Genesis 1:24-25 (ESV)
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. [25] And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
I find these verses to be incredible, and in a way to go against common notions of what the Garden of Eden was like, and what life was like before the fall. I was always brought up to believe there was no death period in the Garden. Not for man, not for beast. Things like mosquitoes were the result of the fall. That Lions ate Zebras likewise. Now, I won’t debate about men and women, we were not supposed to know death. But what I find incredible here is the distinction between livestock and beasts. It is there in the Hebrew too. The distinction between domestic animals and wild animals.
For one, this shows that though animals were created before man, God had from the very beginning the intention of creating man. Otherwise why create domestic animals, animals to serve the purposes of man? But domestic animals serve the purposes of being eaten, providing clothing, and dairy products. Perhaps the Garden only knew animals for the purposes of providing dairy and wool? Though why wool? The climate was nice enough to support a nudist colony, and no one was ashamed enough of their body to cover it up? Perhaps nice bedding? Perhaps domestic animals had another purpose altogether in the garden. There is a big emphasis on eating plants, but nothing saying that animals were not to be eaten.
5 comments:
"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead." 1 Cor 15:21.
This is actually a profound issue. It deals with the famous question, will my dog be in heaven? The whole redemption thing would imply that not only us, but all of "creation" was ransomed by Christ's death - including our physical selves, not just our spirits. I'm fascinated by Jesus eating fish after his resurrection. Revelation also talks about eating fruit in the New Jerusalem. I've wondered if we might be able to eat the fish there too.
I still think animals were not killed and eaten pre-fall, but it is an interesting question.
Isaiah says we eat the best of meats in heaven along with the best of wines.
Wine, don't tell the baptist!
On another note:
“The distinction between domestic animals and wild animals”
You know I wish I had an eye like that when I read. I blow by such, once pointed out, obvious points (i.e. that division between domestic and wild animals). I suppose I’ve always kind of let my dull eyes and ears read those as repeating the same thing. Kind of like the Apostles creed and the “holy catholic church” and “communion of saints”, Sasse makes a point that the later is not repetitive because the Latins didn’t write that way but this is likely an explicit reference to the LS.
Anyway, I had not thought about that. That issue of nakedness in Genesis has always been a point of pondering to me because the Scripture makes such a big deal of it, especially in Genesis. At the end of 2 under innocence still, “and they were naked”, then almost immediately after the fall they realize that they are naked, and then God say, “Who told you that you are naked”. What is the significance and the shift both toward God and each other?
I was talking to my wife about it the other day and said, “I wonder if it’s linked to “hath God really said”. Because there’s a certain vulnerability, innocent and trusting type of vulnerability in nakedness physical, mentally and spiritually. A kind of open ended trust that few are allowed to enter into for each of us. But you shield yourself from your enemies, with clothes, armor, tanks, etc… If we understand the fall as Luther seems to convey in which the “hath God really said” is really nothing more complicated than Satan leveraging the Word from us by implying God is not trustworthy in his Word and whereby we are left with ourselves and therefore must be our own gods or as God (a god, true or false/idol, is that from which you seek all good and run to in time of trial and trouble). Then maybe we get a glimpse of naked in the two settings, before and after the fall. Before yes vulnerable before God, but that’s nothing but pure good, to have His Word even that which we don’t understand…utterly naked yet innocent and pure trust toward God. After the fall, convinced by “hath God really said”, the Word gone, bent inward now God becomes that which we slink away from in fear, like an untrustworthy enemy, hide among the bushes, say, “I found out I am naked”, to which God angrily replies, “WHO told you you were naked”, that is cannot trust Me. There’s human analogy. Children very young trust implicitly their parents so much so that their parents care for them in their nakedness as babies and such. But there comes a time when the child reaches a certain age, and its always an age in which independence begins to really apex and they no longer trust their parents this way. Nothings really changed concerning the trustworthiness of the parents, but they don’t innocently without reservation trust them “nakedly” as it were. There’s more at play here than just societal norms and good manners. They begin to “fall away” from such open ended trust of their parents, and as we know concerning kids as the age, as we ourselves did, this parallels the “independence assertion we make for ourselves, “I can take care of myself”, I want my own life, be my “own man/woman”, etc… Though growing up is not bad, there is that vestige of original sin that manifests itself to “be one’s own god” in life. This naked trust doesn’t reappear until one, if one is blessed enough, to find that special spouse in which one can again very innocently without reservation nakedly trust that new spouse and paralleling along with that comes the only person one trust “nakedly” physically, spiritually and psychologically. If that trust is ever broken, the armor comes back on. The reverse side of that is the one in which the naked trust is given, if they abuse it, they are the worst of all kinds of sinners (e.g. Ham and Noah) cursed because they take an open innocence that comes to it in trust and they abuse that “nude” innocent trust one or all (physically, mentally, spiritually). Perhaps this is the connection with false teachers who wolf their way into people’s spiritual lives who give them their spiritual trust (and psychological often) but it is abused, there maybe no wonder that in cults and false religions that physical abuse of nakedness often is in tandem with abuse of spiritual/psychological nakedness to the same (e.g. Koresh, Mormonism, others). Whose blood does not boil when such happens above all crimes!”
Anyway, just theory of Scripture might mean on that subject. Any thoughts?
Post a Comment