God's Giving Us Meat

[MysticMissMisty]

Salvete, omnes!

We read in Genesis that, after the flood, God permits Noah (and, presumably? his descendents) to eat meat.

However, it would seem that, before this time, men were vegetarians.

Indeed, in the Book of Enoch (which, granted, is non-canonical but I’ve been discussing it on another thread in another context and came across this), it seems to be implied that the giants were doing evil at the time before the flood in injuring fish and other animals to eat their flesh and drink their blood. (Apparently, the word “injure” is there used in the text, potentially implying that the injury to animals is not right.) I suppose that, when looking at a text like Enoch, we have to use caution, though I’ve proposed on another thread that, while a book may not be considered canonical/inspired, some traditions contained therein may have validity.

So, then, what changed? Why are we now permitted to eat meat but previously were apparently not?

 

[simpleas]

I’m not sure man was ever permitted to eat meat, but did so in times of crop failures.

 

[Todd977]

What changed? The Flood may have affected the available plant life; the Flood may have destroyed some particularly nutritious species of plants and meat was now a permitted substitute. If there was anything inherently sinful in eating meat, would the Lord have permitted it?

Haydock’s Commentary on Genesis 9:3 says, in part:

The more religious, at least, had hitherto abstained from flesh, being content with herbs, &c.: which had been expressly granted. Now, the salt waters of the deluge had vitiated the earth, its plants were no longer so nutritive. (Menochius) (source)

Remember too that the wearing of leather garments and the offering of animals in sacrifice to the Lord were acceptable practices from the time of Adam and Eve and Abel. See Genesis 3:21; 4:4.

 

[Bonnie]

There is no prohibition on eating meat. As mentioned, God Himself killed animals to provide Adam & Eve with clothing. I can’t imagine they would kill animals for the skins & let the meat go to waste.

 

[Mintaka]

“Abel was a shepherd… Abel also offered of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat; and the Lord had respect to Abel, and to his offerings.” (Genesis 4:2 and 4)

Since this was about the firstlings (the firstborn sheep), the fat of a lamb included:

“a fire offering to the LORD consisting of its fat and the entire fat tail, which he is to remove close to the backbone. He will also remove the fat surrounding the entrails, all the fat on the entrails, the two kidneys with the fat on them at the loins, and the fatty lobe of the liver above the kidneys… [he] will burn the food on the altar, as a fire offering to the LORD.”

Everything else was eaten by the person sacrificing the sheep or lamb, or by his family and friends and guests.

If Abel was a shepherd herding sheep and sacrificing sheep, he was also eating sheep.

It’s not a sacrifice to God if you don’t either burn it up completely, or offer it the whole thing and then share the eating with God (symbolically).

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Several here have asserted, I think with good evidence, that meat was eaten even before the flood.

However…

Then, what are we to do with the latter (apparent!) allowance by God to Noah (and his descendents?) of meat, (seemingly) for the first time? What is this to signify if we believe that meat was eaten before the narration within this passage?

 

[thistle]

Several here have asserted, I think with good evidence, that meat was eaten even before the flood.

However…

Then, what are we to do with the latter (apparent!) allowance by God to Noah (and his descendents?) of meat, (seemingly) for the first time? What is this to signify if we believe that meat was eaten before the narration within this passage?

We have never been forbidden to eat meat.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

We have never been forbidden to eat meat.

With all respect, that’s not what I asked.

While God may not have (directly) forbidden the consumption of meat, He seems, befroe the Flood, only to have assigned to us plant life for food.

What I asked is, if you believe that we could or did eat meat before the Flood, then how do you understand the passage after the Flood where God seems to allow meat to man?

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t believe meat-eating was ever forbidden. I take God’s statement in Genesis 9 to be an affirmation that all meat is permitted as food, with the emphasis there being on ‘all’.

 

[Ignatius]

I’m not sure man was ever permitted to eat meat, but did so in times of crop failures.

Read the Bible and Catechism. In Genesis God tells Noah that all meat is permitted as food. It’s also clear in The Catechism.

 

[kkollwitz]

In Genesis God permits Noah to eat meat because (my opinion) the surviving animals will always owe Man for for saving them. As Man is in debt to God, so are animals in debt to Man. "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. 4* Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”

 

[TimothyH]

All, this has nothing to do with vegetarianism. It is about eating the flesh of Christ.

Always ask yourself two questions when reading scripture; “How does this teach me about my own salvation?” and “How does this point to Christ?”

The story of Noah is a third creation story. It isn’t about meat but about restoration of the correct order in God’s creation and a hint at the future eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ.

The first creation story is Genesis 1. The order in which God creates things tells us about the right ordering of creation. Plants are first, then fish and birds, then the beasts. Man is create last. Those created first serve those created later. Those created later are stewards of those created earlier.

The second creation story is Genesis 3. In this creation story God names man and permits man to name the beasts. This tell us the order God intended in creation. Those who are named get their identity and purpose from the one who names them. Those who name something become their caretakers.

God names man: God cares for man and man serves God.
Man names the beasts: Man cares for the beasts and the beasts serve man.

The story of Noah and the flood is the third creation account. The language used is almost identical to the first creation story.

*And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; (Genesis 1:28)

**And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. *(Genesis 9:1)

Man had become no better than the beasts and that is why God sent the flood. In telling man that he may eat the beasts, God is elevating man, restoring him to a more dignified place in creation and re-ordering man above the beasts which he had become like. Who eats whom tells us about the order God intended for his creation.

Notice that God gives flesh to man but not blood.

Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. (Genesis 9:4)

The complete restoration of man to his proper place - in the image and likeness of God - would take place later, when man was permitted to drink the blood of Jesus.

***So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; *(John 6:53)

We eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus so that we might live the life of Jesus. Those who understood the story of Noah and the prohibition against drinking blood would have understood Jesus words as a fulfillment. Christians today who understand the story of Noah properly see the Eucharist as that very same fulfillment.

-Tim-

 

[MysticMissMisty]

I don’t believe meat-eating was ever forbidden. I take God’s statement in Genesis 9 to be an affirmation that all meat is permitted as food, with the emphasis there being on ‘all’.

OK, so, I barely know Hebrew at all, but, is it possible that the tenses in the latter and the former passages could be rendered in the past tense? “I have given you…” etc.? I think that this would, indeed, lend more credence to such an argument?

Hebrew scholars, help, please?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

All, this has nothing to do with vegetarianism. It is about eating the flesh of Christ.

Always ask yourself two questions when reading scripture; “How does this teach me about my own salvation?” and “How does this point to Christ?”

The story of Noah is a third creation story. It isn’t about meat but about restoration of the correct order in God’s creation and a hint at the future eating and drinking of the flesh and blood of Christ.

The first creation story is Genesis 1. The order in which God creates things tells us about the right ordering of creation. Plants are first, then fish and birds, then the beasts. Man is create last. Those created first serve those created later. Those created later are stewards of those created earlier.

The second creation story is Genesis 3. In this creation story God names man and permits man to name the beasts. This tell us the order God intended in creation. Those who are named get their identity and purpose from the one who names them. Those who name something become their caretakers.

God names man: God cares for man and man serves God.
Man names the beasts: Man cares for the beasts and the beasts serve man.

The story of Noah and the flood is the third creation account. The language used is almost identical to the first creation story.

And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; (Genesis 1:28)

**And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. **(Genesis 9:1)

Man had become no better than the beasts and that is why God sent the flood. In telling man that he may eat the beasts, God is elevating man, restoring him to a more dignified place in creation and re-ordering man above the beasts which he had become like. Who eats whom tells us about the order God intended for his creation.

Notice that God gives flesh to man but not blood.

Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. (Genesis 9:4)

The complete restoration of man to his proper place - in the image and likeness of God - would take place later, when man was permitted to drink the blood of Jesus.

***So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; ***(John 6:53)

We eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus so that we might live the life of Jesus. Those who understood the story of Noah and the prohibition against drinking blood would have understood Jesus words as a fulfillment. Christians today who understand the story of Noah properly see the Eucharist as that very same fulfillment.

-Tim-

Fascinating take! Any direct support for it in Scripture/tradition? (Not asking to challenge. Just curious.)

What is of particular interest to me (and surely should be to others) is your account of the three narratives. By this, are you saying that Genesis is taken from 3 sources? (Now, I’ve heard a little about this but am certainly not a scholar in this area.) If the Noah story used to be separate textually from the Adam/Eve account, one is not necessarily required to follow from another, so we have less an issue with the veg. first/meat second scenario.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Another question does arise from the “man ate meat” argument, however…

Did animals die before the fall of Man? If man always ate animals, they, one would think, would, be necessity, have to die (though I suppose plants, in some sense, “had to die”, too, though this gets into whether the Hebrews had any notion of plants “living”, at least in the same way as animals did).

(this also touches on whether you believe that a literal death occurred along with a spiritual one after the Fall. (Again, ignorant Protestant question: Do Catholics accept that literal death occurred along with spiritual death, or do they just accept spiritual death and that literal death was always with us?)

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Another question does arise from the “man ate meat” argument, however…

Did animals die before the fall of Man? If man always ate animals, they, one would think, would, be necessity, have to die (though I suppose plants, in some sense, “had to die”, too, though this gets into whether the Hebrews had any notion of plants “living”, at least in the same way as animals did).

(this also touches on whether you believe that a literal death occurred along with a spiritual one after the Fall. (Again, ignorant Protestant question: Do Catholics accept that literal death occurred along with spiritual death, or do they just accept spiritual death and that literal death was always with us?)

I don’t think man ate meat in the Garden of Eden because there was no death there, but after they were expelled they surely ate meat. God actually loved the aroma of animal sacrifice. Noah gave an animal sacrifice to God after the flood waters subsided.

In Leviticus, a pleasing aroma is mentioned in connection with the various offerings of Jewish tabernacle worship. Leviticus 1:9 says, “The priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.”

 

[Bonnie]

I don’t think man ate meat in the Garden of Eden because there was no death there, but after they were expelled they surely ate meat.

I’ve long thought that death must have occurred in the Garden, or Adam & Eve wouldn’t have had a clue what either God or the snake were talking about. They led charmed lives, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that all animals & plants did, too.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’ve long thought that death must have occurred in the Garden, or Adam & Eve wouldn’t have had a clue what either God or the snake were talking about. They led charmed lives, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that all animals & plants did, too.

Perhaps, perhaps. But there is nothing that says animals died in Eden. Adam and Eve definitely ate fruit though.

 

[Bonnie]

Perhaps, perhaps. But there is nothing that says animals died in Eden. Adam and Eve definitely ate fruit though.

And nothing that says they didn’t. A & E didn’t eat just fruit, tho. Genesis 1:29.

Verse 28, giving them dominion over all the animals, hints that they are edible. Or at the very least, they could use the milk & eggs. If they couldn’t use the animals, why would they have dominion over them? They didn’t need clothing, so no wool was harvested, but they did eat.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

And nothing that says they didn’t. A & E didn’t eat just fruit, tho. Genesis 1:29.

Verse 28, giving them dominion over all the animals, hints that they are edible. Or at the very least, they could use the milk & eggs. If they couldn’t use the animals, why would they have dominion over them? They didn’t need clothing, so no wool was harvested, but they did eat.

In Scripture, we are told that the animals were brought to Adam, before the creation of Eve, to see whether he would consider them a desirable helpmeet, or so it would seem, which, ultimately, he didn’t, but, perhaps this has something to do with the original dominion he was given over them, and perhaps this had nothing do to with using them in any way for food.