God's Giving Us Meat

[Gorgias]

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.

To be fair, though, your assertion vis-a-vis eating flesh as a show of domination, and the prohibition against consuming blood until the sacrifice of Christ… well, that’s a novel interpretation, too, isn’t it? Or do you have a citation for that interpretation?

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.

One reason? Sure. But only one. And, of course, this doesn’t account for the other five pairs of animals of each clean species…

 

[Gorgias]

TimothyH:

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)

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

Christine,

No one is suggesting that they ate animals that were born on the ark – IIRC, you’re the only one who is suggesting this.

However, they did bring seven pairs of every clean (i.e., edible) animal. Can we conclude, then, that from these ‘extra’ pairs of animals, Noah and his family were sustained during their time on the ark? That is, might we conclude that these animals were the “every sort of food that is eaten” that Noah “stored up” in the ark? Well, let’s see what they took into the ark:

On the very same day, Noah and his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of Noah’s sons had entered the ark, together with every kind of wild animal, every kind of tame animal, every kind of crawling thing that crawls on the earth, and every kind of bird.

(Genesis 7:13-14)

Hmm… interesting! Noah took animals into the ark, but there’s no mention of him taking vegetables into the ark! Perhaps, then, we can conclude (using, as Tim suggests, only what the Bible says explicitly) that the food of every kind was indeed the clean animals!

 

[TimothyH]

Hmm… interesting! Noah took animals into the ark, but there’s no mention of him taking vegetables into the ark! Perhaps, then, we can conclude (using, as Tim suggests, only what the Bible says explicitly) that the food of every kind was indeed the clean animals!

I never said the word explicitly. That is your word not mine.

My problem is with those who assert as fact what the Bible does not say and you are reading into the text something which simply is not there.

What is there however, is the phrase “every sort of food.” The word every is pretty explicit. They provisioned the ark with every sort of food before the flood.

What is also there is the fact that at least some of the clean animals were for sacrifice after the flood. Genesis 8:20 makes that clear.

-Tim-

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I never said the word explicitly. That is your word not mine.

My problem is with those who assert as fact what the Bible does not say.

The bible does however say that they took every sort of food. The word every is pretty explicit.

The fact is that at least some of the clean animals were for sacrifice after the flood. Genesis 8:20 makes that clear.

-Tim-

They would have to take some vegetation to feed the animals who were herbivores. What did they feed the carnivores I wonder?

 

[Gorgias]

I never said the word explicitly. That is your word not mine.

That seems like a bit of nit-picking. It’s all good, though.

you are reading into the text something which simply is not there.

I think it’s more fair to say that you don’t see it there, yourself. That’s ok. Asserting, though, that since you don’t see it that way, it’s not there… well, that’s kinda unfair.

What is there however, is the phrase “every sort of food.” The word every is pretty explicit. They provisioned the ark with every sort of food before the flood.

I went back again and looked at Genesis 6. Two things jumped out at me: first, my assertion about “no vegetables” isn’t accurate – God commanded Noah to stock up on food for him and his family and the animals. Therefore, that would imply that grains and such were necessarily gathered up. Second, though, this helps us understand the use of phrase ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν βρωμάτων (“from all of the food”). Since He’s telling Noah to bring things that every animal will eat, it’s clear that ‘all’ (or ‘every’ – πάντων) refers not to “all types of food that exist”, but rather “all of the food that you and the animals will eat”. It’s not that they brought all food (including popcorn and Snickers bars and caviar and sushi and hamburgers)… it’s that they brought all of the food that would be eaten while in the ark (which, of course, does not preclude the use of clean animals as foodstuffs).

 

[Gorgias]

What did they feed the carnivores I wonder?

Why, the clean animals, of course!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That seems like a bit of nit-picking. It’s all good, though.

I think it’s more fair to say that you don’t see it there, yourself. That’s ok. Asserting, though, that since you don’t see it that way, it’s not there… well, that’s kinda unfair.

I went back again and looked at Genesis 6. Two things jumped out at me: first, my assertion about “no vegetables” isn’t accurate – God commanded Noah to stock up on food for him and his family and the animals. Therefore, that would imply that grains and such were necessarily gathered up. Second, though, this helps us understand the use of phrase ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν βρωμάτων (“from all of the food”). Since He’s telling Noah to bring things that every animal will eat, it’s clear that ‘all’ (or ‘every’ – πάντων) refers not to “all types of food that exist”, but rather “all of the food that you and the animals will eat”. It’s not that they brought all food (including popcorn and Snickers bars and caviar and sushi and hamburgers)… it’s that they brought all of the food that would be eaten while in the ark (which, of course, does not preclude the use of clean animals as foodstuffs).

According to this source, all the clean animals were used for sacrifice after the flood.

