eating of animals due to human sinfulness. In other words, God permitted humans to eat non-human animals as a concession to the Fallen state of humanity. Richard Young raises the possibility that both the introduction of animals into the human diet, and the use of animals in religious sacrifices, were concessions to a Fallen humanity that were used to deal with humanity where it was at. This approach allows the Christian vegetarian or vegan to take the entire biblical witness seriously, while also holding that God's preference is for a peace and shalom throughout creation. Other passages of relevance to the practice of vegetarianism include Numbers 11, where the Israelites tired of
manna, a food of which "The Rabbis of the
Talmud held that [...] had whatever taste and flavor the eater desired at the time of eating" and which probably was not an animal product. Manna was given to the Israelites by God, but they complained about it and wanted meat instead.[] They were condemned for this, although God relented and gave them meat, which then made them ill.[] Because of their lust, the place where the incident happened became known as
Kibroth Hattaavah.) and instead requests vegetables (
zērōʿîm, Strong's #2235).[] However, current common theology argues that in this instance Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah are rejecting food that is considered to be unholy by their faith (eating food that had been sacrificed to pagan gods), and not meat
per se, despite that "at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat".[]
Philo says that the
Essenes, "being more scrupulous than any in the worship of God ... do not
sacrifice animals ..., but hold it right to dedicate their own hearts as a worthy offering". They maintained that the sacrifices "polluted" the
Temple. The Christian Vegetarian Association of the UK claims that the word "meat" is not used in any one instance in the authorized version of either the Old or New Testament as relating only to animal food (e.g. "flesh"). The CVA states that when the first English translations of the Bible were created, the word for "meat" meant food in general. When any particular kind of food was designated, it was referred to as meal, flour or grain. According to the CVA, examples of New Testament words that were translated as "meat" include: broma ("that which is eaten"/usage: 16 times); brosimos ("eatable"/usage: 1 time); brosis ("act of eating; that which is eaten, food; food of the souls"/usage: 7 times); prosphagion ("anything eaten with bread; spoken of fish boiled or broiled"/usage: 1 time); sitometron ("a measured portion of grain or food"/usage: 1 time); trapeza ("a table on which food is placed, an eating place"/usage: 1 time); trophe ("food, nourishment"/usage: 13 times); phago ("to eat, to take food, eat a meal, devour, consume"/usage: 3 times).
New Testament The case for Christian vegetarianism Christian vegetarians and vegans often appeal to the ethic that Jesus embodied, and called people to emulate, in making their case for a distinctively Christian vegetarianism. To begin with, Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God, but his Kingdom did not involve the exercise of power as humans tend to think of it. Christian vegetarians also stress the importance Jesus laid on
peace and
inclusion. These and other aspects of Jesus's attitudes towards others are used to extract ethical principles which, according to Christian vegetarians and vegans, lead one to a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Sarah Withrow King summarizes the point like this: Aware of the suffering and pain experienced by animals raised and killed for food, with a knowledge of the immense waste of natural resources and subsequent impact on both our fellow humans and the rest of creation, and acknowledging that flesh is not a dietary necessity for the vast majority of Western humans, why would we continue to participate in a system that dishonors God's creation and perpetuates violence on a truly phenomenal scale?
Difficult passages Luke 24 – Jesus's eating of a fish Jesus's eating of fish[] and telling his disciples where to catch fish, before cooking it for them to eat,[] is a common subject in Christian ethical vegetarian and vegan writings. The original version does not mention fish at all and only bread. The Bible does not explicitly state that Jesus ate any meat, and Webb cites the fact that no lamb is mentioned at the Last Supper as evidence that he did not. According to Clough and King, the fact that Jesus ate fish and possibly other meat only shows that, in some circumstances, it is sometimes permissible to eat some meats but that practices in the modern, industrialized farming system (such as the mass killing of day-old male chicks from laying hens) make the consumption of meat produced in such farms morally problematic. Andy Alexis-Baker has appealed to biblical scholarship to argue that biblical passages often need nuanced interpretation, and to guard against a wooden literalism. For example, he cites the work of Gerald O'Collins, SJ, who suggests that differences between the way Luke describes this appearance in Luke 24:41–43 and in Acts 1, and a tension between Luke 24:41–43 and 1 Corinthians 6, preclude us from reading this verse literally. Vujicic explains this passage by appealing to a so-called
synoptic principle.
Acts 10 – Peter's vision In the tenth chapter of the
Acts of the Apostles, there is an account of
a vision given to the
Apostle Peter. In this vision, Peter is shown a large sheet being lowered from heaven by its four corners. The sheet is said to contain animals of all kinds, and Peter then hears a voice (which he interprets as a command from God) saying, "Get up, Peter; kill and eat".[] Peter refuses, and the voice says: "What God has made clean, you must not call profane."] Christian vegetarians and vegans argue that this passage is not about which animals one may or may not eat but it is about who the Gospel is for. According to Laura Hobgood-Oster, "The vision, it seems, is not about eating animals; rather it is about extending hospitality to all humans. While animals in sacred texts are often real animals and should be considered as such, in this particular case it seems that in Peter's vision animals symbolized human categories that exclude other humans from community." Sarah Withrow King writes that God uses this vision to remind Peter that he is to "remove barriers of fellowship and to reconcile with those from whom we have been separated in order to further the reign of God on earth.... the vision is one of radical inclusion." John Vujicic agrees with King, observing that, after receiving the vision, Peter did not eat anything. Vujicic writes, "In the sheet were also so called CLEAN animals. Peter could have at least selected some sheep or cattle and killed but he didn't." According to Vujicic, the reason Peter did not simply take up and eat a
clean animal was because Peter was in fact a vegetarian. Christian vegetarians and vegans counter that the point of Jesus's teaching in Mark 7 is that his followers should concern themselves with the status of their heart which "informs our relationship with God, with each other, and the world". ==Early Christianity==