“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.” (Genesis 9:3)

As Alice in Wonderland begins, Alice is lying in the grass on a hot summer day, idly doing nothing, when a white rabbit runs past, wearing a waistcoat and consulting a pocket watch! She follows him to his rabbit hole and promptly tumbles in. This plunge leads her to a world of talking caterpillars, narcoleptic dormice, and disappearing cats.

Something like this has happened to us as we survey the world around us; we have fallen down the rabbit hole and find ourselves in a strange land. Up is down, and right is wrong. Food is an excellent example of our topsy-turvy world: We are told, “Meat is good,” and before we know it, “No, meat is bad.” We read, “Wine is good for your heart,” and a short time later, “No, wine is bad.” Bread, dairy, fat, protein, vitamins, types of water—they are all either good or bad, and not long after that, bad or good, depending on the day of the week and the news outlet. Gluten, caffeine, GMOs—it is hard to keep up! How do we make sense of it all?

What prompted my sudden interest in this subject was an article I came across stating that Jesus was a vegetarian, something, it turns out, that quite a few people believe. In this article, I have no intention of addressing whether a meatless diet is good for the human body. If you are a practicing vegetarian, you probably do not have the energy to argue the point anyway! But if a person is going to base his belief in this lifestyle because “Jesus did it,” he might want to think again.

This article will also not consider the problems some brethren of the New Testament church had with eating meat offered to idols. The apostle Paul deals with that quite well. Nor will we ponder the quality of today’s food and water versus those of Bible times. This article will confine itself to answering a narrow question, “Was Jesus a vegetarian?”

Meat-Eating and Violence

The following quotation can be found on the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) website in its article, “Was Jesus Really a Vegetarian?”:

Many biblical scholars believe that Jesus was a vegetarian. Jesus’ message is one of love and compassion, and there is nothing loving or compassionate about factory farms and slaughterhouses, where billions of animals live miserable lives and die violent, bloody deaths. Jesus mandates kindness, mercy, compassion, and love for all God’s creation. He would be appalled by the suffering that we inflict on animals just to indulge our acquired taste for their flesh.

PETA seems to be saying, “We all have a choice. When we sit down to eat, we can add to the level of violence, misery, and death in the world, or we can respect God’s creation with a vegetarian diet.”

What we see above is the total of this entry on the PETA web page. It quotes or references none of the “many biblical scholars” it assumes to exist. Some do exist, but one must dig a little deeper to find them. However, calling them “biblical scholars” is a bit of a stretch.

Some of what PETA writes is undoubtedly accurate. Factory farms and slaughterhouses are not pleasant places, but killing and dressing an animal for meat is never a clean undertaking. Without a doubt, Jesus Christ is full of love and compassion, but it is not right to ascribe to Him things we only assume. For instance, PETA writes, “He would be appalled by the suffering that we inflict on animals just to indulge our acquired taste for their flesh.” This comment intends to lead us to believe, first, that Christ was a vegetarian because, being so compassionate, He would be horrified to see all these animals used for food, and second, that humans do not naturally want meat. It is an “acquired” taste. If “Christ was compassionate” is our argument against eating meat, we should extend this thinking to abortion! If only animal rights activists cared as much about human life!

Ted Altar argues in his article, “Jesus and the early Christians—Was Christ a Vegetarian?” that there is no “unequivocal biblical reference to Christ eating or buying meat.” Another writer, Lewis Regenstein, author of “Replenish the Earth: The History of Organized Religion’s Treatment of Animals and Nature—Including the Bible’s Message of Conservation and Kindness Toward Animals,” notes that nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus depicted as eating meat. He writes that “. . . if the Last Supper was a Passover meal—as many believe—there is, interestingly, no mention of the traditional lamb dish.”

This approach is disarmingly deceitful, given that Christ grew up in a Jewish family and had been present at more than thirty Passover meals in which a lamb was served. Luke 2:51 tells us that Christ, as a child, was obedient to Joseph and Mary. Does it makes sense that He announced to His parents at Passover as, say, a ten-year-old, “I think I’ll skip the lamb and just have some figs”?

The Bible’s “Inaccuracies”

The previously mentioned Ted Altar says that the Bible is “not complete, and its many inconsistencies require thoughtful interpretation.” Those who argue this point try to disconcert people by looking for supposed errors in the Bible. If they can show that the Bible is inaccurate, they then make further assumptions to “prove” their points.

Altar points to Genesis 1:29-30 and Genesis 9:2-3 as proof. First, he says, God says to eat only vegetation, then He says you can eat meat:

And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. (Genesis 1:29)

These “biblical scholars” say that initially, God gave humanity a vegetarian diet. If we follow this line of reasoning far enough, then we today should be eating kudzu, poison ivy, grass, tulip bulbs, and so on. This idea is nonsense, of course. Many plants are poisonous to humans. Why would God have us eat daffodils, azaleas, nightshade, oleander, wisteria, mistletoe, or hundreds of other plants that can be fatal if eaten?

