I've spent over two decades studying Hebrew texts in seminary classrooms and teaching contexts. The most persistent biblical misinterpretation I encounter involves dietary laws.

Christians routinely cite Genesis to support vegetarian theology. They're reading the text backwards.

The Genesis 2:16 Trap

Most people anchor their vegetarian argument in Genesis 2:16. God commanded Adam about tree consumption in the garden.

"Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat."

This passage becomes their proof text. They interpret it as divine vegetarian mandate.

The problem lies in their exegetical methodology. They're working backwards from Genesis 2 instead of understanding the progression from Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 establishes the foundational dietary framework. Genesis 2 provides specific garden instructions.

Hebrew Linguistics Reveal the Truth

Genesis 1:28 contains the critical Hebrew word that destroys vegetarian interpretations.

God told humanity to "subdue" the earth and have "dominion" over animals. The Hebrew word translated as "subdue" is *kabash*.

English translations sanitize this word's meaning. Kabash literally means "to place your foot on the neck of your conquered enemy signifying submission."

The word carries violent connotations. It includes definitions of bondage, violation, and taking by force.

Biblical scholars acknowledge that dominion and subdue are "harsh words with violent overtones" that cannot be easily translated away from their forceful meanings.

*Kabash* appears frequently in contexts involving food acquisition. The word specifically includes subduing animals for consumption.

Context Determines Meaning

Genesis 1:28-29 provides the complete dietary framework. God grants dominion over animals, then immediately discusses food provision.

"Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

The sequence matters. Dominion over animals precedes dietary instructions.

Genesis 2:16 addresses a specific situation. Adam receives garden-specific instructions about tree consumption.

The subject isn't universal dietary restriction. God establishes an exception regarding one particular tree.

People mistake this exception for comprehensive dietary law. They ignore the broader Genesis 1 context that establishes human authority over animals.

Progressive Revelation Confirms Interpretation

The Noah narrative validates this understanding. After the flood, God reissues similar commands to Noah and his descendants.

Genesis 9 provides explicit dietary permissions. Genesis 9:3-5 states: "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. Like plant vegetation, I have now given you everything."

God gives Noah identical instructions to those given in Genesis 1. The same sequence appears: dominion over animals, then dietary permissions.

This time, God explicitly includes animals as food sources. The progression clarifies the original intent.

If Genesis 1 mandated vegetarianism, why would God need to "permit" meat consumption after the flood? The permission implies previous allowance, not new authorization.

Linguistic Evidence Overcomes English Limitations

Most Americans never study Hebrew. They rely entirely on English translations.

When I present Hebrew linguistic evidence, people resist. They argue that English translations don't support violent interpretations of dominion.

This resistance demonstrates the problem. English translations often soften Hebrew meanings to avoid uncomfortable implications.

*Kabash* loses its forceful meaning in English rendering. "Subdue" sounds gentler than "place your foot on the enemy's neck."

Context provides additional clarity. The same Hebrew roots appear in military conquest passages throughout Scripture.

Hebrew linguistic patterns remain consistent. Words don't change meaning based on modern sensibilities.

Theological Implications of Dominion

The dominion mandate establishes humanity's unique position in creation. Humans receive authority over animal life that other creatures lack.

This authority includes life-and-death decisions. The Hebrew text supports this interpretation through its violent vocabulary.

Vegetarian theology undermines this biblical anthropology. It reduces human authority to mere caretaking rather than genuine dominion.

The distinction matters theologically. Dominion implies responsibility with authority. Caretaking suggests service without power.

Biblical dominion includes stewardship responsibilities. Humans must exercise authority wisely, not abandon it entirely.

Sacrificial System Confirms Animal Use

Even before Noah, biblical characters used animals for religious purposes. Abel offered animal sacrifices in Genesis 4:4.

If God mandated vegetarianism, why would He accept animal sacrifices? The practice demonstrates that animal death served divine purposes from creation's beginning.

Noah also offered animal sacrifices immediately after leaving the ark. God's acceptance of these offerings confirms their appropriateness.

The sacrificial system required animal death. This system operated before any explicit meat-eating permissions in Genesis 9.

Vegetarian interpretation cannot account for this biblical pattern. Animal use for divine purposes preceded explicit dietary permissions.

Hermeneutical Principles Matter

Proper biblical interpretation requires systematic methodology. Context determines meaning more than isolated verses.

The Genesis 2:16 interpretation violates basic hermeneutical principles. It isolates one verse from its broader narrative context.

Sound exegesis moves from general to specific. Genesis 1 provides general principles. Genesis 2 offers specific applications.

The garden represented a unique environment with particular rules. These rules don't necessarily apply to post-garden existence.

Progressive revelation clarifies earlier passages. Later biblical texts help interpret earlier ones.

The Noah narrative serves this clarifying function for Genesis 1-2. It demonstrates how dominion principles apply in practice.

Modern Applications

This exegetical analysis has practical implications for contemporary Christian living. Dietary choices become matters of wisdom rather than moral obligation.

Christians can choose vegetarian diets for health, environmental, or personal reasons. They cannot claim biblical mandate for these choices.

The distinction preserves Christian freedom. Biblical authority supports multiple dietary approaches within dominion principles.

Stewardship responsibilities remain important. Humans must exercise dominion wisely, considering animal welfare and environmental impact.

The Hebrew evidence provides clarity without eliminating personal choice. It corrects theological error while preserving practical flexibility.

Conclusion

Hebrew linguistics demolish vegetarian interpretations of Genesis. The word *kabash* carries violent connotations that English translations obscure.

Contextual reading supports this conclusion. Genesis 1 establishes dominion principles that Genesis 2 doesn't contradict.

Progressive revelation through Noah's story confirms the interpretation. God explicitly permits meat consumption using identical language patterns.

Proper hermeneutical methodology requires this conclusion. Context, linguistics, and progressive revelation all point toward human authority over animal life.

Christians can make informed dietary choices based on accurate biblical interpretation. The text supports dominion with responsibility, not vegetarian mandate.

This understanding preserves both biblical authority and Christian freedom. It corrects common misinterpretation while maintaining practical wisdom in dietary decisions.