The Origin of Sacrifice and Vegetarianism in the Bible - Making the Case for a Vegetarian Jesus, Part 2

Was Jesus a vegetarian? In the first post on this series investigating the subject, we saw the following evidence in support of this view: that the first 12 disciples and even James the brother of Jesus, his successor as leader of the original Christian movement, were all vegetarians; that vegetarianism was extremely widespread throughout early Christianity for the first 400 years of its existence; that there is even one verse in the Bible itself, in the gospel of Luke in the oldest Syriac transcripts, that has Jesus warning his followers against consumption of animal flesh and wine; and that Jesus and the early Christians were staunch pacifists who adhered to a strict code of absolute nonviolence; and we saw the apparent connection between this pacifism and vegetarianism in that both were suppressed and eventually eradicated from the religion during the same time period with the advent of Constantine and the Roman Empire's influence upon the catholic church (the church and empire eventually merged to become one, the Holy Roman Empire, and ushered in the dark ages).

In this post, we are going to to examine the relation between animal sacrifices and meat-eating in historical times, their roots in the Bible, and also take a look at the ancient Hebrew tradition of peace and vegetarianism found in the Bible, and see how these two traditions were competing with each other in the Jewish scriptures throughout the history of Judaism before and even during the time of Jesus.

Two Competing Traditions, One of Peace and One of War - Animal Sacrifice and Vegetarianism in the Bible, and the Ancient Hebrew Tradition of Peace

“Sacrifices were invented by men to be a pretext for eating flesh.” - Clement of Alexandria

The roots of the religious ritual of bloody animal sacrifice which was once so central to the Jewish religion before the destruction of their Temple in 70 CE, goes back centuries before that, and all the way back to the Hebrew patriarchs themselves, according certain texts of the Bible.

But most scholars agree that this practice of animal sacrifice didn't actually originate with the Hebrews, but was rather picked up from the peoples around them. Indeed, William W. Hallo, writing in the November/December 2011 Issue of Biblical Archaeological Review, says bluntly regarding the origin of Israelite sacrifice that, “The Israelites didn't invent it,” arguing instead that it “comes from Mesopotamia.” Further,

...animal sacrifice, though ostensibly a mechanism for feeding the deity, was at best a thinly disguised method for sanctifying and justifying meat consumption by human beings—a privilege routinely accorded to priesthood, aristocracy and royalty, and sporadically, notably on holidays and holy days, to the masses of the population.

Though it may be shocking to most of those who are familiar with the Biblical texts in which sacrifices to the God of Israel are so frequently offered, the position shared by Hallo and the early church father Clement - that sacrifice was invented by men as a mere pretext for meat-eating - is indeed generally acknowledged by scholars.

This apparent contradiction with the numerous the Hebrew Scriptures themselves (Christian Old Testament) in which God is seen explicitly giving this command directly to the children of Israel Himself, can be reconciled when it is realized that there is also an ancient vegetarian tradition in the Bible which didn't necessitate the killing of animals, also attributed to God himself, going back even further than the sacrificial meat-eating tradition!

You see, there are in fact two conflicting traditions found in the Hebrew Scriptures, quite easy to spot by those not under the delusion that every word in the Bible originated from one and same source; for they paint the Hebrew God in such a different and opposite light, that were they not two entirely different opposing traditions that found their way into the same compilation of writings, then one would be forced to conclude that the writers of these books were revealing a completely schizophrenic divine being who frequently changes back and forth from one who abhors violence and forbids killing to one who both both commands it and revels in the bloodshed.

As surprising as it may be to some, the Bible as it currently stands does in fact make it quite clear that God originally intended all creatures to subsist on a nonviolent vegetarian diet, and that it will be that way once again in God's kingdom on earth in the future. The very first chapter of the very first book of the Bible has God unambiguously instituting a vegan diet for all sentient life in the Garden of Eden:

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. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creep on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. (Genesis 1:30-31)

This is the beginning of the ancient tradition of peace, which can be seen again just a few short chapters later, just before the story of Noah and the great flood, when the condition of the earth is described as utterly corrupt in the eyes of God, specifically because violence had filled the earth.

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. (Genesis 6:11-12)

All flesh having “corrupted his way upon the earth” must certainly have meant that they had sunk into a state of violence fueled by flesh-eating, corrupting the vegan way in which the world was originally said to have been created, which God is recorded as having said was “very good.” And then, shortly after the story of the great flood, the violent tradition rears its ugly head, having God tell Noah that “the fear and dread of you shall be upon all the beasts; into your hands are they delivered; all animals shall be food for you.” (Genesis 9:2-3)

And so according to modern Judaism, it is from this point on that God begins to permit the killing of animals and eating of meat by humanity, soon to be followed with requiring animal sacrifices and meat-eating for his people, as if the perfect Creator just suddenly up and changed his mind.