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4408-clean-and-unclean-animals

“The distinction between clean and unclean animals appears first in Gen. vii. 2-3, 8, where it is said that Noah took into the ark seven and seven, male and female, of all kinds of clean beasts and fowls, and two and two, male and female, of all kinds of beasts and fowls that are not clean. Again, Gen. viii. 20 says that after the flood Noah “took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar that he had built to the Lord.” It seems that in the mind of this writer the distinction between clean and unclean animals was intended for sacrifices only; for in the following chapter he makes God say: “Everything that moveth shall be food for you” (Gen. ix. 3).”

 

[Gorgias]

According to this source, all the clean animals were used for sacrifice after the flood.

No, that’s not quite what your citation says:

It seems that in the mind of this writer the distinction between clean and unclean animals was intended for sacrifices only; for in the following chapter he makes God say: “Everything that moveth shall be food for you” (Gen. ix. 3)."

This writer, then, is only asserting that the ‘clean/unclean’ distinction refers to sacrifice. He’s not making any statement about how these particular animals were used; he’s not saying that all of the clean animals were sacrificed in the context of Genesis 8:20. That is, he says only that “the distinction… was intended for sacrifices,” and therefore, was not the (later) ‘clean/unclean’ distinction of the Mosaic covenant that referred to food sources.

His logic isn’t terribly convincing; it seems to suggest that, since God said “eat everything” after the flood, it must be the case that “eat everything” was the standard before the flood. There’s nothing in the text that suggests this interpretation. (Of course, even if it is true, it means that he’s implicitly suggesting that animals were ok for consumption prior to the flood… )

 

[ericc]

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

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…)

And that would take us away from this topic of meat eating…But I don’t believe Noah’s account of clean/unclean animals is controversial that requires allegorical interpretation?

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

Would "attributed " be a better word?

 

[Gorgias]

And that would take us away from this topic of meat eating…But I don’t believe Noah’s account of clean/unclean animals is controversial that requires allegorical interpretation?

Well, the question is what, exactly, ‘clean/unclean’ means in this context. It would seem to be an anachronistic reference to prescriptions of the much-later-established Mosaic law. (However, Christine found a Jewish explanation that attempts to claim that the narrative is using the same terminology to refer to a different context. )

If it’s an anachronistic reference, then we must conclude that there’s something about the story that goes beyond literal historical fact, since that reference betrays that a key element of the story cannot have occurred as written. In other words, if ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ take on the meaning that they normatively have in the OT, then an allegorical interpretation of the narrative (or, at the least, an allegory constructed around the kernel of a historical event) would be appropriate.

Would "attributed " be a better word?

LOL. Maybe…

If you mean that it was written by others but attributed to Moses, then yeah. (If you mean, however, that some folks attribute the writing to Moses, then you’ve just pushed it back one step, without resolving the difficulty.)

 

[TimothyH]

They would have to take some vegetation to feed the animals who were herbivores. What did they feed the carnivores I wonder?

They took EVERY sort of food.

What they fed each other however, is completely besides the point of why God gave us the story in the first place. The Bible is about Jesus. The entire Old Testament points to Jesus. Eating the flesh of animals is a hint at eating the flesh of Jesus.

Diet isn’t the point. Jesus is the point.

-Tim-

 

[CHRISTINE77]

They took EVERY sort of food.

What they fed each other however, is completely besides the point of why God gave us the story in the first place. The Bible is about Jesus. The entire Old Testament points to Jesus. Eating the flesh of animals is a hint at eating the flesh of Jesus.

Diet isn’t the point. Jesus is the point.

-Tim-

Not to the Jewish people.

 

[Gorgias]

They took EVERY sort of food.

That’s not really the force of the sentence, though:

σὺ δὲ λήμψῃ σεαυτῷ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν βρωμάτων ἃ ἔδεσθε καὶ συνάξεις πρὸς σεαυτόν καὶ ἔσται σοὶ καὶ ἐκείνοις φαγεῖν

“However, you [singular] will take [for you (singular)] to yourself from all of the foods which you [plural] will eat [for yourselves] and you [plural] will gather together for yourself and it will be to you [singular] and to them to eat.”

The force here is that God is identifying to Noah that it’s up to him to collect any food that will be eaten on the ark. It’s not saying “take every sort of food that exists on the face of the earth.” Rather, it’s saying “look, buddy – whatever you take, that’s what you and the animals will eat… period! If it’s not on the ark, you won’t have it available to you!”

So, it’s more about ‘self-sufficiency’, so to speak, than about what’s on the menu.

Eating the flesh of animals is a hint at eating the flesh of Jesus.

That’s the interesting assertion you keep making. I mean, it’s interesting, and it seems to fit in well with a Catholic viewpoint. Yet, I can’t recall ever reading or hearing anyone make that assertion. Have you read it somewhere, and can share that citation for us, so that we might read it, too? I mean, eating the food of sacrificed animals has a direct connection with Christ (after all, He is our Passover lamb!), but eating animals in general? That becomes more of a stretch.