Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I was looking back over Genesis 9, just after the flood, when God allowed man to eat animals for food. The text is fairly interesting here:

4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. 6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

Much has been made of Genesis 9:6 in regards to capital punishment, but I had never really noticed 9:5 before. What does God mean that he will demand an accounting from every animal?

Practically speaking, humans have a tendency to put down any animal that attacks a human - is this practice the intent of this verse? Or is there more to it?

share|improve this question

closed as primarily opinion-based by David Feb 19 at 23:45

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Along these lines, if this is true, this would seem to imply that if God can punish animals, he can reward them. That to me could be the beginning of an argument that animals could go to heaven. It seems really far-fetched, but it just has me wondering... (Note: This question is emphatically not 'Do animals go to heaven?' nor is it 'Do animals have souls?') – Affable Geek Jan 13 '12 at 19:14
Just my thought: God doesn't desire any one to die. However, Satan is working to bring humans to death. He works in many different ways, and besides instigating human's will and flesh to kill other humans, he seems to be also working through other elements of God's creation like animals and nature (calamities). Perhaps, if he succeeds in stopping a human's life through an animal, that animal becomes somewhat defiled as it was instrumental in the Satan's act of killing a man, thus, it must be dealt with accordingly. – brilliant Jan 14 '12 at 10:24
up vote 11 down vote accepted

There is an interesting passage in the Pentateuch:

“If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death." -Ex 21:28-29

This seems to harmonize well with the Gen 9:5 passage you cited. In the former verse, the responsibility for the bloodshed seems to rest on the animal. However, in the latter verse, the negligence of the owner to keep the bull penned up makes the owner responsible for the blood shed by the animal, and the animal is still culpable.

And yes, this may well be why animals get put down when they attack or kill others today. Many of the modern principles of culpability (such as manslaughter and malice aforethought) stem from the Pentateuch.

share|improve this answer
I think the last line is misguided; without that last line it would be a much better/clearer post, IMO. Correlation is not causality. Most cultures have developed astonishingly similar stances here; it has nothing to do with the Pentateuch as a point of origin, but simply: it is a reasonable approach that works to protect public safety. – Marc Gravell Jan 14 '12 at 10:48
Point taken, @MarcGravell. The last sentence was meant to draw the reader's attention to the concept of "manslaughter" (Deut 19:4-6) and the terminology of "malice aforethought" (Num 35:20, Deut 4:42). Do you think this would be clearer if I added "in Judeo-Christian nations" after "modern principles of culpability"? The fact the other nations share concepts of public safety does not diminish the Pentateuch as a source. And I think this is a powerful linguistic carryover that our modern legal parlance uses some of the words from the KJV. – rajah9 Jan 14 '12 at 13:18
As for "correlation vs. causality": please see my answer and discussion at our sister site, – rajah9 Jan 14 '12 at 13:20

Genesis 9:5 does say that animals are held responsible but I would say that this does not mean heaven or hell. A lot of the punishments in the Torah that are meted out are of the earthly origin. As Exodus 21:28-29 (mentioned by rajah9) makes it very clear, this punishment is of an earthly nature. I don't think these texts are talking about heaven or hell at all.

As for the human tendency to put down any animal that attacks a human. I believe it started with these commandments to Noah, but now it might just be a part of human nature to put down anything that attacks us, especially if that thing is weaker and more vulnerable. The reason I say that is, the same commandments continue on and say that even if a human kills another human, that human shall be put to death, however, we as humans are not as trigger happy when it comes to putting humans to death for murdering as we are with animals.

share|improve this answer

In Christian ethics, animals are not considered free moral agents , and therefore are not culpable for their actions (here is an article about moral agency in general). Humans, as free moral agents, are able to choose between right and wrong and therefor be punished or rewarded for their choices.

I think one way of interpreting this verse is that it is not specifically saying that animals will be judged for taking the life of a human. It is there to emphasis God's justice in his dealings with us. Something akin to 'nothing will escape God's justice, not even animals'.

share|improve this answer
In light of other verses cited that seem to say the opposite about culpability, what doctrine would you reference for this claim? – Caleb Jan 14 '12 at 10:33

This is not an accurate translation of the Hebrew connotations: Here is the relevant passage in a more literal translation, starting at the beginning of Chapter 9 (my translation of Genesis, available on Wikisource):

And God blessed Noah and his sons; and told them "bear fruit and multiply, and fill the land. And your peculiar feats will awe all the land animals and all the fowl of the sky all that will crawl the land, and all the fish of the sea; into your hands they are given. Every land crawler that lives, will for you be for eating, of green plants, I give you all.

