Carl in Michigan
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2016
- 64,634
- 49,480
- 3,615
Was God's covenant with Noah intended for all Mankind 4,000 years after the Flood, or was this for NOAH and the special circumstances he found himself under?
From a project I'm working on:
**Chapter 5
A World Without Fields, Orchards, or Stores**
Section 5.1 — Imagining the World After the Flood
When readers picture the end of the flood, they often imagine something close to the world we know today: animals grazing, plants growing, and Noah stepping out into a functioning ecosystem. Scripture, however, gives us reason to believe the reality was far harsher and far more fragile.
Genesis tells us the flood did not simply wash the earth clean; it undid creation itself. The separation of land and sea was reversed. Vegetation was destroyed. Topsoil was stripped away. What emerged from the waters was not a garden but a wounded planet.
There were no grain fields waiting to be harvested. No orchards heavy with fruit. No stored seed reserves. Noah and his family stepped into a world where survival itself was uncertain. The ark preserved life, but it could not preserve agriculture.
This matters, because ethical decisions in Scripture are often made within the context of necessity, not abundance. To read God’s words to Noah as though they were spoken in a stable, agricultural society is to miss the desperate reality of the moment.
Section 5.2 — Why Agriculture Could Not Yet Exist
Farming is not immediate. Even under ideal conditions, it requires prepared soil, seeds, seasons, and time. After the flood, none of these were guaranteed.
The earth had been submerged for months. Seeds in the ground would have rotted. Trees take years to mature. Vineyards take even longer. The idea that Noah could simply plant crops and wait is inconsistent with both Scripture and basic agricultural reality.
Genesis 8:22—“While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest… shall not cease”—is not a description of the present, but a promise for the future. It signals that predictable agricultural cycles were being re-established, not that they already existed.
In other words, God is not endorsing a preference for meat; He is responding to a world in which plant food was temporarily unavailable. This distinction between permission and preference is crucial for interpreting what follows.
Section 5.3 — Survival Permission Is Not Moral Ideal
In Genesis 9:3, God says, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” This verse is often treated as a universal endorsement of meat consumption for all people at all times.
But Scripture itself does not support that reading.
Throughout the Bible, God regularly permits actions He does not delight in because of human limitation or circumstance. Divorce is permitted because of hardness of heart. Monarchy is allowed despite God’s warnings. Warfare is regulated without being celebrated.
The flood covenant fits this pattern. God meets humanity where it is—hungry, vulnerable, and facing extinction—and allows what is necessary to preserve life. The presence of restrictions immediately following this permission, particularly the prohibition against consuming blood, suggests restraint rather than enthusiasm.
If eating animals were God’s original or ideal plan, it would not appear first as an emergency measure after a global catastrophe.
Section 5.4 — The Covenant Is Addressed to Noah, Not a Modern World
It is easy to forget that Genesis 9 is spoken to specific people in a specific moment. God speaks directly to Noah and his sons, survivors of a cataclysm unlike anything humanity has experienced since.
To apply this covenant uncritically to people living in a world of grocery stores, refrigeration, global agriculture, and plant-based abundance is to ignore the massive difference in context.
Modern humans do not eat animals because we must in order to live. We eat them because we prefer to. That distinction carries moral weight.
When necessity disappears, moral responsibility increases. The question shifts from “What is allowed?” to “What best reflects God’s character?” A concession made to preserve life in a broken world cannot be automatically elevated to a timeless ethical ideal.
Section 5.5 — Reading Genesis 9 in Light of Eden and the Kingdom
Scripture does not begin with Genesis 9, nor does it end there. It begins in Eden, where God gives plants for food and declares creation “very good.” It ends in a restored Kingdom where violence ceases and harmony is renewed.
Genesis 9 sits between these two bookends—not as a destination, but as a detour through a fallen world.
When we read Noah’s permission in isolation, it appears definitive. When we read it within the full arc of Scripture, it appears temporary. God’s trajectory moves away from violence, not toward it; toward restoration, not accommodation.
The question for Christians, then, is not whether eating animals is ever permitted. The question is whether continuing to do so—when survival no longer demands it—aligns with the world God originally created and the Kingdom Christ proclaimed.
