Young earth creationists (YECs) typically argue there was no animal death either before the Fall or before the Flood. Moreover YECs typically argue animals were vegetarians either before the Fall or before the Flood, but became carnivorous either in the postlapsarian or postdiluvian period. The basis for their arguments is exegetical.
By contrast, OT scholar Iain Provan offers a different exegetical argument about animal death and animal feeding behavior in Seriously Dangerous Religion (pp 226-234).
A Challenging Task
As the language of Genesis 1:26-28 reveals, however, this human vocation—the responsibility to govern, serve, and conserve creation—is evidently not regarded by our biblical authors as an easy one. From their perspective, the world does require ruling and subduing, along with serving and keeping. This is not, in Genesis 1–2, because evil is to be found in the world, for evil does not enter the world until Genesis 3. Rather, it is because the good world that God has made is a wild world. As human beings explore it and settle it, they will need to be proactive, rather than passive, if it is to "work" in an optimal way.
What this means, precisely, is not made explicitly clear in the book of Genesis, but it does not take much imagination to guess what it probably means. In chapter 5, I suggested that Genesis 3, when it details the entrance of evil into the world, is not interested in providing a global, all-encompassing explanation of suffering in terms of evil. Suffering is inevitably involved, I argued, in bringing children into God's good world and in working the land. This kind of suffering is not, for the Genesis authors, incompatible with life in God's good creation; indeed, it is intrinsic to living such a life. Although God has created a good world, it is not devoid of challenges and problems that we must overcome in order to live a blessed life in it—and indeed to bring blessing to creation itself.
It is this reality that is alluded to, I suggest, in the Genesis 1 reference to ruling and subduing. God's good world will always need to be controlled and shaped in various ways if life is to flourish. Jungle and forest will need to be pushed back and kept back for human settlement and agriculture to take place. Wild land animals (Heb. khayyat ha'arets; 1:24-25) will need to be kept away from domestic ones ("livestock," Heb. behemah; 1:24-25). Rivers will need to be contained and directed if they are to provide water for crops and be beneficial (rather than destructive) to all life—to bring life rather than death. This is just the way the world is. The earth does not just need to be kept, but also controlled; it needs further shaping, beyond what God has done in the original creative moments of the cosmos. The human relationship with the remainder of creation, therefore, is inevitably a relationship marked by struggle as well as by harmony—from the beginning. This is not the case simply because human beings have embraced evil, although inevitably this makes the struggle more intense. The struggle is already built into the fabric of things. It is intrinsic to the good world that God has created.
War on Creation
Evil does later enter the world, of course, and the human embrace of it inevitably impacts the human relationship with creation, just as it has impacted the human relationship with God and with other human beings. The impact on animal creation in particular, first introduced in Genesis 3:14 (where the serpent is "cursed . . . above all the livestock and all the wild animals"), is more fully explored in Genesis 9:1-7. Here, after the great flood, the human race receives once again the original creation mandate of Genesis 1:28: "be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth" (9:1). Genesis 9:1-7 opens and closes by alluding to these earlier words.
However, whereas Genesis 1 and 2 marry the development of human society to the task of looking after the rest of creation, Genesis 9 now envisages human society as developing in tension with that task—specifically its governance of animal society. In Genesis 2, all the animals pass before human eyes to be named, as a search is made for the earthling's partner (Genesis 2:19-20). As this happens, the animals find their place in the scheme of things, in relation to human beings and to each other. Kinship and friendship between animal and human creation are the keynotes of Genesis 2. In Genesis 6, likewise, the birds and the land animals come to Noah to be kept alive on the ark (6:20); once again the emphasis lies on friendship and on a shared destiny. The atmosphere of Genesis 9, however, is very different. While it is the same Genesis 1 command that (re)starts creation—"be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth"—this time the command is accompanied neither by an instruction to keep nor by an instruction to rule animal creation. It is accompanied, rather, by words that tell of fear and conflict in the human-animal relationship: "the fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands" (Genesis 9:2, NIV). I shall object to one aspect of this translation ahead, for it brings into the frame more animals than are probably envisaged by the text. For the moment, though, let us allow it to stand. The animals (or many of them) are now envisaged as looking upon their human counterparts not as their keepers nor even as their rulers but in the way that the residents of a land might look upon a conquering army.
