Resources

Canadian Groups

Email Lists

Events

Message Board

Personal Daily
Action

Photo Album

Fun / Supplies / Tips

Newsletter

Contact AR Canada

Donations

Campaigns

Animals in
Entertainment

Companion
Animals

Dairy

Factory Farms

Feral Cats

Fur

Religion
and Animals

Seal Hunt

Vegetarianism
/ Veganism

Vivisection

AR-FAQ

ALF
Information
Service

Animal
Concerns.org
- the most massive
AR Resource
EVER !

Click here to promote your organization or buy advertising space

CAMPAIGNS - Religion and Animals

The Bible: Against Animal Liberation
By David Sztybel, Ph.D

There has been a lot of talk over the years about the Bible really endorsing animal liberation, if only one looks close enough, or at least the bulk of interpretation supporting such a notion. This essay will have two parts. The first will interpret the Bible directly, and the second will offer my overall understanding of attempts to interpret animal liberation from the Bible. It is based on my own reading of the King James Bible, and the opinions expressed are entirely my own. The reader, of course, is encouraged to come to his or her own conclusion, upon a sober consideration of the evidence, and without prejudice.

PART I: WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS

It can fairly be said that the Bible advocates kindness to animals, although perhaps chiefly or exclusively in the Old Testament. Examples: not ploughing with an ox and ass together, because asses, presumably, would have trouble keeping up (Deut 22:10) not muzzling oxen when they tread the corn. (Deut 25:4) We know, however, that kindness to animals is not tantamount to animal liberation, since exploiters of animals are often the among the first to sing the mantra of avoiding all "unnecessary suffering," however insincerely that commitment might be entertained. There are many unclear or ambiguous passages that are cited as enabling one to conclude in favour of animal liberation. Saying that God gave us herbs for food (Gen 1:30) is an example. However, this does not say that herbs ALONE are to be our food, and we are given ALL living things for food later on. (Gen 9:3) The meat-eating view is confirmed when not only is it the case that every living thing will be as meat for man, "even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Gen 9:3) So just as he gave us all plants for food, so it is with all living things. Later this is restricted to eating only clovenfooted beasts that chew cud, (Lev 11:22) "whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters," (Lev 11:9) and even locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers. (Lev 11:22) If God meant the Bible to be idealistically vegetarian, why would he prevent us clearly from eating some animals, but not all? And why is it that God and three of his angels partake of eating a "calf tender and good" as well as butter and milk? (Gen 18:7-8) So much for the seemingly ambiguous passages on meat-eating, which hardly seem ambiguous when read in their fuller context.

What about Isaiah proclaiming what, on the surface, sounds animal liberationist: "He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine's blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations." (Isa 66:3) Notice that this passage refers to a "they" which is abominable. It only refers to a certain group of sinners, then, where all their acts seem despicable, including their burning of incense, which is otherwise accepted in the Bible. Also, perhaps the "perverseness" of killing of so "useful" a beast as an ox might be thought to be as deserving of death as killing a person. Any animal liberationist rendering of this often very loosely interpreted passage would be at odds with other clearly anti-animal-liberationist passages, including the following.

Not only did God rain manna from Heaven to feed the Israelites in the wilderness, but he also covered the camp with quail to satisfy their cravings for flesh-eating (Exod 16:3) and this is short of any animal liberatory regard for birds. God commands that the tabernacle curtain be made of goat's hair (Exod 26:7) and that a tent be made for it of rams' skin dyed red, with a covering of badger's skins. (Exod 26:14) Moreover, God delivers every beast, fowl, all that moves upon the earth, and all the fishes of the sea into the hand of man, such that "the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon" them all. (Gen 9:2) This "deliverance" would not occasion "fear" and "dread" in animals were it not heavily implicated in suffering and death. It is no accident that this passage is often used to rationalize all manner of cruel exploitation of animals.

Is the New Testament any better? Keep in mind that the New Testament accepts all of the laws of the Old Testament. (1 John 2:7; Matt5:17; John 7:19) in addition with other passages which explicitly endorse Old Testament Laws. This includes the New Testament passage which echoes the Old: "if so much as a beast touch the mountain [Sinai], it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart..." (Heb 12:20)

As for the New Testament itself, Paul does not even leave the Old Testament's injunction not to muzzle the ox when treading the corn as simple kindness to animals. "Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope." (1 Cor 7:9) It is never made clear just what plowing in hope means, and I leave that to others' interpretive wiles for now, but the human-centredness here is unmistakeable.

