Mixed Blessing for Animals

Olley, John. Mixed Blessing for Animals: The Contras of Genesis 9, in  Norman C. Habel and Shirley Wurst (eds.), The Earth Story in Genesis, England : Sheffield Academic Press, 2000, p. 130-139

Introduction

When we read flood story, we read about animals in their richness of their variety are included in the occupant of the ark. We can say that this plentiful diversity of animals is seen as good and is to be maintained. It was emphasized by the repeated “kol or all” in Genesis 8:17, 19 (seven times).Yet the first reference to animal in Genesis 9 is to “the fear and dread” of Noah and his descendants (9:2). So we can see there is difference between Genesis 8 and Genesis 9. In Genesis 8 we can see there is comprehensiveness between humans and animals, while in Genesis 9 the sole beneficiary is humankind. The question is does animals only simply become as human food supply and ruthlessly treated by humans? And also a question about does animals and humans seem to have accountability?

When we read Genesis 9 we get surprising information. The first covenant involves not only Noah but also every living creature. (9:10. 12, 15, 16, 17). It simply described as between God and “the earth” (Gen. 9:13). Next question is how can we understand this chapter - this juxtaposition between humankind and every living creature? Meanwhile, in the other hand, people still hard to except that animals can be recognized as “covenant partners with Yahwe”.

Animals – A Contrast to Near Eastern Parallels

The author explain that we can get helpful information and context provided by other ancient Near Eastern material, especially that known as flood narrative. (1) Atrahasis said that both domestic and wild creatures are explicitly included in flood narrative; (2) Epic of Gilgamesh has a reference that is in the command, “Aboard that ship take thou wild creature of the field … I made go aboard” (instead of only sent out birds); (3) Eridu Genesis: inside Eridu Genesis, Ziusdra is made “preserver, as king, of the name of the small animals and the seed of humankind.” So it means that the amount of attention given to animals after the flood is intentional, not only because animals were in the ark.

A Priestly Concerns ?

Because Genesis 9 was identified as P (Priestly) material, there is link possibility with a similar material raised. Like Genesis 1 was linked to the food law in Leviticus and with sacrifice, which every time people made a sacrifice, people thanked God for the privilege of eating meat and meat was a delicacy, so Genesis 9 was linked to similar material. In Genesis 9 human take “a step up” become more like God,  with the culmination of a progression in holiness’ coming in Leviticus 11, so that clean animals are “like those which God “eat” (in term of sacrifice). Actually in Genesis there is no hint of any restriction as to be “living creatures” that can be eaten or not. According Priestly view that sacrifice was not instituted until Sinai. “Fear and Dread” cannot be “a step up” for human. This phrase sets humans and animals apart. About the “covenant” (seven times in Genesis 9:10-17): usually the covenant sign is linked with human actions (i.e. circumcision, Sabbath, the offering), but here God binds with humankind and all other living beings. So “covenant” that including animal and other living creatures has to be seen as a characteristic of this passage.

Human Appetite and Human Violence

In this section, author put attentions a number commentators who seen little sympathy for animals in this passage. This opinion came from a thought that there are very important key word, “God blessed” (9:1) and the double use of “give” (9:2-3). So because of that animals are freely given to humans at their pleasure for the enrichment of their diet. Noah have experienced during the flood. So eating meat as a response to Noah because of his role saving the animals from the flood. It is said that a link with Noah’s actions, as only a “permission” for eating meat, but the prohibition on eating blood reminds us that rightly all parts of the flesh should have been forbidden.

             The author mentioned other restriction of Genesis 9:4. From this verse we can see that the emphasis shifts now to God’s “permission” as a consession, seeking to lessen the inevitable effects of human “evil desires” (as the place where decisions are made).  Author said that it might conceivably be intended as an outlet for humans violence impulses. There is a tension in Genesis 9, between delivering into human hands and “the good will of the creator toward every living being”, between the “gift of blessing” (the verb “give”) and the possibility of taking life.