That is what the language of "fear and dread" implies, as a text like Deuteronomy 11:25 makes clear: "No man will be able to stand against you. The Lord your God, as he promised you, will put the terror and fear of you on the whole land, wherever you go." This verse refers to the Israelite conquest of Canaan, in which God gave Israel's enemies "into their hands" (e.g., Deuteronomy 20:13, using the same language as Genesis 9:2). Human beings are thus envisaged in Genesis 9 as having abandoned their God-given responsibility to exercise just and appropriate dominion over the earth. Instead, war has been declared on animal creation. The multifaceted nature of human kingship is reduced to one aspect—conquest. In essence, the dimensions of the curse of Genesis 3 on the animal world are now being more fully revealed, as evil works its way deeply into creation. Here, indeed, are the (fallen) men who, if they could fly, would "lay waste the sky as well as the earth" (Thoreau, in the second epigraph to this chapter).
Vegetarians or Carnivores?
What are the implications of this newly declared "war" on animal creation? One of them is made explicit in Genesis 9:3: "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Once again, I have an objection to aspects of this translation, but let it stand for the moment. The allusion here is to Genesis 1:29-30, where God provides plants and trees that give both human beings and animals food to eat—language that has sometimes been interpreted as indicating that the author of Genesis 1 thought of the original creation as a vegetarian place, unmarked by predation.6 On this view, there were no carnivores in the pristine creation; meat eating became a facet of life on earth, whether in the human or the nonhuman world, only at some point after human beings embraced evil. Genesis 9:3, on this view, identifies the point. It is in this verse (it is argued) that God explicitly gives human beings permission to move from a vegetarian to a carnivorous state, and it is here (implicitly) that some other animals also fall into such a state. This, however, represents an implausible reading of Genesis 1–9.
Animal Sacrifice in Genesis 1–8
In the first place, there are various indications throughout Genesis 1–8 that the authors, before we get to Genesis 9, already think of animal sacrifice as an important aspect of human life. Genesis 3:21 refers to garments of skin being provided for human beings by God, which certainly involves at least animal death. Genesis 4:2-4 tells us of Abel's sacrifice of sheep. In Genesis 7:2-3, Noah is instructed to take "two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate" into the ark, but also "seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and seven of every kind of bird, male and female." He needs sufficient animals to allow both conservation of species and also sacrifice (for which ritually "clean" animals are required). All of this implies a functioning sacrificial system prior to Genesis 9, and in the Old Testament a considerable amount of sacrificial ritual involves the eating of the sacrificial victim. Sacrifice and eating go together. The authors of Genesis, then, clearly do not regard Genesis 9 as the beginning of the human carnivorous state.
Carnivores and "Creeping Things"
Nor do they say anything that implies that carnivorousness entered the animal world only as a result of the human embrace of evil. To the contrary, in detailing the sixth day of creation in Genesis 1:24-25, they clearly portray God's original creation as already including three different categories of land animals. Their Hebrew "labels" are behemah, remes, and khayyat ha'arets. The first of these is easy to translate: "livestock." These are the animals that human communities raise and look after as part of their domestic economy (e.g., cows, sheep, goats). The third is also easy: "wild land animals" (lit. "beasts of the earth")—animals that do not form part of the domestic economy. To categorize the world of land animals in this way, as including both the domestic and the wild, is already to imply predation; it is to root in the original creation the reality of the world that was known to the Genesis authors, in which many wild land animals were certainly predatory. More than this, it is plausible to interpret the distinction between the second and third terms, remes and khayyat ha'arets, as being drawn on the basis of predation and nonpredation within the class of these wild animals.