It is this tradition of violence which later endorses war and slavery, which institutes killing in the form of capitol punishment and ritualistic animal sacrifice; and it is this tradition which has God commanding the children of Israel to eat animal flesh and to engage in the wholesale slaughter of entire native Palestinian populations during their 'holy wars' of conquest to capture and maintain control over the lands they called Israel.

But the peaceful tradition didn't just disappear at this point, as if God had truly just up and changed his mind completely about the ideal way of life for the creatures of the earth, as can be seen scattered all throughout the scriptures, intermixed with and standing in stark contrast to the more widespread images of a vengeful, violent god of wrath and war.

For example, after leading the children of Israel out of their bondage to the Egyptians, Moses received the ten commandments in which it was strictly forbidden to kill (“thou shalt not kill”), and yet the story then has Moses immediately killing thousands of his own countrymen for worshiping the golden calf, and God later commanding Moses to offer animal sacrifices. Elsewhere it clearly states that after the Lord had given the ten commandments to the Israelites, “he added no more,” making one wonder just where exactly the other 600 commandments of the Jewish religion and the institution of sacrifice came from!

These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tablets of stone, and delivered them unto me [Moses]. (Deuteronomy 5:22)

And yet later, in regards to sacrifice, we read the following:

Bring the bull to the front of the Tent of Meeting, and Aaron and his sons are to lay their hands on its head. And you shall slaughter the bull before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Take some of the blood of the bull and put it on the horns of the altar with your finger; then pour out the rest of the blood at the base of the altar. (Exodus 29:10-12)

Keep in mind that human sacrifice is condemned across the board throughout these same Scriptures in which the commands for animal sacrifice are present; a practice admittedly acquired by the Israelites from the peoples around them – the worship of Baal and Molech by way of child sacrifice – a practice taken up by the children of Israel time and time again. The only difference between Baal/Molech worship and Hebrew worship in regards to sacrifice is that while Baal and Molech demand both animal and human sacrifice, the God of Israel prohibits the offering of their children while demanding the animals be offered only to Him. But if we know human sacrifice was learned by the Hebrews from the peoples around them in the form of Baal/Molech worship, and human and animal sacrifice were both a part of the very same Baal/Molech worship, then it seems likely that the Israelites indeed absorbed not only the practice of human sacrifice but also the tradition of animal sacrifice into their worship from the peoples around them through their practice of Baal/Molech worship, just as the scholars have concluded, rather than first being given the commands concerning sacrifice by Moses.

Further support for this theory is found at the beginning of Leviticus, the priestly book in which is found the majority of commands concerning sacrifice, where it is written in the form of “when you bring a sacrifice,” as if speaking to a people in the habit of already offering sacrificing rather than commanding a people to begin doing so for the very first time.

There is reasonable evidence to suggest that Molech and Baal worship were more or less one and the same, and that the true identity for Molech (or Moloch) is Baal:

One suggested identity for Molech is the Canaanite deity, Ba’al-Hadad or Hadad. Hadad was considered the king of the gods by the ancient Canaanites. Evidence that Moloch can be identified with him comes from the fact that the pagan alters in the valley of Ben-Hinnom where children were sacrificed are also described as altars to Ba’al by the prophet Jeremiah. Furthermore, Assyrian texts state that child sacrifices were made to Adad, the Assyrian equivalent of the Canaanite Hadad. This makes it reasonable to suggest that child sacrifices may have also been made to Hadad and that a cult of child sacrifice may have been related to him. (source)

Interestingly, this condemnation of Baal/Molech worship is one of the strongest and most common reoccurring themes throughout the Bible. An example of how intertwined human and animal sacrifice were in this worship is found in the manor of worshiping Molech, which was carried out thus: The Bull of Molech acted as a giant oven to receive the sacrifices, with many compartments for various animals, one on top of the other, while a child was placed in the very top compartment, being the most valuable sacrifice of all. The fire would then be lit in the bottom of the giant bull and would slowly burn all of the sacrifices at once, while the people would sing and dance as a part of the ritual, probably principally to drown out the noise of the cries of the animals and children being burnt alive.

It is indeed likely that when the children of Israel built the golden calf to worship Baal, and called it the God of Israel, this is what they had built, and the noise of singing Moses heard from the Israelites as he came down the mountain was the noise being made to drown out the cries of the victims being sacrificed.

Later, it is written that God required the children of Israel to wander in the wilderness for 40 years in order that every man of war from Egypt die off, even the entire generation; but then as soon as that is accomplished, we are told that He turns around and has Joshua lead the people on a massive war campaign, ordering them to kill every man, woman, child and all livestock in the cities they conquer, starting with the the inhabitants of Jericho – turning them right back into violent and merciless men of war!

“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city [Jericho], both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and donkey, with the edge of the sword.” (Joshua 6:21)

This wasn't a rare occurrence by any means either, if we are to believe the texts of this tradition; in fact it was the norm; it was the very means by which the children of Israel acquired 'the promised land'.

At the same time, we are informed that the Israelites were commanded to offer sacrifices in the wilderness, and it is written they left Egypt with giant herds of cattle; and yet later there is an odd story about the people complaining that they don't have any meat to eat, in which God responds by sending them quail to eat, but “while it is still fresh between their teeth,” He strikes down thousands 'because of their lust.' The standard interpretation of the story is that their 'sin' wasn't lusting after and eating the meat, but simply their discontent and grumbling over the simple diet of bread from heaven given to them by God ('manna'). Of course, this really makes no sense of why they were grumbling about a lack of meat in the first place, if they had entire herds of cattle and were already offering sacrifices with them, unless they were forbidden by Moses to kill and eat the meat of their cattle.

And on and on it goes, with such strange and seemingly out of place stories randomly appearing in the midst of the violent saga of the history of the children of Israel. For example, King David, a man of war and murderer is praised as a “man after God's heart,” despite having killed his tens of thousands of enemies on the battlefield; but then it is strangely written elsewhere that this same David was prohibited from building the Temple because God would not allow His house to be built by a violent man of war. As the story progresses, the holy wars and sacrifices continue to multiply, while the peaceful tradition is found interspersed here and there, offering occasional hints that the God of Israel does not actually want all this bloodshed.

But then the Hebrew prophets came along and began to unequivocally denounce violence and bloodshed in all forms, railing against the practice of animal sacrifice as well as both human sacrifice and murder. “Woe to those who build Zion with bloodshed,” is their cry, an obvious denunciation to those who had built their nation upon war, conquest, and genocide.

Isaiah wrote that “Whoever slaughters an ox is like one who kills a man,” (Isaiah 66:); I don't think it can get much clearer than that! The very first chapter of the book of Isaiah opens with a harsh condemnation of the Temple sacrifices:

Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? Saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beast; and I delight not in the blood of bulls, or of lambs or of goats. When ye come to appear before me, who has required this at your hand, to tread my courts? ...your appointed feasts my soul hates...your hands are full of blood. - Isaiah 1:10-12, 14-15

Isaiah then went on to prophesy of an age of peace on earth for both man and beast, when God's Kingdom comes to earth and there is no more war - “Nation will not lift up sword against nation, and they shall not train for war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4) - nor do the animals prey on each other any longer, but all live in peace and harmony with each other and with humanity (as depicted in the very beginning of the Bible, in the Garden of Eden). Isaiah specifically mentions that the animals of prey will eat grass like the cattle, directly referencing the original vegan diet of Genesis where both man and animal were given all the plants for food in the Garden of Eden, and the animals living in peace is important enough to be repeated twice (Isaiah 11:6-9, 65:25).

Hosea directly links the violence of war with the violence of animal slaughter, in regards to the promised coming kingdom of God, stating that God will make a covenant of peace specifically with the animals, and “will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and make them to lie down safely.” (Hosea 2:18) He also writes: “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.” (Hosea 6:6)

According to Amos, God hates the Jewish feasts days and the stench thereof (of burning flesh, no doubt) and “will not accept” their sacrifices (Amos 5:21-22). Rather, the prophet insists that they “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.” (5:23) Again, like in Isaiah, we see attack on the sacrifices alongside hatred of the feasts; for the killing of the animals and eating them is truly inseparable.

Micah writes the very same words as Isaiah regarding future peace on earth: “Nation will not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” (Micah 4:3) He also asks if the Lord is pleased with sacrifices, not differentiating between child and animal sacrifice:

“Shall I come before [the High God] with calves a year old? ...Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?” The answer is an obvious but silent no: “He has shown you, oh man, what is good, and what does the Eternal require of you but to do justice and to love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:7-8) It is important to note the implied connection between child and animal sacrifice here, just as with Baal/Molech. Again, like Amos, Hosea and Isaiah, according to Micah the God of Israel wants justice/righteousness rather than bloodshed, and mercy rather than sacrifice.

