God's Giving Us Meat

[thistle]

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.

Let’s be clear on this. God has NEVER forbidden us to eat meat so what is the debate about.

 

[Gorgias]

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?

I don’t read Hebrew, so I can’t help you on that account. But, I don’t think it bears on the assertion. If I gave you a box of chocolates, and told you that you were only allowed to eat the creme-filled ones, and then later came back and said, “I give you all these chocolates to eat”, then the verb tense doesn’t matter. In fact, if it were past tense, it would change the meaning of the sentence from one in which I’m doing something to one in which I’m merely reminding you of what I had done previously. God is doing something here: and, for a people under Mosaic law, they see that there was a time when all meat was permitted as food. (At least, that’s how it seems to me. )

 

[Gorgias]

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

Did animals die before the fall of Man?

(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?)

The argument against “literal death” usually bases itself on Romans 5:12 (“Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned”). The logic goes something like this: if death entered the world through sin, and Adam’s sin was the first in history, then there could have been no death prior to the Fall; therefore, there could have been no meat-eating (i.e., death) prior to the Fall. However, that logic doesn’t quite hold up. Paul explicitly says that death came to all but there’s a caveat: “inasmuch as all sinned.” Animals don’t sin. Therefore, we can’t use this verse to assert that animal death entered the world only after the Fall, since this verse only talks about the death that sinners experience.

My understanding of it is that the question of literal death in the Garden is purely speculation – we’re not given revelation that tells us what might have happened if Adam hadn’t sinned. Would there have been a ‘literal death’ for Adam and Eve? (Might it have been a deathless ‘assumption’ into heaven for them?) We can’t know.

However, we can know that ‘spiritual death’ entered the world at the Fall; and this spiritual death is one that only humans experience. So, in answer to your question, it’s a simple “we don’t know” to literal death, but a definite “yes” to spiritual death…!

 

[Usagi]

Remember, also (though it is only mentioned briefly at the last moment of the Eden story), that there was a Tree of Life in the Garden as well as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Even if those were not literal trees, the story may be teaching us that human immortality was an extra gift of God in the Garden that was lost with the Fall (when we lost access to the Tree of Life), rather than the default condition of all living things before the Fall.

Catholics generally believe that Adam and Eve were superhuman in various ways in their unfallen state – completely in rational control of their bodily urges, having intellects unclouded by sin, and so forth. Those were “preternatural gifts” of God, though, not necessary elements of the human condition, and so they were lost when God stopped maintaining them. Physical immortality may have been a similar gift to our First Parents.

Usagi

P.S. Some Jewish folklore I’ve read about suggests that the unfallen Adam and Eve were thousands of miles tall. There’s no need to believe that literally, of course, but it’s another illustration that what “human” means to us is considerably diminished from the original version. (I wonder if that tale is the source of the belief in some Christian folklore that Mt. Calvary, on which Jesus was crucified, was literally the gigantic, petrified skull of Adam.)

 

[Telstar]

Remember, also (though it is only mentioned briefly at the last moment of the Eden story), that there was a Tree of Life in the Garden as well as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Even if those were not literal trees, the story may be teaching us that human immortality was an extra gift of God in the Garden that was lost with the Fall (when we lost access to the Tree of Life), rather than the default condition of all living things before the Fall.

Bingo! In the account of the Garden in Genesis, Adam & Eve were allowed to eat the fruit from all of the trees in the Garden, including the Tree of Life. But, it says they were not allowed to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Theoretically, the Tree of Life would have kept them alive as long as they remained in the Garden, so they never would have died.** Genesis 2:** [16] And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: [17] But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.This seems to indicate that they were aware of what ‘the death’ was, possibly because animals died in the Garden. That certainly seems logical to me, anyway.

Catholics generally believe that Adam and Eve were superhuman in various ways in their unfallen state – completely in rational control of their bodily urges, having intellects unclouded by sin, and so forth. Those were “preternatural gifts” of God, though, not necessary elements of the human condition, and so they were lost when God stopped maintaining them. Physical immortality may have been a similar gift to our First Parents.

Exactly. The Garden of Eden was basically Heaven on earth. Adam & Eve were the first specimens of humanity, who were perfect until their fall from grace.