On the contrary, this verse simply means that God gave humankind certain foods to eat, and people quickly discovered—perhaps primarily through trial and error—what the good foods were. The Contemporary English Version translates this verse simply and clearly: “I have provided all kinds of fruit and grain for you to eat.”

A lot of people hold the belief that the pre-Flood world was vegetarian. However, we must be careful how we read Scripture. While telling us that God has provided food for us, it is not telling us, “Do not eat meat.” Advocates of vegetarianism often pay no heed to the fact that God had previously given humanity dominion over all animal life (Genesis 1:26, 28), which could include using fish, birds, cattle, and even insects for food.

The argument continues, however, claiming that, after the Flood, God finally permitted humans to eat meat, implying that God is indecisive or unsure: “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs” (Genesis 9:3).

To put it simply, Altar and others say the eating of meat was unknown before the Flood. These “scholars” totally ignore Genesis 4:3-4, where Cain offers produce, which God disdains, yet He accepts Abel’s offering of his firstborn lamb. This event occurs right at the beginning, long before the Flood! Animals were offered. Their blood was emptied, their bodies burned, and, in many cases the remains of the offering were eaten by those making the offering. These offerings were, of course, clean animals.

The Pre-Incarnate Christ and Meat

But did Jesus Christ eat meat? In Genesis 18:1-9, the pre-incarnate Christ appears to Abraham, who hastens to fix the Lord something to eat. Did he have Sarah run over to Whole Foods and put together something from the salad bar? No, as we see in verse 7-8:

And Abraham ran to the herd, took a tender and good calf, and gave it to a young man, and he hastened to prepare it. So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate.

That “he hastened to prepare it” means the young man killed the calf! Its body was drained of its blood, the best parts of meat were cut out and cooked, and it was served to the Being who later died as our perfect sacrifice. So, it is evident in verse 8 that Christ, in His pre-incarnate state, ate meat, butter, and milk! This biblical fact no doubt comes as shocking news to some.

This incident is probably why Lewis Regenstein writes, “Nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus depicted as eating meat” (emphasis added). This passage also counters the vegan argument against eating dairy. Despite Ted Altar claiming that nowhere in the Bible is Christ seen eating or buying meat, we see Him doing that very thing in Abraham’s day! Of course, Altar probably does not believe that Christ was the God of the Old Testament (see John 1:1-3, 14; Colossians 1:16; John 17:5, 8; Isaiah 44:6; Revelation 1:7, 11; 2:8; 22:14; Exodus 3:13-15; Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8).

Regenstein allows that Jesus was Jewish, and sacrifices and Passover lambs were a way of life for Him and His family, but he maintains that we do not have a specific verse saying He bought meat or ate it. Aside from others’ washing His feet a few times, do we have any verses telling us that He bathed regularly? From this omission, are we to assume showers and baths are forbidden?

What we have seen is a common tactic of these so-called “biblical scholars.” They require chapter and verse to prove things they oppose, and if they cannot find one, they use the absence of a proof-text to peddle their pet theories. But the Bible tells us that the LORD, the One who became Jesus Christ, sat with Abraham and ate a meal of meat, butter, and milk. Later, as a man, He grew up with the Passover meal. Christ does not change (Hebrews 13:8; see also Malachi 3:6). Jesus ate meat.

Fish Too

What about fish? The PETA website contains another article, “Did Jesus Eat Fish?” This question may seem easy for us to answer because we are familiar with Matthew 15, Mark 6 and 8, Luke 9 and 24, John 6, and more—but not to these people. The author writes:

Although there are stories [!] throughout the Bible that appear [!] to suggest [!] that Jesus ate fish, there has been serious theological debate as to whether he actually did, or if the word “fish” is a mistranslation.

Who writes this nonsense? “Stories,” “appear,” and “suggest” inject a great deal of wiggle-room into this quotation. And “serious theological debate”? Really? We will unpack one of these “stories,” Christ’s feeding of the 5,000 (Matthew 14:15-20), to find out what God’s Word says about this claim:

When it was evening, His disciples came to Him, saying, “This is a deserted place, and the hour is already late. Send the multitudes away, that they may go into the villages and buy themselves food.” But Jesus said to them, “They do not need to go away. You give them something to eat.” And they said to Him, “We have here only five loaves and two fish.” He said, “Bring them here to Me.” Then He commanded the multitudes to sit down on the grass. [Perhaps, if He were a vegetarian, He should have told them, “Just eat the grass.”] And He took the five loaves and the two fish, and looking up to heaven, He blessed and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitudes. So they all ate and were filled, and they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments that remained.

We will consider the simplest matter first. In verse 17, did Matthew really write “fish”? The Greek word behind it is ichthus (Strong’s Concordance #2486), which means “fish.” New Testament authors use it 21 times, and each time it is translated as “fish.” Sometimes a word has multiple applications and shades of meaning, but not ichthus. It means “fish” and nothing else.

