Animal rights from a Biblical perspective
Article author: Jay Zeke Malakai
Article editor: Jay Zeke Malakai
Introduction
In our modern culture, animal rights is quite a common topic, and one which is discussed with much emotion from both sides. In the last few hundred years, huge leaps have been taken in the campaign to grant animals the rights they deserve, severely reducing the number of inhumane practices such as battery farms, and imposing more responsibilities upon animal owners to look after their animals. If you support animal rights, you certainly live in a wonderful era, and Lord permitting, things will only get better. The question must be raised, however, about how far animal rights extend. Some people believe animals have the same rights as humans, and some even believe animals have more rights than us. In our culture, are we going too far with animal rights, or are we not enforcing them well enough? In this article, we will examine the issue of animal rights from a Biblical perspective.
Veganism and vegetarianism
At one end of the spectrum are veganism and vegetarianism. Veganism is the complete abstinance from the consumption or use of any animal products ranging from foods, such as meat or cheese, to clothing and accessories, such as leather or suede. Some vegans also believe it is immoral to domesticate animals, even pets, though this is an area of ambiguity among the vegan community, and many of them do keep pets. Similarly, vegetarianism is the abstinance from the consumption of meat prducts, such as pork, beef and lamb. Some quasi vegetarians abstain from most meats, but do eat fish.
Biblically, none of these views can be condemned. It is entirely an issue of the heart to be a vegan, vegetarian, quasi-vegetarian or to eat meat. Romans 14:1-4 warns those who eat meat that they may not judge those who do not, and that those who do not eat meat may not judge those who do. 1 Timothy 4:1-5 even goes as far as to warn that it is heretical to forbid someone else from eating a food for which they are thankful to God, calling this a "teaching of demons".
This, of course, does not mean it is wrong to forbid yourself from eating such foods. I, personally, am a vegetarian. The decision to eat meat or not is entirely a matter of personal convictions. Should you choose to abstain from meat or animal products, that is entirely your own choice. However, some Christians hold the position that we have a responsibility to abstain from meat, or at the very least believe Christians should move towards this attitude. After all, when God created the Earth, he commanded both man and animals to eat only plants, and in the millenial kingdom there will be no meat eating.
Both of these perspectives are flawed, and take the Bible out of context. First, the world was indeed created "very good" (Genesis 1:31). And yes, originally vegetarianism was the only (sinless) option for man and beast alike (Genesis 1:29-30). However, after the flood, that mandate was revoked and replaced not just with the right to eat meat, but with man's right to rule over all the animals of the earth. In Genesis 9:2-4 we read The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. In other words, from the time the flood ceased and the survivors departed from the ark, man has been permitted to eat meat if he so chooses. The only restriction is blood.
Second, while animals will be vegetarian in the millenial kingdom, the argument does not apply to fish. Ezekiel 47:10 tells us that during the millenial kingdom, fishermen will catch many kinds of fish, as the red sea has been fully healed from the awful time of the tribulation.
Animal diets
Those who argue that it is immoral to eat meat face a dilema, for while they are willing to condemn humans for eating meat, they do not hold carnivorous or omnivorous animals to account for eating meat, or people to account for feeding said animals. At the time I am writing this article, I am taking a course in animal management. Naturally, this role involves feeding a range of animals. Examples of the animals I must feed include hedgehogs, snakes, spiders, scorpions and a variety of lizards. All of the listed animals are either omnivorous or carnivorous, some of them even requiring live food. The young locust (right), for example, is alive and well, but it has been placed in the home of a pink toed tarantula, which will actively hunt it.
Those who claim it is immoral to kill an animal for food must contend with the fact that many animals today rely on meat in order to get a correct diet. Do they believe that carnivorous or omnivorous animals are immoral? Perhaps they believe it is immoral to feed them? Both possibilities are absurd, and the latter is actually contrary to their beliefs regarding animal welfare.
Going ape
But of course, this world is full of absurdities, so what harm can one more do? One such absurdity is that of modern animal rights groups. Going back as far as 1979, various people and groups have advocated giving animals the same rights as human beings. Ingrid Newkirk, founder and activist of animal rights group "PETA" (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) stated "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all mammals." On a separate occasion, Newkirk also stated "It is only human supremacy, which is as unacceptable as racism and sexism, that makes us afraid of being more inclusive." Quick to jump on this bandwagon is Peter Singer, an extremist Evolutionist who coined the term "speciesism". Along with Paola Cavalieri, Singer co-founded the Great Ape Project, which seeks to ensure a future in which great apes can enjoy the same rights as humans.
First, even from a secular point of view, there are several inconsistencies in the views of Newkirk, Singer, Cavalieri and others. The most subliminal inconsistency is that, at least as far as one can tell, they also are "speciesist" in that they do not extend their "human rights for animals" beliefs to the less desireable animals like fleas. I can almost certainly say they do not extend it to species of other kingdoms of life, like plants, fungi, bacteria or viruses. But can't they use the same arguments for these things? What's worse is that these same people won't apply these same arguments to human children. Animal rights groups often degrade the rights of human beings as well as elevate the rights of animals.
Another interesting thing to note is that the focus is largely on great apes, our closest cousins according to the Evolution story. They are closest to us, therefore they're the ones we should care the most about. However, aside from the fact being "close" to us is worlds apart from being the same, why would our supposed relationship with apes obligate us to care for them at all? If, as the Evolutionist mantra goes, we live in a world of "survival of the fittest", should we really care if the great apes are mistreated, even if it is to the point of their extinction? In the Descent of Man, Charles Darwin, considered the "discoverer" of Evolution (which is not true), wrote "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." According to Darwin, the races he considered "civilised" (not surprisingly, his own race) would exterminate the "savage" races. If Darwin believed it was moral, and inevitable, for "civilised" humans to exterminate savage humans, why can this principle not be extended to apes?
