Feed the Swine, Do Not Eat Their Flesh — A Vegan Reading of Isaiah 66:17. By Dr Chapman Chen
“They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine’s flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.” — Isaiah 66:17 KJV
In straightforward English, this passage means that those who consecrate and ritually purify themselves in order to enter the sacred gardens, following a ritual leader there, and who eat pigs, mice and other unclean creatures, will all be destroyed together, declares the LORD.
So Isaiah 66:17 places the eating of swine's flesh explicitly within a complex of practices condemned by God. This is consistent with the mainstream Old Testament prohibition: “of their flesh shall ye not eat” (Lev. 11:7–8; cf. Deut. 14:8). Whatever the precise nature of the garden ritual, the striking fact remains that eating a pig is not treated as morally or spiritually neutral: it appears among the very acts for which the participants face divine judgment.
1. Public Health
From a modern public-health perspective, abstention from pork can also eliminate certain foodborne risks associated with pork, especially when it is raw or inadequately cooked. Pork can transmit Trichinella and other pathogens, while pig liver and insufficiently cooked pork products can transmit hepatitis E.
Prof. Ian Young (2026), chief scientific adviser for the FSA, said, “We understand people may have concerns about the safety of nitrites and nitrates, but health risks apply to red and processed meat overall, not specifically to the nitrates or nitrites used in processing.” He confirmed that the FSA's position is “based on the totality of the scientific evidence” and advised that the “safest way to reduce any risk from red and processed meat is to eat less of it.” Whatever the original theological rationale for the biblical prohibition, complete abstention would necessarily have removed these pork-related risks.2. Pigs are Intelligent Creatures
Compassionately speaking, pigs are exceptionally intelligent animals. They’re able to solve odor quizzes, recognize themselves in mirrors, and even play rudimentary video games. One Cambridge University Professor, Dr Donald Bloom (200), has even claimed that pigs “have the cognitive ability to be quite sophisticated. Even more so than dogs and certainly [more so than] three-year-olds (note 1).
3. Thou Shalt Not Kill!
Back to theology, “Thou shalt not kill” (Lo Tirtzach) (Exodus 20:13) covers not only humans but animals. In killing and/or eating animals, one breaks the Sixth Commandment. As put by Reuben Alcalay (1981), one of the greatest contemporary linguists cum author of The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13 KJV; Matthew 19:18 KJV) means "any kind of killing whatsoever."
4. The Pauline Reversal
Yet mainstream Christianity generally teaches that these dietary restrictions plus other prohibitions against animal abuse no longer bind Christians. From a Vegan Theology perspective, this represents a troubling reversal. Under the influence of the Pauline trajectory, texts such as Romans 14:14, Romans 14:20 and 1 Corinthians 10:25—“Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat”—have been used to legitimate virtually unrestricted flesh-eating. Mark 7:19 is likewise commonly interpreted as Jesus “declaring all foods clean,” while Peter’s vision in Acts 10 has often been applied to formerly prohibited animals, even though Peter himself explains the vision in terms of people: “God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28).
Another example is Paul's strikingly anthropocentric appropriation of the Mosaic protection of working oxen. Quoting “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” he immediately asks, “Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes?” (1 Cor. 9:9–10 NKJV), before applying the command to material support for his ministry (v. 11). From a Vegan Theology perspective, Paul thereby redirects an animal-protective command towards human ecclesiastical interests.
5. Christly Compassion versus Animal Abuse
The result is paradoxical. The mainstream version of the OT at least places boundaries upon humanity’s appetite for animal flesh and (ab)use of animals; the dominant interpretation of the NT largely removes them. Yet should Christ, who teaches “I desire compassion, not sacrifice!” (Matt. 9:13; 12:7; cf. Hos. 6:6), lead humanity towards less mercy for animals?
Vegan Theology sees instead a biblical movement towards liberation from violence: from Eden’s vegan diet (Gen. 1:29), through the prophets’ critique of sacrifice and bloodshed, to Jesus’ proclamation of mercy. Christ should therefore lead us beyond the limited protections of ancient dietary and animal welfare laws towards greater compassion—not towards unrestricted dominion over animal bodies.
6. A Challenge to Christian Carnism
Isaiah 66:17 thus poses a serious question to Christian carnism: If eating the flesh of a pig could once form part of conduct condemned by God, why should the coming of the compassionate Christ transform killing and eating that creature into Christian liberty?
The pig is not merely pork, bacon or ham. It is a living creature of God. Feed the swine; befriend the swine; protect the swine. Do not eat their flesh. #VeganChrist #VeganGod #VeganTheology
Note
Comments