8
Vegetarianism as a Biblical Ideal
Of all the ethical challenges arising from animal theology, vegetarianism can arguably claim to have the strongest biblical support. Even the acceptance of the minimalist principle of avoiding injury to sentients wherever possible renders killing for gastronomic pleasure unacceptable. In this chapter, I chart the outiine of the argument drawn from Genesis and Isaiah while also taking account of the fact that Jesus is not depicted as a vegetarian in the canonical Gospels. Even if we accept that Genesis 9 permits meat-eating as a special concession to human sinfulness, it still remains an open question as to whether camivorous-ness can be justified as a matter of principle.
Food of Paradise
And God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which 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' (Gen. 1.29-30, RSV).
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything' (Gen. 9.1-4, RSV).
At fimjglance^these two passages may be taken as epitomizing the difficulty of appealing to scripture in the contemporary debate about animal rights. The sheer cpntradictoriness of these statements presses itself upon us. Genesis 1 clearly depicts vegetarianism as divine command. Indeed 'everything' that has the breath of life in it, is given 'green plant for food'. Genesis 9, however, reverses this command quite specifically. '[A]s I gave you the green plants, I give you everything' (9.3). In the light of this, the question might not unreasonably be posed:
126 Animal Theology
Cannot both vegetarians and carnivores appeal to scripture for justification and both with equal support?
In order to unravel this conundrum we have first of all to appreciate that the community whose spokesperson wrote Genesis 1 were not themselves vegetarians. Few appreciate that Genesis 1 and 2 are each the products of much later reflection by the biblical writers themselves. How is it then that the very people who were not vegetarian imagined a beginning of time when all who lived were vegetarian (herbivore to be precise) by divine command?
To appreciate this perspective we need to recall the major elements of the first creation saga. God creates a w:orld of great diversity and fertility. Every living creature is given life and space (Gen. 1.9-10,24-25). Earth to live on and blessing to enable life itself (1.22). Living creatures are pronounced good (1.25). Humans are made in God's image (1.27), given dominion (1.26-29), and then prescribed a vegetarian diet (1.29-30). God then pronounces that everything was 'very good' (1.31). Together the whole creation rests on the sabbath with God (2.2-3). When examined in this way, we should see immediately that Genesis 1 describes a state of paradisal existence. There is no hint of violence between or among different species. Dominion, so often interpreted as justifying killing, actually precedes the command to be vegetarian. Herb-eating dominion is hardly a license for tyranny. The answer seems to be then that even though the early Hebrews were neither pacifists nor vegetarians, they were deeply convicted of the view that violence between humans and animals, and indeed between animal species themselves, was not God's original will for creation.
But if this is true, how are we to reconcile Genesis 1 with Genesis 9, the vision of original peacefulness with the apparent legitimacy of killing for food? The answer seems to be that as the Hebrews begarLto construct the story of early human beginnings, they were struck by the prevalence and enormity of human wickedness. The stories of Adam and Eye, Cain' and Abel, Noah and his descendants are testimonies to the inability of humankind to fulfil the providential purposes of .God-in creation. The issue is made explicit in the story of Noah:
Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for ' all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. And God said to Noah, 'I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them' (Gen. 6.11-14, RSV).
Vegetarianism as a Biblical Ideal 127
The radical message of the Noah story (often overlooked by commentators) is that God would rather not have us be at all if we must.be violent. It is violence itself within every part of creation that is the preeminent mark of corruption and sinfulness. It is not for nothing that God concludes that: 'I am sorry that I have made them' (Gen. 6.7).
Ambiguous Permission
It is in this context - subsequent to the Fall and the Flood - that we need to understand the permission to kill for food in Genesis 9. It reflects entirely the situation of the biblical writers at the time they were writing. Killing - of both humans as well as animals - was simply inevitable given the world as it is and human nature as it is. Corruption and wickedness had made a mess of God's highest hopes for creation. There just had to be some accommodation to human sinfulness. 'Every moving thing shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything' (Gen. 9.3). For many students of the Bible this seems to have settled the matter of whether humans can be justified in killing animals for food. In the end, it has been thought, God allows it. And there can be no doubt that throughout the centuries this view has prevailed. Meat eating has become the norm. Vegetarians, especially Christian vegetarians, have survived from century to century to find themselves a father b e leagu e d minority. The majority view can be summed up in this beautifully prosaic line of Calvin:
For it is an insupportable tyranny, when God, the Creator of all things, has laid open to us the earth and the air, in order that we may thence take food as from his storehouse, for these to be shut up from us by mortal man, who is not able to create even a snail or a fly.1
\Vjbju^alviji_appear.s to overlook, however, as do many in the Christian tradition, is that the permission to kill for food in Genesis 9 is far from unconditional or absolute:
Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of even' beast I will require it and of man ... (Gen. 9.4-5, RSV). "
Understanding these lines is far from straightforward. At first sight these qualificatory lines might be seen as obliterating the permission itself. After all, who can take animal life without the sheddingpf blood? Who can kill without the taking of blood, that is, the life itself? In asking
128
Animal Theology
Vegetarianism as a Biblical Ideal
129
these questions we move to the heart of the problem. For the early Hebrews life was symbolized by, even constituted by, blood itself. To kill was to take blood. And yet it is precisely this permission which is denied.
It is not surprising then that commentators have simply passed over these verses suggesting that some ritual, symbolic significance was here entertained but one which in no way substantially affected the divine allowance to kill. But this, I suggest, is to minimize the significance of these verses. Re-reading these verses in the light of their original context should go rather like this: The world in which you live has been corrupted. And yet God has not given up on you. God has signified a new relationship - a covenant with you - despite all your violence and unworthiness. Part of this covenant involves a new regulation concerning diet. What was previously forbidden can now - in the present circumstances - be allowed. You may kill for food. But you may kill only on the understanding that you remember that the life you kill is not your own - it belongs to God. You must not misappropriate what is not your own. Asjou kill what is not your own - either animal or human life -^so_ you need toj-emembgr that for every life you kill you are personally accountable to God.2
If this reading is correct, and I believe few scholars would now dissent from this interpretation, it will be seen immediately that Genesis 9 does not grant humankind some absolute right to kill animals for food. Ijide^djjp^oper^
under the conditions of necessity. A recent statement by the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues expresses it this way: 'Only after the Flood (contends Gen. 9.3) was human consumption of animals permitted and that was later understood as a concession, both to human weakness and to the supposed scarcity of edible vegetation.'3 John Austin Baker similarly concludes: 'The Old Testament... does nothing to justify the charge that it represents an exploitative, humanly egoistical attitude to nature. Although it recognizes man's preying on nature as a fact, it characterizes that fact as a mark of man's decline from the first perfect intentions of God for him.'4
To give a more complete account of biblical themes requires us to move on from Genesis 1 and 2, to Isaiah lLWe need to appreciate that while ^
biblical writersjvere also insistent that there_ would come another time when such killing was unnecessary. This is the time variously known as the 'future hope of Israel' or the 'Messianic Age'. Isaiah speaks of the
one who will establish justice and equity and universal peace. One of the characteristics of this future age is the return to the existence envisaged by Genesis 1 before the Fall and the Flood: v
The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and the calf and the lion and the fading together, and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder's den. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea (Isa. 11. 6-9, RSV).
It seems therefore that while the early Hebrews were neither vegetarians nor pacifists, the ideal of the peaceable kingdom was never lost sight of. Ifina^ena7tTl^"'b^¥eve3, the world would one day be restored according to God's original will for all creation. Note, for example, how tKevision of peaceable living also extends to relations between animals themselves. Not only, it seems, are humans to live peaceably with animals, but also formerly aggressive animals are to live peaceably with other animals.
