Was God allowing us to eat meat a concession?


Salvete, omnes!

Was God’s allowing us to eat meat after the Fall a concession to our weakness/desires rather than something He was directly in favor of/blessed?

I mean, after all, He did do this after the Fall.

Also, there is a tradition (apparently?) preserved in the Book of Enoch saying something like the Giants “harmed animals” which may be an allusion to their beginning to kill/maim them for meat. Even though this book is non-canonical (except, apparently, in Ethiopian Catholicism), it may still contain some traditions that were accurately preserved. And, indeed, even though this may have been left out of the Genesis account, the Hebrews may have had this tradition (at least at the time of its writing?) either orally or from some written source(s) so that it didn’t need to be included there because it was already understood.

Is there any reason to believe that God just might have allowed our consumption of meat as a concession rather than truly desiring it in the first place? Is such an understanding at all correct theology? Are such concessions to our weakness/desires possible? Why or why not? Could you cite examples of why or why not in either case?

Furthermore, is there any document (particularly an infallible one) that directly indicates that eating meat is NOT a sin/is NOT a concession by God/that God directly blessed it?



As with your other thread, the answer is the same: first eleven chapters of Genesis - senses of scripture - allegory - not literal.


 No.  You make a mockery of God by saying that.  Do you think Jesus believed they were allegory?  He makes reference to those Scriptures as truth.


Remember Abel appears in the Eucharistic Prayer.


1ke doesn’t mean that the first 11 Chapters are not true. The first 11 Chapters of Genisis are written in figurative language, not literal language.

The chapters speak the truth of what happened, but are not described in a historical, scientific way.

The message Genesis teaches is 100% true, but it’s not a historical/scientific account.

Do you understand what I’m trying say? In other words the first chapters of Genisis are written in the same language used when you tell a nice person he has a “big heart.” That expression means that they are full of love and have room for lots of love. They don’t literally have a larger, physical heart than the normal person.

Even the Jews of Christ’s time knew that some of Genisis was written this way.

God Bless


I am referencing Church teaching when I say that. See the Catechism, Humani Generis, Dei Verbum. the writings of St Augustine and numerous other Church Fathers. And let me quote JPII in his letter Cosmology and Fundamental Physics:

Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. **The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. **Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.


I never said they weren’t truth.


The best one-liner I’ve heard is to read scripture literarily, not literally.


Salvete Misty!

It doesn’t matter, because it doesn’t matter.

Whatever dispensations some people may have been in at some time, which we can scarcely guess at, do not apply.

God has blessed it, if it’s a concession it’s one He has blessed, and we do not need documents fallible or infallible to prove that over and above our New Testaments.

The reason is every way of eating is equally blessed e.g if you personally choose to eat vegetarianly.

God doesn’t call Christians to stick to one diet or another.

Tuck in!


I believe that God has never blessed or wanted meat eating, but rather allowed it out of necessity for humanity’s survival after the flood and outside of Eden. In the modern first world today, this necessity is no more, which is one of the reasons I am vegetarian. In the begging when God created everything he gave human and animals plants to eat, and when He comes again the lion will lay down with the lamb. Killing animals is nothing God loves to see us do. He loves them as well.


God also loves the plants…


Not only was eating meat not a concession; it was a commandment in some circumstances. The priests were required to eat the meat of certain of the sacrifices, and those who offered other sacrifices were to eat the meat from them. And all Israelites were commanded to eat the meat of the Passover lamb.


Yes, but plants aren’t sentient or capable of making choices. That is a big difference.


Neither plants nor animals have a spiritual soul, and neither are made in the image and likeness of God.


Great line, I’ve got to admit, and grteat way to look at it…where such a perspective is appropriate.

Indeed, Genesis and many other books were written as poetry and I think that is good to note, so, yes, I would agree that at least some language could be metaphorical.

I think it just epends on the genre of the particular book. If the book is written as historical, it should be considered such. If poetifcal, it should be considered such. If parable…, if epistulary…etc, etc.

I’ll certainly have to remember this line.


With all respect, it seems that you contradict yourself in your post.

First, you concede that eating meat may, indeed, be a concession, but, then, you say that all forms of eating are equal.

And, yes, I think it does matter to some extent whether or whether or not eating of meat is a concession. If it is a concession, while God would permit it, it would not be the “best” way to live as the “best” way to live, if eating meat is indeed a concession, would be to live as a vegetarian as was apparetnly the case before the Fall, that is, if we take Genesis literally in regard to meat-eating.


What about Christ Himself eating meat and (seemingly) advocating it (or, at least not speaking against it) in many of His parables? What about His dividing of the fish in His miracle?

If eating meat were truly not the “best” way, perhaps Christ Himself would not have eaten meat when He lived His earthly life?

Or, maybe, by eating meat, Christ was simply admitting that, while such was permissible, it was not necessarily the “best” way?



You make some good points about the Law requiring the consumption of meat. However, I think we should remember that the majority if not all of the Israelite community ate meat, again, whether or not God allowed meat as a concession or approved of it equally with any other diet, or considered the eating of meat superior to non-meat diets.

So, I don’t know if we can argue directly that, because the Law required the eating of meat, it was considered on an equal level, at least, with other diets and not some kind of concession.


It seems rather inconsistent to me that God would create humans to be omnivorous (our intestinal length and digestive processes are typical of omnivores, not carnivores or herbivores) and then make meat-eating merely a concession or a sin. God deliberately made us to eat both–it is difficult to get adequate nutrition otherwise. If one is a vegetarian he has to be sure they are eating the correct combination of foods to obtain complete amino acids for adequate protein intake. This is a scientific fact. Eating meat alone does not provide the carbohydrates we need, and we end up using fat and muscle for glucose manufacture to obtain energy–not a healthy situation to be in.

Look at what is real, not hypothetical. It would be illogical of God to create humans to be omnivores and then forbid meat-eating, and even more to command certain meats to be eaten (like the passover lamb or goat) and then come down from heaven Himself and eat meat. It is no sin whatsoever to eat animals for food. They were given to us for that purpose. That is not cruelty–it’s food. Jesus did not sin, and insisting that eating animals is a sin implies that He did. Also the OT Jewish continual sacrifice of animals was ordered by God. This was no sin, and we must not let our emotions control us when it comes to discerning the truth.

Besides, the Church does not teach that eating meat was only a concession or is sinful.


While I agree with most of what you said, getting your nutritional requirements from a vegan diet isn’t that hard. You just have to eat a generally healthy diet. Unless you’re a professional athlete or body builder, then eating vegetarian is pretty easy and forces you to be more nutritionally conscious. Also, zero cholesterol, since cholesterol is a product of animals, which is always a plus.


Anyone seen Soylent Green?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.