Note: This article continues a series of studies about animal liberation and the Bible. If you have not read the previous articles, then please click here to start at the beginning.
We have shown that the main leaders in the Animal Rights movement do not base their positions on the Bible. However, the Bible is the recognized standard of morality for many people, so some proponents do attempt to justify Animal Rights from Scripture. Some of these examples have already been discussed. Consider some others.
It is argued that Jesus' coming kingdom will be nonviolent - the lion will lie down with the lamb, etc. (Isaiah 11:6,7; 65:25). Jesus is the Prince of Peace. So we should seek to bring about that peace between man and animals now. [Hosea 2:18]
This argument fails to recognize the symbolic nature of prophecy.
Isaiah 11:1,6-10 - A rod or branch would grow from the root (stem) of Jesse (vv 1,10). This is agreed to be the Messiah. This would result in peace among wild animals (vv 6-9).
But the context is clearly symbolic. Is Jesus a literal rod, branch, or root? Will he literally strike the earth with a rod from his mouth (v4)? Will he have a literal belt of righteousness and faithfulness (v5)? If not, why should we take the animals and their conduct literal?
The passage says these things will happen on earth (vv 4,9). Yet this cannot refer to Jesus' literal second coming, since at that time the earth will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:6-10).
Note v10 - In that day Gentiles would seek this root. But Romans 15:9-12 tells us what day this refers to. It quotes Isaiah 11:10 to confirm the theme of Romans, which is that the gospel is for all men including Gentiles (Rom. 1:16). So the peace predicted in Isa. 11 refers to the salvation of all men, including Gentiles through the gospel at Jesus' first coming.
Remember, the prophecies are symbolic, not literal. They prophesy spiritual peace, not physical peace between men and animals. Note the spiritual peace we have in the gospel.
John 14:27 - Jesus' first coming gave peace, not as the world gives - not physical peace. It gave peace so the heart would not be troubled nor fearful. [Phil. 4:6,7]
Romans 5:1 - Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through Jesus Christ. [Zech. 6:12,13; Col. 1:20-22; 3:15; Micah 5:2-5]
Ephesians 2:14-16 - The gospel also produced spiritual peace between Jew and Gentile (if they are converted to the gospel), because it removed the Old Law, which was a wall of partition between the two (cf. vv 11-13).
The peace predicted in Isa. 11 is spiritual peace in the spiritual kingdom, the church: peace between man and God and peace between Jew and Gentile. It is fulfilled in the church through the gospel. It has nothing to do with literal peace between men and animals, and does not in any way prove that men must not kill animals. In fact, we have shown that the gospel of spiritual peace clearly permits men to eat animals and use them for clothing.
It is argued that no animals are killed in heaven. And Christians pray, "Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven," so we should not kill animals on earth just like they are not killed in heaven.
First, there is no evidence that literal animals even exist in heaven. And we have shown earlier that the animals that live on earth have no spirits and so will not go to heaven. So this proves nothing.
Furthermore, the laws practiced in heaven are not necessarily the same as God's laws for us on earth.
Matthew 22:30 - In heaven there is no marriage. Yet people who forbid marriage on earth are guilty of apostasy (1 Tim. 4:1-3; Heb. 13:4). Hence, the rules for heaven are not the same as the rules for earth.
The rules for the past age of the Old Testament differ from the rules of the present New Testament age (Hebrews 10:1-10; 7:11-14; 8:6-13; 9:1-4; Galatians 3:24,25; 5:1-6; Romans 7:1-7; Colossians 2:13-17; etc.). So also the rules for the future affairs of heaven differ from the rules of the present practices on earth. We have no more right to use the rules of heaven as authority for our practice today than we have to use the Old Testament rules.
Jesus' model prayer does not teach that the laws that exist on earth are identical to the laws that exist in heaven. What it teaches is that whatever laws God makes for heaven are there respected and obeyed. Likewise, we should pray that whatever laws He gives for here on earth will be respected and obeyed here. But that does not prove that the laws in both places are the same.