But flesh, with its soul still in its blood you will not eat. And even the life-blood of your soul I will demand, by the hand of every animal, I will demand it, and by the hand of man, in the hand of a man and his brother, I will demand the soul of man. Who spills man's blood, will that man's blood be spilled: because in the image of God, is man made."

The word translated as "demand an accounting for" is literally "Evakesh" or "ask for". It is simply saying that your mortal life can be taken by animal, or by another person. God says "I will ask for your life at the hands of animals, and at the hands of man". There is no calling to account.

The word "evakesh" is often used in other contexts to mean "I will ask for an explanation for", or "I will demand an accounting for". It just doesn't seem to mean that here. It is straightforward Hebrew that reads "I will demand your life back by animal and by man." The calling to judgement is only in the next verse about spilling blood.

share|improve this answer
Whatever the Hebrew might say, that translation isn't clear in English so it isn't very useful for reasoning out what the verse means. Also SE frowns on answers that are not useful apart from reading an offsite link. – Caleb Jan 14 '12 at 20:04
Also, there are plenty of translations that are both scholarly and read well in English. For example this verse in the ESV is both a clear and seems to be an accurate rendition here. – Caleb Jan 14 '12 at 20:05
@Caleb: I don't like these translations--- they take the word "evakesh" and deconstruct it as "demand a reckoning", when it means "ask for" as in "ask for it back". The reason I did a translation is to avoid unnecessary verbiage which wrecks the reading flow. – Ron Maimon Jan 16 '12 at 5:36
Thanks for editing, but I still don't think this is a useful answer. The meaning of your personal translation is still unclear in English and it is even less clear how you decided the well established translations are wrong on this point. The change in terms you suggest does not even resolve the issue the OP asked for. Also, for a translation that multiple different groups of qualified translators in various times have unanimously agreed on, you must provide more compelling evidence than that it "just doesn't seem right" to you as modern Hebrew speaker rather than an expert in ancient Hebrew. – Caleb Jan 16 '12 at 14:53
@Caleb - I would say Ron's answer here is the only useful answer. His point regarding the bizarre English translations from Hebrew is true. – Heath Hunnicutt Feb 19 '12 at 0:11

I believe everyone is off on there answer. We need to read verses 3-6 combining.

Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

We need to understand that the word meat in verse 3 is an old English word meaning food. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat or food is talking about rapid crawling creatures like lizards, locus etc.. It does not mean anything that moves.

Verse 4 speaks of a flesh that is not a rapid crawling creature. This flesh in verse 4 is all other animals including man that has a heart that pumps the blood like a man. It does not mean do not eat the blood mixed with the flesh.

Now verse 5 you need remember that the commandment is not placed upon animals but upon mankind. Verse 5 provides what man will reap if he or she eats the flesh of any animal that has the same blood pumping characteristics as mankind and/or eat the flesh of mankind. God will require the life of that man by the hand of a beast or hand of a man. The word require only means that the life of that man will be carefully seeked or resorted to. It does not determine absolute death upon that man and it doesn't mean the beast or man is out to kill that man with the knowledge of the flesh being eaten. Most likely they allow themselves be possessed with the spirit of murder from the mans act of eating such flesh.

Verse 5 further goes on saying that such spirit of murder will continue to effect every mans brother in seeking or resort to taking away the life of a man meaning its open game of murder here in addition to the life of the original flesh eating man. Now look at the world today. The book of Isaiah 11:6 and 65:25 will come to pass when we begin to obey these verses and stop eating such flesh.

Verse 6 commands immediate judgment upon that man that murders another man. The judgment is carried out by another man that is right with God.

This is my first time typing out my thoughts on the subject. I could spend more time on it to critic or fine tune some words or phrases and even add more insight. Like to know if anyone out there see the same way as myself. God Bless and may we stop eating our animals. Their flesh is not necessary to sustain our lives. All the vegetation including certain small creatures and bugs is all we need to enjoy a very healthy life.

share|improve this answer
Welcome to the site! This answer would be a lot better if you could add references showing that this is a common understanding, and who teaches/believes it. Remember that "I believe it means..." isn't an acceptable answer, since this site isn't about personal interpretation. See How we are different than other sites? and What makes a good supported answer? – Mr. Bultitude Jan 3 '15 at 18:37

protected by Community Feb 19 at 23:46

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.