In order to see this, we must first be clear that the remes (sometimes translated as "creeping things") are indeed wild. A translation like the NIV does not help us here, since it translates remes as "creatures that move along the ground," reserving the adjective "wild" only for its translation of khayyat ha'arets (wild animals). As we review other occurrences of remes in Genesis 1–11, however, we find that this noun is used in various texts, just like khayyat ha'arets, to refer to wild land animals as an entire class. In Genesis 1:26, for example, the remes are the only such animals mentioned: human beings are to rule over all the earth—that is, over "fish . . . birds . . . livestock . . . remes." The same is true in Genesis 6:7, where God vows to wipe out all "livestock . . . remes . . . birds," except those found on the ark.7 In both cases, remes includes what is elsewhere indicated by hayyat ha'arets. The opposite is the case in Genesis 9:9-10, where God makes a covenant "with the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals [khayyat ha'arets]" on the ark. Only the khayyat ha'arets are explicitly mentioned here, but the covenant certainly includes the remes. Both khayyat ha'arets and remes, then, can refer to wild land animals as an entire class. However, this obviously cannot be the case when they are used together, as they are in Genesis 1:24-25. Here, a distinction of some kind is clearly intended—a distinction within the world of the wild. This understanding of the sixth day of creation fits well with what we read of the fifth (Genesis 1:20-23). Here, two categories of animal life are initially described (sea life and birds, v. 20), but they soon become three, because a distinction is drawn (in v. 21) between "the great creatures of the sea" and "every living and moving thing with which the water teems" [Heb. ramas]. The "living and moving things" form a subset within sea life. In the same way, in Genesis 1:24-25 remes most likely refers to a subset within wild land animals.
Which animals are these? They have often been understood, historically, as small, wild land animals (e.g., mice, reptiles, insects) as opposed to large ones. This is, however, nothing more than a guess arising from the alleged nuance of the verb ramas (to creep, move lightly), which has suggested smallness to some interpreters.8 The implausibility of this guess becomes evident, however, when we consider Psalm 104:20, where "all the animals of the forest [kol khayto-ya‘ar] prowl [ramas]." It is not only of small land animals, then, that ramas is used in the Old Testament; all wild land animals can "prowl" (or creep). The distinction often drawn between remes and khayyat ha'arets in terms of small and large animals is, therefore, unconvincing. Much more plausible is the distinction that has sometimes been proposed between predators and nonpredators. Following this proposal, we should read Genesis 1:24-25 as distinguishing between domestic animals (behemah); wild, nonpredatory land animals (remes); and wild, predatory land animals (khayyat ha'arets). It is then particularly clear that the Genesis authors did not believe that predation entered the animal world only as a result of the human embrace of evil. It was a feature of life from the beginning.
Carnivores and the Goodness of Creation
There is, in fact, no positive evidence anywhere in the biblical tradition that its authors believed in an original vegetarian state of creation, either in the human or in the animal realm. A prophetic passage like Isaiah 11:6-9, with its vision of a day when predatory and nonpredatory animals will lie down together in peace, has sometimes been cited as if it had something to contribute to our understanding of the biblical perspective here. This idea arises, however, only from the (faulty) logic that insists that everything that is true about the future in biblical thinking is also true about the past.9 Conversely, a text like Psalm 104 stands firmly against the idea that creaturely eating habits now are very different from those in the past. Here the psalmist celebrates God's many creative acts, from the beginning of time to the present. All of God's creatures look to God "to give them their food at the proper time" (v. 27), and this applies as much to the "lions [that] roar for their prey" (v. 21) as to any other creature. Here is a wonderful creation functioning as it should under God's sovereign care: "in wisdom you made them all" (v. 24; including carnivores). For the psalmist, then, one of God's most praiseworthy creative acts is the creation of a carnivorous lion. As one commentator has rightly said, "The predatory lions are not an evil (unless they prey on the flock!)."10
Where the Wild Things Are
If Genesis 9:3 cannot plausibly be interpreted as marking a transition from a vegetarian to a carnivorous human state, to what does it refer? We can make significant progress toward an answer to this question, first of all, by offering a better translation than the NIV of Genesis 9:2. The NIV text reads as follows:
The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground and upon all the fish of the sea.
