Commentary on Genesis 9:2-4


Our subjects cover: animals, religion (Christian, Jewish and others); diet and lifestyle (vegan and vegetarian); and other miscellaneous subjects.

Commentary on Genesis 9:2-4
By Richard Serzy - 12 Jan 2008

You know, I spent a lot of time reading this commentary and re-reading it again and again.

Break this down for me, please. You say "It does not say that we can KILL or Slaughter animals in order to sacrifice them to God or to eat their flesh." By your text it is obvious that you are against killing or slaughtering animals. Explain please, this text "into your hands they will be delivered". How are they delivered into our hands and why then do they fear us if they are not in danger of being killed and eaten?

You redirect to all moving things and change the context to reptiles that creep. I was waiting for you to come back to the fact that the "beast of the earth" "every fowl of the air" "all the fishes of the sea" were mentioned. Why would they be mentioned in the text? Your arguments only focus is dwindled down to reptiles who creep? Why then should the Beast, Fowl, and Fish fear man? Why does the text simply not say eat the lizards eggs as you are directing this commentary? Does that mean we are ok to eat the fetus of a lizard? When does life begin for the lizard, how would we know if the egg has been fertilized? ( a little rant, still a valid point for another discussion.)

You say "It is most absurd to believe that God told Noah to kill and eat any animal that came out of the Ark when we know that there were only a pair of each specie – a male and female - and that they were spared from the Flood in order to be able to propagate their species."

I must correct you as you are mistaken. The animals were classified as clean and unclean. There were more than two of every animal on the arc. Read Gen. 7:2-3

" Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

3: Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth." God directed to take the clean animals, the kosher animals, by seven to ensure propagation of the species. This seems to support the animals classified to be good for food survive. Only the unclean beast were taken by two.

This correct verse tears your theory apart. Also you misquote verse 4 “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” The blood is life, This is why Jesus said at the last supper drink this wine it is my blood. Nobody drank blood because it is associated with life. This is why, still today, a butcher will hang a carcass to "bleed it out". They animals blood was revered for sacrifices to keep our mind set on the great atonement, our covering for sin.

A great reference to support Verse 4 is found in Deutronomy 12:23

"23: Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life (blood) with the flesh.

24: Thou shalt not eat it (the blood); thou shalt pour it upon the earth as water. " The instruction here is to drain the blood and pour it on the earth, then eat. Even the fat from the animals, Sorry what is the Hebrew word for animal? Let's use the word beast.

The fat from the beast was to be offered to God as a burnt offering, Look at the pre-flood text,

- "Gen:4:4: And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:"

Your theory is that the firstlings of Ables flock walked up to able and died in his arms and the fat of the animal magically appeared in his hands??

- "Ex:29:13: And thou shalt take all the fat that covereth the inwards, and the caul that is above the liver, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, and burn them upon the altar."

The hide and other discards were burnt outside the camp for a sin offering and then look what happens next, it is a sweet savor offered to the lord.

- "Exodus 29:18: And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt offering unto the LORD: it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD."

Your theory is that the dismemberment, or slaughter, of an animal and the separate parts is not God's wish. I really need you to explain "17: And thou shalt cut the ram in pieces, and wash the inwards of him."

Read Exodus 29. Every part of the animal was used either for food or offerings they even anointed their garments with them.

According to the Bible; we are not allowed to eat meat improperly butchered, eat the first fruits from any plant, Eat any blood, eat any fat, eat any animals killed by wild animals or those that died of natural causes, eat scavenger animals like vultures, Eat organs that remove impurities, Eat water animals without scales or fins such as otters, Eat insects except the locust and beetle families. We should not eat anything left in a room with a dead body or dying person or eat a goat's kid boiled in the milk of it's mother (this was a pagan ritual).

Killing animals and slaughtering animals are pretty much ok from what I quoted. Love to hear your thoughts unless you can't back it up with scripture. You see the problem with people today is that they are asking the wrong question. It appears your question is "what does the Bible mean to me?" You should ask "What does the Bible mean?" If you read it to find support for your argument and delineate the words down to fit your view then you only find what you are looking for. This can be done with a Tom Sawyer book. What matters is what does it all come down to when New Jerusalem (Rev.21) sits atop the mount and the cleansing rivers flow beneath it (Rev.22, Ezekiel 47). Whether or not you are eating fruit from the trees that line it's banks or fish from the Dead Sea (Ezekiel 47). We can look back on this and see that whoever was wrong it doesn't matter anymore.

Although I really don't have an fixed opinion either way the discussion is a great tool to use for learning the truth in the Bible. Please respond.

Thank you,
Richard Serzy