What the Church Got Wrong About Food Permitted in Genesis     (And Why It Matters)                                                      

If you grew up in church, you’ve likely heard someone say something like: “In the Old  Testament, God gave Israel dietary laws, but those were just for Israel. Before Moses, God told  Noah he could eat ‘every moving thing that lives’—so all food is clean.”  

Genesis 9:3 is the foundational pillar of this thinking. And on the surface, it seems straightforward:  “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, as I gave you  the green plants.” — Conventional English Rendering of Genesis 9:3

But there’s a problem: the same Bible that records this verse also shows Noah, two chapters  earlier, clearly distinguishing between clean and unclean animals—before the flood, before  Moses, before any written law.  

In Genesis 7:2-3, God commanded Noah to take seven pairs of “clean” animals (for  sacrifice/food) and one pair of “unclean” animals (for genetic survival) onto the ark. 

So, which is it? Did God give Noah permission to eat everything, or did Noah already know  some animals weren’t for eating, known as “unclean”? And, if Noah already knew, what does  Genesis 9:3 actually mean?  

This paper examines these questions by going back to the Hebrew text—rather than relying on  modern English translations carrying centuries of theological baggage. Drawing on Hebrew  lexicography, expert biblical and linguistic scholarship, and contextual evidence from elsewhere in the book of Genesis, it argues that the modern English framing of Genesis 9:3—a universal  license to eat any animal—stems from a blatant translational error widely understood within linguistic circles that neglects the nuances  inherent in the Hebrew itself.  

It establishes the proper reading of Genesis 9:3 as the following: “All kinds of moving  creatures that live shall be food for you; as I gave you the green plants, I now give you all  these.” 

 

Understanding The Problem In Simple Terms 

Open your Bible to Genesis 7 and read verse 2: 

“You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female.” 

Now turn the page to Genesis 9 and read verse 3: 

“Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; as the green herb I have given you all things.” 

You’ve just encountered a problem. 

In Genesis 7, Noah knows which animals are clean and which are unclean. God Himself commands Noah to preserve this distinction during the flood. The text offers no explanation of how Noah knows this—it simply assumes he does. This implies the knowledge was already there, passed down through oral tradition from Adam. 

But in Genesis 9, God appears to give Noah permission to eat every moving thing. Cats? Dogs? Rhinoceros? Turtle? No distinctions. No boundaries. And if God really did remove the distinction here, why does the text not mention it? Why no explanation? Why no “what I once called unclean, I now call clean“? And given the exhaustive list of what Israel complained about during the period the Law was given, meticulously making their frustrations known, we see no indication anyone was upset about losing their “pork!” or any foods for that matter. (Hint: They already knew what animals were clean, just like Noah did after Adam) 

The tension is real. And how we resolve it depends entirely on whether Genesis 9:3 actually says what many of our English Bibles suggest it must say. 

The following page examines the Hebrew scholars and experts whose work clarifies how “kol” functions in Genesis 9:3—and why it does not require, nor does it even favor, the meaning “all animals.”

Rethinking Genesis 9:3: Acknowledging Immovable Facts 

First, the key word in Genesis 9:3 is kol—usually translated “all” or “every.” But Hebrew does not universally use kol the same way English universally renders “all.” This must be acknowledged as a linguistic fact. Scholars widely proficient in Hebrew and the most trusted lexicons acknowledge the diversity of its wide semantic range depending on a variety of factors. Across Genesis, when kol appears with a noun (like “plants,” “creatures,” “animals”) without definite scope, it consistently functions as a classifier—describing categories or kinds.

The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT; Koehler-Baumgartner) is the most widely used and trusted Old Testament dictionary, carrying unparalleled authority in Hebrew lexicography. It is widely regarded as the gold standard reference for Biblical Hebrew semantics among scholars worldwide. Compiled over decades by leading philologists, updated through five volumes, and drawing on comparative Semitics, ancient versions, and textual evidence, it has largely supplanted older works like BDB as the definitive lexicon for serious academic study. HALOT correctly categorizes kol as capable of totality (“the whole earth”), distributive (“every man”), but directly acknowledges its range with examples like “all kinds of animals” or “all sorts of weapons,” Here, it is not offering an opinion—it is documenting the word’s observable linguistic range with a rigor that defines the field’s benchmark. 

