Home / D. Tradition, culture and religion / Part DIR
"Jesus ate fish."
what a historical figure did in their context doesn't decide what we should do in ours. In first-century Palestine, fishing was one of the main means of survival. Today we have alternatives. And Christianity itself never understood imitating Jesus as copying his diet, but as following his values, such as compassion for the most vulnerable.
Short answer
Jesus lived in first-century Palestine, where fishing was a means of survival and there weren't the alternatives we have today. Christians don't copy everything Jesus did, like how he dressed, traveled or worked: they follow his values. And compassion for the vulnerable is at their center. The question isn't what Jesus ate back then, but what those values ask of us today.
For children
Jesus lived a long time ago, in a place where people fished so they wouldn't go hungry. Today we have stores and lots of other foods. Following Jesus isn't doing everything he did, like wearing sandals or living without a fridge. It's trying to be kind like him, including to those who are weaker.
"Is following Jesus copying what he ate, or living the values he taught?"
Como pode aparecer
"Jesus ate fish."
"Jesus multiplied the fish."
"In the Bible they sacrificed lambs."
"If Jesus ate it, who are you to say it's wrong?"
"Christ sanctified food by eating it."
"God gave us dominion over animals." (which is D4)
The strongest version
"Jesus ate fish. Jesus multiplied the fish. In the Bible they sacrificed lambs."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1According to the Gospels, Jesus ate fish and took part in the Passover, which included lamb.
- P2Jesus is the perfect moral model for Christians.
- P3What the perfect moral model did can't be wrong.
- CSo eating animals isn't wrong.
P1 is accepted by most readings of the Gospels. P2 is a premise of faith. The problem lies in P3: what someone did in one historical context doesn't automatically carry over to another.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3 and in the assumption that copying actions is the same as following values.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument confuses imitating actions with following values:
What Jesus did in his context What Christians do today Traveled on foot or by donkey Use cars and planes Lived without modern medicine Use hospitals and vaccines Ate what was available in first-century Galilee Have access to foods from all over the world Preached compassion and care for the weak This is what following Jesus is understood to mean - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's an appeal to authority.
A respected figure having done something doesn't prove it's right in every context.
2. The context was different.
In first-century Galilee, fishing was one of the bases of the local economy, alongside bread, olive oil and legumes. There were no B12 supplements or the variety of foods that today make it safe to give up all animal products.
3. Following Jesus is following values, not copying habits.
No Christian tradition requires living as in the first century. It would be strange for diet to be the only exception.
4. The values point in another direction.
Compassion, care for the vulnerable and refusing unnecessary violence are central to Christianity. Many Christians, from various traditions, are vegetarian or vegan for these reasons.
5. Animal sacrifices were abandoned.
Christianity itself set aside the temple's animal sacrifices, which shows biblical practices involving animals aren't seen as permanent.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Pope Francis, *Laudato Si'* (2015) Rejects absolute dominion over other creatures Shows the tradition doesn't read the relationship with animals as a license The Gospels (Luke 24:42-43; John 21) Describe Jesus eating and offering fish Biblical text; these passages are historically debated - d
The strongest counter-reply: if it were wrong, Jesus wouldn't have done it
The most serious version says that, since Jesus was without sin, nothing he did could be morally wrong, and so eating fish can't be wrong in itself.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Not wrong there isn't not wrong here.
An action can be justified by necessity in one context and not in another.
This isn't about condemning Jesus.
It's about asking what to do today, with today's alternatives.
Fishing for food isn't industrial animal farming.
Nothing in the Gospels resembles confining billions of animals.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Appeal to authority
Anachronism
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Confusing actions with values
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Permission treated as duty
Biases
Motivated reasoning
The example is used only where it confirms the habit
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "what a moral figure did in their context is permitted in any context".
If it applied to…Temple sacrificesTap to see
They'd be permitted today, because they were practiced
Christianity abandoned them
If it applied to…MedicineTap to see
Refusing modern treatment would be imitating Jesus
No one accepts this
If it applied to…SlaveryTap to see
It would be acceptable because it existed then and the texts didn't abolish it
No one accepts this
Contradictions
Not in clothing, transport or profession.
Which is also in the Bible.
And it extends to the most vulnerable.
What the argument gets right
What is true
For people of faith, Jesus's example is central, and it's legitimate to seek guidance in it. The Gospels do describe Jesus eating fish, and most Christian traditions don't require vegetarianism.
But
But following Jesus never meant copying what he ate. It means living the compassion he taught, and many Christians conclude that, today, that compassion includes animals.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after