Jeremiah goes so far as to directly state that God never commanded animal sacrifice in the first place, but only wanted them to listen to His voice, telling the people to instead seek the “ancient paths” - God isn't pleased with the sacrifices which are coming to him without purpose.

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. (Jeremiah 7:21)

To those who wonder how it is that Jeremiah could possibly quote God as stating he never gave the commands concerning sacrifice and truly mean it, when there are indeed so many such commands in the Bible indicating he so obviously had done so, Jeremiah asks how the “wise men” of Israel can claim to have the law of God with them when in fact “the lying pen of the scribes has turned it into a lie,” and then goes on to proclaim that they have “rejected the word of the Lord.” (Jeremiah 8:8)

In like manor, Isaiah proclaimed that Israel is a “sinful nation,” a “seed of evildoers,” and “children that are corrupters” (Isaiah 1:4), apparently because they had corrupted the law as originally given to Moses. Even Moses, it seems, had foreseen such a corruption of the law he had given them, warning of this in his final words before his death:

For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you. (Deuteronomy 31:29)

And so they did, so utterly corrupted it in fact that Jeremiah could say they had turned it into a lie.

Making it clear, Jeremiah's and Isaiah's denunciation of sacrifice are accompanied by demands to stop shedding innocent blood, while Hosea calls the priests (who were responsible for overseeing the sacrificial system) murderers. At the end of his book, Hosea tells the people to take their words to God as the calves of their lips (14:2), repeating the principle laid down in the Psalms and also by Solomon that prayers were meant to be the true sacrifice (Ecclesiastes 5:1).

Malachi makes clear that God is neither pleased with nor will he accept their sacrifices, and further wishes they wouldn't “uselessly kindle fire on my alter,” proclaiming that a pure bloodless offering and incense shall be offered up instead (Malachi 1:10-11). Bloodshed is the big problem here, and the prophets are clearly not pleased with innocent animals being slaughtered in the name of their God, and the accompanying feasts of blood.

It is apparent that for the Hebrew prophets, the violence of war and slaughter of animals in ritualistic sacrifice were intrinsically linked – bloodshed is bloodshed, violence is violence, and the age of peace they looked forward to was a peace not only between nations and mankind, but for the animals as well.

Additionally, vegan diets are also described for at least two of the Hebrew prophets not yet mentioned.

The prophet Daniel and his comrades are said to have rejected the royal food of meat and wine for a simple diet of vegetables and water, as Daniel refused to “defile himself” with meat and wine – and according to the story, the wine-free vegan diet leads them to appear noticeably stronger and healthier than the king's men in just ten days! (Daniel 1:8-15) Meanwhile Ezekiel is prescribed a diet made up of a combination of grains and legumes, which, as modern science has revealed, when sprouted forms a complete protein very similar to most animal proteins (Ezekiel 4:9).

And finally, in the book of Isaiah, in a popular passage interpreted by Christianity as being an important prophecy of the coming Messiah (Jesus), the diet of the child is butter or curds (depending on the translation) and honey – not vegan, but certainly vegetarian. Even more interesting is that it is written that the boy will eat this diet “that he may know the good from the evil” (Isaiah 7:15). Now how on earth would this diet help a boy to differentiate between good and evil unless part of the good is refraining from consumption of animal flesh and part of the evil is needlessly killing innocent animals to satisfy the lusts and desires of our stomachs? Unless the curds and honey aren't literal but symbolic and allegorical (which could well be the case; parallels to the 'land flowing with milk and honey' are unmistakable, and there is no land literally flowing with milk and honey), I certainly cannot see any other reason. Regardless of the ultimate meaning, unless the passage is entirely symbolical or is not a reference to Jesus at all - options both rejected by Christianity - then it even appears that Isaiah had prophesied of the coming prophet/messiah Jesus having a vegetarian diet!

In summary, the tradition of violence paints the God of Israel as a bloodthirsty god of war who requires blood sacrifice and is pleased by the aroma of blood and burning flesh. The tradition of peace paints quite the opposite picture, so the only question left is; Which tradition did Jesus identify with? Did he come in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, or the Temple priests? Did he come to abolish the sacrifices, or to become one last final sacrifice for mankind as Christianity teaches?

In the next posts of this series, we will look much deeper into this question, taking a look at Jesus in the gospels; and then there will be more interesting information to dig into after that, before we have the complete picture and finish this investigation. Until then, hope you all have a merry Christmas!