The release of the thought-provoking documentary film, Christspiracy, has reignited a timeless query that resonates with millions: “Is there a Christian way to kill an animal?” As this question gains traction, I find it pertinent to delve into the depths of biblical teachings to unravel the intricacies of our relationship with the earth, animals, and food.
Penned in 2020, this article was initially conceived as a chapter within my book, Escape the Meatrix. However, as debates with my editors ensued over the integration of religious discourse within a predominantly science-based narrative, it found its place on the cutting room floor, awaiting its moment to emerge as a standalone piece.
In a world where over 2 billion individuals identify as Christians, each endeavoring to align their conduct with the precepts of scripture, the answer to the question of whether there’s a Christian way to slaughter an animal holds profound and global implications. Join me as we navigate the enigmatic intersection of faith, ethics, and dietary choices in pursuit of enlightenment.
Thus, one could more easily conclude that in Genesis 1:28, God was not giving us the right to do whatever we wish with animals but was imposing upon us a moral obligation to protect them—to be their stewards—a solemn responsibility, indeed!
In the Beginning
The first book in the Bible is Genesis which covers the creation of heaven, earth, and all life upon it. After creating Adam and Eve, Genesis 1:28 of the Authorized King James Version (AKJV) says: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.’”
Many Christians interpret this as God granting humanity unrestricted power over the earth and animals. However, delving into the Hebrew text reveals deeper nuances in this verse. Regarding the earth, the Hebrew word for “subdue,” ככש (kavash), is defined as making something serve, even if by force, without implying abuse. Similarly, the Hebrew verb used for “Dominion,” יִרְדּוּ (yir·du’), suggests “to rule” rather than to dominate without regard. Based on the original context in which the verb “yir·du’” is used elsewhere (Leviticus 25:46, Jeremiah 5:31, 1 Kings 4:24) the word dominion instructs us to rule animals as a benevolent king or queen would have stewardship over his/her land and people. A king or queen would be wise not to interpret “dominion” over their subjects as permission to abuse or treat them without concern. Instead, a just ruler would be a good steward, nurturing and providing for their subjects, not kill, exploit, and eat them. Thus, one could more easily conclude that in Genesis 1:28, God was not giving us the right to do whatever we wish with animals but was imposing upon us a moral obligation to protect them—to be their stewards—a solemn responsibility, indeed!
The very next passages in the Bible reinforce the plant-based perspective. Genesis 1:29 says: “And God said, ‘Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.’” And Genesis 1:30 continues with: “And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”
These plant-based bookends to creation raise an important question. Despite the Bible saying that both the beginning and ending of Creation was/will be plant-based, why is Christianity not a plant-based religion?
So, to recap in the verses above, God did not intend for us to do as we please with animals and the earth, as some Christians suggest. And Genesis 1:29 makes it abundantly clear that plants are to be “meat” for both animals and humans. Finally, to show you that I’m not taking this out of context: Genesis 1:31 reads: “And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” Then the next verse, Genesis 2:1, says: “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.” Since at that point God was finished with Creation and was pleased, we can see that God originally intended humanity and beasts to be herbivores.
But the Covenant Changed, Right?
Certainly, between the fall from the Garden of Eden and the New Testament, there are instances where God permitted humans to eat animals. However, considering the context, one could deduce that these permissions were concessions given by God to people when no other food was available.
For example, the first mention of eating animals is after the great flood, when Noah is told “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” (Genesis 9:3) While some believe this concession amounted to a new covenant between God and humanity, others believe that the allowance of eating animals was only meant to be temporary. Realistically, how could Noah and his family sustain themselves with plants after the earth had been inundated for forty days and nights? Surely, finding plant sustenance immediately after the waters receded would be difficult. Nor would it make sense. What would the purpose be of saving these animals to repopulate the earth if God intended Noah to kill and eat them once the waters had receded? Perhaps Genesis 9:4 can give us an answer. It states, “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” Some believe that the only way Noah’s family could avoid consuming flesh with blood was by scavenging the carcasses of dead animals post-flood.
One of the unorthodox ways Jesus’ closest followers seemed to revise Judaism was through diet.
There’s another instance in the Bible where God grants his followers the right to eat animals, but this too is under a specific set of circumstances: the forty years the Israelites wandered the desert. Of course, it makes sense that it would be difficult for people to sustain themselves on a plant-based diet while roaming a desert, so God provided the Israelites manna from heaven for their morning sustenance and permitted the eating of meat in the evening. “And Moses said, This shall be, when the Lord shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full; for that the Lord heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord.” (Exodus 16:8) Just as with Noah, the same question arises: was God’s permission to eat animals temporary and limited to a specific set of circumstances?
The Culmination: A Non-Carnivorous Future
The Book of Genesis addresses the beginning of creation, but what about the ending? Isaiah 65:25 speaks of a time when the kingdom of God will rule the entire world saying, “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, said the LORD.” This is talking about a one-hundred-year period on earth at the end of times. Here, God—through His prophet, Isaiah—is saying that the end of creation will also be non-carnivorous.
These plant-based bookends to creation raise an important question. Despite the Bible saying that both the beginning and ending of Creation was/will be plant-based, why is Christianity not a plant-based religion? Can the life of Jesus and his early followers offer any clues about plant-based living?
What Would Jesus Do?
While historical records of Jesus’ life are few, none point directly to Jesus being plant-based. What we do know is some of Jesus’ earliest followers, including his brother, James, ate no animal products. A detailed account of the death of James appears in the Ecclesiastical History of the Church by Father Eusebius of Caesarea. In his account, Eusebius quotes from a now-lost work by second-century Christian writer, Hegesippus.