That seems straightforward enough. But not so fast, our “serious theologians” say. Half the disciples were fishermen. They tell us that early Christians used the fish symbol to recognize one another, in the manner of something like a secret handshake. (We will set aside the fact that the fish symbol is probably pagan in origin, in religious use long before the early church. This symbol was not a part of the true church, if for no other reason than its members did not have car bumpers to slap stickers on.) The five Greek letters used to spell ichthus are ΙΧΘΥΣ (iota chi theta upsilon sigma). These “theological scholars” assert that these letters are an acronym, standing for “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” Therefore, their reasoning goes, Jesus was not giving the multitudes “fish” to eat but using the code-word for “Christians.” Does this sound like “serious theological debate” to you?

They further argue that verse 17 informs us that the only food in this crowd is five loaves and two fish. Christ says in verse 18, “Bring them here to Me,” and in verse 19, He blesses the food, both the loaves and the fishes, but gives only the loaves to His disciples. The verse does not mention that He gave the fish back to them. In verse 20, they gather the fragments, but again, the text does not explicitly say anything about the fish!

Using this account alone and disregarding the other three gospels is called “proof-texting,” that is, lifting a passage that says what one wants and ignoring other verses that clarify or add to it. The same event is related in Mark 6:30-44. Verse 43 records, “And they took up twelve baskets full of fragments and of the fish.”

Despite this clarification, these folks say that none of the gospel accounts of feeding the 5,000 say specifically that Jesus ate the fish! He blessed it and had the fish passed out to the crowd, but it does not say that He ate any. They, of course, ignore Matthew 14:20: “So they all ate.” Again, the text does not say explicitly that Christ ate, but even PETA knows this is a thin argument, writing, “We may never know for certain whether or not Jesus ate fish . . ., but it’s certain He wouldn’t today.” How do they know this? They back up their doubtful reasoning with another assumption.

Jesus Ate Fish After His Resurrection

After Christ’s resurrection, He appears in human form to the disciples (Luke 24:36). The disciples and others had gathered in a secure room, and He appears right in their midst, an act that shook them. They believe they are seeing a ghost, a spirit, but He assures them that He is indeed Christ. He lets them examine His hands and feet.

Still, they do not seem quite convinced, so He asks, “‘Have you any food here?’ So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb” (verses 41-42). Fish and sweets made from the labor of bees? Oh, the horror of it all! By the way, the Greek word used here for “fish” is ichthus. We are undoubtedly reading about actual fish.

Then what happened? “And He took it and ate it in their presence” (verse 43; emphasis added). This concise statement is a tough one to get around. The Greek word translated “broiled” here means simply “cooked.” Most translations use “broiled,” “baked,” or “cooked.” If anything, this verse might be a good argument against sushi! But there is no getting around what verse 43 states: The resurrected Christ ate the fish and the honeycomb right there in front of them. He put it in His mouth, chewed it, and swallowed it.

This would have been a good time for Him to say, “Fellows, we’re going to give up eating fish and anything made with honey.” But He did not. Despite Luke writing in verse 45 that “He opened their understanding,” Jesus neglected to cover vegetarianism.

A little later, Christ appeared to the disciples again (John 21:1-14). Peter and six other disciples decide to go fishing. Apparently, they had still not gotten the word that fishing was unethical. They fished all night and caught nothing. The next morning, Jesus, standing on the shore, asks if they have any food, and they reply in the negative. He tells them to cast the net on the right side of the boat, which they do, hauling in a net full of 153 “large” fish—so many that, by all rights, the net should have broken.

PETA, of course, is against commercial fishing and says Christ would be too. Yet, is not what Peter and the other disciples did “commercial fishing”? By all accounts, they were returning to their pre-calling jobs. Instead of working against their catching any fish, Jesus helps them out!

Notice that Christ has a fire going before they have even made it to shore, and fish and bread are cooking (verse 9). He tells the disciples in verse 12, “Come and eat breakfast,” one comprised of fish and toast made by the Creator God Himself! John writes in verse 15, “So when they had eaten breakfast,” verifying that the disciples—and probably Jesus too—ate what He had provided (leaving the 153 they had caught for crass money-making, no doubt). He misses another excellent opportunity to announce that Christians should be vegetarian.

These people pose additional spurious arguments, such as saying Christ was an Essene, who were vegetarians. Neither of these assertions is true. They also claim that Jesus’ teachings, especially His love for those whom society has marginalized, would make Him a vegan, a stricter regimen than vegetarianism. Somehow, in their minds, animals are “marginalized” but not unborn humans!

The Bible supplies so much more evidence that Christ was not a vegetarian and certainly not a vegan, but the proof offered here should be enough. We may have gone down the rabbit hole as a society, but that does not mean we have to be taken in by these obvious deceits.