We may sum up the main elements as follows: Killing for food appears essential in the world as we now know it influenced as it is by corruption and wickedness. But such a state of affairs is not as God originally willed it. Even when we kill under situations of necessity we have to remember that the lives we kill do not belong to us and that we are accountable to God. Moreover, God's ultimate will for creation shall prevail. Whatever the present circumstances, one day all creation, human and animal, shall live in peace. As Anthony Phillips writes: 'While the Old Testament recognizes that this is not an ideal world, and makes concessions until the messianic kingdom comes, it remains man's duty to do all in his power to reverence animal life."
Living without Violence
It should now be seen that far from being confused and contradictory, biblical narratives on killing for food have not only internal integrity but also relevance to the contemporary debate about animal rights and vegetarianism. There are three ethical challenges in particular that we shouW^grar^k^wjdi.
130
Animal Theolog)'
Vegetarianism as a Biblical Ideal
131
The first thing that should be noted is that these biblical perspectives do not minimize the gravity of the act of killing animals. So often in our heavily industrialized societies we think of animals, especially farm animals, as merely food machines or commodities that are to be bought or sold for human consumption. This presumed, institutionalized right does not fit easily alongside the covenant of grace. Genesis 1 specifically speaks of animal life as that which 'has the breath of life' (1.30). This life is a gift from God. It does not belong to human beings. It may be used only with the greatest reserve and in remembrance of the One from whose creative hands it comes. Those who wish to use animals frivolously or with no regard for their God-given worth cannot easily claim Genesis in support.
Karl Barth is instructive on this point and deserves to be read in full:
If there is a freedom of man to kill animals, this signifies in any case the adoption of a qualified and in some sense enhanced responsibility. If that of his lordship over the living beast is serious enough, it takes on a new gravity when he sees himself compelled to express his lordship by depriving it of its life. He obviously cannot do this except under the pressure of necessity. Far less than all the other things which he dares to do in relation to animals, may this be ventured unthinkingly and as though it were self-evident. He must never treat this need for defensive and offensive action against the animal world as a natural one, nor include it as a normal element in his thinking or conduct. He must always shrink from this possibility- even when he makes use of it. It always contains the sharp counter-question: Who are you, man, to claim that you must venture this to maintain, support, enrich and beautify your own life? What is there in your life that you feel compelled to take this aggressive step in its favour? We cannot but be reminded of the perversion from which the whole historical existence of the creature suffers and the guilt of which does not really reside in the beast but ultimately in man himself.6
The second challenge is that we have no biblical warrant for claiming killing as God's will. God's will is for peace. We .need to remember that
even though Genesis 9 gives permission to kill for food it does so only on the basis ^ God-given life. Genesis 9 posits
divine reckoning for the life of every beast taken even under this new dispensation (9.5). The question may not unnaturally be asked: How long can this divine permission last? Karl Barth writes that 'it is not only understandable but necessary that the affirmation of this whole
possibility (of killing for food) should always have been accompanied by a radical protest against it'. And yet he concludes: 'It may well be objected against a vegetarianism which presses in this direction that it represents a wanton anticipation of what is described by Isa. 11 and Rom. 8 as existence in the new aeon for which we hope.'7 Whatever may be the merits of Barth's arguments here, it should be clear that Barth cannot and does not claim that killing is God's will. On the contrary it stands in direct contrast to the 'new aeon for which we hope' or, as he puts it elsewhere, 'under a caveat'.8 In short: even though killing may be sometimes permissible, God will not tolerate it for ever.
In this respect it is interesting that one highly regarded Talmudic scholar, Abraham Isaac Kook, maintains that the most spiritually satisfying way of reading the practical biblical injunctions concerning killing is in terms of preparation for a new dawn of justice for animals. 'The free movement of the moral impulse to establish justice for animals generally and the claim for their rights from mankind', he argues, 'are hidden in a natural psychic sensibility in the deeper layers of the Torah.' Given the corruption of humankind, it was natural and inevitable that moral attention had first to be paid to the regulation of human conduct towards other humans. But in Kook's view the various injunctions concerning the selection and preparation of meat (in for example Lev. 17.13; Ezek. 16.63; Lev. 22.28 and Deut. 22.26-27) were commandments 'to regulate the eating of meat, in steps that will take us to the higher purpose'. And what is this higher purpose? None other it seems than universal peace and justice. Kook maintains that just as the embracing of democratic ideals came late within religious thinking 'so will the hidden yearning to act justly towards animals emerge at the proper time'.''
The third challenge to be grasped is that those who wish now to adopt }. a vegetarian or vegan life-style have solid biblical support. Biblical vegetarians will not say, 'It has never been justifiable to kill animals.' Rather they should say, 'It is not now necessary to kill for food as it was once thought necessary.' The biblical case for vegetarianism does not rest on the view that killing may never be allowable in the eyes of God, rather on the view that killing is always a grave matter. When we have to kill to live we may do so, but when we do not, we should live otherwise. It is vital to appreciate the force of this argument. In past ages many -including urráwjjtedh/jhj^ třmtldííing for food was; essmtyajm
chapter"5Twe now know that - at least for mosejiwyjiyjng in the rich
132
Animal Theology
Vegetarianism as a Biblical Ideal
133
West - it is perfectly possible to sustain a healthy diet without any recourse to flesh products. This may not have always been true in the past. Until comparatively reccntiy conventional wisdom was always that meat was essential to live well.
Those individuals who opt for vegetarianism can do so in the knowledge that they are living closer to the biblical ideal of pcaeeable-ness than their carnivorous contemporaries. The point should not be minimized. In many ways it is difficult to know how we can live more peaceably in a world striven by violence and greed and consumerism. Individuals often feel powerless in the face of great social forces beyond even democratic control. To opt for a vegetarian life-style is to take one practical step towards living in peace with the rest of creation. One step towards reducing the rate of institutionalized killing in the world today. One less chicken eaten is one less chicken killed.
Nevertheless, we do well to appreciate the biblical perspective that we . do not live in an ideal world. The truth is that even if we adopt a vegetarian or vegan life-style, we are still not free of killing either directly or indirectly. Even if we only eat beans and nuts and lentils, we have to reckon with the fact that competing animals are killed because of the crops we want to eat. Even if we decide not to wear dead animal skins, we have to face the fact that alternative substances have frequently been tested for their toxicity on laboratory animals. Even if we only eat soya beans we do well to remember that these have been forced fed to animals in painful experiments. As I have written elsewhere, there is no pure land.10 If we embark on vegetarianism, as I think we should, we must do so on the understanding that for all its compelling logic, it is only one very small step towards the vision of a peaceful world.
Prince of Peace
There is, however, one major - and some would say conclusive -objection to my pro vegetarian thesis that should be considered. We have previously encountered it: Jesus was no vegan and probably no vegetarian. There are no recorded examples of Jesus eating meat in the Gospels. The only possible exception is the Passover itself, but it is not entirely clear that Jesus ate the traditional passover meal." Jesus did, however, eat fish if the Gospel narratives are to be believed. How are we to reconcile this to the established Christian view of Jesus as the Prince of Peace? There are four possible answers to this question.
The first is that the canonical Gospels are mistaken and Jesus was
actually a vegetarian. However implausible this view may appear, among ' those who are pro animals there have always been a number who have never believed that Jesus ate the flesh of other living creatures.12 Those who take this view argue that 'fish' in the New Testament did not actually mean fish as we know it today." Moreover it has been argued that Jesus was really an Essene, albeit an unusual one, a member of the sect who were strict vegetarians.'4 Indeed there are various 'Essene gospels' in which Jesus is depicted as a vegetarian but all of these are, I think, of comparatively modern invention.15 However there are some fragments of some early gospels, such as the Gospel of the Ebionites, which do depict Jesus as a vegetarian though one suspects for reasons of their own."" What I think is much more interesting is the ajaantity„Qf apocryphal material which in various ways does describe Jesus as having a special concern for, and affinity with, the animal world." How much, if any, of this material is historically reliable is highly questionable but in an area where we know so little it is probably unwise to be dogmatic. It is just conceivable that some of this material does contain genuine historical reminiscence of some kind but that has to be a remote possibility. What may be significant is that this material, historical or not, exhibits a sensitivity- to animals which some in the Christian community felt at one stage or another was - or rather should be - characteristic of the historical Jesus.
