One of the big problems that people have with the idea that Jesus was a vegetarian is the “fish stories” in the New Testament — stories in which Jesus distributes fish as food to people, or in one case actually eats fish. If Jesus was a vegetarian, then what are these stories doing in the New Testament?
We can get an important clue as to what they are doing in the New Testament if we take a quick look at what their effect is and has been. From the point of view of a meat-eater, these fish stories are very convenient. Jesus ate fish, therefore eating meat must be all right. The letters of Paul, which predate the gospels by decades, also explicitly reject ethical vegetarianism at several points. “Eat whatever is sold in the meat-market without raising questions of conscience” (I Corinthians 10:25).
Whatever we say about the historical authenticity of these references to eating meat, it’s clear what the effect has been: it has been to make ethical vegetarianism a heresy. You can be vegetarian for your health, if you want, but not for ethical reasons. During the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars in the middle ages, suspected heretics were given an animal to kill. If they refused, they were determined to be heretics.
1. Let’s start with the one case where Jesus actually eats fish, after his resurrection. (There is a similar passage in John 21:4-13, but in John, Jesus only distributes the fish, he doesn’t eat it.)
And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do questions rise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And while they still disbelieved for joy, and wondered, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them. (Luke 24:38-43, emphasis added)
Historically this passage is suspect right at the outset; the resurrection stories are the latest in the tradition and wildly contradictory to each other. This particular passage in Luke is especially suspect, because Jesus talks to his disciples and wants to convey that he is not a mere spirit (just as in the case of his appearance to “doubting Thomas”).
Anyone familiar with the history of early Christianity can immediately see the problem. Some, such as the famous second-century heretic Marcion, had exactly the belief to which Jesus is “replying” — that Jesus never existed on a physical plane, but was just a spirit or ghost. Most likely, this verse was penned as a specific response to Marcionism, which didn’t even become an issue until many decades after Jesus and the original disciples had all passed from the scene. Jesus says he isn’t a spirit, and when the disciples still don’t believe, only then does he eat the fish, something a ghost could not do. This passage can’t be taken seriously as real evidence about the historical Jesus. It is likely written as a response to Marcion and those like him.
2. What about the feeding of the multitudes with bread and fish (Matthew 14:13- 21, 15:32-38 and parallels)? There are many parallel versions of this basic story. Not only is it in the Bible, it is mentioned several times by early church fathers. Ireneaus twice states that Jesus fed the multitudes with bread alone (Against Heresies 2.22.3, 2.24.4). Arnobius also describes this incident without mentioning fish (Against the Heathen 1.46) as does Eusebius (Proof of the Gospel 3.4). Indeed, even Jesus himself, when referring back to this miracle (Matthew 16:9-10), mentions bread but doesn’t mention fish.
The bread is everywhere present, but the fish only sometimes. This strongly suggests that the original tradition was about distribution of bread, not bread and fish. In the case of Matthew 16:9-10, the insertion of fish becomes obvious, because the editors of Matthew changed the original story to include fish but forgot to change Jesus’ backward reference.
3. “Fish” was a well-known mystical symbol in early Christianity, because the Greek word for “fish” is transcribed “ichthys” or “ichthus,” which is an acronym (in Greek) for “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” Many early writers speak of fish in a clearly symbolic way, e. g. Tertullian On Baptism 1. Because of this, it isn’t clear that the original “fish stories” were even intended to be literal accounts of actual events, but were allegories about the distribution of the sacred message. Jesus wasn’t distributing physical fish, but rather himself and his message as spiritual food.
So what is the real origin of these fish stories? Rather than fight this issue out on the terrain of historical criticism, I’d suggest that curious students look at the whole controversy about vegetarianism in the early church. We are blessed in this respect: unlike the gospel accounts, where we have second-hand or third-hand stories warmed over and heavily edited, in the authentic letters of Paul we have first-hand accounts from one of the key participants in this dispute. Romans 14, I Corinthians 8 – 10, and Galatians 2 all give accounts of a divisive dispute between Paul and the Jerusalem church (James, Peter, and John) over food. This left Paul isolated from the rest of the church; “even Barnabas was carried away,” Paul ruefully admits.
We know that the leader of the early church, James the brother of Jesus, was not only a vegetarian, but was raised a vegetarian, and didn’t drink alcohol either (Hegesippus, quoted in Eusbius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.5-6). It is clear from this and other evidence (discussed in depth in my book, The Lost Religion of Jesus) that there was a group of people in the early church who thought that eating meat was an issue of conscience, and that we should be vegetarians. Otherwise, why would Paul feel the need to “refute” these views? When Paul stresses the need not to offend those who do not eat meat or drink wine (Romans 14:20-21), he is likely referring to James or people like him.
