Vegetarians? (Part 2)

Did God originally intend for humans to be vegetarians?

Yesterday we began looking at and thinking about the idea, taken from the menu given in Genesis 1:29-30, that human beings were originally intended to be vegetarian. If you haven’t read that yet, go back and do so.

The last thing I pointed out was that proponents of the original vegetarian theory will also point to the prophecies in Isaiah which seem to indicate a future time when carnivorous animals will no longer be carnivorous. Let’s look at one of those.

Isaiah 11:6-9 ESV

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,

and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,

and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;

and a little child shall lead them.

The cow and the bear shall graze;

their young shall lie down together;

and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra,

and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den.

They shall not hurt or destroy

in all my holy mountain;

for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD

as the waters cover the sea.

This would take place in the eternal state when sin will have been made an end of and when the curse on the earth will have been eradicated. Are these to be understood literally as a change in the nature of the world? Or is there another possible explanation? And even if creation ends this way, does that mean it began this way?

People who disagree with this understanding of the future state will point out that the resurrected Jesus ate bread and fish in the upper room with the disciples.

Luke 24:41-43 ESV - And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.

Further, Jesus promises to eat the Passover meal, the last supper, again with us in the fullness of the kingdom. The Passover meal included a lamb. And then there’s the great supper God prepares for all peoples at the end of the ages as described in Isaiah 25:

Isaiah 25:6 ESV

On this mountain the LORD of hosts will make for all peoples

a feast of rich food, a feast of well-aged wine,

of rich food full of marrow, of aged wine well refined.

Marrow is found in the bones of animals. To those who would reply (correctly, I think) that this language is symbolic, I would reply that so is the language of Isaiah 11. You can’t interpret one literally and not the other.

There’s also this sticky point. If animal death was not a part of original creation because creation in its original state was pronounced morally good, then does that make it morally wrong to kill an animal? That conclusion would seem an absurdity in light of the fact that God kills an animal (we presume) and uses its skin to cover Adam and Eve after the fall. Is there something about the fall that makes it okay to kill animals now when before it wasn’t? Again, there’s a curse placed upon the serpent and upon the ground, but none on the other animals. And the curse placed upon him did not include any specific reference to death, while the curse placed upon Adam does.

And I might point out the distinction made in Genesis 1:24 on day 6 when God created the animals.

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.

There’s a clear distinction made between domesticated animals and wild animals—the beasts of the earth. That would seem to imply predators from the beginning of creation.

And then there’s this in 1 Timothy 4 that is definitely worth contemplating.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,

So far this is pretty straightforward. Paul is warning about false teachers who have departed from the faith. These who have departed from the faith and are teaching the teachings of demons, they do two things that Paul is going to mention specifically that pertain to our text.

who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

The first is the forbidding of marriage when God has blessed marriage and made it holy. The second is to require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving—pay attention to the language there. So far so good. But now look at verse 4.

For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.—1 Timothy 4:1-5 ESV

It says that everything created by God is good and nothing to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. This would include meats, of course. But proponents of original vegetarianism (I may have coined a phrase here) will point out (correctly) that human beings were specifically given permission to eat animals in Genesis 9:3, but this was after the fall and not the original intent. But 1 Timothy 4:3 seems to indicate that all these foods (including meat) were created for the purpose of being received (that is, eaten) with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

The argument that Genesis 1:29-30 precludes the eating of meat in the original design of creation boils down to an argument from silence. Meat is simply not mentioned as being on the menu here, and animals not dying is assumed from this silence.

Why not? If it was okay to eat frog legs from the beginning why isn’t it mentioned? I’m going to suggest another possible reason for this silence, but before I do let me say that there just isn’t enough information revealed to us to be dogmatic either way. I certainly lean one direction on this. I’m a meat and potatoes guy. I can’t think of any better purpose for a steer than to be eaten by humans. If you were designing food for humans to eat, this is what you would design.

But God is certainly big enough and wise enough to overrule my silly preferences and ideas, and in the end there just isn’t enough information given in Scripture to be dogmatic either way, though this doesn’t stop some people.

Why would God only mention the fruit and salad bar in Genesis 1:29 if it were okay for us to eat fish as well? Or chicken? One reason would be that we are being set up for what is coming. In Genesis 1 and 2 it is emphasized that Adam and Eve were given permission, gifted, with every single plant under heaven to eat with the exception of one. And yet that wasn’t enough for them. That could be the reason why plants and trees and seed and fruit are emphasized here and meat and fish not mentioned. Remember that what we have in the creation account is minimalist. Nothing is included that doesn’t add to the narrative, and the purpose of the narrative is redemptive in nature.

So that was rather lengthy compared to the usual devotions, but it is food for thought, isn’t it?