However, the Hebrew behind "the beasts of the earth" (khayyat ha'arets) is exactly the same as the Hebrew we find in Genesis 1:24-25, which the NIV itself correctly translates as "wild animals," not as (land) animals in general.11 The NIV also offers the same (correct) translation of the term in Genesis 9:10. It is baffling, then, that the translator offers us in Genesis 9:2 "beasts of the earth." The reader is thereby misled into thinking that the verse refers to all land animals, not just to a particular class of land animal. We ought to translate the verse in this way:
The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the wild (predatory) land animals and all the birds of the air, upon all the wild, non-predatory land animals ["every creature that moves along the ground," Heb. ramas], and upon all the fish of the sea.
The Lost Sheep (and Cows)
This translation allows us to notice something rather striking when Genesis 9:2 is compared with Genesis 1:24-25 and Genesis 9:10. In Genesis 9:2, one class of animals is not mentioned at all—the behemah, "livestock." Genesis 9, we thus realize, is concerned only with animal life in the nondomestic sphere: the predatory wild land animals, the birds, the remaining wild land animals (remes), and the fish. It is wild creatures, and not creatures in general, that now live their lives in fear and dread of human beings. The livestock already "belong" in human hands, from the perspective of Genesis. We may go further: the animals explicitly singled out in Genesis 9:3 as being given over to humans now for food are not animals in general but only some of the wild land animals: "Every wild but nonpredatory land animal [Heb. remes] that is living shall be food for you. As I gave green plants to you—everything" (Genesis 9:3; my translation). Why are these particular animals (e.g., deer) singled out? Most likely it is because they are to become a much more important food source for humans than the others mentioned.12
Hunters and Warriors
We can now say confidently that Genesis 9:2-3 is not a passage about human beings beginning to eat animals. It is a passage about a change in the human relationship with the animal world, whereby wild creatures of land, sea, and air become targets of human aggression rather than subjects of human governance and care. They become first and foremost menu items. The authors of Genesis already know of human beings as meat eaters prior to Genesis 9. Human beings sacrifice and eat the domesticated animals that they have themselves raised (as Genesis 3:21; 4:2-4; and 7:2-3 imply). Nothing is thought to be amiss with this practice, nor is there any indication in Genesis that the hunting of wild animals is itself intrinsically problematic.13 Meat eating is not itself a problem, insofar as it is practiced out of human need and in an overall context of creation care.
What Genesis 9:2-3 envisages, however, is the replacement of a care mind-set with a conquest mentality. This new mentality conceives of wild creatures as an enemy people that needs to be subjugated—a kingdom to be conquered so that the victor may benefit from the collected spoils. It is an exploitative, rapacious approach to the wild. Human need would not of itself require people to move much beyond the domestic economy in pursuit of food, and if need were determinative, the hunting that did occur beyond those confines would have minimal impact on the world of wild creatures. Genesis 9 envisages a world, however, in which such distinctions between the domestic and the wild have been obliterated. There is no longer any order to the world; there is only chaos. Another boundary has been breached, in a biblical book that is replete with examples of such boundary infringements. It is now open season on all nonhuman creatures, insofar as they might possibly satisfy human desires. The force of Genesis 9:3 in this context is not "just as I gave you plants, now I give you animals"; it is "just as I gave you plants that you had not cultivated, now I give you wild creatures that you have not domesticated." These are some of the fuller dimensions of the curse on the animal world that is first pronounced in Genesis 3. Creation is not right; even the animals are being deeply affected by human dysfunction.
[Notes]
6 See, e.g., Hamilton, Genesis 1–17, 313: "The opening chapter of Genesis was quite explicit that in the beginning man and the animals were vegetarian." Also Kass, Wisdom, 48, 177–80.