There is one other question which should perhaps be pondered and it is this: What would it have meant for Jesus to have been a vegetarian in first-century Palestine? In context, it could well have meant associating himself with a Manichaean philosophy of asceticism which would have been inimical to his teaching as a whole. Since the Manichaeans were almost all vegetarians - largely on ascetical grounds - it may be pondered whether Jesus was ever confronted with ethical vegetarianism such as we know it today.
The second possible answer is that Jesus was not perfect in every conceivable way. Jews and Muslims would, of course, have no difficulty with this proposition but orthodox Christians would surely find this idea difficult. After all, traditional Christian belief has always been that Jesus Christ was truly God and truly human. Most Christians would hold that being sinless was an essential part of being God incarnate. Those who argue that Jesus was not wholly perfect, however, are not, of course, wholly without biblical support. The question of Jesus: 'Why do you call me good?' and his answer: 'No one is good but God alone' is recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels (Luke 18.19; Matt. 19.17; Mark 10.18).
134
Animal Theology
Vegetarianism as a Biblical Ideal
135
Moreover, it is not inconceivable that Jesus could have been both God incarnate and less than morally perfect in every way. Some scholars, such as John Robinson, have maintained this.18 Perhaps it could be argued that while Jesus committed no sins of commission (deliberate wrongdoing), of necessity every human being commits some sins of omission (things left undone). However, such a view falls short of traditional Christian doctrine and biblical texts such as Hebrews 4.15 which argues that Jesus 'was tempted as we are, yet without sin'. Though, even here, it is possible that Hebrews is describing ritual purity rather than ethical perfection.
The third answer is that the killing of fish is not a morally significant mailer or, at least, not as significant as the killing of mammals. There is something to be said for this view. Even those who argue rigorously for animal rights sometimes do so on the basis that animals as God's creatures are 'subjects of a life' - that is they have sensitivity and consciousness and the ability to suffer - but it is not clear that all fish do actually possess all these characteristics. In many cases we simply do not know. This must mean, I think, that their moral status is somewhat different from those animals where self-consciousness and sentiency can reasonably be taken for granted. Nevertheless, do not fish merit some benefit of the doubt? Are they not also fellow creatures with some God -given life and individuality which means that wherever possible their lives should be respected?
Approximating the Peaceable Kingdom
The fourth answer is that sometimes it can be justifiable to kill fish for food in situations of necessity. Such a situation, we may assume, was present in first-century Palestine where geographical factors alone seem to suggest a scarcity of protein. Such a view would on the whole be more consistent with the biblical perspective that we may kill but only in circumstances of real need. Hence we may have to face the possibility that Jesus did indeed participate in the killing of some life forms in order to live. Indeed we may say that part of his being a human being at a particular stage and time in history necessitated that response in order to have lived at all.
Of all the four possible responses, I find this last one the most convincing. As I have indicated before, the biblical view is not that killing can never be justified and ought to be avoided at all costs. There are times, for example, when euthanasia may well be the most
compassionate response to an individual being undergoing unrelievable suffering. But even if we accept that killing for food may be justified in those situations of real necessity for human survival, such as may be argued in the case of Jesus himself, this in no way exonerates us from the burden of justifying what we now do to animals in circumstances substantially different. This last point is centrally important and must not be obscured. There may have been times in the past or even now in the present where we have difficulty imagining a life without killing for food. But where we do have the moral freedom to live without recourse to violence, there is a prima facie case to do so. To kill without the strict conditions of necessity is to live a life with insufficient generosity.
It would be wrong, however, to give the impression that the life and teaching of Jesus is a disappointment as far as the enlightened treatment of animals is concerned. While it is true that there is a great deal we do not know about Jesus' precise attitudes to animals, there is a powerful strand in his ethical teaching about the primacy of mercy to the weak, the powerless and the oppressed. Without misappropriation, it is legitimate to ask: Who is more deserving of this special compassion than the animals so commonly exploited in our world today? Moreover, it is often overlooked that in the canonical Gospels Jesus is frequently presented as identifying himself with the world of animals. As I have written elsewhere:
His birth, if tradition is to be believed, takes place in the home of sheep and oxen. His ministry begins, according to Mark, in the wilderness 'with the wild beasts' (1.13). His triumphal entry into Jerusalem involves riding on a 'humble ass' (see Matt. 21.b—6). According to Jesus it is lawful to 'do good' on the Sabbath, which includes the rescuing of an animal fallen into a pit (see Matt. 12.10b— 12). Even the sparrows, literally sold for a few pennies in his day, are not 'forgotten before God'. God's providence extends to the entire created order, and the glory of Solomon and all his works cannot be compared to that of the lillies of the field (Luke 12.27). God so cares for his creation that even 'foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head' (Luke 9.58).19
The significance of these and other verses may be much more than had previously been thought. One small example must suffice. Mark describes Jesus' ministry as taking place firstly within the context of wild animals (1.13). Richard Bauckham has recently argued that the context in which this verse should be understood is messianic in orientation.
136
Animal Theology
Vegetarianism as a Biblical Ideal
137
Jesus is shown to be in continuity with the Isaianic tradition in seeing the messianic age as bringing about a reconciliation between nature and humanity.20 If this is true, it may be that Mark is seeking to demonstrate how the gospel of Jesus has implications for the whole of the created world and harmony within the animal world in particular. Those who follow Jesus might argue that in seeking to realize what can now be realized in our own time and space of the messianic age is to live now in conformity with the Spirit of Jesus itself.
In conclusion, reference has already been made to how vegetarians have formed a rather beleagued minority in times past. But it is worth recalling that not a few of the great figures in Christendom have adopted a vegetarian diet. Among these should not go unnoticed the wide variety of saints who have expressed a particular regard for animals and opposed their destruction. 'Poor innocent little creatures', exclaimed St Richard of Chichester when confronted with animals bound for slaughter. 'If you were reasoning beings and could speak you would curse us. For we are the cause of your death, and what have you done to deserve it?'21 There has always been an ascetical strand within Christianity which has insisted that humans should live gentiy on the earth and avoid luxury food. The rule of life penned by St Benedict for his religious community, for example, expressly forbade the eating of meat. 'Except the sick who are very weak, let all abstain entirely from"the flesh of four-footed animals.'22 Moreover, it often comes as a surprise for Christians to realize that the modern vegetarian movement was strongly biblical in origin. Inspired by the original command in Genesis 1, an Anglican priest, William Cowherd, founded the Bible Christian Church in 1809 and made vegetarianism compulsory amongst its members. The founding of this church in the United Kingdom and its sister church in the United States by William Metcalfe, effectively heralded the beginning of the modem vegetarian movement.''
The subsequent, if rather slow, growth of vegetarianism from 1809 to 1970, and its rapid and astonishing growth from 1970 to the present day is testimony that Cowherd may have been right in his view that mainstream biblical theology has overlooked something of importance in Genesis 1. It may be that when the history of twentieth-century cuisine is finally written, the radical changes in diet which we are currently witnessing will be found to be due more to the rediscovery - by Cowherd and his modern descendants - of two biblical verses (Gen. 1.29-30) than anything else. These two verses, we may recall, came into existence by people imagining possibilities in the light of their belief in
God the Creator. By rekindling the same vision in our own time, we may be enabled to realize - at least in part - those possibilities which our forebears could only imagine. Forward, we may say, not backward to Genesis.