From a project I'm working on:
**Chapter 5
A World Without Fields, Orchards, or Stores**
Section 5.1 — Imagining the World After the Flood
When readers picture the end of the flood, they often imagine something close to the world we know today: animals grazing, plants growing, and Noah stepping out into a functioning ecosystem. Scripture, however, gives us reason to believe the reality was far harsher and far more fragile.
Genesis tells us the flood did not simply wash the earth clean; it undid creation itself. The separation of land and sea was reversed. Vegetation was destroyed. Topsoil was stripped away. What emerged from the waters was not a garden but a wounded planet.
There were no grain fields waiting to be harvested. No orchards heavy with fruit. No stored seed reserves. Noah and his family stepped into a world where survival itself was uncertain. The ark preserved life, but it could not preserve agriculture.
This matters, because ethical decisions in Scripture are often made within the context of necessity, not abundance. To read God’s words to Noah as though they were spoken in a stable, agricultural society is to miss the desperate reality of the moment.
Section 5.2 — Why Agriculture Could Not Yet Exist
Farming is not immediate. Even under ideal conditions, it requires prepared soil, seeds, seasons, and time. After the flood, none of these were guaranteed.
The earth had been submerged for months. Seeds in the ground would have rotted. Trees take years to mature. Vineyards take even longer. The idea that Noah could simply plant crops and wait is inconsistent with both Scripture and basic agricultural reality.
Genesis 8:22—“While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest… shall not cease”—is not a description of the present, but a promise for the future. It signals that predictable agricultural cycles were being re-established, not that they already existed.
In other words, God is not endorsing a preference for meat; He is responding to a world in which plant food was temporarily unavailable. This distinction between permission and preference is crucial for interpreting what follows.
Section 5.3 — Survival Permission Is Not Moral Ideal
In Genesis 9:3, God says, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.” This verse is often treated as a universal endorsement of meat consumption for all people at all times.
But Scripture itself does not support that reading.
Throughout the Bible, God regularly permits actions He does not delight in because of human limitation or circumstance. Divorce is permitted because of hardness of heart. Monarchy is allowed despite God’s warnings. Warfare is regulated without being celebrated.
The flood covenant fits this pattern. God meets humanity where it is—hungry, vulnerable, and facing extinction—and allows what is necessary to preserve life. The presence of restrictions immediately following this permission, particularly the prohibition against consuming blood, suggests restraint rather than enthusiasm.
If eating animals were God’s original or ideal plan, it would not appear first as an emergency measure after a global catastrophe.
Section 5.4 — The Covenant Is Addressed to Noah, Not a Modern World
It is easy to forget that Genesis 9 is spoken to specific people in a specific moment. God speaks directly to Noah and his sons, survivors of a cataclysm unlike anything humanity has experienced since.
To apply this covenant uncritically to people living in a world of grocery stores, refrigeration, global agriculture, and plant-based abundance is to ignore the massive difference in context.
Modern humans do not eat animals because we must in order to live. We eat them because we prefer to. That distinction carries moral weight.
When necessity disappears, moral responsibility increases. The question shifts from “What is allowed?” to “What best reflects God’s character?” A concession made to preserve life in a broken world cannot be automatically elevated to a timeless ethical ideal.
Section 5.5 — Reading Genesis 9 in Light of Eden and the Kingdom
Scripture does not begin with Genesis 9, nor does it end there. It begins in Eden, where God gives plants for food and declares creation “very good.” It ends in a restored Kingdom where violence ceases and harmony is renewed.
Genesis 9 sits between these two bookends—not as a destination, but as a detour through a fallen world.
When we read Noah’s permission in isolation, it appears definitive. When we read it within the full arc of Scripture, it appears temporary. God’s trajectory moves away from violence, not toward it; toward restoration, not accommodation.
The question for Christians, then, is not whether eating animals is ever permitted. The question is whether continuing to do so—when survival no longer demands it—aligns with the world God originally created and the Kingdom Christ proclaimed.
Last edited:
So obviously that's not what he's saying.