7 See also 1 Kings 4:33, where the NIV's "animals and birds, reptiles and fish" should be "livestock and birds, wild animals [remes] and fish."
8 E.g., Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 25.
9 See further our chap. 11, where we return to the matter of reading Isaiah 11 well.
10 Collins, Genesis 1–4, 165. Collins also draws attention to Psalm 147:8-9, where the text moves seamlessly from a description of God supplying the earth with rain and making grass grow to his provision of food for cattle and for ravens alike. The latter certainly eat meat. Again, this is just how creation is.
11 The NIV makes the same mistake in Genesis 1:30. The focus of concern in this text is how the land animals in the nondomestic, nonhuman sphere will eat. Domestic animals (Heb. behemah) do not need to worry about this, because they are looked after directly by human beings.
12 Engaging our imaginations about why this might be so, we could suggest that predatory wild animals are often dangerous (as well as being forbidden as food by later Israelite law), that birds are more difficult to catch and offer less "gain" for effort than, for example, deer, and that at least some fishing involves boating on the sea, which the ancient Hebrews were famously reluctant to do. Remes in Genesis 9:3 could, of course, mean to refer to all wild land-animals, given the "fluidity" of its usage in Genesis 1–11, but nothing important in my argument hangs upon this point.
13 Hunting is first mentioned in Genesis 10:9 with respect to Nimrod, who hunts "before the Lord" (which certainly does not imply disapproval of the practice), and later it is mentioned with respect to Esau in Genesis 25:27-28, where no evaluation of it is apparent.
OT scholar John Walton argues along similar lines in his NIV Application Commentary on Genesis.
Blessing (9:1-7)
Is "the fear and dread" experienced by animals over against human beings a new element that God adds to the psyche of the animal kingdom? The text stops short of implicating direct divine action by using passive formulations. The only action of which God is the subject is granting animals for food (v. 3). Consequently, the fear and dread can be viewed as the natural response to being hunted prey.1
Literarily the statement about "fear and dread" replaces the "subdue and rule" clause in 1:28. What brings about this alteration? In our study of Genesis 1, I suggested that the end result of ruling was domestication and control (see subdue). The statement in this chapter goes beyond rule (actions to be carried out) in that all creatures are given into human hands (passive recipients). Rule is not taken away, but neither is it reiterated.
Moreover, the blessing of God still includes reproduction (9:1) and procurement of food. Just as God’s pronouncement in chapter 3 made it clear that despite the Fall the blessing was still intact, here the text makes clear that despite the Flood, the blessing is still largely intact. After the Fall the ground would not be cooperative, so that food was not as easily obtainable. Likewise here we find that animals will not be cooperative, with the result that obtaining food will continue to be a challenge.
It is likely that permission to use animals for food should be seen as a concession of grace. If so, it is parallel to the making of skin garments for Adam and Eve and putting the mark on Cain. It also suggests the possibility that a contributing factor to the pre-Flood violence was the shortage of food, but these are inferences that go well beyond the statements of the text.
Note also that the category given for food is remés (NIV, "everything that moves"). The noun (remés) and the associated verb (rms) each occur seventeen times in the Old Testament, ten times each in Genesis 1–9. This word group is distinct from both the wild (predatory) beasts and domesticated flocks and herds. Neither verb nor noun is ever used to refer to larger wild animals or to domesticated animals. In no place is remés a catch-all category for all creatures.2 It is one category of creature only. The division of the Hebrew terms used up to this point in Genesis reflects the nature of the animal (not the locomotion, genre, species, or the morphology).3
If this is true, we are mistaken to translate remés as if it describes a type of locomotion (e.g., "creeping things"). An alternative is suggested by the Akkadian cognate nammašu/nammaštu, which typically refers to wild animals that travel in herds4; they are distinct from wild animals that hunt or scavenge,5 from the domesticated cattle, and from the docile beasts that do not tend to be found in herds.6 It is most familiar as the group that Enkidu watched over in his precivilized days in the Gilgamesh Epic.7 These animals were typically characterized as being the prey of hunters and predatory beasts. The most common members of this group were wild cattle, antelope, fallow deer, gazelle, and ibex. Some of these could be managed, though not domesticated. Whether animals such as rabbits are included in this group depends on whether the primary characteristic is "herd living" or "serving as prey."
There is a difference between being a meat-eater (people who use flocks or cattle for food at least on some occasions) and being a predator (hunting for food). Since this verse only grants the remés group for food, it is logical to assume that it gives people permission to be predatory hunters of food. It is unclear whether butchering cattle for food is already assumed or has not yet been permitted.8 Note the interesting fact that when Genesis 1:29–30 granted permission for food, its terminology describes that which grew wild rather than referring to crops that were planted—though the terminology is general enough not to exclude what is sown.9 I tentatively propose, then, that domesticated plants and animals were always considered legitimate sources of food, while permission was granted for gathering of food growing wild (1:30) and hunting animals for food (9:3). Meat was not a common portion of ancient meals. Animals were kept primarily for their milk, hair, and wool, not for their meat.
In giving permission to eat this meat, the text introduces two caveats. (1) In verse 3, the qualification is that the animal is living. This presumably rules out feeding from dead carcasses found in the wild. (2) In verse 4 is the qualification that the meat cannot be eaten with the lifeblood in it. This presumably assures that the animal has been killed.10 In ancient times the blood was considered a life force (Deut. 12:23). The prohibition does not require that no blood at all be consumed, but only that the blood must be drained. Ritually speaking, the draining of the blood before eating the meat was a way of returning the life force of the animal to God who gave it life. This offers recognition that they have taken the life with permission and are partaking of God’s bounty as his guests. Its function is not unlike that of the blessing said before a meal in modern practice. No comparable prohibition is known elsewhere in the ancient world.
Human life, because of the image of God, remains under the protection of God. Accountability to God for preserving human life is put into humanity’s hands, thus instituting blood vengeance in the ancient world and capital punishment in modern societies. In Israelite society blood vengeance was in the hands of the family of the victim. Capital punishment was the recognized right of the family and was considered an act of justice.
[Notes]
subdue. While the image of God defines a role for humanity (viceregents for God), the blessing indicates the functions that people will have as a result of the role to which they were created. The first function is to "subdue" (kbs) the earth, the second to "rule" it (rdh, the same as used in v. 26, but different from the verb used in vv. 16–18, mšl). In its biblical usage the first word is usually employed in political contexts but is also found sociologically (with objects such as women and slaves). Genesis 1 is the only occurrence with "the earth" as an object. The profile is pretty clear, however, and is applicable to this context. The term kbš means to bring something or someone under control.
1 It should be noticed that the word for domesticable or docile cattle (behema) is not included in this list. That suggests that they are not necessarily characterized by this fear. The one exception that has been identified is Gen. 7:21, where many have seen as a catch-all category parallel to all flesh and encompassing the birds, livestock, wild animals, and swarming creatures. But the other groups are all introduced with the preposition bet, which can easily be understood as meaning "along with." There are a few places where bet is used to present the two elements of merism (Ex. 12:19; 13:2, "whether man or beast"), but it is unclear whether the preposition can function this way in a list. The preferred translation of Gen. 7:21 is therefore: "All flesh expired that (rms) on the earth, along with the birds and along with the cattle, and along with the wild beast and along with the swarming things...." A similar structure is used in 8:17, but there is included in the "along with" group, and a different category leads off the list.