Verses are quoted showing that the way we treat others is how we treat Jesus: "As we do to the least, so we do to Him." This is applied to animals.
However, Jesus' statements actually refer to how we treat other people, not to how we treat animals.
Matthew 25:40 - "Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me." Jesus is talking about how we treat His "brethren" - other people - not how we treat animals. The context shows he is talking about clothing the naked, etc. Does this refer to animals? [Luke 10:16; John 13:20]
Here again Animal Rights activists have taken principles that God spoke regarding people and applied them to animals. But we have learned that God neither views nor values animals as He does people. Men are in God's image, so how we treat them is how we treat God's Son. But animals are not in God's image, so different rules apply. We have shown that Jesus' gospel clearly permits people to own animals and to use them for food and clothing.
God has also spoken about those who misuse and pervert His word. If Animal Rights activists are serious about Scripture, then they need to carefully consider the many passages that warn against using Scripture to teach something which clearly differs from what God intended it to teach. See Galatians 1:8,9; 2 John 9-11; Revelation 22:18,19; 1 Timothy 1:3; 2 Timothy 1:13.
Many verses are cited where Jesus calls on us to show mercy, love, compassion, etc. "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy." "Blessed are the peacemakers." God liberated Israel from slavery in Egypt, so we are told that surely He would want us to likewise liberate animals.
All verses about love, mercy, etc., must be applied according to God's other teachings. We have already learned that mercy and compassion do not require the same things in treatment of animals that they require in treatment of people. We have shown many Scriptures that prove God views men differently from how He views animals, and His rules for treating men are different from His rules for treating animals. What is merciful or compassionate toward a person may not apply the same toward animals.
Likewise, God liberated Israel from Egypt because He repeatedly called them His people. This does not prove He or we must likewise liberate animals.
Biblical love and mercy require us to obey God's commands. They never justify us in setting our own rules of right and wrong. Read John 14:15,21-24; Romans 13:8-10; 1 John 5:2,3; 2 John 5,6. God's laws must guide our love and compassion, and we have seen that God's laws permit owning and controlling animals and using them for food and clothing.
Once again Animal Rights assumes that God's laws mean the same toward animals as they do toward man. And once again they are ignoring what God's word actually says. They change the rules as they see fit. This is a clear violation of Scripture. We must handle God's word properly, not pervert it - 2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Corinthians 4:2.
We are told that Jesus cast out those who sold animals in the temple, in order to prevent them from slaughtering animals. He said, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," so we should show mercy to animals not kill them.
The Old Testament law was still in effect during Jesus' lifetime. It was not removed till He died (Heb. 9:16,17; Col. 2:14).
During His lifetime, He respected the laws about animal sacrifices, and told others to obey them - Luke 2:24; Matthew 8:1-4.
He never told anyone not to offer the required animal sacrifices. If so, where? If He was opposed to killing animals, as some claim, why did He defend and command people to sacrifice animals?
Matthew 21:13 - Jesus explained His action saying: "It is written, 'My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you have made it a 'den of thieves.'" Note that Jesus' reasons had nothing to do with concern for the animals. His reasons pertained to the temple (God's house) and the people's corrupt business practices that disrespected the temple. [Mark 11:17]
John 2:16 - He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!" Jesus never criticized or objected if people bought and sold animals anywhere else. The problem was that these people were doing it in the temple, which violated the spiritual purpose of the temple.
We have cited many passages showing that Jesus' teaching authorizes the killing of animals. His objection here was to the perversion of the temple.
Matthew 9:13; 12:7 - His statement, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice," did not mean He was opposed to animal sacrifices. He was calling for mercy, not on animals, but on people. In the one case the Pharisees were unjustly condemning Jesus' disciples, and in the other case they were showing no concern for sinners who needed salvation by the gospel.
Jesus' statement was actually a quotation from the Old Testament (Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6-8; 1 Samuel 15:22). Obviously the Old Testament was not opposed to animal sacrifices; so when Jesus quoted the Old Testament, why should we think that He did it to oppose animal sacrifices?
