What is our human responsibility to the earth and its non-human
inhabitants? Traditional Biblical
scholars would say one of master-servant and ecologists would say one of
caretaker. However, using either frame, neither
movement has responded in full view of the evidence presented throughout the
Bible that God clearly included animals in covenantal relationships. With Biblical
scholars neglecting the sanctity of animals
and secular environmentalists neglecting God.
A closer look at the Old Testament reveals that God designed humankind’s
role in relation to the animals as one of stewardship rather than domination. Traditionally religious people often cite Scripure justify a master/servant relationship between humans
and animals rather than one of
partnership, but deeper investigation invites
us to see texts rich with references, both literal and figurative, to the
partnership between humankind and the animal world. From Genesis through Prophets and Wisdom
Literature, the writers of the Old Testament expose God’s instructions for this
relationship and the responsibilities inherent therein through clearly stated
covenants beginning in Genesis and reverberating elsewhere in the Old
Testament.
Understanding
this relationship requires an initial analysis of the word covenant. While modern secular
usage restricts covenant to a “bilateral
contract or agreement,” theological dictionaries add critical divine dimensions.
The St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology distinguishes
between modern day contract and covenant.
“From the Latin word, convenire (to come together or to agree)” covenant
as currently used “ neglects the Biblical sacred context of the word berith and offers as analogy “the difference between prostitution
(contract) and marriage (covenant). or between owning a slave (contract) and
having a son (covenant).”
Secondly, theological commentaries underscore the unilateral nature of God’s
covenants. Humans are not God’s equal;
thus it is God,
not man, who “ formulates all the
conditions” and “stipulates all the results.” Theopedia provides further insight: ” …the inequality
between the parties (Creator and creatures) is absolute. It is always made
clear that the initiative is God's - that He makes covenants with his people
and not vice versa. God initiates, confirms and even fulfills.” The argument extends beyond mere definition
to incorporate the concept of relationship.
Ralph Alan Smith implores us to
lay down the argument differentiating between “agreement” and “relationship”
since one is often a precursor of the other: “an agreement may establish a relationship and
be considered an aspect of it.” Accepting God’s relationship with his creation, then,
means accepting the intimacy of relationship. Terence Fretheim concurs with his
assertion that Genesis lays the
groundwork for our perspectives on “the relationships between God and the
world, and human and non-human interrelationships” (71).
Translators tackle challenges when interpreting covenant, which has no accurate
translation; as the St. Paul Center
explains, its unknown origin requires contextual definition. Scholars actually translate two words, the Hebrew word berith
and the Greek word diatheke,
each with individual connotations. In fact, an appropriate
etymological irony here is that, berith
relates to a word meaning "to cut" and covenant is a metaphor for ‘cutting,’ refererring
the ancient practice of “ dividing animals into two parts with the contracting
parties passing between them, in making a covenant” (Theopedia). In Genesis15, God told Abraham to bring in a ram, a heifer, a goat, which he split “and placed
each half opposite the other.”
After a “terrible darkness” enveloped Abraham, a “flaming torch” passed
through those pieces.” This is immediately followed by, “It was on that
occasion that the Lord made a covenant.”
The St. Paul Center points out that Abraham’s
passivity signifies the “unilateral nature of this covenant…” Indeed, his slumber, as opposed to God’s
deliberate activity, enforces this notion.
Animal Covenants throughout the Old
Testament
Throughout the Old Testament, God
proclaims his care for both humans and animals, which begins in Genesis
beginning with, as Diane Bergant notes, our shared origins as both man and
animals are created from “ the substance of the earth” (“The Bible Tells Me So”). Our shared creation is further evidenced by
Greenway’s assessment of God’s dietary instructions: we were given plants and
fruits for food, and so were all the other animals who have "the breath of
life" in them… neither animals nor we are given other animals to eat.”
Terence Frethheim identifies significant passages
in Genesis where the world, including the animals, are “caught up in God’s
saving work (6:19 -7:3), God’s remembering (8:1), and God’s promising (9:10)” (44).
In Genesis 6:19 God instructs
Noah to bring two kinds of each of the “birds,” “beasts,” and all kinds of creeping
things” into the ark “to stay alive.”