P.S. Some Jewish folklore I’ve read about suggests that the unfallen Adam and Eve were thousands of miles tall. There’s no need to believe that literally, of course, but it’s another illustration that what “human” means to us is considerably diminished from the original version. (I wonder if that tale is the source of the belief in some Christian folklore that Mt. Calvary, on which Jesus was crucified, was literally the gigantic, petrified skull of Adam.)

I have not heard about that Jewish folklore, that claimed men were that gigantic. But, if that’s true, then it makes the visions of Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich* even more interesting. She described Adam & Eve, and the earliest generations of mankind, as being very large in stature. She said that as time and generations passed, they progressively got smaller and smaller. She also said that different groups developed different features, depending on which part of the world they settled in, and some of those groups kept their enormous size much longer than others. That would certainly account for the giants described in the OT, particularly in the story of David and Goliath.

• I highly recommend the account of her visions, particularly the ones about the life of Jesus (“The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations”, a 4 volume set). Her visions of the Crucifixion were a good part of the inspiration for the Mel Gibson movie, “The Passion of the Christ”.

 

[TimothyH]

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.

I am not saying that Genesis is taken from three sources. The sources of the story are in fact irrelevant to what God wants us to know through the texts. I literally could not care less about the sources of the creation narratives. Creation and re-creation are what I care about.

The Bible begins with creation…

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

…and ends with creation.

***And he who sat upon the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” *(Revelation 21:5)

The story of Noah, the flood and subsequent re-creation is but one of many creation narratives in the Bible. Creation is theme which runs throughout the entire Bible.

*Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and put a new and right spirit within me.
(Psalm 51:10)

For behold, I create new heavens
and a new earth;
and the former things shall not be remembered
or come into mind.
(Isaiah 65:17)

Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 4:22-24)*

The story of Noah is a story of the renewal and re-creation of man in the image of likeness of God. Man failed right after the flood and fell into sin. Only through Jesus can we be completely re-created. Romans 6 speaks about the old self dying and the new self rising with Christ and it is worth reading.

Creation and re-creation is the point. The historical sources of the narrative completely misses the point of what God wants us to know. Whether Adam and Eve at meat completely misses the whole point of the texts.

-Tim-

 

[ericc]

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?

God is giving Noah permission to eat the animals he brought into the ark. (Presuming that all other animals died in the flood). Previously unclean animals couldn’t be eaten. Now they can be. I suppose God decided to give Noah unlimited variety as food since the animals he brought into the ark needed time to multiply and his choices will be severely limited to clean animals. Plant food would not be readily available to Noah since cultivation needed to be started from scratch. Fast breeding unclean animals such as rabbits would be a convenient source of protein.

Since animals have been designated clean/unclean when Noah brought them into the ark, it must therefore lead to the conclusion that clean animals can be eaten and has been eaten previously and that unclean animals prohibited from being eaten.

I am sure Abel being a keeper of sheep eats meat. He obviously knows how to slaughter them and offer the choicest fat bits as offerings to God. Otherwise what would he do with sheep that died of injuries, old age etc?. He can’t live off milk.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

God is giving Noah permission to eat the animals he brought into the ark. (Presuming that all other animals died in the flood). Previously unclean animals couldn’t be eaten. Now they can be. I suppose God decided to give Noah unlimited variety as food since the animals he brought into the ark needed time to multiply and his choices will be severely limited to clean animals. Plant food would not be readily available to Noah since cultivation needed to be started from scratch. Fast breeding unclean animals such as rabbits would be a convenient source of protein.

What? I’ve never heard this one before. I always thought clean/unclean was instituted later in the Mosaic Law and that the distinction here in Genesis was more authorial intervention projecting what had been said in the Law onto this earlier period, though, I admit I’ve always wondered why God would’ve made more clean than unclean animals if He did not always intend to make such a distinction… (Bit tangential, so, do keep any responses to this particular point short. I’m sure there is new-thread potential in this one.)

Also, still looking for answers as to God seeming for the first time to give Noah meat to eat.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What? I’ve never heard this one before. I always thought clean/unclean was instituted later in the Mosaic Law and that the distinction here in Genesis was more authorial intervention projecting what had been said in the Law onto this earlier period, though, I admit I’ve always wondered why God would’ve made more clean than unclean animals if He did not always intend to make such a distinction… (Bit tangential, so, do keep any responses to this particular point short. I’m sure there is new-thread potential in this one.)

Also, still looking for answers as to God seeming for the first time to give Noah meat to eat.

Noah took two of every kind of animal into the ark, right? Not exactly. The Bible specifically states, “Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth” (Genesis 7:2-3). Clean animals included seven of each animal on the ark. Only unclean animals came in pairs.

Read more: gotquestions.org/animals-clean-unclean.html#ixzz3a1zhrqNv

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Noah took two of every kind of animal into the ark, right? Not exactly. The Bible specifically states, “Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth” (Genesis 7:2-3). Clean animals included seven of each animal on the ark. Only unclean animals came in pairs.

Read more: gotquestions.org/animals-clean-unclean.html#ixzz3a1zhrqNv

I had forgotten that God Himself is quoted here and not just the author of this account. If God Himself spoke of animals as “clean” and “unclean”, even before the Mosaic Law was established, I’m wondering what implications this has. Are we to take every single word reported in Scripture as being a quote directly from God as being a precisely 100% accurate rendering of what He said at that particular time? If not, one could argue that the author was (not maliciously or anything) putting these words in God’s mouth whereas God, at the time He gave Noah command, may have been more specific about which animals to take in 7s and which to take by 2s, no necessarily making the broad generalization of clean vs. unclean. Again, the author may, through God’s speech, have been making the distinction between clean/unclean for his Jewish readers. (Again, perhaps a better topic for another thread, but I know I wouldn’t be opposed to at least a brief response to this here.)

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I had forgotten that God Himself is quoted here and not just the author of this account. If God Himself spoke of animals as “clean” and “unclean”, even before the Mosaic Law was established, I’m wondering what implications this has. Are we to take every single word reported in Scripture as being a quote directly from God as being a precisely 100% accurate rendering of what He said at that particular time? If not, one could argue that the author was (not maliciously or anything) putting these words in God’s mouth whereas God, at the time He gave Noah command, may have been more specific about which animals to take in 7s and which to take by 2s, no necessarily making the broad generalization of clean vs. unclean. Again, the author may, through God’s speech, have been making the distinction between clean/unclean for his Jewish readers. (Again, perhaps a better topic for another thread, but I know I wouldn’t be opposed to at least a brief response to this here.)

What I want to know is what the Noah family actually ate on the Ark? Obviously not the animals, unless they had young and the ate the babies. Or perhaps they just ate fish.

 

[Gorgias]

I had forgotten that God Himself is quoted here and not just the author of this account. If God Himself spoke of animals as “clean” and “unclean”, even before the Mosaic Law was established, I’m wondering what implications this has. Are we to take every single word reported in Scripture as being a quote directly from God as being a precisely 100% accurate rendering of what He said at that particular time? If not, one could argue that the author was (not maliciously or anything) putting these words in God’s mouth whereas God, at the time He gave Noah command, may have been more specific about which animals to take in 7s and which to take by 2s, no necessarily making the broad generalization of clean vs. unclean. Again, the author may, through God’s speech, have been making the distinction between clean/unclean for his Jewish readers.

Misty,

You’re trying to play both sides of the fence, though, and this is a problem. Either you claim that the account is literal – in order to be able to assert that humans only became omnivores following the flood – and therefore, you have to deal with the implications of a literal reference to a dietary distinction between ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ animals; or, you claim that the story is not a literal historical account – in order to be able to assert that the notion of ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ is simply an anachronism that was introduced for the sake of the Mosaic-covenant-era audience – and therefore, you have to deal with the dissonance of reading this allegorical account on its face as literally instituting an omnivore diet.

It’s a lose-lose proposition, Misty. Either it’s literal (and the ‘unclean’ reference proves an existing omnivore diet) or it’s allegorical (and the account can’t be used to demonstrate an existing vegetarian diet).

Is it fair to suggest that we’re done here, then?

 

[Gorgias]

What I want to know is what the Noah family actually ate on the Ark? Obviously not the animals, unless they had young and the ate the babies.

‘Unclean’ animals (that is, those that were forbidden to be eaten) are asserted to have been on the ark in pairs – that is, it was sufficient to have a single breeding pair of each unclean animal.

‘Clean’ animals (that is, those that were permissible to eat), though, were on the ark in quantities of seven – that is, a single breeding pair plus five more (which therefore could be safely eaten without causing the species to go extinct).

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

I doubt Jesus would have told the parable about a father slaying the fatted calf upon return of his lost son if there was something wrong with eating meat.

Peace,
John Marie Philomena

 

[TimothyH]

Whether man ate meat before Noah completely misses the point of the text.

It is about creation, re-creation and about eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus.

Please see post number 12.

-Tim-

 

[ericc]

I had forgotten that God Himself is quoted here and not just the author of this account. If God Himself spoke of animals as “clean” and “unclean”, even before the Mosaic Law was established, I’m wondering what implications this has. Are we to take every single word reported in Scripture as being a quote directly from God as being a precisely 100% accurate rendering of what He said at that particular time? If not, one could argue that the author was (not maliciously or anything) putting these words in God’s mouth whereas God, at the time He gave Noah command, may have been more specific about which animals to take in 7s and which to take by 2s, no necessarily making the broad generalization of clean vs. unclean. Again, the author may, through God’s speech, have been making the distinction between clean/unclean for his Jewish readers. (Again, perhaps a better topic for another thread, but I know I wouldn’t be opposed to at least a brief response to this here.)

We are supposed to take the whole Bible as inspired. We can not second guess or speculate whether the authors were trying to put words in God’s mouth or otherwise. If one accept Scripture as God’s words, we should not cherry pick the validity of those words or rank them in accuracy or importance or other parameters. Notwithstanding these, God has superceded certain instructions/commands over time. They are all valid with respect to the situation, the people involved and evolution of the Jewish race and so on.

After Adam and Eve left Eden, there was no commandment prohibiting meat eating (in Eden itself, also no mention of meat eating prohibition) . In Noah, we hear of clean and unclean animals. Since Noah obviously knows what differentiate the two, we can reason that it is an existing practice that certain animals can be eaten and/or not eaten. The Bible is silent on how this practice came about. However we know that Abel is a keeper of sheep, Jabal (Gen 4:20) lived in tents and kept cattle hinting nomadic lifestyle. i.e. not a tiller of land. Pre-Moses, Nimrod Gen 10:9 was a hunter, Abram and Lot were both cattlemen. The 7 Noahide laws are pretty mild compared to Mosaic laws but it doesn’t made Noahide laws any less valid or important to those people. Since Moses wrote the first 5 books, we must accept that all 5 are God’s words.

 

[Gorgias]

We are supposed to take the whole Bible as inspired.

… which is not the same as saying that we are supposed to take the whole Bible as literal historical narrative.

We can not second guess or speculate whether the authors were trying to put words in God’s mouth or otherwise. If one accept Scripture as God’s words, we should not cherry pick the validity of those words or rank them in accuracy or importance or other parameters.

True. Yet, that doesn’t mean that God ‘literally’ said these things in the contexts of the stories in which they appear; but, if a story is allegorical, then “God’s words” may not be the literal words in the text, but the story itself is “God’s words”. (Maybe an illustration will help: did God literally say “let there be light”? Or, if this creation story is truth through allegory, then isn’t it true that God inspired a human author to write that He had said “let there be light”? Either way, they’re “God’s words”, even if He didn’t literally say them…)

Since Moses wrote the first 5 books

Umm… well, that’s a traditional way of looking at it. And, of course, it depends on what you mean by ‘wrote’…

 

[TimothyH]

What I want to know is what the Noah family actually ate on the Ark? Obviously not the animals, unless they had young and the ate the babies. Or perhaps they just ate fish.

They brought provisions into the ark before the flood took place.

Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them." Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him. (Genesis 6:21-22)

-Tim-

 

[CHRISTINE77]

They brought provisions into the ark before the flood took place.

Also take with you every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them." Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him. (Genesis 6:21-22)

-Tim-

Thank you Tim, that makes more sense than eating the young of the animals brought on board.

 

[TimothyH]

Thank you Tim, that makes more sense than eating the young of the animals brought on board.

You phrased your post as a question and I appreciate that.

What frustrates me are those who speak as if they know what the Bible says but appear to have never actually read the texts in any serious way.

Paul admonished Timothy to “accurately handle the word of God.” There are several on this thread however, who would do better to keep silent instead of asserting what the written word of God does not say as fact. These would do well to actually open the Sacred Book and read, as an example, Genesis 8:20 which tells us one of the reasons why clean animals were brought into the ark in greater quantity than were the unclean animals.

-Tim-