The point of the expression is that people who don't treat other people properly (mercy) should not expect God to accept their worship (sacrifices). Offering worship to God does not make up for the fact that people are disobeying God in other ways. This same principle was taught many other ways in God's word, but it never involved opposition to the killing of animals.
Hebrews 10:1-4,9,10 - Animal sacrifices were part of the Old Testament as a shadow or symbol to prepare people for the better sacrifice of Jesus. However, God did not desire to continue animal sacrifices, because they could not really forgive sins. So now under the New Testament we have a better law, which includes the sacrifice of Jesus.
Animal sacrifices have ended, not because God opposes the killing of animals, but because they were ineffective in forgiving sin and are no longer needed under the gospel. But the gospel still allows people to kill animals for food and clothing, etc.
"It is certainly true that originally, God's commandment, 'Thou Shalt Not Kill,' applied exclusively to humans ... vegetarians are simply suggesting that it is now time to include animals" - JesusVeg.com. They claim that God really never wanted men to kill animals, but he figured men would never obey a law against that. So He settled with commanding men not to kill men.
So once again Animal Liberation takes a Bible instruction about how we should treat people and applies it to how we should treat animals. We have repeatedly explained why this is not proper, because God views men differently animals. In fact, Genesis 9:3-6 expressly stated that animals and men are different in regard to killing, because men are in the image of God and animals are not.
But here we have Animal Liberation openly admitting that they are knowingly changing God's word. They openly acknowledge that they intend to apply God's command differently from what He meant! In short, they believe they have the right to change what God said in Scripture! They know better than He does! God has strong words for such people:
Galatians 1:9 - If anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Revelation 22:18 - If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book.
2 John 1:9 - Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
As we have already stated, Animal Rights leaders sometimes quote Scripture hoping to influence those who do believe it; but in fact they do not really believe that Scripture is the infallible, inspired word of God.
Singer and Regan, who wrote the main books defending animal rights, both "base their positions on modern secular reasons and eschew arguments based on religious suppositions" - Sherry, p4.
Singer subtitled his book "A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals." Obviously then, is not the Biblical ethic, which has been here for thousands of years, but a new one of human invention.
"...the Gospels were written generations after the resurrection ... None of the four Gospel writers ever met Jesus ... Most scholars agree that the post-resurrection stories of Jesus eating fish were added to the Gospels long after they were written..." - JesusVeg.com web site.
"... evidence indicates that the story of the loaves and the fishes did not originally include fish ... Fish were added to the stories by Greek scribes..." - JesusVeg.com web site
"The letters to Timothy [were] written not by Paul but by one of his disciples 60 to 150 years after Paul's martyrdom..." - JesusVeg.com web site.
In an address to the national Animal Rights 2002 conference in McLean, Va, prominent animal rights activist and Princeton University professor Peter Singer has called the influence of Christianity "the most harmful" obstacle to the "animal liberation" movement. Singer blamed "conservative mainstream fundamentalist" Christianity, which takes the Bible "too literally" and teaches that there exists "a huge gulf between humans and animals." Singer said the "problem" with the Christian worldview is the belief that unlike animals, humans are made in the image of God and possess souls. Furthermore, in the book of Genesis, God gave mankind dominion over the animal kingdom. Singer views his mission as that of challenging "this superiority of human beings" - CultureFacts, 7/29/2002.
So the truth is that the effort of animal rights activists to cite Scripture for their views is all subterfuge. Bible teaching does not agree with Animal Rights, and the real leaders of the movement know it.
Obviously we do not have space here for a thorough defense of Biblical inspiration (see the links at the end of this study for more information). We will summarize a few points.
Bible writers claimed that all Scripture is inspired directly by God. This includes the gospel accounts of Jesus' life and the writings of Paul, including specifically the books of 1 and 2 Timothy - 2 Timothy 3:16,17. See also 2 Peter 1:20,21; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 2:10-13; Ephesians 3:3-5; John 16:13; Matthew 10:19,20; Galatians 1:8-12; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Luke 10:16.