These passages in the New Testament were not just an impartial record of historical events; they were a belated effort to settle a divisive dispute in the early church by incorporating fish stories into the original gospel. In this they were unfortunately rather successful, but as historical evidence it’s pretty transparent what their origin was.
Ethical vegetarianism as a “heresy” has survived in numerous forms, all the way from the Jewish Christian Ebionites, down to modern Christian thinkers such as Charles and Myrtle Fillmore (founders of Unity) and Ellen White (founder of the Seventh-day Adventists). If you trace this “heresy” back to its origins, it becomes clear that it comes from Jesus himself, who was killed after entering the temple and disrupting the animal sacrifice business there.
Dear Keith Akers:
Your writing has freed me to think the following:
I have been pondering a lot lately about what I begin to believe is the the supreme irony of the way modern Christians understand Christianity. They say they believe in a God who at one time demanded flesh sacrifices, but that the sacrifice of His son eliminated that. So—Holy God no longer demands flesh sacrifices, yet his supposed followers can kill wantonly, with no necessity, only for our own pleasure? Doesn’t this cheapen the entire flesh sacrifice idea?
(Using their logic), at one time God was willing to accept these living creatures as sacrifices. But why? With the nominal value we place on their lives, how could they ever satisfy a supreme being? Surely they couldn’t be worth much since they are on the dinner table every night? Is there an irony here or am I stretching this a bit? Shouldn’t the idea that God would accept a sacrifice of a living being imply that their lives had a sacred value?
I belong to a church that takes communion every Sunday, and I have begun to feel it now it is almost a sacrilege. I have not been to church in quite some time, and they would like to know why. If I explain this to my pastor, she will see it as a problem to be solved, but I begin to feel it is an irreconcilable difference.
I must live every day with people who eat meat, yet how can I make spiritual common cause with them? Can I ever again take communion without thinking the above thoughts and knowing that people in the pews around me do not view this the same way as I do? Would I even want to? I apologize if I ramble a bit, these are thoughts that are still being formed in my thinking. Thanks!
Your comments, M. Dean, remind me of similar thoughts I started having over four years ago when I walked away from Christianity (a false religion) after 40 years in Protestantism and another 20 in Catholicism before that. Yes, six decades in false religious systems. All it takes is for one tiny crack to start letting in the light and before you know it, you will be flooded with the light of truth. May Yah bless you in your about-to-be-amazing journey!
There are a lot of things about animal sacrifice that don’t make sense. The fact that animal life has become so “cheap” in our modern society is one of them.
In ancient Israel many of the prophets such as Isaiah, Hosea, and Amos protested against the whole idea of animal sacrifice. They found the whole idea of animal sacrifice, which implied that God was some sort of tribal deity who could be encouraged to smite the enemies of the tribe with gifts, to be really strange. They also did so on grounds of kindness to animals (Hosea 2:18, 6:6).
The early followers of Jesus were clearly aware of these statements of the prophets. Jesus quotes Hosea at Matthew 9:13 and 12:7, and Stephen (the first martyr to the cause after Jesus) quotes Amos in Acts 7. The early followers of Jesus didn’t see Jesus’ death as an atonement, but rather as something that was never commanded by God in the first place, something created by the “lying pen of the scribes” (Jeremiah 8:8) which distorted God’s intention.
Thanks for the references. I’d always assumed that “condemn(ing) the innocent” referred back to the accusations being made against Jesus and the disciples. Maybe, but it could also mean taking the lives of innocent animals. That makes as much sense, or maybe even more.
The verse in Jeremiah is an amazing allegation hiding in plain sight. Although I have been encouraged to read and study the Bible for several decades, somehow I missed that, also the many references to God’s covenant with animals.
If you read the Bible with the assumption that it is unquestionably OK to kill and eat the flesh of animals, you will arrive at a very different place than if you start with a spirit of compassion and a belief in the sanctity of life. Yogi Berra got it right: “You can observe a lot just by looking.”
I consider myself to be a follower of Jesus, period. He showed us the best way to live, and I have never found any better. If he didn’t eat meat that is just the icing on the cake(terrible mixed metaphor, sorry). What matters to me most, though, is what WOULD Jesus eat now, today. And there can’t be a scintilla of doubt on that question.
Continuing thanks for your scholarship on this issue. Marilyn
Pingback: The Golden Rule is Simple – Christianity & Veganism