In Genesis 8.1, as the rains continue, God’s remembrance of Noah and the
animals compelled him to end the flood:
God remembered Noah, and all the animals, wild and tame, that were with him in
the ark. So God made a wind seep over th
earth, and the waters began to subside.”
After the flood, when God blessed Noah and his sons, he enters into a
covenant with him and all the earth’s creatures. I t is written in the
frequently cited Genesis 9:10, “See, I am now establishing my covenant with you
and your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with
you.” God promises never to destroy the
earth by water is clearly extended to the animals: “ never again shall all bodily
creatures be destroyed by the waters of a flood” and repeats with the
appearance of a rainbow, the triangular covenant that is “between me and you
and all living beings.” In fact, between Genesis 9:8 and 9:17, God repeats his
promise no fewer than six times. Hiersl
writes , “Clearly this was not an
anthropocentric covenant, rather it was
made with and for the benefit of all kinds of living creatures and calls
covenant with the natural world the most significant of all the covenants
because precedes the other covenants Abraham and his descendants and it covered
all life (5).
Historical, Literary, and Theological Associations
The
most debated element of our relationship with animals centers on the
controversy over one word in the Old Testament: dominion. Theologians have treated it as synonymous
with rule and subordination, but examination suggests otherwise. The
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language assigns its derivation
from the Latin dominiom, meaning
property, from dominus, meaning lord; also related to domain and
dungeon. Webster’s Revised Unabridged
Dictionary offers the synonyms sovereignty, control, rule, and authority. In Biblical contexts, the word has been
linked to domination. Although radah/dominion is used most often to speak about kings and national
rulings, James Limburg concluded that a study of the Old Testament yields
evidence that “humane and compassionate rule that displays
responsibility for others … results in peace and prosperity,” supporting the interpretation of dominion as
caretakaing (Bunge).
In
considering its application, theology professor Ellen Bernstein calls for
primary attention to context. “You have to consider
the derivation of the words under consideration the meaning of the neighboring
words and verses, the message of the Bible as a whole, the context in which it
was written, and how others have understood the verse throughout its 3000 year
history”(2). She suggests that we often
miss the sacred context of the word dominion as it was written in Genesis.
“The concept of ‘dominion’ in this context is a blessing/bvracha, a divine act
of love” (3).
She continues to explain the intricacies of Biblical
Hebrew, a “more symbolic, multilayered and vague language than English – any
single word root can have multiple meanings and often a word and its opposite
will share the same root” (3) Bible scholar Norbers Samuelson
demonstrates that the word kvs/master
comes from the Aramaic “to tread down or make a path” and in Sechariah the root
is interchangeable with akl, the word
for each. This demonstrates that in one case it can be translated as
master but in other cases “it appears to have agricultural implications” (3). “Have
dominion over” –rdh, “generally
refers to “rule of subjects.” If we are righteous and rule wisely and
responsibly we are above animals, but if we misuse our power, we “sink below
the level of animals and bring ruin to ourselves and the world”(4). The duality of meanings is at play here as it
is in many Biblical passages. “graciousness and domination” (5).
Diane
Bergant also supports the nurturing context of dominion, citing Gensis 2:15: ""The
Lord God then took the man and settled him in the Garden of Eden, to cultivate
and care for it. " Jeanne Kay relies
on the benevolent monarchy – “good shepherd stewardship” rather than tyrannical
rule (221), and noting the limitations of dominion, reminds us that “Adam cannot eat the animals” and God gives
Noah the task of saving them. (222). Man
cannot claim authority “to subjugate”
animals. In Job 39:9-10, God asks, “Who
has given the wild ass his freedom, and who has loosed him from his bonds?.” declaring,
“ I have made the wilderness his home and the salt flats his dwelling.” He uses this line of questioning in lines
26-27 to demonstrate that he alone rules the earth: “Is it by your discernment
that the hawk soars” and “Does the eagle fly up at your command to build his
nest aloft?” Only God can dominate
nature, Kay contends. “Humans may, on good behavior, serve as nature’s
managers, but true dominion belongs only to God” (227). Bernstein speaks of “perpetuity” in defining the
role of dominion: we cultivate the garden to ensure that its creatures continue. Likewise, only God can take a life. The dietary directions given to Noah after
the flood are explicit in their
prohibition of consuming an animal’s blood which Tubbs contends “ is presented not as a cultic
‘dietary law’ but as a universal ordinance: " Even when man slaughters and kills, he is to
know that he is touching something, which, because it is life, is in a special
manner God's property…” and as a sign of this he is to keep his hands off the
blood." It was not God’s intention
for humans to behave as "tyrants" in the natural world, “but rather
to preserve and care for God's creation in the image of God's own providence.”