Hegesippus wrote that James, the brother of Jesus, “was holy from his mother’s womb, and drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh.”1 It’s essential to keep in mind that Jesus’ early followers were Jewish people who didn’t see themselves or Jesus as creating an entirely new religion. In fact, Jesus never said he was starting a new religion, a position supported by the events in Jerusalem at the end of Christ’s life.
At the time of Jesus’ arrest and trial, Rome had given the Sanhedrin—a legislative and judicial assembly—authority to rule over Jewish people in Israel. Had Jesus claimed he was no longer Jewish; the Sanhedrin would not have had jurisdiction over him—he would have been set free and never crucified.
Scholars say based on this it’s clear that Jesus and his earliest followers saw themselves as Jewish revisionists, not outright rejecting Judaism.2
Irrespective of whether Jesus and his followers intended to create a new religion, we know from the writing of the apostle Paul that consuming animal products was a controversial topic. One of the unorthodox ways Jesus’ closest followers seemed to revise Judaism was through diet.
First, who were the pesky vegetarians that Paul encouraged the Christians of Corinth to ignore? They were Jesus’ brother, James, and the apostles Peter and John—among Jesus’ earliest and most devout followers.
To this day, the apostle Paul remains a polarizing figure among biblical scholars. Depending on whom you speak with, he is either one of the most significant religious figures of all time, a misogynistic, anti-Semitic homophobe, or both! Paul of Tarsus, a Pharisee, spent the first half of his life persecuting the early followers of Jesus (Galatians 1:13, 22-23). However, according to Galatians 1:16 while traveling to Damascus, Paul converted to Christianity after God revealed his Son to him.
According to E. P. Sanders, Arts and Science Professor of Religion at Duke University, Paul’s contemporaries never afforded him the same amount of respect they did for Peter and Jesus’ brother, James. And based on his writings, Paul was at odds with James’ branch of the early church.3
Oddly, even though I was brought up Catholic and attended 8 years of parochial school, I was never taught of the rift that occurred between Paul and James. Nor that one of the issues Paul and James disagreed on was diet. As mentioned earlier, according to Hegesippus, James never ate animal products, but based on his writings, Paul was much more lenient and saw the decision to eat, or not to eat meat, as a personal choice—a position that many Christians ascribe to today.
Who were the Ebionites?
The Ebionites (along with the Nazarenes) represent the earliest belief systems of Christianity. The Ebionites claimed their origin with the first Judeo-Christian congregation led by Jesus’ brother, James, who as previously mentioned, never consumed animal-based foods.4 According to Dr. James D. Tabor, Professor of Christian Origins and Ancient Judaism in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, among the core beliefs of the Ebionites was a particular “disdain for eating meat and even the Temple slaughter of animals,” (see Isa 66:1-4) and preferred the Garden of Eden diet which “they took to be the original ideal of worship.”5
To make the adoption of Christianity more palatable to Gentiles, Paul softened some of the early church’s teachings allowing flexibility in two areas—diet and circumcision.
Historical context helps explain this rift. It’s essential to keep in mind that while Jesus (and later James and Ebionites) preached only to Jewish people, Paul felt compelled to spread Christ’s message to Jewish people and Gentiles alike. Paul traveled for thirty years and some 10,000 miles throughout the Roman Empire spreading Christ’s message. Because of his travels, Paul spoke mainly to a non-Jewish audience (Gentiles). To make the adoption of Christianity more palatable to Gentiles, Paul softened some of the early church’s teachings allowing flexibility in two areas—diet and circumcision.6
For example, the apostle Paul told his followers in Corinth that they were allowed to ignore the vegetarians and “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles [market], that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.” (I Corinthians 10:25). First, who were the pesky vegetarians that Paul encouraged the Christians of Corinth to ignore? They were Jesus’ brother, James, and the apostles Peter and John—among Jesus’ earliest and most devout followers. While possible, it seems highly unlikely that those closest to Jesus would renounce eating animal products as part of their revisionist beliefs unless they felt doing so was in alignment with Jesus’ teachings. Second, what was being sold in the shambles that Paul reassured Gentiles they could eat? It was the meat from freshly slaughtered sacrificial animals.
While there seemed to be no love lost between Paul and James’ branch of Christianity, we know that Paul eventually relented to James and the Ebionites. In I Corinthians 8:13 he says, “I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.”
As already discussed in this post, the Bible makes it very clear that God made humans to be herbivores, and it seems in the early Judeo-Christian Church those closest to Jesus followed a Garden of Eden diet and ate no meat. If that’s true, what about the Biblical stories involving fish?
What about Jesus and the Fish stories in the Bible?
If Jesus didn’t eat meat, what about the fish stories in the New Testament? According to author Keith Akers, books excluded in the currently canonized version of the Bible do not mention fish in the accounts of the miracles, only bread. There’s only one instance in the Bible of Jesus eating fish, which scholars consider a later addition made to prove that post-resurrection Jesus was not an apparition but, indeed, had a body. 7
Conclusion: Harmonizing Diet with Biblical Teachings
Considering these insights, aligning Christian dietary choices with biblical principles says a plant-based lifestyle is congruent and harmonious with God, humanity, animals, and the earth. As we contemplate the intersection of faith and dietary ethics, it seems evident that the conversation transcends individual belief systems, inviting us to reconsider our relationship with the world around us.
Reviewing the more recent as well as ancient Hebrew version of the Bible unveils a rich tapestry of biblical perspectives on plant-based living. It challenges us to reevaluate our dietary choices in light of ancient wisdom and contemporary insights. As we navigate this discourse, may we find common ground in our shared commitment to compassion, stewardship, and reverence for all life.
