Is it a veggie Bible?

The only kind of writing I’ve come to enjoy – by enjoy I mean, am able to do quickly and feel the least bit satisfied with – is literary analysis. This is “enjoyment” is derived mostly from the fact that you get to use quotes and analyze them – however you want to. It is so easy to construe the meaning of any paragraph, sentence, phrase or word. If you just take snippets out of context, there’s so much “deep, insightful” b.s. that you can pull out of the air. Then you tie them all together in perfect support of your little argument. That’s it: nice and simple, no fuss, no hassle. The best part is if you are a skillful insight fabricator, it is possible to come up with a reasonable sounding argument for just about any topic. And now, allow me to hypocritically do so as I criticize Stephen Webb.

With that being said, I feel like the arguments for Christ being vegetarian could have very possibly come from the clever stretching of quotes. Like Dana said, one of the large arguments used was that the accounts of the Last Supper “provide no mention of Christ or indeed, the Apostles partaking of the traditional Paschal Lamb before, during or after the Last Supper” (X138). Just because there is no mention of Jesus and his followers eating meat during one meal, although it is a rather significant one, does not mean that Jesus was vegetarian. Who knows? – Maybe he was. That would be awesome. However, that is in no case a valid argument.

To me it does make sense that Jesus would have been on a diet of less meat. My biblical knowledge does not extend very far, but from what I’ve gathered through the years, it sounds like he spent a large portion of his life wandering around the world and spreading his good knowledge. Also, from what I’ve gathered through the reading, God does not really approve of riches – “How hardly they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” (X132). Thus, I am assuming (anybody can correct me if I’m wrong: I make no claim to have lived in Jesus’ time) that when Jesus travelled and taught, he focused on teaching the poorer variety of people. Not necessarily the dirt poor people, but the people who were just surviving. From what history classes have told me, meat was quite a luxury in the olden days. If you were poor all you ate was bread and potatoes. Therefore, if Jesus spent a lot of time
with the poorer folks, he would probably have eaten what they eat; this diet would prove to be mostly vegetarian, I am assuming.

Although this is a fascinating topic, I agree with Jenny, in that I do not think this argument is worth pursuing in order to make the world go veg. After all, God gave the Ten Commandments and said “Thou shall not steal. Though shall not commit adultery. Thou shall not steal” (Exodus 20: 2-17). God commanded this and people still do these things all the time. Thus, if it was somehow proved that Jesus was vegetarian, while maybe some would convert, I question if it would make a significant impact.

Also, as I’m reading these portions for the first time, it seems to me that certain themes are plainly stated numerous times. I understand that Bump specifically put assigned us to read all the compassion portions, but the same basic principle of compassion and charity is expounded upon greatly with phrases like, “And now, abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity” (X133). With that in mind, if vegetarianism was really a pressing issue, it seems like it would have at least been mentioned once. Christ is such a model being of compassion, love, faith, and goodness; his life seems to have been chronicled quite closely. If it was a high wish of his, I think it would have been mentioned. So, I think we should focus on what has been mentioned like love and compassion instead.