Animal cruelty
At the other end of the spectrum are those who support animal cruelty. Those who deny animal rights all together, and are even willing to break the law in order to perform some viciously immoral acts, usually for their own enjoyment or to further their business interests. On the 1st of January 2012, "battery farms" were officially declared illegal, freeing millions of chickens kept in awful conditions. Their only purpose in life was to be trapped in a tiny cage and produce eggs. Some dog breeding businesses keep their dogs in such awful conditions, breeding them so often that they become weak and deformed, many of them dying. In some slaughter houses, pigs are kept in cages so small, they can't even turn around. In some places in the world, poachers will agressively hunt animals, taking things from them like tusks and horns, while leaving their dead (or dying) corpses where they were caught. The rarer the animal, the more money it will fetch. Animals are viewed as just another commodity by some. Worthless things, with no intrinsic value. In many ways, I find this more sickening than the other end of the spectrum. Forced to choose between these atrocities and forced vegetarianism worldwide, I'd go with the latter.
In the image of God
First, it is important to note that man is as distinct from animal life as he is from plant life. Unlike all the other animals, we bear the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 9:6). Genesis 9:6 even gives this as the reason it is immoral to kill human beings. In the New Testament, the command against murder is reinforced, whereas we are now permitted to eat more species than the Jews were permitted to eat in the Old Testament, which is not what we'd expect if, for example, the Christian Vegetarian movement was correct. Jesus himself ate fish (Luke 24:41-43), which is the ultimate proof that to do so is permissable in the Christian worldview.
The dominion mandate
As soon as we were created, mankind was given a mandate to subdue the earth and to rule over all life on land, on sea and in the air (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 8:6-8). After the flood, this mandate was given some extra benefits: We can now eat meat, and animals will fear us (Genesis 9:2-4). It is our right as human beings to rule over the animals.
Animal sacrifice
In the Old Testament, animal sacrifice was commonplace, foreshadowing the coming of Jesus Christ. The very first non-plant death in history were two animals, whose skins were used to replace Adam and Eve's makeshift plant clothes (Genesis 3:21), and Abel's animal sacrifices were satisfactory to God (Genesis 4:4), proving that even before humans were allowed to eat animals, killing them was no problem, and was actually required in Jewish society as an offering to God for sin. Abel's sacrifices were from his own stock, which suggests that animal products independant of meat, such as wool, eggs, milk and possibly even their skins, would very likely have been used pre-flood.
Good stewardship
One of the strongest arguments for animal welfare in the Bible, independant of those that directly speak on the matter, is 1 Corinthians 4:2. In it, we are told that it is required of stewards that they be found faithful. The recurring theme of good stewardship in the Bible means that we should be wise with the resources given to us by the Lord. That would include the animals, which he has entrusted to our care. So if we exploit them to the point where their health is diminished, or if we hunt them to extinction or whatever else, are we really being good stewards?
Hypothetical: Your friend is going away on a business trip, which will continue for a very long time. You are his most trusted friend, and so he asks you to take care of his home and his pets while he is away. When he returns, do you think he will expect to see his home in reasonable condition, or do you think he would be ok with you having demolished the house?
Animal welfare in the Bible
In the Bible, animal welfare isn't mentioned very often, however there are scattered references that almost indisputably tell us that animals are very important to God, and thus we should care for them. The most commonly cited verse on this issue is Proverbs 12:10, which tells us that a righteous man cares for the life of his beast. In the Bible, the only one who is righteous in his own right is Jesus. The only other way to be righteous in the Bible is to seek after God. If one who seeks after God cares for the life of his beast, doesn't that logically imply that God also cares for the life of these beasts?
According to Matthew 10:29-31, this is at least true of sparrows, for while they are sold for virtually nothing, they cannot fall to the ground without God's consideration. This passage, while justifying belief in animal rights, also points out that we are worth more to God than sparrows, reinforcing a point made earlier in this article: That we are above the animals.
Just as God created the animals, Psalm 50:10-11 also tells us that he owns them. They belong to him, and he even feeds them (Psalm 147:9). If animals belong to God, should we not treat them as he would want us to treat them? If we abuse them, is that not the equivalent of criminal damage?
Finally, we see God's care for animals, or at least for cattle, when we see them included in the reasons for God's care of Nineveh in Jonah 4:11. In this verse, Jonah is upset because God did not punish Nineveh as he said he would, but rather spared them, as they had repented of their sins. God caused a plant to grow in order to shelter Jonah, which made him happy, but God also killed the plant in the same night, making Jonah very unhappy. God then used the plant to make a point. God pointed out that just as Jonah was sad about the plant, so also would God be sad about exterminating Nineveh, because there were 120,000 people living there, and also many cattle. Now, I think God would have spared Nineveh if it was devoid of any animal life, but the fact that God felt it worth mentioning that there were animals there suggests that God also cares for animals.
Conclusion
It is clear from the scriptures that God cares for animals. Humane treatment of animals is implied in the scriptures, and it is inconsistent for one to claim to love God while simoultaneously abusing his creation. However, God's care for animals is not elevated to the level of humans, and certainly not above them. Humans are permitted, though not required, to eat the meat and produce of animals, and to use them for the benefit of humanity. Those who choose to abstain from animal products may not condemn those who do not, and those who do not abstain may not condemn those who do.