Theologians frequently justify the
rulership model of dominion through Adam’s naming of the animals, a task given
to him by God. However, Tubbs offers contrary
evidence: “the Yahwist Adam names his human partner no less than the
animals, and the Priestly account certainly does not indicate any human
"dominion" over other humans..”
Writing in the Theology Today, Tubbs shows us how God
attends his creation “quite apart from any human agency.” God
sends rain to areas with no human inhabitants (Job 38:26-27) and provides
habitation, food, and drink for animals in the wild (Job 39:5-6; Ps.
104:10-27).” “Clearly, such depictions
of the natural (nonhuman) creation as subject to God's ownership and providence
imply strongly that its proper value and status extend far beyond its utility
to humankind.” Bunge interprets God’s
speaking to Job through the storm in (Job 38 and 39) in a similar vein: “God's first speech from the whirlwind (Job
38,39), indicate that God takes great delight in non-human creatures and did
not create them for human benefit alone:
Who
puts wisdom in the heart,
And gives the cock its understanding?
Who provides nourishment for the ravens
When
their young ones cry out to God,
And they rove abroad without food?
(Job 38:39-41)
Tubbs
writes that it was not God’s intention for humans to behave as
"tyrants" in the natural world, “but rather to preserve and care for
God's creation in the image of God's own providence.” Greenway concurs, writing “True dominion lies
not in us, but in God. If we are rightly to understand how to exercise our
dominion, we must strive to imitate and understand God's dominion.”
How
Covenant with Animals Contributes to the Wider Theology of the OT:
The covenant between God and
animals is referenced throughout the Old Testament with animals used in various
capacities: as agents of God, messengers, and teachers. Hosea 2:20 the reiterates
the covenant: “I will make a covenant
for them on that day, with the beasts of the field, with the birds of the air, and
with the things that crawl on the ground (Bergant). Animals also serve
as teachers in many instances. Jean-Yves
Lacoste writes that “Directives and reprimands may come to humans through
animals” and Murray suggests that animals offer a Divine model for human
behavior .
Ezekiel’s vision of a chariot (43)
serves as evidence that animals and humans will share a place in God’s heaven
as blended creatures. The characters
within the chariot in Ezekiel 1:5-15 are presented as “living creatures” that
possess both human and animal characteristics that include multiple wings
rounded feet (“the souls of their feet were round”) “ but each had four faces and four wings” and
“the soles of their feet were round.”
Their animal faces are very specific: each of the four had the face of a
man, but on the right side was the face of a lion, and on the left side the
face of an ox, and finally each had the face of an eagle.”
Tova
Forti explains that Old Testament literature, particularly Proverbs, Job, and
Ecclesiastes, “embed empiric observations of animal’s [sic] behavior as well as
illustrations of zoological characteristics as examples reinforcing various
teachings about human behavior” (120).
In Proverbs, “minute creatures, such as ants, badgers, locusts, and
lizards, are considered to display some of the wisest models of behavior in
spite ote their lack of physical strength.
Proverbs 30:24-28 lists numerous creatures who have lessons for human
beings:
Four
things are among the smallest on the earth
And yet are exceedingly
wise
Ants,
a species not strong, yet the store sup their food in the summer.
Rock
badgers – a species not mighty,
Yet
they make their home in the crags
Locusts
– they have no king,
Yet
they migrate all in array;
Lizards
– you can catch them with yoru hands,
Yet
they find their way into kings’ palaces.
The locusts, usually seen
as a destructive force are seen in Proverbs as admirable because of their
“efficient organization” (Forti 121).