What about when Jesus met two people possessed by evil spirits, and cast the devils into a herd of swine who were feeding, so that "the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters." (Matt 8:28; Mark 5:12-13) In other cases, it is not evident that Jesus needed to transfer evil spirits from one host to another, so this killing appears to be gratuitous, and only doubtfully "fatal" to the disembodied spirits anyway. Also unnecessary is the New Testament's calling for the sacrifice of two turtledoves and two young pigeons on the birth of Jesus, (Luke 2:24) which makes so much nonsense of claims that animal sacrifice is called to an end in Isaiah. (see below) Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to a king having a marriage for his son in which oxen and fatlings are killed for dinner. (Matt 22:2-4) Paul condemns vegetarians as devilish: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy...commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." (2 Tim 4:1-5)

Does animal liberation entail valuing human life above that of other animals? This is actually a point of debate. Jesus, for his part, says "ye are of more value than many sparrows." (Luke 12:7) Jesus asks us, "Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?" (Luke 12:24) In the human supremacist context of the rest of the Bible, this could only mean that we are better than animals because they cannot sow, reap, or store, among other things. It says nothing of humans who cannot do these things.

Is the Bible animal liberationist, then why are animal sacrifices commanded by God? The rationale for Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt is so that they may sacrifice to God in the wilderness. (Exod 3:18) God himself is said to say, "Let my people go, that they may serve me in the wilderness." (Exod 7:16; see also Exod 8:1, Exod 8:8, Exod 8:27, Exod 8:29) God calls burnt offering of animal remains on the altar "a sweet savour before the Lord: it is an offering made by fire unto the Lord." (Exod 29:25; see also Gen 8:21) How could such consumption empower God, or show respect to him by destroying his creatures, or ennoble anyone? There are explicit and frequent demands for sacrifices in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers and elsewhere which only require a glance at those pages to see. E.g., for the cleansing of lepers, two birds are to be killed. (Lev 14:6) Dozens of other occasions are mentioned.

What about the famous Isaiah passage where he superficially seems to reject all animal sacrifices (even though we see that Christians are to kill two turtledoves on Jesus' birthday, already cited)? "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats....Bring no more vain oblations." (Isa 1:11) In the anti-animal-liberationist context of the rest of the Bible, this would seem to be rejecting only "vain" sacrifices without "purpose." Earlier in the same chapter, God, through Isaiah, complains about the sins of Israel, so presumably it is offensive to God to receive homage from sinners. They are in vain because the offerers are not living holy lives. No reason is given to contradict God's "relishing" of sacrifices of animals in general (above cited). A later passage tells us that God's sword is filled with blood, made fat with the blood of lambs and goats from sacrifice." (Isa 34:6) God chose to have his sword filled with blood. The fullness might be only temporary, since he might be happy to receive sacrifices from a people he does not condemn as most sinful.

It would be odd to interpret a ban on sacrifices, too, because in the later book of Ezekiel, he orders sin offerings of bullocks, goats, and rams for His temple, (Ezek 43:19-27) and a sacrifice of a lamb from each Israelite for the prince of Israel, (Ezek 45:15-16) while the prince himself is expected to make a burnt offering to the people. (Ezek 46:4-24) God commands the sacrifice of young bullocks on the first day of each month. (Ezek 45:18) and still other sacrifices are demanded for Passover (Ezek 45:21) Even if God did inexplicably turn against sacrifices, which he evidently did not, it would simply be capricious and inconsistent, with no reason given, and would be out of keeping with the rest of the Bible.

PART II: ANIMAL LIBERATIONIST INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE

To me, based on a consideration of the evidence, an animal liberationist interpretation of the Bible makes little or no sense. There are, of course, some less than fully clear passage. But considered in conjunction with the whole, they are clear enough. It seems to me that most people in this culture were raised in either Judaism or Christianity, and are somehow deeply attached to their cultural heritage. Upon being convinced of the justice and great compassion inherent in animal liberation, they wished to see such a movement through the filter of the highest view they thought imaginable: the Biblical faith. It is a sad tale of wishful thinking, and incomplete or even tendentious scholarship.

I am a philosopher, and am familiar with a great many objections to animal liberation. However, when behind an animal rights information table, the people who challenge me the most tend to say that God gave us animals to use, and so forth. I think it is dangerous not to unmask an oppressive institution for what it is, and to allow it to go on continuing to do its damage unchallenged, as it has for centuries. You may fool some people with loose interpretations of the Bible, but I think it is best to come clean and to reject Biblical faith as inconsistent with what our minds and hearts tell is us morally right with respect to nonhuman animals. That is just my own opinion, and it is also hardly inconsistent with a desire to seek a higher form of spiritual life.

David Sztybel, PhD
Website: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~sztybel/

If you have something you'd like to add, please contact Dave at dave .