They claimed furthermore that, since they were guided by God, their writings must be infallible and inerrant - Numbers 22:35,38; 23:5,12,16,19,20; Deuteronomy 18:18-22; Psalm 19:7-9; 33:4; 119:128,142,160; John 17:17; Titus 1:2,3; Revelation 19:9; 21:5.
Specifically, the gospel writers claimed that their records were factual history based on their own personal eyewitness or on personal conversations with eyewitnesses - John 21:24; Luke 1:1-4.
The books of 1 and 2 Timothy expressly claim that they were written by Paul based on his authority as an apostle - 1 Timothy 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1.
Those who deny these claims are effectively making out the Bible writers to be liars and frauds. If so, why claim to believe anything they wrote? How would we know what to believe and what not to believe? The Scriptures themselves claim that we must accept all Scripture as true or else reject it all. Some Animal Rights activists attempt to accept the Bible when they think it agrees with their view and then reject it when it disagrees. Such an approach simply amounts to infidelity.
Finally, Bible writers claimed they wrote a complete revelation of all the will of God for our day - 2 Timothy 3:16,17; John 16:13. And therefore no one has the right to change what they wrote or to follow any standard other than what they wrote - Galatians 1:8,9; 2 John 9-11; Colossians 3:17; Jeremiah 10:23; Proverbs 14:12; 3:5,6; Revelation 22:18,19; 1 Timothy 1:3; 2 Timothy 1:13.
Animal Rights activists clearly do not really believe the Bible to be God's inspired, infallible word. They do not accept it as the absolute standard of right and wrong. Some of them openly admit this and recognize that they are enemies of the Bible. Others try to deny this and pose as Bible believers, but their arguments prove them to be unbelievers.
In any case, a careful study of God's word clearly shows that the basic beliefs of Animal Rights violate Bible principles.
There are other issues raised by the Animal Rights movement, which we have not specifically dealt with here, such as use of animals for medical experimentation. The Scriptures do not specifically deal with that practice, but the general principles we have studied would prevail.
Since God gave man dominion over animals and since this dominion includes the right to use animals for food and clothing, it follows that our dominion includes the right to use animals for any other purpose useful in providing man's necessities. Good health is a physical need, just as much as food and clothing. So it follows that man's dominion includes the right to use animals to provide for man's needs, including medical treatment.
I find it incredibly ironic that animal liberators are so squeamish about any inconvenience to animals - even if it results in great good to people - yet the very same people will justify terrible immorality and wrongs against human beings.
Peter Singer of Princeton University, who leads in the Animal Rights movement, also "advocates allowing parents to kill their children in the first months of life because, he says, newborns are not yet fully human. He defends bestiality as an acceptable lifestyle choice..." - Washington Update, 7/10/03.
So if you confine a cow against its will to get its milk, you have committed horrible immorality, but have a sexual union with it and that's fine! (Or do you first have to obtain the cow's "consent"?) Kill a fish, pig, or chicken to feed hungry people and you're terrible, but kill a human baby even months after it's been born and that's fine because it isn't yet human! Millions of unborn babies are murdered every year, and many of these folks never raise a whimper. Yet let someone milk a cow, take an egg from a chicken, or give a shot to a rat, and they raise an uproar!
At the root of such obvious moral blunders is the fundamental failure to recognize the God-ordained distinction between people and animals. The fundamental issue is that man is in the image of God. Animals are not.
(C)
Copyright 2003, David E. Pratte
Local churches and individuals may, within limits, distribute this Bible
study guide for free, but not for sale. Web sites may link to this page
but not reproduce it. For details click
here for our copyright guidelines.
Go to the Bible
Study Online Library (the Gospel Way)
|Gospel Way|Commentaries|Bible Courses|Newsletter|Site Map|Illinois site|
| Salvation | Bible
| Creation |
Morality
| Church | World
Religions | Spiritual
Guidance | Topics |
| Second Coming
| Holy Spirit | Bible
References |
Instruction | Bible Test |
Chicago
| Publications |