Throughout
the Old Testament, God proclaims his care for both humans and animals. Addressing God’s care for all creation,
Robert Murray notes, “Human beings share
with animals the condition of being creatures” (42). This means also that they share the condition
of mortality. Psalm 49 warns
humans against valuing the
“folly” of wealth, reminding us that our demise is contingent upon our
lack of wisdom: “If mortals do not have wisdom, they perish like the beasts.” Bergant says we are interdependent with all
creation and thus bond with the animals, even in our blessings as Psalm 103
indicates: “Bless the Lord, all creatures”
(“The Bible Tells Me So”).
More
than messengers and models, animals are often used to do God’s bidding, as Kay
shows. It is written in Exodus 23:28-30 and Leviticus 26:22: that if the
Israelites’ behave righteously,” hornets will drive out the Hebrews’ enemies
and wild predators will not attack them as they escape from Egypt and head for
Canaan (223). In 1 Kings 17:1-6, God
directs Elijah to hide in
a wadi in Jordan during a severe drought . God assures him, “You shall drink of the
stream, and I have commanded ravens to feed you there….Ravens brought him bread
and meat in the morning, and bread and meat in the evening.” In 2 Kings 2:24, on the way to Bethel, the
prophet Elisha is ridiculed by children and the wrath of nature is set upon
them:
“Go up, baldhead,” they shouted, “go up, baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore torty-two of the children to pieces.” Another instance of an animal carrying out the wishes of God appears in the story of Jonah, as the fish does God’s work of transporting Jonah safely to shore. “Out of my distress I called to the Lord…From the midst of the nether world I crid for help and you heard my voice,” Jonah says, and continues describing his life-threatening experience “enveloped” in the “abyss;” when he acknowledges that God has the power of deliverance. In Daniel 6:23, we see a similar scenario (226). Surviving the lion’s den, Daniel proclaims, “My God has sent his angel to close the lions’ mouths so that they have not hurt me.” A drastically different fate befalls Daniel’s accusers, their wives, and their children, who were killed by the lions even “before they reached the bottom of the den.” The most widely known instance of creatures doing God’s bidding is evident in Exodus, through the Plagues, “the role of the nonhuman as mediator in God’s delivering activity (Fretheim 44).
“Go up, baldhead,” they shouted, “go up, baldhead!” The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore torty-two of the children to pieces.” Another instance of an animal carrying out the wishes of God appears in the story of Jonah, as the fish does God’s work of transporting Jonah safely to shore. “Out of my distress I called to the Lord…From the midst of the nether world I crid for help and you heard my voice,” Jonah says, and continues describing his life-threatening experience “enveloped” in the “abyss;” when he acknowledges that God has the power of deliverance. In Daniel 6:23, we see a similar scenario (226). Surviving the lion’s den, Daniel proclaims, “My God has sent his angel to close the lions’ mouths so that they have not hurt me.” A drastically different fate befalls Daniel’s accusers, their wives, and their children, who were killed by the lions even “before they reached the bottom of the den.” The most widely known instance of creatures doing God’s bidding is evident in Exodus, through the Plagues, “the role of the nonhuman as mediator in God’s delivering activity (Fretheim 44).
In nearly every book of the Old
Testament, we witness the relationship with God and non-human creation. Even the genealogies in Genesis demonstrate more than historical lineage, according to Fretheim:
“it shows that every person is kin to eveyr other; even more…human and nonhuman are linked together
in one very large extended family” (68).
The Book of Psalms concludes with
a testament to God’s relationship with
all life: ‘Let everything that has breath praise the Lord!’ (Sharp).
Practical Ministerial Applications
of the Theme
In “The Role of Nature in Natural
Disasters,” Diane Bergant sees a causal relationship between “anthropocentric
imperialism” and ecological destruction. “We, like every other creature of the natural
world, are embedded in the realityof this world, we are not above it.
Furthermore, like every other creature of the natural world, we are subject to
its laws, laws established in the beginning by the Creator.” Greenway accuses traditional Biblical
scholars of ignoring ”a pivotal
theological teaching” “that we are to love all creatures. ” Bunge
credits Fretheim with teaching us that through Psalms,
we witness that “God is active in nature
and intimately involved in every aspect of natural order” (2).
Furthermore,
Bunge highlights an important connections between the environment and social
injustice: how can we love our neighbors
without considering their vulnerability to environmental hazards? (2). The Bible “points
out the commonalities between human beings and other living things” and “provide
powerful grounds for environmental responsibility” (webofcreation.org). Referring specifically to divine
covenant, we receive blessings from our
covenant with God, but such That receipt is contingent
upon how we fulfill the duties assigned to us in our living relationship with
non-human inhabitants of the earth. Relationship
with God is not limited to humankind, as
Yale Divinity Professor Carolyn Sharp reminds us that “every living
creature hears God’s voice” .
This concept assumes a new
level of importance today because of our heightened sensitivity to the
environment and earth’s creatures, both suffering devastating loss and
destruction. It gives us a Biblical
imperative for cultivating relationships with non-human elements of the earth
and it spiritually validates those of us who have chosen to live and work for
their benefit. It adds Divine impetus to
“humane” living and lets us reassess ourselves in relation to the Bible as we
learn that our moral standards – not shared by all – lead us to be activists
for Divine justice. It invites us
to rediscover purpose of our relationship to the non-human world we share. I deal with people in grief over the loss of
their animals – these insights validate their choices and can draws them in
rather than away from organized religion that has traditionally neglected the
potency of human-animal relationships. People often experience discomfort
when their religions leaders proclaim human superiority over animals because
their experience tells them otherwise.
They often become disenfranchised.
This research elastics religion to embrace a more holistic spirituality
reserving for them a place where they are not only welcome but blessed by God
for their loving stewardship of the garden. As Bergant writes, “The
human creature is placed in the garden to serve (the same verb as ‘till’) and
guard it” (“The Bible Tells Me So”). Tubbs maintains that giving attention
to our role in dominion and nature offers us opportunity through reflection to assess our values which may “deepen and
broaden our appreciation and concern for the effects and consequences of human
decisions upon nonhuman beings.
Works Cited
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Houghton
Mifflin,
2006.
Bergant,
Dianne. "The Bible Tells Me SoThe Good Book is Gull of Passages to Inspire
Environmental
Action." U.S. Catholic 73.4 (April
1, 2008): 16(2). Academic OneFile. Gale. CCLA, Miami
Dade Comm College. 19 Apr. 2009.
----. “The Role of
Nature in Natural Disasters.” Listening: Journal of Religion and
Culture. 1998
(33).
Bernstein, Ellen. The Splendor of Creation, a Biblical
Ecology www. Ellenbernstein.org
Bradshaw,
Robert L. Covenant. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_covenant.html
Bunge,
Marcia. “Biblical Views of Nature: Foundations for an Environmental Ethic.”
www.webofcreation.org.
Forti,
Tova. “Who Teaches Us More Athan the Beasts of the Earth, and Makes us Wise
than the
Birds of the Heavens. PECUS.
Man and Animal in Antiquity. Proceedings of the Conference at
the Swedish Institute in Rome, Sept. 9-12. 2002. Ed. Barbro Santillo
Frizell (The Swedish Insittute in Rome. Projects
and Seminars , 1) Rome 2004. www.svenska-institutet-rom.org/pecus.v 120-122.
Fretheim,
Terence. The Pentateuch. Nashville: Abington Press 1996.
“God’s
Covenant with Animals.” Humane
Religion. July - August 1996
Cengage Learning. 1-4.
Hiersl, Richard H.
“Reverence for Life and Environmental Ethics in Biblical Law and Covenant.
Covenant.”http://fore.research.yale.edu/religion/christianity/essays/chris_hiers_index.htm
American
Geographers. (1989) 79: 2. 214-232.
LaCoste, John-Yves. “Animals.”
Encyclopedia of Christian Theology.
www.books.googlebooks.com
Sharp,
Carolyn. “Rereading Dominion in Scriptural Traditions.” Catholic Concern for Animals.
http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/art-rereading.htm .
Smith, Ralph Allan.
“Defining the Covenant: What Consensus?”
http://www.berith.org/essays/defining_the_covenant_what_consensus.htm
St. Paul Center for
Biblical Theology.
Tubbs, Jr., James B. “ Humble Dominion.” Theology
Today. 50. 4 (1994.)
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/search/index-search.htm
“Covenant.” Theopedia.
www.theopedia.com/covenant.
Webster's Revised
Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA,: 1996
Comments