2 The one exception that has been identified is Gen. 7:21, where many have seen remés as a catch-all category parallel to all flesh and encompassing the birds, livestock, wild animals, and swarming creatures. But the other groups are all introduced with the preposition bet, which can easily be understood as meaning "along with." There are a few places where bet is used to present the two elements of merism (Ex. 12:19; 13:2, "whether man or beast"), but it is unclear whether the preposition can function this way in a list. The preferred translation of Gen. 7:21 is therefore: "All flesh expired that (rms) image on the earth, along with the birds and along with the cattle, and along with the wild beast and along with the swarming things...." A similar structure is used in 8:17, but there remés is included in the "along with" group, and a different category leads off the list. The distinctions between the general terms typically used in the text are given much more refinement in the dietary laws, where the text establishes a number of new categories that it has to define rather than subsuming them under a single convenient word.
3 The distinctions between the general terms typically used in the text are given much more refinement in the dietary laws, where the text establishes a number of new categories that it has to define rather than subsuming them under a single convenient word.
4 CAD, N/1, 233–35. can be general (Gen. 2:19; 6:17); when it is specific, it refers to wild animals (differentiated from domesticated or docile animals (Gen. 2:20; Ps. 50:10; 74:19; Isa. 35:9; 43:20; 56:9; Jer. 12:9; Ezek. 5:17; 34:5, 25; Hos. 13:8), mostly of the scavenger/predator/meat-eating variety that are considered a threat.
5 hayya can be general (Gen. 2:19; 6:17); when it is specific, it refers to wild animals (differentiated from domesticated or docile animals (Gen. 2:20; Ps. 50:10; 74:19; Isa. 35:9; 43:20; 56:9; Jer. 12:9; Ezek. 5:17; 34:5, 25; Hos. 13:8), mostly of the scavenger/predator/meat-eating variety that are considered a threat. Both of these latter two fall into the category of , which typically refers to livestock of the domesticated variety (Gen. 36:6; Ex. 20:10; 22:10; Lev. 1:2) or in general to slow-witted, dumb, or docile beasts. These serve as prey rather than seek prey.
6 Both of these latter two fall into the category of behema, which typically refers to livestock of the domesticated variety (Gen. 36:6; Ex. 20:10; 22:10; Lev. 1:2) or in general to slow-witted, dumb, or docile beasts. These serve as prey rather than seek prey. It is intriguing that prior to his "fall" (= becoming civilized), Enkidu was a protector of these animals, but after his "fall" they were afraid and ran away from him (Gilgamesh Epic, 1.126–133; 195–198).
7 It is intriguing that prior to his "fall" (= becoming civilized), Enkidu was a protector of these animals, but after his "fall" they were afraid and ran away from him (Gilgamesh Epic, 1.126–133; 195–198). Abel’s offering is intriguing on this count. Since the fat parts were offered, it is clear that the animal was butchered, but the text stops short of indicating what was done with the meat. In later times, when the fat was offered, the meat was eaten at a ceremonial meal by the offerers and the officiants.
8 Abel’s offering is intriguing on this count. Since the fat parts were offered, it is clear that the animal was butchered, but the text stops short of indicating what was done with the meat. In later times, when the fat was offered, the meat was eaten at a ceremonial meal by the offerers and the officiants. The Hebrew word is occasionally used to refer to crops that people have sown (Ps. 104:14; Amos 7:2) but in most instances refers to general vegetation and often carries a contextual implication of that which grows wild and goes untended (as in Deut. 29:23).
9 The Hebrew word eseb is occasionally used to refer to crops that people have sown (Ps. 104:14; Amos 7:2) but in most instances refers to general vegetation and often carries a contextual implication of that which grows wild and goes untended (as in Deut. 29:23). This view was expressed as early as the Talmud (59a), presumably based on the idea that in the ancient world where no refrigeration was available, sometimes an animal was kept alive as long as possible while it was used for meat.
10 This view was expressed as early as the Talmud (b. Sanh. 59a), presumably based on the idea that in the ancient world where no refrigeration was available, sometimes an animal was kept alive as long as possible while it was used for meat. Most recent commentators recognize this parallelism. For a representative list of the parallels, see Mathews, 414.
No comments:
Post a Comment