Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Without Obligation, A Virtue: Christian Vegetarianism As A Way To Seek The Greater Good

Without Obligation, A Virtue: Christian Vegetarianism As A Way To Seek The Greater Good

Last updated on: July 8, 2019 at 3:05 am by Henry Karlson

Without Obligation, A Virtue: Christian Vegetarianism As A Way To Seek The Greater Good 2019-07-08T03:05:44-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Trang Pham: Vegetarian Foods / pxhere

Perhaps one of the greatest contributions of Paul to Christian theology is his proclamation that Christians should be free from all extreme legalistic expectations. What is good is important, but there are many ways of acting upon the good, some being better than others. Christian liberty allows the exploration of those various goods so long as they remain good and honorable. What is best will not be achieved, indeed, cannot be achieved, by all, and various virtues, which are worthy of adherence, are not to be demanded by all Christians. Celibacy is one such good: “Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman” 1 Cor. 7:1 RSV). Most people are unable to attain this virtue, nor are they expected to try to do so. For them, Paul affirmed that marriage is good and honorable. He exhorts Christians to consider following him in overcoming marriage bonds, but he concedes that such a virtue is not for everyone: “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (1 Cor. 7:5 RSV).

It is, in part, in this context, that Paul wrote to affirm Christians can eat meat: that is, he opposed a rigorous legalism which demanded Christians entirely reject the consumption of animal flesh (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1-13; Rom 14:1-3, 20-21). Such liberty in diet is so normalized, Christians in general have forgotten the fact that many early Christians abstained from eating meat. Tradition suggests none other than the stepbrother of Jesus, James, was a strict vegetarian; Eusebius, in his Church History, like St. Jerome in his On Illustrious Men, quoted St. Hegesippus (c.110-180) from his Memoirs, indicating how James was indeed a vegetarian:

He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.[1]

It was not just James. There are various indications which suggest other apostles and early disciples of Christ were, or became, vegetarian, with some sources being more reliable than others. For example, St. Matthew, according to St. Clement of Alexandria, also followed a vegetarian regimen: “Accordingly, the apostle Matthew partook of seeds, and nuts, and vegetables, without flesh.” [2] Likewise, when we read various early Christian historians, we find out that such vegetarianism was not found merely in the apostolic age, but in the time of the early martyrs. Thus, Eusebius, writing about the death of St. Biblias, showed that her abstinence of meat demonstrated the charges against Christians eating children was false:

But the devil, thinking that he had already consumed Biblias, who was one of those who had denied Christ, desiring to increase her condemnation through the utterance of blasphemy, brought her again to the torture, to compel her, as already feeble and weak, to report impious things concerning us.

But she recovered herself under the suffering, and as if awaking from a deep sleep, and reminded by the present anguish of the eternal punishment in hell, she contradicted the blasphemers. ‘How,’ she said, ‘could those eat children who do not think it lawful to taste the blood even of irrational animals?’ And thenceforward she confessed herself a Christian, and was given a place in the order of the witnesses.[3]

We could explore many other sources to find out that several ancient Christians, including at least some of the apostles, seemed to prefer a vegetarian diet. There were many different reasons for this. Roger Beckwith in his article,” The Vegetarians of the Therapeutae, and the Motives for Vegetarianism in Early Jewish and Christian Circles,” suggested five main explanations why some Jews and Christians turned towards a vegetarian first.

The first, which relates to Paul’s argument, was to avoid idolatry:

Vegetarianism as a precaution in an idolatrous environment. In Dan. 1,5-16, Daniel and his companions, exiled in Babylon, resolve not to ‘defile’ themselves with the king’s food or the wine that he drank, and therefore request ‘pulse’ (or ‘herbs’) and water instead. [4]

The second was that some Christians preferred an ascetical form of life, to live with simplicity and to avoid costly food.[5] The third, which Beckwith suggested is the form most in common with modern vegetarian thought, was the desire to live non-violently:

The vegetarianism of the non-violent. Philo also in one place expresses vegetarian sentiments of his own. This is in De Providentia, Fragment 2, 69-70, where he says that the temperance and self-control of the wise man are best shown by refraining from flesh-food, since to feast upon animals is to ‘change himself into the savagery of wild beasts.’ It is here we come nearest to the motives of modern vegetarianism.[6]

The fourth and fifth relate to the temple: some became vegetarians as a way of mourning the destruction of the temple, [7] while others did so as a way to oppose the temple and the sacrificial system.[8]

Paul, writing in this milieu, seeing that there were some promoting total abstinence of flesh without any qualification or consideration, wrote against such legalism, overturning what he believed was their main theological flaw: the concern to avoid idolatry. Paul noted that Christians should not be superstitious, fearing the influence of demons when they ate meat; yes, much meat was sacrificed to pagan gods, but the Christian eating the meat was not joining in with the worship of pagan gods and so they had nothing to be concerned about with their remote material cooperation with such pagan celebration. They key to Paul’s argument is not that Christians must eat meat, nor that there were no good reasons to abstain from meat, but to free the Christian conscience from superstitious ideologies which fed into legalistic obligations against meat eating to avoid contact with demons. For the sake of charity, for the sake of the conscience of others, Paul did affirm that it sometimes might be right to avoid eating meat in front of those who find the eating of meat a potential problem:

Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats; it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble (Rom. 14:20-21 RSV).

Paul’s desire to overcome superstitious eating rules and obligations must not be read as indicating a total freedom to eat and drink as one would like: he never rejected the notion that gluttony is a sin. He never suggested cannibalism was acceptable. Eating properly is important; taking into consideration what you eat, making sure one’s eating is done in charity and not in excess, that is, making sure one’s eating does not place undue burden on others, is key. Since in the ancient world, meat eating was often a necessity, Paul could not agree with any form of legalism which would entirely forbid it; this, likewise, has been the general teaching of the church. Whenever some group or another demanded the total abstinence from the flesh, without qualification, the church deemed their demands heretical, similar to the way the church would and did condemn those who rejected the good of marriage (often the same people who demanded abstinence of meat demanded the rejection of marriage as well). This did not mean that there was no virtue to be found in the abstinence of meat; all it meant is that such virtue could not be and should not be forced upon all without qualification. For this reason, many saints and theologians have promoted such abstinence, but they did so with the firm acceptance that necessity often required the consumption of meat and that a concession for meat eating had to be a part of the Christian faith. Thus, St Basil preached:

In paradise there was no wine; there were still no animal sacrifices, still no eating of meat. After the flood: wine, after the flood: [God said] eat everything, as you eat green plants. The enjoyment of meat was conceded only when the hope of perfection was lost.[9]

The enjoyment of meat is a concession. Such a concessions does not mean meat-eating is neutral, and that meat-eating without qualification is acceptable. In all things we do, our actions must always be aimed towards justice and charity. This is where a recommendation for a vegetarian lifestyle can come into play: when the concession for meat-eating is no longer necessary, when other ways of gaining nutrients like protein as easily accessible, Christians must consider whether or not they should change their eating habits, especially in a day and age when excessive meat-eating uses a great number of natural resources which could be better put to use elsewhere. This is especially true when Christians realize their obligation to the world they live in, to be stewards of creation rather than being its exploiters. The meat industry has become heavily exploitive in order to keep up the production needed for the massive amount of meat people eat today, with factory farming being a prime representation of this fact. The injustice rendered to animals, where their life is not seen as a value in and of itself but only insofar as we can consume them, can be said to be guided by the demonic spirit of gluttony which must be routed by holy living. There cannot be legalistic demands which force all Christians to abstain from meat in all circumstances but there can be and should be greater exhortation to consider the implications of our eating habits, to see the harm which is being done, and to change them to a more charitable and virtuous form. As fasting rules and regulations indicate, it is even possible to make dietary demands, so long as those demands are realized with the acceptance of an economia which allows for their violation in matters of necessity.

Andrew Linzey, realizing this, correctly pointed out that Scripture cannot be used to demand an absolute vegetarian diet for all, but yet its general principles in regards the sacredness of life, including animal life, can be used to suggest that we can and should move beyond a meat-centered diet:

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 on we may do so, but when we do not, we should live otherwise. [10]

Christian vegetarianism promotes many virtues, among which is the recognition of the good of God’s creation and the value of sentient life. Yes, Christians must eat, and that means they will have to kill some form of life in order to eat. But it is possible to argue that the more sentient or rational a creature is, the more we are expected to honor and protect it and its natural good, so that there is good reason to accept a vegetarian diet, with the plants it kills, as being better than a meat-eating diet, which affects forms of life with greater sentience or even rationality. The point is to be charitable, to engage creation, and to do as little harm as is possible, recognizing nonetheless, our needs as well. Absolutizing dietary habits ignores economia and particular needs which cannot be met with such legalism; but denying such legalism does not mean we have to absolutize the reverse, to turn everything into an antinomian free-for-all. Christians must look at what is possible, indeed, they seek what is the best, most ethical course of behavior possible, and encourage it. Early Christians, like James and Matthew, seem to have forsworn the eating of flesh, promoting it as a virtue: their reasons might differ from ours, but their lifestyle and promotion of such abstinence of flesh demonstrates it is a virtue, like celibacy, to be considered, and indeed, it might be a virtue more commendable to our era, because those who live such a lifestyle will look at and reflect upon the holiness of creation and consider the implications of their actions upon the earth more than those who eat in total ignorance of the ramifications of what they do.

[1] Eusebius, “Church History” in NPNF2(1):125. See also St. Jerome, “Lives of Illustrious Men” in NPNF2(3):361, where Jerome also quotes from Hegesippus.

[2] St. Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor” in ANF(2):241.

[3] Eusebius, “Church History,” 214.

[4] Roger T. Beckwith, “The Vegetarians of the Therapeutae, and the Motives for Vegetarianism in Early Jewish and Christian Circles” in Revue de Qumrân Vol. 13 (October 1988): 407.

[5] See Roger T. Beckwith, “The Vegetarians of the Therapeutae,” 408.

[6] Roger T. Beckwith, “The Vegetarians of the Therapeutae,” 409.

[7]See Roger T. Beckwith, “The Vegetarians of the Therapeutae,” 409.

[8] See Roger T. Beckwith, “The Vegetarians of the Therapeutae,” 409-10. Here we can find some radical groups, like the Ebionites, who found ways to have Jesus reject the sacrificial system as a whole. The Ebionites believed Jesus was a vegetarian, like James, and even his Passover celebration was unusual in that it did not include eating of the sacrificial lamb.

[9] St. Basil, “First Homily on Fasting” in On Fasting and Feasts. Trans. Susan R. Holman and Mark DelCogliano (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2013), 59.

[10] Andrew Linzey, Animal Theology (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), 131.

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

Previous Post

July 7, 2019

Christians Must Choose Between Mammon or Christ, Avarice or Charity

Next Post

July 10, 2019 Tolkien Against Racism

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abraham abuse Aesthetics AI Aliens Ambrose Ancestors and Everything Andrew Angels Animals Anne Anthony Antisemitism apologetics Apophatic Apostle John Aquinas Artificial Intelligence Asanga Ascension Asceticism Assumption Atheism Attachment Augustine Authority Avarice Balthasar Baptism Beauty Biden birthright citizenship Bishops Black History Books Buddhism Bulgakov Byzantine Calendar C.S. Lewis Calcidius Catholic Catholicism Catholicism Celibacy Charity Chastity children Chrismation Christ Christmas Christology Church Climate Change Common Good Communion Confession Confirmation Conscience Constantine conventions conversion councils Covid Creation Cross Dead Death Death Penalty Debate Deception Demagogues Demons Desert Monks Desert Mothers Desire destruction development Dialogue Dignity Dionsyius Dionysius Discipline Diversity Division Doctor Who doctrine dogma Dormition Dualism Easter Easter Series Ecumenical Councils Ecumenism Education Election Empathy Environment Error Eschatology eschaton Eternity Ethics Eucharist Evangelism Eve Evil evolution Faeries Faith Fear femininity Ficino Florence Florensky Folktale Fools Forgiveness Freedom Future gender Gentile Gentiles Glory Gnostic God gods Good Samaritan Goodness Gospel Government Grace Great Fast Guns Hate healing Health Heaven Hell Hellenism Heresy Hierarchy Hildegard Hinduism History Holiness Holy Spirit Holy Week Hope Horror Human rights humanity Humility hypocrisy ICE icon icons Identification Identity Idol II Nicea Immigration incarnation Individualism Informal Reflections Inklings Intention Inter-Religious Interfaith Internet Interpretation Intrinsic evil Irenaeus Islam Israel Jacob Jerome Jesus Jews John Chrysostom John of Damascus John the Baptist Joseph Judaism justice Justification kenosis Kindnesss Kingdom of God Kingdom of Heaven Law Law of Moses Lazarus Leaf by Niggle Lent Lenten Reflection Liberation Theology Lies Life Listen Literature Liturgy locutions Logic Logos Love Marriage Martyrs Mary Mass Maximos The Confessor Meanness Meditation Mercy Middle Path Migrants Mind Miracles Miriam Morals Moses Movies Music Muslims Myths Names Nationalism Native Americans New Year Nicea Nicholas Nothing Novatian Obedience Occam's Razor Ordination Origen Original Sin Orthodox orthopraxis Pagans Palamas Palm Sunday Paradise Paschaltide Paul Peace Pentecost person Peter piety PKD Plato pluralism Plurality Poem Poetry Poiltics Politics Poor Pope Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV Post Office Prayer Pride Pro-life Prodigal Son propaganda Prophecy Prophets Providence Putin Racism Reading Reason Reflection Refugees Relationships Religion Religion Series Religious Liberty Repent Republicans Rest Resurrection Rich Rites Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation Salvian Santa Science Scripture Self-Giving Sexuality Sibyl Sick Silence Sin Singlehood Social Justice Society Sodom Solovyov Speculations Spiritual Reflection St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Justin Martyr Suffering Sunday of the Paralytic Man Sunday of the Samaritan Woman Superhero Supreme Court Teaching Technology Thanksgiving The Father the Universe Theological Reflection Theology Theosis Theotokos Thomas Timaeus Time Tolerenace Tolkien Tradition Transfiguration Trinity Trump Truth Uncategorized Unity Universities USCCB Value Vatican II Vegetarian Vices Violence Virtue Vocations War Water Welcome Wisdom Womanhood Women Work World View Worship Writing Zacchaeus

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz