By The Reverend Professor Andrew Linzey, Director of Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics.

1. Biblical Readings on the Theme of Creation
2. Biblical Readings on the Theme of Communion
3. Biblical Readings on the Theme of Responsibility
4. Biblical Readings on the Theme of Compassion
5. Biblical Readings on the Theme of Redemption

Introduction

In 1895 Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others produced a ground-breaking work, The Woman's Bible.1 At the heart of the project was the conviction, not only that the Christian tradition was neglectful and dismissive of women, but also, specifically, that the Bible supported women’s subordination to men. Such “subordinationism” was due not just to faulty translations of the Bible or predominantly male exegesis, but because they thought, as Elisabeth Schuster Fiorenza explains, that “scripture itself is androcentric and biased in the interests of men.”2

Over one hundred years later, we can see that Stanton and her colleagues have contributed to, if not pioneered, a new way of reading scripture. Nowadays there is hardly a preacher who has not heard of feminist hermeneutics, or begun to take seriously the idea that women’s voices — both in scripture and tradition — have been sidelined or marginalized. Very few clergy now use the Bible as proof-texts to defend male supremacy, and almost all men are conscious that some of the historical texts — for example St. Paul’s advice that women should remain silent in church — are to be treated with caution, or at the very least not taken at their face value.

Chief among Stanton’s beneficial insights was the idea of “a hermeneutics of suspicion,” namely that, since the Bible was written by men “every biblical statement about woman must be carefully analyzed and assessed with respect to its male bias.”3 I say “beneficial” because that notion has encouraged generations of scholars to stand back and examine their own assumptions, as well as the apparent assumptions of the varying biblical authors, as they wrestled with the meaning of the text. Stanton’s method was revolutionary. In the teeth of the commonly held view that the Bible was simply God’s word handed down literally to humankind, she insisted that scripture was the result (as we surely now know) of human endeavour, albeit assisted by the Spirit, over a long period of time. Unsurprisingly, The Woman’s Bible had a controversial reception, and it took many years for her work to be fully recognised.

Is the Bible Irredeemably Speciesist?

In the same way that Stanton posed the question whether the Bible was irredeemably subordinationist, so those concerned for animals might ask whether the Bible is not also irredeemably speciesist. I define speciesism here as the “arbitrary favouring of one species’ interests over another.”4 Already the idea that it is has gained popular, and practical, currency. Those who want to justify the exploitation of animals for food, labour or sport, are among the first — for example, to appeal to the notion of “dominion” in Genesis, or to the pre-eminent place of humans as “made in the image of God,” or to the whole system of animal sacrifice — as demonstrations that they have holy writ on their side. Indeed, there is an assumed belief that scripture endorses the generally diffused conviction (never reinforced by actual biblical references because there are none) that “animals are made by God for our use.”

Given such a widespread view about what the Bible must be saying, animal advocates appear to have an uphill, if not impossible, task. And what is more there is no doubt that various strands of scripture do grant humans a special place in creation and see human power over animals as something God-given. Unsurprisingly, some may feel that the whole endeavour to seek scriptural support for animal protection is a mistaken one. If the Bible is principally written by men and largely in their own interests, it is self-evident that scripture is also written by humans and that their interests should dominate the text. Feminists speak of the marginalized or forgotten voices of women in biblical narratives, but at least in the case of women they can make their voice known (however submerged they may have been in the past by male writers and exegetes) but what are we to say of those who have ostensibly no voice at all? As one enlightened bishop recently asked: “God gave man dominion — but what did the animals think about it?”5 Scripture written by animals, we may suppose, would be rather different from scripture as we now know it.

It is also important to appreciate the theological investment in reading the Bible in a speciesist way. Elsewhere I have tried to give some account of how theology as a whole suffers from a tendency in this direction,6 but here I will simply point out that historical theology has emerged with some intellectual baggage when it comes to animals. No one comes “clean” or “empty” to the reading of scriptural texts; every new context interprets (for good or will) scripture differently. We should not be surprised then if Christians have historically interpreted scriptural texts as supporting pre-existing notions, and when it comes to the status of animals we do well to remember that many of these notions were hostile to animals. As I have written elsewhere, the thought of three thinkers — Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas — has been pivotal here:

Although devotees of each dismiss the simple charge of speciesism or moral callousness, it remains a fact that Aristotle did argue (typically or untypically) that ‘since nature makes nothing to no purpose, it must be that nature has made them [animals and plants] for the sake of man’. Augustine did maintain (however ad hoc) that ‘Reason has not been given to them [animals] to have in common with us, and so, by the just ordinances of the Creator, both their life and their death is subject to your use.’ And St Thomas (interpreting Aristotle rightly or wrongly) did write that ‘It is not wrong for man to make use of them [animals] either by killing or in any other way whatever.’ Whatever higher thoughts they may have had – even probably did have – they cannot be entirely absolved of responsibility for the way their words have been subsequently been interpreted, as stating that animals should be excluded from proper moral responsibility.7

Given the weight and currency of these ideas, and the way in which at least two of these thinkers continued to be honoured within the tradition, we should not be surprised if scriptural texts, which speak of humanity’s high place in creation, have been taken as confirmation of these other — highly negative — ideas. Once grasped, we should be open to the “hermeneutics of suspicion,” and be prepared to look again even, and especially, at commonly known texts.

Consider: the same biblical narratives that expound a high view of humans in creation are also invariably aware of how humans (apparently alone in creation) are capable of awful cruelty, untold violence, and acts of sheer moral waywardness. It is not for nothing that the Book of Genesis which posits the divine “image” in man (Genesis 1.26) later chronicles how God “was sorry that he had made man on the earth” (Genesis 6.6). Although humans are granted power over animals, biblical strands are also united in seeing the abuse of power as the hallmark of this apparently superior species.

Consider also: whilst the writers of the Hebrew Bible were not pacifists, vegetarians or opposed in principle to capital punishment, they nevertheless envisaged a peaceful world expressively inclusive of the animal realm. Isaiah 11.1-9 is poignant testimony to the capacity of a flawed and violent species to envisage a world without those negative characteristics that humans exhibit above all others. Again, although the interests of the people of Israel dominate the pages of the Hebrew Bible, one cannot but marvel at how it is that this same people, frequently engaged in civil or national strife, still found it possible to conceive of a divine covenantal relationship extending not just to other humans but also to all living beings.

Towards an Animals’ Bible

The point to be grasped is that the same biblical tradition that gives us the notion of the high place of humanity also provides us with a thoroughgoing critique of the massive failures of that humanity to live up to the standards that God expected. If scripture presumes the special place of humanity, it also carries with it a most searching moral and spiritual critique of the infidelity and sinfulness of humankind. If scripture is a speciesist document, it is also, or at least contains the seeds of, an anti-speciesist one as well. If it — in its most commonly known texts — sees human power over animals as something God-given, it also contains, especially in the Gospels, a critique of that power and, as I go on to illustrate, a revolutionary doctrine of lordship as service.

From an animal rights perspective, the concentration of biblical material on humanity and its salvation is, in one sense, entirely understandable. Humans need salvation. It is their violence and sinfulness that have made a mess of creation. The redemption of the world is impossible unless human beings come to their senses and begin to cherish God’s creation. In that sense, animals are properly marginal to scripture — for scripture should be (and is) overwhelmingly concerned with addressing the moral rot in creation, namely the waywardness of the human species itself.

Given this capacity of scripture to correct itself, for one narrative to redress the apparent weakness of another, and for one insight to develop another, I am not despairing, as some animal advocates may be, of the capacity of the Bible to provide key, indeed, foundational insights into the status of animals and our responsibility toward them. It is not so much that an Animal’s Bible (that is, a scripture whose animal-friendly insights are recognised and celebrated) is impossible; rather it has never seriously been tried. The problem is exacerbated because historic Christianity has been neglectful of many of the positive scriptural insights. To take just one example, it has foolishly supposed that because animals are NOT sinful and wicked as humans are, then God has no concern for them as individuals. What a terrible irony it is that the very innocence and sinlessness of animals should be regarded as grounds for excluding them from the economy of salvation. Of course, animals cannot be saved in precisely the same way as humans, for the simple reason that they are without sin, but they do deserve, as a matter of justice, salvation from the hands of greedy and violent so-called homo-sapiens, and due recompense in the hereafter for what they have had to endure. Indeed, there are good theological grounds for supposing that while animals have already been granted their place in heaven, it is the salvation of sinful humans (who alone have the capacity to resist God), which is in some doubt.

Schussler Fiorenza takes Stanton to task for supposing that the concerns of Christian feminists should be solely with the hermeneutics of suspicion. Rather, she says, we need a “hermeneutics of re-vision” which “in turn ‘searches’ the texts for values and visions that can nurture those who live in subjection and authorize their struggles for liberation and transformation.”8 The point is well made. Whatever may be apparently deficient in scripture is made up, according to Christian doctrine, by the living encounter with God’s Spirit, which helps interprets both the text and enables us to live its truth in a fresh way. There is so much in scripture that can give solace to those who work for the cause of animals. The pivotal stories — Exodus and Resurrection — are stories of how those who are downtrodden, despised and rejected are ultimately vindicated by God. The biblical theme of ultimate liberation and final justice should be music to the ears of every animal liberationist who feels keenly the suffering of the animal creation. God’s judgement means justice for every creature of the earth. Micah’s summary of what faith in God requires, namely, to “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly” (Micah 6.8b) is almost a credo of contemporary animal advocacy.

Animal Rights Exegesis

It is sometimes objected that the whole endeavour I have outlined should be questioned as an attempt to make scripture say what we want it to say. “You are just selecting the texts you like” is the reproach of some. In fact, the whole history of Christianity has been the selection and concentration on some texts to the exclusion of others. What “animal rights exegesis” — for want of a better term — is concerned to do is to ensure that we attend to those texts that the tradition itself has largely overlooked or forgotten. By urging concerns of justice upon the text of the Bible, we do not seek to confound scripture but rather to liberate its prophetic voice for justice in a new context.

Some examples may help. Almost every Christian knows that Genesis chapter one refers to humans as made in the image of God and given dominion over the earth (verses 26-7); very few are aware that the following verse both humans and animals are given a strictly vegetarian diet (verses 29-30). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that humans have seized upon those ideas in the text that immediately suit their own apparent interests when in fact the text also says things that are much harder to hear, and consequently overlooked. Again: Almost all Christians are aware of the high place accorded to humans in Genesis, much less well known is the unfavourable comparison between human beings and other creatures — such as the Behemoth and the Leviathan — in the Book of Job (chapters 40-41). These other passages are sometimes noted and explored, but seldom given their due weight. We need to continually re-learn that scripture does not sanction an uncritical view of human superiority. Animal rights exegesis is not interested in rewriting the Bible, what it requires is that we attune our ears so that we actually hear voices other than the ones we have become accustomed to hearing.

In what follows, I have selected various animal-friendly, as well as some not so obviously animal-friendly, texts to illustrate how scripture has the capacity to open our eyes to the cause of justice for animals, as it can also do so for women and other vulnerable human beings. These texts are much more numerous than might be supposed and I cannot claim that my own selection is exhaustive. But perhaps my attempt will at least encourage others. Even well-known (perhaps especially well-known) texts can serve as jolts to a new consciousness if we will, as Schussler Fiorenza says, “search the scriptures.”

Each text or story is followed by a short theological commentary aimed at exploring its significance or provoking further reflection. All the readings are grouped around five biblical themes: Creation, Communion, Responsibility, Compassion, and Redemption. This is the schema originally used in my Compassion for Animals: Readings and Prayers (London: SPCK 1988). All the quotations are from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted 1946, 1952, © 1971, 1973 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. Selection and commentary, © Andrew Linzey, 2002.

1. Biblical Readings on the Theme of Creation

These texts variously affirm: (1) that animals are not resources, commodities, machines or things, but creatures of God; (2) that God’s Spirit is the basis of their life; (3) that God loves and cares for them; (4) that they are created alongside human beings, similarly blessed, and given the earth as their own living space; (5) that they have worth to God independent of their apparent usefulness to human beings, and (6) that animals glorify God both on earth and in heaven.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth … And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.” So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1.1, 20-5

We know the words so well that their radical implications are often hidden from us. According to this first creation saga in Genesis (1.1-2.4b), animals are directly created by God, and exist in the closest possible proximity to human beings symbolised by the fact that the fish and birds are created on the fifth day, and land animals on the sixth day along with human beings. Moreover, all living creatures are “blessed” by God and given their own living space. In other words, animals have a right to exist because God made them and also have a right to their own share of God’s good earth. That such an arrangement is pleasing to God is emphasised by the repeated use of the phrase “And God saw that it was good”. Genesis thus repudiates the commonly held notion that God made all the earth just for humans, or that humans are the only right possessors of the earth itself.

Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind:
Who is this that darkens counsel
by words without knowledge?
Gird up your loins like a man,
I will question you,
and you shall declare to me.

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding
who determined you its measurements — surely you know!
Or, who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning starts sang together,
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Have you entered into the springs of the sea,
or walked in the recesses of the deep?
Have the gates of death been revealed to you,
or have you seen the gates of the deep darkness?
Have you comprehended the expanse of the earth?
Declare, if you know all this.
Job 38.1-7, 18-18

Job (surely rightly) complains to God because of his innocent suffering and receives this lyrical reply, which emphasises the limitations of any human understanding of creation. The point seems to be that unaided human intellect cannot understand the wonders of creation or fathom its mystery, and that humankind is guilty of pure hubris (pride) when it thinks it can grasp the meaning of God’s work in creation. Although humans suppose themselves a great work and that they alone possess the key to understanding the universe, God makes clear how limited, fallible and presumptuous the human species has become. No one who has read the Book of Job can suppose that scripture uncritically endorses human superiority over creation. To rub the point in, God then goes on to compare humans unfavourably with the other created species:

Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox.
Behold, his strength in his loins, and the power in the muscles of his belly.
He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron.

His is the first of the works of God;
let him who made him bring near his sword!
For the mountains yield food for him
where all the wild beasts play.
Under the lotus plants he lies,
in the covert of the reeds and in the marsh.
For his shade the lotus trees cover him;
the willows of the brook surround him.
Behold, if the river is turbulent he is not frightened;
he is confident though Jordan rushes against his mouth.
Can one take him with hooks,
or pierce his nose with a snare?
Job 40.1-24

There has been much discussion about what kind of creature is being described here (possibly a hippopotamus), but that is to miss the point. The point is that compared to the Behemoth, humans are less powerful, apparently less well made, less able to adapt to their environment, and uncontrollable by the usual means of capture. Most significantly, the Behemoth is “the first of the works of God” (verse 19) which suggests that God has made other creatures more powerful and sophisticated than human beings. Those who think the Bible is humanocentric — human-centred — need to ponder such lines as this. The result is humiliating for Job: the world, after all, is not tailored to human needs, or simply made for human use — rather God has created a vast, unfathomable world with creatures apparently superior to human beings. But the critique does not stop there. God asks Job to consider another creature:

Can you draw out draw out Leviathan with a fishhook,
or press down his tongue with a cord?
Can you put a rope in his nose,
or pierce his jaw with a hook?
Will he make supplications to you?
Will he speak to you soft words?
Will he make a covenant with you
to take him as your servant for ever?
Will you play with him as with a bird,
or will you put him on a lease for your maidens?
Will traders bargain over him?
Will they divide him up against the merchants?
Can you fill his skin with harpoons,
or his head with fishing spears?

Lay hands on him;
think of the battle; you will not do it again!
Behold the hope of man is disappointed;
and he is laid low even by the sight of him.

No one is so fierce that he dares to stir to him.
Who then is he that can stand before me?
Who have given to me, that I should repay him?
Whatever is under the whole earth is mine.

I will not keep silence concerning his limbs,
or his mighty strength, or his goodly frame.
Who can strip off his outer garment?
Who can penetrate his double coat of mail?
Who can open the doors of his face?
Round about his teeth with terror...

He makes the deep boil like a pot;
he makes the sea like a pot of ointment.
Behind him he leaves a shining wake;
one would think the deep to be hoary.

Upon earth there is not his like,
a creature without fear.
He beholds everything that is high;
he is king over all the sons of pride.
Job 41.1-14, 31-4

The creature in question is almost certainly a whale. And there is probably no finer panegyric to any other creature in the Bible. The logic of the argument is that there is no more powerful, noble, or more inscrutable a creature in the whole earth. God mocks the notion that humans can make a covenant with him, treat him as a slave, or try to overwhelm him in his awesome power. The Leviathan is nothing less than the “king over all the sons of pride” – that is, living proof that God has created beings beyond human control and superior to human strength. Not least of all, the Leviathan belongs to God alone, as the author of all life, as indicated in the line, “whatever is under the whole earth is mine” (verse 11b), so no human being is entitled to claim ownership of any creature of the earth.

One cannot leave this passage without contemplating that, sadly, almost all the methods of capture referred to — fishing spears, hooks, ropes, swords — as well as many others far more deadly, have now all been used to subdue Leviathans, so that even this one creature is not now beyond human reach and exploitation. The whale, which has become the symbol of the environment movement, has been brought low by greedy humans unable to appreciate, as did Job, the magnificence of these God-given creatures. But the theological point remains: God is interested in creatures other than the human ones. The whole world is not simply made for human use, and the intricacy and beauty of other creatures ought to act as a warning that human needs, important as they may be, are not God’s sole concern.

Hear, O my people, and I will speak,
O Israel, I will testify against you.
I am God, your God.
I do not reprove you for your sacrifices;
your burnt offerings are continually before me.
I will accept no bull from your house,
nor he-goat from your folds.
For every beast of the forest is mine,
the cattle on a thousand hills.
I know all the birds of the air,
and all that moves in the field is mine.
Psalm 50.7-11

It is sometimes supposed that scripture uncritically or unanimously accepts animal sacrifice. But, as this text demonstrates, that is not so. There is a telling theological critique articulated here: God, as the author of all life, has no need for the destruction of life in the form of sacrifice, since all life belongs to God. In the lines — “for every beast of the forest is mine”, and “I know all the birds of the air” — it is made clear that God values each and every form of life individually.

Bless the Lord, O my soul!
O Lord my God, thou art very great …
Thou makest springs gush forth in the valleys;
they flow between the hills,
they give drink to every beast of the field;
the wild assess quench their thirst.
By them the birds of the air have their habitation;
they sing among the branches.
From thy lofty abode thou waterest the mountains;
the earth is satisfied with the fire of thy work.

Thou dost cause the grass to grow for the cattle,
and plants for man to cultivate;
that he may bring forth food from the earth,
and wine to gladden the heart of man,
oil to make his face shine,
and bread to strengthen man’s heart.

The trees of the Lord are watered abundantly,
the cedars of Lebanon which he planted.
In them the birds build their nests;
the stork has her home in the fir trees.
The high mountains are for the wild goats;
the rocks are a refuge for the badgers.
Thou hast made the moon to mark the seasons;
the sun knows its time for setting.
Thou makest darkness, and it is night,
when all the beasts of the forest creep forth.
The young lions roar for their prey,
seeking their food from God.
When the sun rises, they get them away
and lie down in their dens.
Man goes forth to his work
and to his labour until the evening.
O Lord, how manifold are thy works!
In wisdom hast thou made them all;
the earth is full of thy creatures.
Yonder is the sea, great and wide
which teems with things innumerable,
living things both small and great.
There go the ships,
and Leviathan which thou didst form
to sport in it.
These all look to thee,
to give them their food in due season.
When thou givest to them, they gather it up;
when thou openest thy hand,
they are filled with good things.
When thou hidest thy face, they are dismayed;
when thou takest away their breath,
they die and return to their dust.
When thou sendest forth thy Spirit,
they are created;
and thou renewest the face of the ground.
Psalm 104.1, 10-30

This must be one of the earliest ecological celebrations of creation. The God who sustains human beings is also celebrated as the Creator who likewise sustains and delights in all kinds of living creatures. The Psalmist shows a keen appreciation of the interconnectedness of all life, and how each creature has its own God-given living space, like the Leviathan who inhabits the seas. Note the specific way in which God’s Spirit is credited as the author of all “life” (nephesh in Hebrew), not just human life.

Praise the Lord!
For it is good to sing praises to our God;
for he is gracious, and a song of praise is seemly.
Sing to the Lord with thanksgiving;
make melody to our God upon the lyre!
He covers the heavens with clouds,
he prepares rain for the earth,
He makes grass grow upon the hills.
he gives to the beasts their food,
and the young ravens which cry.
Psalm 147.1, 7-9

The underlying theology is as simple as it is profound: God the Creator deserves praise because God sustains and cares for the entire creation. God not only creates all life but also cares for all life. It is impossible to understand the references in the New Testament to animals without an appreciation that the doctrine of God as carer of the earth would have been assumed, not least of all by Jewish readers.

Praise the Lord from the earth,
you sea monsters and all deeps,
fire and hail, snow and frost,
stormy wind fulfilling his command!

Mountains and all hills,
fruit trees and all cedars!
Beasts and all cattle,
creeping things and flying birds!
Psalm 148.7-10

One of many recognitions in the Psalms that animals also praise God, and, in this instance, even the trees and mountains do so. The undeniable implication is that not only human beings, but also other creatures have their own spiritual relationship with God and give God glory. Although humans cannot properly fathom it, there is a dynamic of praise at the heart of creation or, as Daniel. W. Hardy and David Ford put it, there is a biblical-based “ecology of praise.” Since “praise is not just an arbitrary human activity but is in harmony with the way reality is, then we cannot limit it to the interpersonal.” See their work, Jubilate: Theology in Praise (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1984), p. 77. It follows that there is no such thing as a “brute” or static creation: all creatures respond in their own, as yet unfathomable, way to the love of God. For a thoughtful commentary, see V. H. Vanstone, Love's Endeavor, Love's Response: The Response of Being to the Love of God (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1977), pp. 81ff.

For thou lovest all things that exist, and hast loathing for none of the things which thou hast made, for thou wouldst not have made anything if thou hadst hated it. How would anything have endured if thou hadst not willed it? Or how would anything not called forth by thee have been preserved? Thou sparest all things, for they are thine, O Lord who lovest the living. For thy immortal spirit is in all things. Wisdom of Solomon 11.24-12.1

This is a truly astonishing (and much neglected) text. The logic is irrefutable: all living creatures exist because God wills them to do so, and loves them because they are God’s own creation. And the last line is the most revealing of all: the creatures that God loves and owns all enjoy God’s immortal Spirit, which is the basis of their life. From a theological perspective, it is because God values each creature that it is meaningful to speak of the “intrinsic value” of sentient creatures.

“Look at the birds of the air; they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.” Matthew 6.26 An echo here of Psalm 104 (above) which emphasises God’s beneficent care for creation and, in this case, specifically the birds of the air. Note how Matthew stresses that God’s beneficence extends even, and especially, to creatures who do not work as human beings do. Divine beneficence towards other creatures is not dependent upon some human work ethic. Animals and birds are blessed and give glory to God by being what they are. Their value does not depend on their utility to human beings.

“Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten by God.” Luke 12.6-7 Most commentators seize upon the contrast between the value of sparrows and that of human beings in the text as a whole (see also Matthew 10.26-30). But they overlook, as Richard Bauckham points out, that even if sparrows have a less value than humans, it must follow logically that they have some irreducible value. Since sparrows (strouthia in Greek) were probably sold in the market as little chunks of meat for just a few pennies, it is possible that Jesus is here affirming the inherent value of creatures regularly exploited for food. See Richard Bauckham, “Jesus and Animals I: What did he Teach?” in Andrew Linzey and Dorothy Yamamoto (eds) Animals On the Agenda: Questions About Animals for Theology and Ethics (London: SCM Press, 1998), pp. 39-46.

And round the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind: the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like a flying eagle. And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all round and within, and day and night they never cease to sing,

“Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”

And whenever the living creatures give glory and honour and thanks to him who is seated on the throne, who lives for ever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who is seated on the throne and worship him who lives for ever and ever; they cast their crowns before the throne, singing,

Worthy art thou, our Lord and God,
to receive glory and honour and power,
for thou didst create all things
and by thy will they existed and were created.
Revelation 4.6b-11

Who or what these spectacular creatures are is unclear from the text. But we can be certain of one thing: the magnificent vision of heaven pictured here is not exclusive of other than human creatures. Heaven is not only for human beings; indeed the refrain offered specifically celebrates the work of God as Creator (“for by thy will they existed and were created”) of all things. It is difficult to reconcile this vision of heaven with the commonly held view that only human souls go there. This vision of heaven as a community of diverse creatures echoes the work of God in creation. Such texts are a challenge to our theological imagination and serve to save us from a parochial view of God and eternal life.

2. Biblical Readings on the Theme of Communion

The creatures of the earth form one community under God. A sense of togetherness and kinship is variously affirmed by these biblical texts: (1) animals are our partners in creation and are likewise formed from the dust of the ground; (2) animals and humans together share the Sabbath experience which is the peaceful goal of all creation; (3) all living creatures, including animals, are included within the covenant relationship with God; (4) Jesus symbolises peaceable co-existence by his companionable presence with the wild animals, and (5) all life comes to be through the Word (Logos) without whom was not anything made that was made.

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb had yet sprung up — for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground — then the Lord God formed man from dust the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being… The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it …Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.'So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. Genesis 2.4b-7, 15, 18-19

In this the second creation saga in Genesis (2.4b-3), man is created first and then placed in the garden “to till it and keep it” (verse 15) making clear that he is created to look after the garden, which symbolises creation itself. What this text also makes clear is the fundamental closeness between man and animals: both are made of the dust of the ground (that is, from the earth itself), both are given the breath of life, and although animals are not his destined partner, man nevertheless expresses the bond between them by “naming” them. Some theologians have tried to suggest that “naming” means ownership of animals — to that line of thought it can only be pointed out that, later on, Adam also “names” the woman (verse 23). Neither creation saga justifies the supremacist view of humans in creation, which is found in later Christian theology.

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord God was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord God said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the ground, man and beast and creeping things and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them”. But Noah found favour in the eyes of the Lord”... Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold I will destroy them with the earth.” Genesis 6.5-9, 11-14.

Many commentators overlook the central point that it is God’s anger at human violence that precipitates the earth’s destruction. The notion may appear paradoxical until it is appreciated that God would rather there be no earth at all rather than a violent one. God is sorry that “he had made man” and also, it seems, all the other creatures who also resort to violence. Two things should be noted here: First, far from holding humans to be the “superior” creature, Genesis here underlines how humans are especially capable of violence and corruption. Secondly, it is because humans and animals are so intimately connected (as indicated by the two creation sagas in Genesis) that they both come under the same judgement. The Noahic saga is an extraordinary tale of a God who repents of the creation of the pre-eminently violent human species.

Then God said to Noah, and to his sons with him, “Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your descendents after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, as many came out of the ark. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”Genesis 9.8-12

The covenant — not only with human beings — but also with all living creatures is the great, unexplored, idea in modern Christian writing. It challenges at root the notion that God is only interested in the human species or is exclusively concerned with human welfare. Many theologians, such as Karl Barth, have glossed over these verses as if animals were never really in the picture or simply incidental to the main story. We need a new generation of biblical scholars who will begin to articulate the moral significance of this covenant for our current use of animals. The story of Noah and his ark speaks to our generation as an ecological parable best summed up in the line: “We are all in one boat together”.

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his works which he had done in creation. Genesis 2.1-4

This is the much-overlooked goal of the first creation saga. It is not the creation of man, or the making of man in the divine image, or the giving of dominion that is the culmination of the story, but the sabbath experience, that is, when God rests with the creation he/she has made and all creation lives together in peace. This is a powerful image of how creation should have been before human violence and sinfulness made a mockery of God’s plan. In many ways, seeking to recover the Sabbath experience is the ecological programme for all Christians. For a discussion, see Jurgen Moltmann, God in Creation (London: SCM Press, 1985), pp. 5-7. Moltmann argues that “Every Sabbath is a sacred anticipation of the world’s redemption”, p. 6.

For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to earth? Ecclesiastes 3.19-21

These verses, often dismissed as speculations, provide an explicit critique of the special place often granted to human beings in salvation. Notice how being created from the dust, and being given life (breathed upon) by the Spirit, are accepted as the form of creation of both humans and animals. And there is extreme scepticism about the idea that human life has any advantage in this schema over that of animals. So much for the often quoted view that scripture simply reinforces human pre-eminence.

“The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered to him.” Mark 1.12-13 This one line has recently been the subject of research by biblical scholar, Richard Bauckham. He suggests that it needs to be understood within a context of messianic expectation, and would have been understood as such by its first readers. Since the messiah was expected to usher in a new reign of peace and harmony within creation (see Isaiah 11.1-9), it is significant that Jesus prefaces his ministry (in Mark’s Gospel) by living peacefully with the animals in the wilderness. Bauckham writes: “For us Jesus’ companionable presence with the wild animals affirms their independent value for themselves and for God. He [Jesus] does not adopt them into the human world, but lets them be themselves in peace, leaving them to their wilderness, affirming them as creatures who share the world with us in the community of God’s creation. Mark’s image of Jesus with the animals provides a christological warrant for, and a biblical symbol of the possibility of, living fraternally with other living creatures, a possibility given by God in creation and given back in messianic redemption.” See his “Jesus and Animals II: What did he Practise?” in Andrew Linzey and Dorothy Yamamoto (eds) Animals on the Agenda: Questions About Animals for Theology and Ethics (London: SCM Press, and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1998), p. 59. Notice also, how “ the Spirit” drove Jesus into the wilderness. In other words, Jesus does not arrive there as it were by accident; it is part of his divinely inspired ministry.

Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them,'Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. If any one says anything to you, you shall say, "the Lord has need of them,"and he will send them immediately.'This took place to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet saying: Tell the daughter of Zion, Behold, your kind is coming to you, humble, and mounted on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of an ass.’ Matthew 21.1b-5

Here, and in many other instances, Jesus’ life and ministry is identified with animals. That Jesus chooses a humble “beast of burden” in which to ride into triumphal entry into Jerusalem says something about the nature of his ministry and the kind of messiah he was. As theologian Adrian Hastings poignantly expresses it: “Borne by an ass on which he will ride in mock triumph as a prince of peace, he becomes the sort of peace who can appropriately ride on an ass, and this is the sort of peace to which we aspire in the celebration of Christmas: a peace in which humanity humbly rediscovers kinship with the animal creation (remember the old myths that on Christmas night all the animals can speak in human tongues), an animal world over which it has ridden with no dialogue whatsoever till danger stands across the road. It is the ass, this “dull, stupid fellow,” who tells us what an unaggressive kingdom of peace must be about. And that, perhaps, is the message of Christmas.” See Adrian Hastings, “The Prince of Peace”, A Christmas Sermon preached in the University of Leeds, 1989, in The Shaping of Prophecy: Passion, Perception and Practicality (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1995), pp. 176-77.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life.” John 1.1-4a This classic statement of Christ as the Logos (Word), the Co-Creator with God the Father, makes explicit the divine origin of all life. One is tempted to go further and say that all life is a Christ-shaped, indeed Christ’s very gift to all creatures. Note, for example, the penetrating exegesis of Edward Irving: “”Life we hold … [to be] the purchase of Christ’s sacrifice made from the foundation of the world. Whether you regard the life of any individual, or the life of the race of men, or the life of animals, it is all a fruit, a common fruit of redemption, a benefit from the death of Christ”, see his Collected Writings, Vol. V, edited by G. Carlyle (Alexander Strahan, 1865), pp. 295ff., and discussed in Andrew Linzey, Christianity and the Rights of Animals (London: SPCK, 1987) p. 31. From this perspective, what we now see as life is actually Christ’s own gift to creation secured through his own sacrifice.

3. Biblical Readings on the Theme of Responsibility

These texts variously affirm that: (1) created in the image of God, humans must care for creation as God cares for them; (2) human power (“dominion”) is not absolute; as originally given it meant nothing other than a peaceful care of creation as God’s deputy; (3) the covenant of peace, inaugurated by God, includes all living creatures; (4) there are moral limits to what humans may do to animals, for example, compassion must take precedence over Sabbath observance, and (5) Christ’s sacrifice provides a model of lordship expressed in service.

God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” And God said, 'Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.'And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. Genesis 1.26-31

There is, perhaps, no more misunderstood text in the Bible. For centuries “dominion” has been understood as “domination” — that is, the right to exploit animals as we wish. That view, however, can only be sustained if the passage is read entirely out of context. In context, dominion means almost exactly the reverse. Consider: the granting of dominion is contingent upon being made in the image of God. That means that humans are appointed God’s own deputies or vice-regents in creation, that is, they are to look after creation according to God’s moral will. It does not mean that they can do anything they like, or that creation was made for them; even less, that they own creation. Human dominion is limited: we are to exercise power in accordance with God’s own intentions for creation. For many years, theologians have understood being made in God’s image as a reinforcement of our special place in creation – and so it is. But our specialness, according to Genesis, consists in our ability to fulfil the commission of care that God has entrusted to us. Being made in God’s image means exactly that: that we are made in the image of a God who is loving, holy and just – hardly a warrant for behaving in a morally inferior way to other creatures. The truer biblical reading of this text is that humans are not made the “master species” but rather the “servant species.” See Andrew Linzey, Animal Theology (London: SCM Press, and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), pp. 45-61).

There is another reason why dominion cannot mean simply domination, and that is also given in the text. After having been made in the image of God and given dominion, humans are given a vegetarian diet (“every plant yielding seed”). Herb-eating dominion can hardly be a license for tyranny! It is astonishing that generations of biblical exegetes have simply latched on to the notion of the image or dominion, but entirely overlooked the subsequent verses which make clear that God’s original will was a wholly vegetarian creation. The command to vegetarianism also extends to animals themselves since their food is limited to the green plants. In other words, Genesis 1 offers a powerful vision of a peaceful creation in which humans are commissioned to take care of creation and no act of killing by any species is authorised by God. It is this creation — peaceful, co-operative, and harmonious — that is decreed to be “very good.”

Of course that is not the end of the biblical story. As already seen, human violence overwhelms the earth and God almost entirely despairs of the human creation. But God saves Noah and the animals, and promises a new covenant in which creation will be safe forever. After the fall and the flood, God — paradoxically perhaps — allows killing for food (Genesis 9.1-8) as a concession to human weakness. But even here there are limits: humans may not consume the blood of animals, and for every animal killed there will be a reckoning. So even within this later tradition that allows killing under certain circumstances, the right to kill is severely limited. How after all, can one kill without shedding blood? The answer seems to be that while humans may sometimes kill animals in times of necessity, they must never assume that the life (symbolised by blood) of animals is something they own; they must never, in other words, misappropriate what belongs to God alone. Taken together, the moral challenge of Genesis 1 and 9 goes something like this: there may be times in this fallen world when we have no alternative but to kill, but we need always to remember that that is not God’s will. God’s original will was for an entirely peaceful creation. People who refer to Genesis 9 without understanding Genesis 1, assume that killing is acceptable to God, but they fail to appreciate that the former refers to a post-lapsarian state (that is, a post-fallen situation) whereas the former refers to a pre-lapsarian (that is, a pre-fallen state). Only if we grasp that God’s original will was a vegetarian creation can we begin to appreciate the prophetic writings (for example, Isaiah 11-1-9), which look forward to a time when God will re-establish a wholly peaceful, non-carnivorous world.

The Lord said to Moses on Mount Sinai, “Say to the people of Israel, when you come into the land which I give you, the land shall keep a sabbath to the Lord … in the seventh year there shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the land … The sabbath of the land shall provide food for you, for yourself and for your male and female slaves and for your hired servant and the sojourner who lives with you; for your cattle also and for the beasts that are in your land all its yield shall be for food.” Leviticus 25.1-3, 6-8

What is remarkable about this text (and other similar ones) is the way in which the sabbath regulations (in this case the so-called Jubilee) apply equally to animals. The land and the animals are not to be incessantly worked; there is to be a time of rest in which all equally enjoy the harvest of the land. This text is a practical confirmation of the view that the vision of sabbath rest at the end of the first Genesis saga is explicitly inclusive of the whole of creation (see discussion of Genesis 2.1-4 below).

You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and withhold your help from them; you shall take them back to your brother. And if he is not near you, or if you do not know him, you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall be with you until your brother seeks it; then you shall restore it to him … You shall not see your brother’s ass or his ox fallen down by the way, and withhold your help from them; you shall help him to lift them up again. Deuteronomy 22.1-2,4

If you chance to come upon a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting upon the young or upon the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young; you shall let the mother go, but the young you may take to yourself; that it may go well with you, and that you may live long. Deuteronomy 22.6-7 ”You shall not plough with an ox and ass together.” Deuteronomy 22.10 “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Deuteronomy 25.4

These four texts should be taken together. At first sight, they hardly appear animal-friendly texts, but all witness to the idea that there are moral limits to what we may do to animals even if we use them for food or for labour. Yes, it is thought to be allowable to take eggs or the young, but if such are taken the mother is not to be killed as well. Again, oxen and assess may be used for labour, but not used in a way that will involve hardship when incompatible species are harnessed together. Yet again, oxen may be used to tread out the grain, but muzzling the creatures (so they can eat nothing of their labour) is deemed to be unfair. What these texts show is that concern for animals in themselves was part of the early formulations of Hebrew law. However embryonic or undeveloped, these verses are testimony to the sense that even when using and killing animals, our use of animals cannot be absolute.

Praise the Lord
Full of honour and majesty is his work,
and his righteousness endures forever.
He has caused his wonderful works to be remembered;
The Lord is gracious and merciful;
he is ever mindful of his covenant.
Psalm 111.1a-3-5

The point is slightly obscured by the rendering; it is not just that God is merciful and gracious but that God’s mercy extends to all “his works,” namely all creatures. This is one of the primordial references to God as a gracious Creator, which was later taken by the rabbis as a proof-text to justify humane provisions in Hebrew law for animals.

And I will make with them a covenant of peace and banish wild beasts from the land, so that they may dwell securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods. And I will make them and the places round about my hill a blessing; and I will send down the showers in their season; they shall be showers of blessing. And the trees of the field yield shall their fruit, and the earth shall yield its increase, and they shall be secure in the land; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I break the bars of their yoke, and deliver them from the hands of those who enslaved them. They shall no more be a prey to the nations, nor shall the beasts of the land devour them; they shall dwell securely, and none shall make them afraid. And you are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, and I am your God, says the Lord God. Ezekiel 24.25-28, 31

And I will make for you a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground; and I will abolish the bow, the sword, and war from the land; and I will make you lie down in safety. Hosea 2.18

Both passages from Ezekiel and Hosea restate the covenantal promise (in Genesis 9. 8-11) but also make explicit that the covenant will guarantee peace for all creatures. As in Isaiah, violent creatures will live peacefully with humans and there will be no need to resort to killing. At a time when wild animals did occasionally attack humans and when humans lived in fear of such attacks, it is telling that God’s covenant should be thought to extend to them also. Notice how, in Ezekiel, the wild animals are not be to exterminated but allowed “to dwell securely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods”(verse 25) where they also will be blessed by the Lord.

And they asked him, ‘Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?’ so that they might accuse him. He said to them, ‘What man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, would not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath.’ Matthew 12.10b-12

The text cannot be understood without reference to the established Jewish acceptance that it was right to work on the sabbath if it was necessary to prevent cruelty to animals. That such an exception should be made in relation to animals is itself revealing. Accordingly, animals were allowed to rest on the sabbath and various rabbinic regulations amplified the sabbath ordinances concerning animals. See Andrew Linzey and Dan Cohn-Sherbok, After Noah (London: Mowbray, now Continuum, 1997), pp. 28-30. In other words, compassion preceded even the demands of the sabbath. It is that principle that Jesus alludes to in his response to those who say it is not right even to heal on the sabbath. The argument goes as follows: you say that one should not work on the sabbath, but who among you would not help your animal who fell into a pit on the sabbath? The logic is clear that it is right to do “good” on the sabbath which includes both healing the sick and, by implication, rescuing suffering animals.

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays downs his life for the sheep.” John 10.11 This one line expresses in a particular poignant way the doctrine of lordship expressed in service, which has become the hallmark of Jesus’ teaching. It has radical implications for our treatment of animals. Unlike shepherds who tend, but also kill, their sheep, Jesus is the “good” shepherd who actually gives up his life for them. Jesus’ ethic involves a reversal of our usual understanding of the nature of power. See discussion of Philippians 2.5-9 below.

4. Biblical Readings on the Theme of Compassion

These texts variously affirm that: (1) God’s compassionate care extends to all living creatures; (2) humans are to emulate God’s compassion and in doing so become “righteous”; (3) even the birds brought and sold in the market have intrinsic value and are not forgotten by God; (4) Jesus rejected the system of animal sacrifice in the temple; (5) Jesus offers us a model of inclusive moral generosity that implicitly includes animals, and (6) cruelty is incompatible with a Christ-like life.

Balaam rose in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. But God’s anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the way as his adversary. Now he was riding on the ass, and his two servants were with him. And the ass saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand; and the ass turned aside out of the road, and went into the field; and Balaam struck the ass, to turn her into the road. Then the angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side. And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she pushed against the wall; so he struck her again. Then the angel of the Lord went ahead, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left. When the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she lay down under Balaam; and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he struck the ass with his staff. Then the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” And Balaam said to the ass, “Because you have made sport of me. I wish I had a sword in my hand, for then I would kill you.” And the ass said to Balaam, “Am I not your ass, upon which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Was I ever accustomed to do so to you?” And he said, “No”.

Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in his way, with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed his head, and fell on his face. And the angel of the Lord said to him, “Why have you struck your ass these three times? Behold, I have come forth to withstand you, because your way is perverse before me; and the ass saw me, and turned aside before me these three times. If she had not turned aside from me, surely just now I would have slain you and let her live.” Numbers 22.21-33

It is sometimes said that the Bible nowhere “anthropomorphises” animals, or depicts “talking animals,” but this is clearly an exception. The passage is remarkable for its acceptance of the superior spiritual sensibility of animals (remembering that, in context, assess were often viewed as little more than “brute beasts of burden”). Of course the particular purpose of the text is to illustrate the mindless, heedless nature of Balaam himself, but the superior moral and spiritual qualities of the animal put Balaam to shame. Notice also the underlying moral motif: only the mindless Balaams of our world would think it right to reward years of faithful service with cruel treatment. There is more than a hint of egalitarianism in the asses’ retort to Balaam about the need for reciprocity. An extraordinary story — as much a story of animal compassion for humans as anything else.

“A righteous man has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” Proverbs 12.1 This one line sums up the best in the Hebrew Bible’s attitude to animals. The use of the word “righteous” (zaddick) is significant here. The term ‘righteous person’ was ascribed to only two biblical personages: Noah and Joseph and this because they provided food for animals as well as humans during times of famine and emergency. Because the sign of a righteous person was concern with the welfare of God’s creatures, the rabbis stressed that Joseph was told by his father, Jacob, to ascertain whether all is well not only ‘with thy brethren’ but also ‘with the flock’.” Andrew Linzey and Dan Cohn-Sherbok, After Noah (London: Mowbray, now Continuum, 1997), p. 27. The theology appears to be that in caring for other creatures, humans reflect God’s own care as Creator (see Psalm 104 above) and is therefore is deemed especially meritorious.

How the beasts groan!
The herds of cattle are perplexed
because there is no pasture for them;
even the flocks of sheep are dismayed.
‘Fear not, O land;
be glad and rejoice,
for the Lord has done great things!
Fear not, you beasts of the field,
for the pastures of the wilderness are green;
the tree bears its fruit,
the fig tree and the vine give their full yield.’
Joel 1.18, 2.21-2

In the Book of Joel both humans and animals come under the judgement of the Lord and both are renewed. It is typical of the Hebrew Bible to link the fate of animals to that of humans thereby symbolising the closeness between them expressed, for example, when they are created together on the sixth day of creation (Genesis 1.24-6). Joel also contains the remarkable promise that God will “pour out” his/her “Spirit on all flesh” (2.28), a promise that is inclusive of all creatures.

And the Lord said, “You pity the plant, for which you did not labour, nor did you make it grow, which came into being in a night, and perished in a night. And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” Jonah 4.10-11

These concluding lines of the Book of Jonah are not, I think, meant ironically. Jonah is distressed by the destruction of his favourite plant, and in return God is so impressed by the compassion of Jonah for even a little plant that God likewise feels obliged to show compassion to the city of Nineveh, its confused human inhabitants, and of course the cattle. There is a morality tale here about the extent of human and divine compassion. “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.” Matthew 5.7 In many ways the most important text of all. As God in the Book of Jonah extends compassion even to the smallest thing, so Jesus provides us with what I have called “a paradigm of inclusive moral generosity,” see Andrew Linzey, Animal Theology (London: SCM Press and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994), chapter two on “The Moral Priority of the Weak,” pp. 28-44. In other words, it is implicit in the teaching and ministry of Jesus that the sick, the weak, the poor, and the vulnerable make a special claim upon us and should therefore have moral priority. There is no truer test of our faithfulness to God than our capacity to show mercy and generosity. Generous concern for animals is a proper extension of the teaching of Jesus.

And a scribe came up and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.” And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.” Matthew 8.19-20 The relevance of this text may appear opaque until it is appreciated that Jesus would have taken for granted the Jewish doctrine of God as carer of creation so that it is right and good that creatures have their own habitation. That animals do have their own habitation is as the Creator intended. In contrast, Jesus is homeless — a response which may not have encouraged the scribe to follow him. But the point is that there should be provision for the Son of man since the Creator has graciously designed creation for all creatures, even and especially the non-human ones.

“O Jerusalem, Jersualem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered together your children as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!” Matthew 23.37 This point of this poignant saying (see also Luke 13.34) seems to be that Jesus would have cared for them just as a hen cares for her chicks but, alas, their violence and sinfulness had prevented it. But the analogy is also telling in another way: as God has created a world in which one species looks after its young, so such caring (which is God’s design in creation) is thwarted by human violence and blindness. In other words, just as God cares for creation and designs creation to exhibit such care, humans alone are capable of frustrating God’s design in a way in which animals are not. Although nature is not regarded as a moral textbook (since nature, like humans, are affected by the fall), it is nevertheless significant that the teaching of Jesus often presupposes that there are moral qualities or characteristics in other creatures that humans should emulate.

And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who brought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. And he taught, and said to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? but you have made it a den of robbers.” And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him; for they feared him and, and because all the multitude was astonished at his teaching. Mark 11.15-19

From an animal liberation perspective, this is perhaps the most radical passage in the entire Bible. In the past, scholars have assumed that Jesus only objected to the buying and selling of goods in the temple or that his critique of sacrifices was solely directed at the misuse of sacrifice rather than the practice itself. But the text does not support those views. The question has to be asked: What were they selling? Well, as Mark makes clear they were selling pigeons (as well as almost certainly sheep) for sacrifice. The temple was in fact a glorious abattoir with the making of money as its essential characteristic. By opposing the sale of animals, Jesus strikes at the root of the whole sacrificial system. By insisting that no one should “carry anything through the temple” (verse 16) the whole possibility of animal sacrifice was eclipsed. This view is reinforced by Jesus’ later comment that love of God and neighbour is “much more than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Mark 12.33). Some scholars, such as Richard Bauckham, argue that Jesus as a child of Judaism must have sacrificed animals in the temple as prescribed by Jewish law. But if that was the case, why did Jesus’ disciples then not continue the practice after his death? In fact, in this one instance Christianity, which grew out of Judaism repudiated its Jewish heritage, and did not perpetuate the system of sacrifice. See also Matthew 21.12-17; Luke 19.45-8, John 2.13-16, and Hebrews 9.12,10.4-11 discussed below.

Have this mind among yourselves, which you have in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2.5-9

The inner logic of the “generosity paradigm” is here unravelled. God in Christ has set us a model or paradigm of how we should exercise our God-given power over animals. As Jesus expresses his lordship in service, so we should likewise express our power (“dominion”) in service to animals. Far from being its own justification, power can only be christologically justified if we use it for the benefit of others. In the past, “dominion” simply meant that power was its own justification; but interpreted christologically our power over animals consists in our capacity to be of service to them. There can be no lordship without service. Hence again we need to think of ourselves not as “the master species” but as “the servant species” in creation.

Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, forbearing one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you all must forgive. And above all put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts. Colossians 4.12-16

St. Paul here sketches those foundational qualities that should belong to the “new man” in Christ, notably compassion, meekness, forbearance, love, and peaceableness. Early Christian preaching in the nineteenth century regularly appealed to these virtues to establish that cruelty to animals was contrary to Christian ethics. The logic was straightforward: compassion cannot co-exist with cruelty. Hence, the eighteenth-century divine, Humphry Primatt wrote of how “we may pretend to what religion we please but cruelty is atheism. We may make our boast of Christianity but cruelty is infidelity. We may trust to our orthodoxy but cruelty is the worst of heresies,” The Duty of Mercy and the Sin of Cruelty (Edinburgh: T. Constable, 1776), p. 28.

5. Biblical Readings on the Theme of Redemption

These texts variously affirm that: (1) peaceful co-existence without violence of any kind is God’s goal for all creation; (2) through Christ, God will reconcile all things on earth and in heaven; (3) the Logos is both the source and destiny of all created things; (4) Christ’s one true sacrifice has made the sacrifice of animals redundant, and (5) non-human creatures are in a state of bondage awaiting the redemption promised by God.

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid,
and the calf and the lion and the fatling together,
and a little child shall lead them.
The cow and the bear shall feed;
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
The suckling child shall play over the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den.
They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain;
for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 11.6-9

This is the messianic prophecy par excellence. It is impossible to understand without appreciating the original command to be vegetarian (Genesis 1.29-30), the advent of violence after the fall (Genesis 6.5-8), and the permission to eat meat after humanity’s decline into violence (Genesis 9.1-7). Even though meat-eating (with restrictions) had become an accepted facet of life, Isaiah believes that this situation will not be tolerated indefinitely. He looks forward to a time when the earth will be restored to its original peaceful state where no violence exists between humans and animals or between the animals themselves. This was the world that God created before humanity’s proclivity towards violence made a mockery of God’s plan. Because of the fundamental closeness of humans and animals, it is typical of Hebrew thought that as humans turned to violence so did the animals also. Hence in the future state, when humans have themselves become peaceful, all creatures likewise turn and live together peacefully.

Behold the Lord God comes with might,
and his arms rule for him;
behold his reward is with him,
and his recompense before him.
He will feed his flock like a shepherd,
he will gather the lambs in his arms,
he will carry them in his bosom,
and gently lead those who are with young.
Isaiah 40.10-11

A moving passage which anticipates the later description of Jesus as the “Lamb of God” (John 1.29) and his saying that the “good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10.11). Although humans have almost entirely appropriated the metaphor to themselves, it is difficult not to be struck by the sensitivity to animals exhibited in this passage. The loving, caring actions of the shepherd are being implicitly endorsed here. “Man and beast thou savest, O Lord.” Psalm 36.6b

Although this verse sometimes occasions surprise, it is entirely in accord with the Hebrew Bible that the God who creates animals alongside human beings, and establishes a covenant not only with human beings but also with all living creatures, will also, in the end, redeem them. Salvation for animals as well as humans is a much-neglected biblical doctrine. “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” John 1.29b

The question that should be asked is: how is it that Jesus came to be described in terms of one of the lowliest creatures regularly utilised in sacrifice? One answer is the intimate connection between Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross. But there is another possible answer, namely, that there was something in Jesus’ life and ministry that made this identification with an innocent animal both authentic and appropriate. Questions to ponder: Was the image motivated by Jesus’ own concern for these animals? Was it a result of his rejection of the system of animal sacrifice, which regularly included sheep? Was it because Jesus’ ministry so identified with the weak and innocent including animals that such an appellation appeared appropriate?

For he has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of his will, according to his purpose which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. Ephesians 1.9-11

He is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities — all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born of the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. Colossians 1.15-20

Both texts should be read together. As early Christians began to reflect upon the life and death of Jesus, they came to the realisation that his life had immense significance — not only for human beings — but also for the entire created world. They saw Jesus as the Logos, God’s own word, or principle, at the very heart of existence — the Word who is simultaneously both the source and destiny of all created things. The risen and ascended Jesus was also envisaged as the Cosmic Christ who will one day draw all of creation to himself. Both Ephesians and Colossians offer a tremendous vision of the final reconciliation “of all things” to God. From both perspectives, it is clear that animals, too, will be reconciled and redeemed. These verses have also been much overlooked and their significance for the animal creation frequently belittled. But it cannot be doubted that these passages speak of a “this worldly” redemption involving the entire creation.

I consider that the sufferings of the present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. Romans 8.18-23 These famous words of St. Paul compare the sufferings of creatures to the pangs of childbirth in which their future joy will outweigh their present misery. Again, the sufferings of humans and animals are inextricably related. As “sons of God” human beings are destined to become the agents of redemption for the other suffering creatures who now suffer through no fault of their own. Quite who subjected animals to this state of suffering (“bondage”) is not entirely clear; it is possible that Paul is developing the notion in the Hebrew Bible that humanity’s fall has subjected the whole earth to violence, or, conceivably, that God is the one who allows suffering at the present time only to ensure that each and every creature is recompensed beyond death. Either way, Paul’s vision of a redeemed creation demonstrates that the suffering of non-human creatures requires theological explanation and that humans have, in his view, a pivotal role in the drama of redemption.

This is, perhaps surprisingly, the only passage in the Bible that explicitly refers to the nature of future justice for animals. Since, according to Paul, they suffer involuntarily, that is, through no fault of their own, and since they therefore neither deserve nor merit suffering, it follows that a just and holy God cannot simply allow them to suffer and die without eventually transforming their suffering into joy. This, at least, is the logic of the position articulated by Paul in this passage.

For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf … For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said,
“Sacrifices and offerings thou hast not desired,
but a body hast thou prepared for me;
in burnt offerings and sin offerings
thou has taken no pleasure.
Then I said, ‘Lo, I have come to do thy will, O God,’
as it is written of me in the roll of the book.”

When he said above, “Thou has neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), then he added “Lo, I have come to do thy will”. He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all. Hebrews 9.12, 10.4-11

Though often convoluted, and almost impossible to understand without a knowledge of the ritual of animal sacrifice, the argument in Hebrews is clear that animal sacrifice is neither effective as a remedy for sin nor pleasing to God. Christ offers his own body as a sacrifice, which alone is efficacious and pleasing to God. In doing so, Christ explicitly (according to Hebrews quoting his words directly) rejects animal sacrifice; indeed he “abolishes the first in order to establish the second”. If the question is asked, “Why did the early church reject the sacrificial system that was an inherent feature of its Jewish inheritance?” the answer is, according to Hebrews, that Christ directly willed it. We may say then that Christ became the one true Lamb that liberated the other lambs. In the spirit of this understanding, Christianity departed from Judaism and did not perpetuate the system of animal sacrifice. In this change, it is difficult not to see Christ’s explicit endorsement of the moral critique of sacrifice indicated, for example, in Psalm 50.7-11 (see above) as well as his rejection of temple sacrifices in Mark 11.15-9 (see commentary above).

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed way, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and I heard a great voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, for the former things have passed away. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Revelation 21.1-4, 6

The importance of this text lies in its stress upon a new earth re-created by God. There has always been a “world-denying” or “other-worldly” tendency in Christianity that has reduced the notion of redemption to the salvation of human souls alone. But, as Revelation makes clear, the whole earth is to be transfigured and with it all suffering will be transformed into joy. The intrinsic value of creation is at last vindicated as it is redeemed alongside human beings.

Notes

1. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and others, The Woman's Bible, Parts I and II, 1895, 1896 (Reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1974).

2. Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza (ed), Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Introduction (London: SCM Press, 1994) p. 4. See also her companion volume, Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary (London: SCM Press, 1995).

3. Schussler Fiorenza, ibid, p. 5.

4. Andrew Linzey, “Is Christianity Irredeemably Speciesist?” in Andrew Linzey and Dorothy Yamamoto (eds), Animals on the Agenda: Questions About Animals for Theology and Ethics (London: SCM press, 1998) p. xii.

5. I owe this line to Bishop John Austin Baker, former Bishop of Salisbury, England.

6. Linzey, ibid.

7. Linzey, p. xiii.

8. Schussler Fiorenza, ibid, p. 11.