The early chapters of Genesis include several statements about human food, with God telling humans he gives them plants to eat in Genesis 1 and saying he gives humans meat as food in Genesis 9. Now, the first book of the Bible does not come near to prescribing vegetarianism or relativism as pertains to different eras, with people living before the time of Genesis 9 having a duty to eat only that which comes from plants and people living afterward having the moral freedom to eat animals. Although it is nuanced in one sense, the matter is also quite simple in another: humans engaging in carnivorous behavior is never automatically sinful. Carefully note what Genesis 1:29 teaches about God's words.
Genesis 1:29—"Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.'"
The words do not say anything remotely similar to "You may eat plants, but you must not eat the flesh of any creature". Express invitation to eat plants in no way equates to condemnation of eating meat. This is logically obvious, but most people are far from rationalistic and read the Bible having already assumed that it promotes one thing or another or resolved to uphold a tradition, eager to ignore what it truly does and does not say in order to embrace or attack some idea it allegedly affirms. Make no assumptions and look to reason, and it is very clear that Genesis 1 contains no prohibition of eating meat or prescription to eat only plant-based food—to actually say eating meat was not yet ethically valid, the text would have to either prohibit meat or prescribe only plants. It does neither.
What about Genesis 9, where God first says in the Bible that people may eat meat after Noah and his family exit the ark following the flood of Genesis 7-8?
Genesis 9:3—"'Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.'"
Again, giving explicit permission to do something is not the same as condemning a person for doing something else, or for having done it already, in fact. Genesis 9, like Genesis 1 and the rest of the Bible, does not teach that the ethics of eating meat changed based on fluctuating divine whims, the practicality of living after the flood, or anything else. Above, I show the NIV translation of the verse. Other translations like the ESV and KJV do not include the word "now" as the NIV does. This absence of the word makes it even clearer that God is not saying that morality has changed. Rather, he is saying that just as he once gave a direct invitation for humans to eat plants, he now gives a direct invitation for humans to eat meat. Similarly, God does not say that every single animal is permitted as food or that every animal is ethically suited for food for Gentiles, as opposed to the Israelites, who are obligated to not eat flesh from the animals identified as unclean in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
For instance, animals were already clean and unclean before this time (Genesis 7, 8), which is what distinguishes an animal that is permitted as food or sacrifice from those which should not be consumed or offered as sacrifices (as first addressed in detail in Leviticus 11). Deuteronomy 14:3 treats eating unclean animals as an abominable act in light of saying one must not eat any abominable thing/abomination, also called a detestable thing in some translations, something which could not be true whatsoever if the obligation to not eat unclean meat was spontaneously, arbitrarily invented by God as a requirement only for the Israelites. Then, it would not really be a matter of moral necessity on its own, though the Torah presents it on multiple levels as a matter of inherent moral concern (while also emphasizing the universality of moral obligations to Gentiles, not just Jews, of all times in places like Leviticus 18:24-30 and Deuteronomy 18:9-13). Genesis 9 itself also condemns eating blood in verse 4, so even apart from all other relevant logical facts and Biblical doctrines, verse 3 does not literally mean everything that is capable of being consumed is permitted as food when it says God gave humans "everything". It means everything within a specific category!
See, it is very easy for non-rationalists to misunderstand Genesis 9 regarding the ethics of eating meat in various ways, not simply when it comes to whether or not eating meat was already nonsinful under certain conditions before the time after the flood. It is thankfully not difficult to find out the real Biblical stance on the subject by wielding reason and reading the text. What any rationalistic person will discover here is the only logically possible moral stance on the matter and the one that plainly aligns with the Bible; eating meat is permissible or vile itself, not based upon the point in history as if that is ever of any inherent relevance, but in accordance with the nature of the act as it corresponds to God's moral character. Eating particular kinds of meat or eating blood, with or without meat, has always been immoral, while eating meat itself is not.
But could God change? While the divine being having one disposition at a certain time does not logically necessitate that there was not or will not be a shift, as far as Biblical theology goes, God does not change. Somehow, this gets ignored by almost all evangelical Christians or Rabbinic Jews one way or another:
Malachi 3:6—"'I the Lord do not change . . .'"
All the more ironic is that some people might on one hand say that God never changes and on the other hand say that moral requirements change with time, place, and ancestry based upon—that is right—God changing or changing in how he deals with humans. This sort of person might identify as someone who just accepts the Bible as teaching what its words literally say, all the while ignoring that the Bible literally never says the things they ascribe to it or utterly contradicts them, including the idea that eating meat was evil up until the time mentioned in Genesis 9:3.
It is absolutely not as if Genesis 1 claims eating meat was wicked before the Fall and the flood, only for the same book to say in chapter 9 that God suddenly contrives the moral freedom for people to eat animal meat, as if it arbitrarily became permissible after having been evil. If Genesis did teach this form of blatant relativism, it would obviously contradict other ideas put forth in the Bible, such as the concept of God never changing, meaning the moral requirements stemming from his nature would not have changed. And it would indeed be relativism, although the kind of person to assume from God formally approving of humans eating meat that it was sinful beforehand, which the text does not assert and which does not logically follow, is probably comfortable with other forms of illogical, unbiblical relativism (like Israelites having exact moral obligations for legally punishing specific sins, but not Gentiles).
Eating meat is not some intrinsic evil and was not at any point in the Biblical timeline. Eating blood and certain kinds of animals, on the other hand, is immoral, and always was. Anything else would amount to sheer relativism whether someone likes it or not, and time-based relativism is incompatible with a deity whose moral nature never changes. Relativism based on culture, nationality, race, feelings, and so on is automatically false because the same thing cannot be both evil and not evil at the same time. At least if God changed, which is logically possible despite the Bible firmly insisting it is not the case, then the same act could be permissible or evil depending on the precise time in history. Yet the Bible both says nothing that even implies this and makes statements that entirely exclude such a thing if Judeo-Christianity is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment