The Pre-Flood Vegetarian Mandate
Divine Provision in Eden
In the book of Genesis, the initial dietary plan for humanity and all animals is explicitly described as vegetarian. Genesis 1:29-30 states that God gave humans "every seed-bearing plant" and "every tree that has fruit with seed in it" for food. This mandate extended to all living creatures, as they were also given "every green herb for food". This setup reflects an Edenic ideal of harmony where no creature dies for another's sustenance. It paints a picture of a world before violence and sin had corrupted the natural order. The pre-flood world was characterized by a different relationship between humanity, animals, and God, one of dominion without destruction.
The Vegetarian Ideal
Before the flood, the earth was rich with lush vegetation, a condition that allowed for this plant-based diet to be entirely sufficient for both humans and animals. The long lifespans of pre-flood humans, such as Methuselah who lived for 969 years, are sometimes cited as evidence of the health benefits of this original diet. While the text doesn't explicitly forbid meat, the lack of its inclusion in the initial divine decree and the herding of animals mainly for sacrifice (like Abel's offering in Genesis 4) suggests that vegetarianism was the original intention. Some scholars argue that the permissibility of meat was simply not addressed because it was outside the scope of the ideal creation.
The Post-Flood Dietary Shift
The Covenant with Noah and Dietary Expansion
After the flood, a cataclysmic event that reshaped the world, God established a new covenant with Noah and his family. This covenant, unlike the one with Adam, included a significant change to humanity's diet. In Genesis 9:3, God declares, "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything". This verse is a clear expansion of the original dietary laws and marks the beginning of human meat consumption. Accompanying this new permission was a single restriction: the prohibition against consuming blood. This was not a dietary rule based on health but a theological one, as blood represented life, which belonged to God alone.
Understanding the Concession
This change is often viewed not as an ideal but as a divine concession to the altered state of the post-diluvian world. After the devastation of the flood, the lush, uniform climate and abundant vegetation of the pre-flood world were gone. The new world was harsher, with seasons and potentially more difficult conditions for growing crops. In this context, allowing meat consumption was a practical provision for human survival.
Some theological perspectives interpret this shift as a lowering of moral standards in response to humanity's continued sinfulness. God's recognition that the human heart was filled with evil after the flood led to a new approach to governing creation, one that regulated rather than eliminated violence. This theory suggests that permitting meat-eating was a way to manage the inherent violence of humanity, preventing it from escalating to even worse acts, like cannibalism.
Theological Interpretations of the Dietary Change
The Hard-Heartedness of Humanity
Some interpretations, like that of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, suggest the permission to eat meat was a temporary lowering of divine expectations. This perspective views the shift not as a positive development, but as a reluctant concession to human weakness. The ideal state of creation, where no animal life was taken, remains the ultimate goal, a time that will be restored in a future messianic era of heightened ethical awareness. From this viewpoint, meat-eating is a symptom of a fallen world and human hard-heartedness, not a celebration of new freedom.
The State of the Post-Diluvian World
Another significant reason for the change was the dramatic alteration of the earth's environment. The flood destroyed all vegetation, leaving Noah and his family with a depleted food source. In this state of necessity, animal flesh became a crucial food source for survival until crops could be replanted and harvested. The permission to eat meat was therefore a pragmatic allowance for a new, harsher reality. The altered climate, with seasons and a loss of a potential protective water canopy, also made a consistently plant-based diet more challenging to maintain worldwide.
The Role of Animal Sacrifice
Long before the flood, the practice of animal sacrifice existed, as seen in the story of Abel. This suggests that the killing of animals was not completely foreign to pre-flood society, but its purpose may have been limited to worship rather than sustenance. Noah's first act after leaving the ark was to offer a sacrifice of clean animals. Some rabbinic traditions suggest this act of sacrifice consecrated the eating of animals and made it permissible. This links the post-flood dietary change to the sacred act of covenant-making, tying human sustenance directly to a ritual of divine favor.
Differing Interpretations and Modern Views
Academic Biblical Perspectives
Scholars in academic biblical studies often contextualize the dietary change within the development of the Genesis narrative. They point to parallels between the covenants with Adam and Noah, highlighting how the re-creation story of Genesis 9 is both a repetition and an adaptation of the original creation. The expansion of human dominion over animals and the inclusion of meat in the diet are seen as reflecting the changed relationship between humanity and the rest of creation in a world now marked by violence and fallenness.
The Rabbinic View
Rabbinic commentary offers several interpretations for the shift. Some views suggest the change was a reward for Noah's righteousness, elevating humanity's status. Others, like Maimonides, believe the prohibition against eating meat was not given to Adam, and therefore, the post-flood text merely adds a rule about consuming blood, not a new permission to eat meat itself. This reflects the ongoing depth of interpretation within religious traditions regarding these foundational texts.
A Comparison of Pre- and Post-Flood Dietary Directives
| Feature | Pre-Flood World | Post-Flood World |
|---|---|---|
| Dietary Mandate | Strictly vegetarian: seed-bearing plants and fruit. | Omnivorous: green plants and all living things. |
| Earth's Condition | Lush vegetation, mild climate. | Altered environment, seasons, less vegetation. |
| Human Longevity | Significantly longer lifespans, up to 900+ years. | Lifespans rapidly decrease. |
| Ethical Framework | Ideal of harmony, no killing for food. | Concession to human weakness and violence. |
| Divine Purpose | Perfect creation, no death for sustenance. | Provision for survival in a fallen world. |
| Key Restriction | Do not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. | Do not eat flesh with its blood still in it. |
Conclusion: The Enduring Significance of the Covenant
The transition of humanity's diet from vegetarian to omnivorous after the flood, as recounted in Genesis, is a multifaceted theological event. It speaks to the dramatic environmental changes following the cataclysm and God's pragmatic provision for human survival in a changed world. More profoundly, it reveals a shift in the divine covenant with humanity, acknowledging the lasting consequences of sin and human weakness. The change in dietary law is not simply about what humans eat but about the new, less ideal relationship humanity has with creation. The single, potent restriction against consuming blood serves as a perpetual reminder of the sanctity of life and the divine origin of existence, even in a fallen world. This theological shift continues to be a point of rich discussion and interpretation within religious and scholarly circles today. The biblical narrative illustrates that while humanity was given a new provision, it came with a new set of ethical considerations and a recognition that the world was no longer in its state of perfect creation. For further reading on related theological topics, see the article on Noah, Meat Eating, And The Flood.