Blue Letter Bible, a widely used conservative-evangelical online study platform, explicitly notes on Genesis 9:3 “that the sense in which ‘all’ is to be taken must be gathered from the context of the passage itself.” In other words, when it notes the Hebrew word kol here, it is signaling to the reader this is limited in scope and defined by the immediate literary and theological context. And as my case points out, that immediate and theological context is Genesis 7 direct recognition of clean and unclean animals. 

The influential Jewish scholar Umberto Cassuto argued that Genesis 9:3 contains an implicit restriction based on the parallel with Genesis 1:29-30. Just as the plant diet in Eden had boundaries (the Tree of Knowledge), so too the meat diet here has boundaries. The phrase “as the green herb” creates this parallel intentionally. 

 

This next section examines the work of Peter Schmidt, whose research focuses on Hebrew translational accuracy. In his work ‘Translating Kōl: When “All” Does Not Mean “All,“ Schmidt critically examines the semantic range of kol and demonstrates through numerous Old Testament examples specifically where the word frequently indicates categories and kinds—showing where a reading of 100% totality “all” fails. 

 

In 2 Chronicles 28:24, Ahaz builds altars “in every [kol] corner of Jerusalem”—clearly hyperbole, not a literal inventory of every street corner without exception. Most convincing, 2 Chronicles 36:23, where Cyrus claims God has given him “all [kol] kingdoms of the earth.” As Schmidt notes, “King Cyrus must have been aware that there were other peoples living beyond the territory that he controlled.” Did Cyrus control ancient present day China? No. What about the territories of North America? Again, no. Ancient Australia? Still no.

For me, as a rigorous independent researcher, the Cyrus passage was the turning point.

I had already pondered the implications: if our modern reading of Genesis 9:3 is true, then Israel’s dietary practices were indistinguishable, in fact mirroring, the pagan nations surrounding them—eating vermin, swine, donkeys, felines, worms, snakes—all the way until the written Law was given to Moses. That is something we know historically and as my study argues linguistically and contextually—is simply not true.

But now, the proof is in Scripture itself. The fact that Cyrus clearly did not control all kingdoms of the earth demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that kol has a wider semantic range than most translations acknowledge. Yet, this remains an under-researched topic among biblical scholars—and as a result, many fail to connect this basic linguistic observation to Genesis 9:3. If “all” does not always mean all, then Genesis 9:3 needs to be reexamined in light of that.

 

Peter Schmidt’s findings require no intellectual brilliance on our part—and I don’t mean that to minimize his contributions to this conversation.

 Simply put, Schmidt’s contribution here amounts to saying, “Hey fellow Christians, this word here clearly has a wider semantic range. All the most credible experts acknowledge this, take a look at this verse here.” 

It is a matter of laying down defensive doctrinal weapons and allowing hard evidence , not inherited dogma, to lead our conclusions in these matters. 

The question is whether we will continue on smoothing kol into whatever best serves our preferred readings, for traditions sake, or whether we will accept the discomfort of a word whose observable range in Scripture may unsettle both our preferred translations and our theology about permitted and restricted foods before Sinai. The outcome of such a realization being that God always viewed certain animals as unfit for human consumption—well before the Law.

Peter Schmidt aside, even secular academics approaching the text without doctrinal constraints and boundaries, the understanding of kol has undergone something of a revolution—especially regarding Genesis 9:3. This should trouble us as believers. If those who carry no stake in the outcome, largely do not have the Holy Spirit of truth,  but can see what the text plainly says in context, while those of us guarding cherished Scripture miss it, then we have to ask: what else are we blinding ourselves to?

 

Translation For Reference 

The translational rendering this paper argues for in Genesis 9:3 is the same one translators are increasingly embracing—whether through commentary, notes, gloss, or in at least one case, an outright translation. The natural conclusion of linguistic, contextual, and historical analysis. This rendering is now being channeled into the tools, partnerships, and publications that serve those shaping the next generation’s understanding of Scripture. Let’s examine some of these developments more closely. 

While every modern English translation renders the Hebrew kol לֹכ in Genesis 9:3 simply as “all” or “everything,“ many notes within new Bible editions are beginning to gloss this nuance within their margins. But to my knowledge, only one translation correctly renders this Hebrew lexical nuance. 

1.) ‘The Hiligaynon Back Translation’ funded by United Bible Studies, a group intimately familiar with the work of Peter Schmidt. To be clear, I am not suggesting this translation is superior as a Bible. I highlight it only for its fidelity to Genesis 9:3. 

“I am giving these animals to you as food, just as I have given to you the plants as food” 

It uses “these animals” as a collective sub-group—referring directly back to the clean animals mentioned two chapters prior. This preserves the original text’s intention: that God granted the full, unrestricted access to a wide-variety of clean animals, not merely a buffet of cats, dogs, elephants and donkeys. 

For many of us, we are eagerly awaiting new editions of major translations that will render this correctly. Although a wide breadth of Hebrew scholarship—linguistic and semantic experts alike—universally agrees on the range of this word, our English bibles have simply not caught up with our growing understanding of ancient Hebrew and its implications for doctrine. However, the range of this word is already acknowledged in many notes, glosses, commentaries, and study bibles. Perhaps, even in the margins of your own bible.

 

Below is a direct excerpt from the commentary on Genesis 9:3 at BibleHub.com 

“Matthew Poole’s Commentary 

Every moving thing which is wholesome and fit for food, and clean; an exception to be gathered both from the nature of the thing, and from the distinction of clean and unclean beasts, mentioned before and afterwards. 

That liveth. This is added to exclude the use of those creatures which either died of themselves, or were killed by wild beasts, which is here forbidden implicitly, and afterwards expressly. See Exodus 22:31 Leviticus 22:8. 

Shall be meat for you: it is not a command that we must, but a permission that we may eat of them. A grant possibly given before the flood, but now expressed, either because the former allowance might seem to be forfeited, or because as men now grew more infirm and needed better nourishment, so the earth was grown more feeble by the flood, and its fruits yielded less and worse nourishment. 

I have given you all things: understand this with the limitation above-mentioned. The green herbs were given before, Genesis 1:29.”

 

Genesis 9:3 — Visual Graph For Reference

What We Observe	What It Tells Us / Implication
In Genesis 1, kol + noun consistently describes categories (“all kinds of plants,” “all kinds of creatures”), not every individual.	Hebrew expresses variety within a group; Genesis 9:3 follows the same pattern.
In Genesis 7, Noah already knows which animals are clean and unclean—before any law is given.	Clean/unclean distinctions predate the flood; Genesis 9:3 does not erase this knowledge.
In Genesis 1:24, “moving creatures” (remes) is one category among several, not a catch-all for every animal.	Genesis 9:3 addresses a specific category, not all animals indiscriminately.
Scholars like Cassuto and modern translations (NIRV, NAB, REB) recognize this categorical concept even while translating it according to tradition.	The categorical reading of kol + noun is mainstream, not fringe.

 

Genesis 9:3 — Picture For Reference

Note: Translation should say כָּל־רֶמֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר הוּא־חַי לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה instead of כל־הש עטר הווא יהוה הי ליכם לְאַבְרָלָה

Note: It should be noted that stated translations recognize concept in glosses and commentaries, not their text

What We’ve Learned 

 

1.) The Hebrew word kol does not mean “all” the way English uses “all.” It carries a documented semantic range that includes “all kinds of” and “all varieties of”—a fact acknowledged by the most trusted lexicons and Hebrew scholars, even if our English Bibles have yet to catch up. 

2.) The context of Genesis 7 is not optional background—it is the interpretive key. Noah already knew which animals were clean and unclean before the flood, before Moses, before any written law. If Genesis 9:3 had erased that distinction, the text would have told us. It did not. We must stop treating silence as permission to rewrite Scripture. 

3.) This is grounded in mainstream Hebrew scholarship —already shaping translation tools for the next generation of Bibles through commentary and glosses, and in one case- manifesting in the translation of the text itself. 

4.) The stakes are not merely academic. If we get this wrong, we risk misunderstanding Israel’s identity—and our own. We would have to believe that God’s people lived indistinguishably from the nations around them for centuries, eating rodents, swine and all manner of animals, until Sinai suddenly corrected them. Linguistically, contextually, and historically, we know that is not true.

 

Bibliography & Citations 

Lexicons and Grammars Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited by M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000. Joüon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 2nd ed. Rome: Gregorian & Biblical Press, 2011. van der Merwe, Christo H. J., Jacobus A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar. 2nd ed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Lettinga, Jan P., and Heinrich von Siebenthal. Grammatik des Biblischen Hebräisch. 2nd ed. Giessen: Brunnen; Basel: Immanuel-Verlag, 2016. Commentaries and Biblical Studies Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part 2, From Noah to Abraham. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17–22. The Anchor Yale Bible 3A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. Hieke, Thomas. Levitikus: Zweiter Teilband: 16–27. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament. Freiburg: Herder, 2014. Levin, Yigal. The Chronicles of the Kings of Judah: 2 Chronicles 10–36. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. Guzik, David. “Enduring Word Bible Commentary: Genesis Chapter 9.” Blue Letter Bible. Accessed February 15, 2026. https://www.blueletterbible.org. Hebrew Lexicography and Translation Studies Schmidt, Peter. “Translating Kōl: When ‘All’ Does Not Mean ‘All.'” Journal of Translation 16, no. 1 (2020): 180–87. Schmidt, Peter. “About Synchronizing the Translation of the Introductory and Concluding Formulas for the Kings’ Reigns in 1–2 Kings and 1–2 Chronicles.” In Yearbook on the Science of Bible Translation: 12th Forum Bible Translation 2016, edited by Gunnar Johnstad and Eberhard Werner, 57–75. Nürnberg: VTR Publications, 2017. Schmidt, Peter. “All: On Translating kōl.” Exegetical and Practical Aids for Old Testament Translation. Accessed February 15, 2026. Naudé, Jacobus A. “The Interpretation and Translation of the Biblical Hebrew Quantifier KOL.” Journal for Semitics 22 (2011): 408–21.  Translation Resources and Handbooks  Omanson, Roger L., and John E. Ellington. A Handbook on 1–2 Chronicles. 2 vols. UBS Handbook Series. Miami: United Bible Societies, 2014. Regt, Lénart J. de, and Ernst R. Wendland. A Handbook on Numbers. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 2016. United Bible Societies & SIL International. Paratext 8 [Bible translation software]. Source Language Search Tool.  Organizational Sources: SIL International. “What We Do.” Accessed February 15, 2026. https://www.sil.org. United Bible Societies. “Who We Are.” Accessed February 15, 2026. https://www.unitedbiblesocieties.org. Additional Historical Sources: Kautzsch, Emil Friedrich, and Karl Weizsäcker. Die Textbibel des Alten und Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1899.Schmid, Hartmut. Das erste Buch der Könige. Wuppertaler Studienbibel. Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 2000.Kilchör, Benjamin. “‘An jedem Ort’ oder ‘am ganzen Ort’ (Ex 20,24b)? Eine Antwort an Jan Joosten.” Biblische Notizen 165 (2015): 3–17.Ziegert, Carsten. “Das Altargesetz Ex 20,(22)24-26 und seine kanonische Rezeption.” Biblische Notizen 141 (2009): 19–34.

 

Related Posts:

‘Highway of Holiness’