             The author raised a question, if eating flesh is so possitive, why is there the juxtapositiion of the statement about human killing of humans as well as animals? It is this explicit link with violence that enables the reader to link with the earlier statements on human “evil” while the non-mention of sacrifice dissallows that link. The tragic awareness that some how the relationsihp is less then it should be is also reflected in the strong words “fear and dread”.

Fear and Dread

It is interesting that in Genesis 9, the author used words “fear and dread”. Before the flood, animals came to Noah. But in this chapter we can see that relationship has dramatically changed. There is more here than the “rule” of Gen 1:28. “Fear and dread” are very strong words used in Masoretic Text (MT). Those words show a limited range of context. Those words occur together in only 17 verses (non in recognized as P context) and only in military setting.  Those words also show terror of an enemy brought about through might and destruction. Those words can be understood as possibility for human to become arrogant self-centered violence towards the non-human partners of earth community.

God’s Covenant of Life

First the author said that in Genesis 9:1-7 we can find repeated statements relating to killing, whereas from Genesis 9:8-17 we can find repeated references to “life” and to “flesh” that sometimes linked with “earth”.  From those statements, we can understand that one statement does provide a striking contrast that “flesh” can be eaten, but other statement said that “flesh” is to be kept alive. The question is one statement modifiying the other?

Then the author described several arguments. The author said that God does not make covenant only with Noah, but with both Noah and all creatures. Besides that, Noah was reminded that the animals were “with you”. This double inclusion of the section will say there is no separation or hierarchy between human being and all creatures. There is a bonding together on earth. Earth is used as the object of God’s action in Genesis 9:11, 13, and 14. God’s covenant is simply between “me and the earth” (Gen. 9:13). It said that all are together with the earth. Animals described as “with you” but that is paralleled with “upon the earth”. They have been “with” Noah in the ark, but now they are not bound to him.  So it is possibility that the words are addressed only to Noah, and the animals are not addressed. The covenant is made to Noah and his descendants / sons (Gen. 9:8). Now we can see the anthropocentric and patriarchal character of the author. We can read that as simply reflecting and reinforced male human dominance.

But actually the covenant is unequivocally egalitarian. The cry of all creatures apart from men is that the voice of God will be heeded and the commonality affirmed.  The author said that regarding God’s covenant, human being and animals (other creatures) are linked by fact that both of them are “formed of the earth” and each becomes a “living creature”. Humans and animals are linked also in weal and woe in the story of the flood. Focus of passage is no longer just humans, but animals and earth.

Other important things that can be found here that God gives to animals more dignity and importance than simply the values they have for humans.  The reason is that to recognize animal rights is to recognize the intrinsic value of God-given life to which the covenant adds the instrintic value of God-promised continuation of life. Then Genesis 9 is general in its statements about creatures, that is “all inclusive”.

For conclusion : there is a contrast between Genesis 1 and Genesis 9. In creation story there are many similarities between animals and humans. God cared and expressing concern for both, although humans are to “rule”. But in Genesis 9, we face the reality of self-centred human violence, and as happens in any situation of oppresive rule, the subjects experience “fear and terror”. Animals now life with some limitations and sanctions. So now we see that continuation of humans and animals life and of the earth depends upon God’s covenant made equally with all. When we read about flood narrative, it is not about reallity of human violence t animals and to one another, but about the promise of God given unilaterally to the earth and all who live on it. Humans have to see that animals are not only for their own interest (as food) but see them – all creatures as partners in God’s covenant. God is concerned for the well-being of all living creatures and enters into covenant with them. It is God’s intenstion to keep together the rich bioderversity of the earth. These sentences for me are strong statements regarding humans’ relations with other creatures and with earth.

There is new information from this reading material : first, may be from general understanding before, I understand that humans’ role in this life is “to rule” other creatures, including animals. Then, humans rule with put respect to other living being. I never think that God also enters into covenant with other living being, not only with human beings.  So humans, animals and other living creatures and also the earth are included in God’ s covenant of life. This insight really gives me new understanding.

But from this reading, I raise some silly question but bother me a lot:  should human being choose to be vegetarian and stop eating meat again? and do we have to follow muslim tradition when they kill animals to eat?  a tradition for respect animals which being sacrifice for humans’ needs.