Category Archives: Ownership

Thanksgiving for your pet

Posted on by

Thanksgiving

II Samuel 12:1-4, “So the Lord sent Nathan to David. When Nathan arrived he said, ‘There were two men in the same city: one rich, one poor. The rich man had a lot of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had nothing – just one ewe lamb that he had bought. He raised that lamb, and it grew up with him and his children. It would eat from his food and drink from his cup – even sleep in his arms! It was like a daughter to him. Now a traveler came to visit the rich man, but he wasn’t willing to take anything from his own flock or herd to prepare for the guest who had arrived. Instead he took the poor man’s ewe lamb and prepared it for the visitor.”

This is one of the few passages in the Bible that refers to pets. The Jewish people of the Old Testament did not keep dogs or cats as pets, it seems. Pet birds are mentioned in the book of Job.

I cite this story from the Old Testament to point out the intensity of the relationship between the man and his pet. Just as modern people become very attached to their “companion animals,” so did he. The popular species for pets have changed, but the human heart and its potential affection for animals have not changed. In fact, I propose that God implanted this as an instinct in humans, from our creation. Likewise, God created some animals (not all) with the instinct to live with humans. That is why we find domestic animals mentioned along with wild animals and creeping things in Genesis 1 and 2. Some creatures want to be left alone in the wild; others want to live under the protection of humans.

The significance of this in the context of the Thanksgiving holiday is that we owe God thanks for the provision not only of food and shelter, but for the gift of pets.

Some folks have trouble thinking that Christians should pray for animals. The idea seems to be that God is only concerned about spiritual things, and so praying about physical things (like animals) is useless. That is a big mistake. Jesus prayed about healing people (physically) and not just spiritually. Jesus told us in the Lord’s Prayer to ask for our daily bread. That is pretty much physical stuff!

I have difficulty imagining that the poor man in the story of II Samuel would not have prayed for his ewe lamb. If he ate and drank and slept beside the creature, surely it entered his prayers!

What exactly would you pray FOR if you prayed for your pet?

Start with the obvious. How about thanking God for the companionship provided by the animal? Thank God for His wisdom in making such lovable creatures. For providing such a creature for you and your family.

This might be a new holiday tradition for your family. Include the family pet(s) in your thanksgiving!

Polyfaces DVD review, Christian farming

Posted on by
Polyfaces DVD
Regrarians
documentary
2015
DVD

Polyfaces DVD review

Polyface Farm: A Grace Place (not a Harm Farm)

October 7, 2016

I have read three books by Joel Salatin, who has become famous as “the lunatic farmer.” He is a Christian environmentalist farmer, which is why 'lunatic' sort of fits. Christians don't usually associate with environmentalists, and environmentalists do not often associate with Christians. Throw farming into the mix and everyone is confused. I enjoyed reading “Folks, This Ain't Normal” the most, if you want to try one out.

Recently I discovered that his Christian environmentalist farm has a DVD produced called Polyfaces. You can buy a copy at www.polyfaces.com if so inclined. This is my review of the DVD. I could not find it on Amazon so you have to get it direct, I think. The packaging does not give the length, nor do I see it listed on the website. I would guess it may be 60 to 90 minutes.

Polyfaces is an upbeat, encouraging documentary about Polyface Farm in Virginia. This farm became famous when Michael Pollan wrote about it in his bestselling book “The Omnivore's Dilemma.” Pollan is also featured on the DVD a few times.

I write about Polyface Farm a few times in my new book “God's Animals,” also. I cite Joel Salatin frequently, because he has become a sort of 'guru' regarding organic farming methods and success. Polyface Farm practices holistic farming, you might say. They avoid fertilizers, and use cattle of various kinds to produce manure to build up the soil and grow the crops. It is what I call a “Grace Place,” because proper and biblical stewardship of land and animals is practiced. There is no cruelty or negligence regarding life or food.

Polyface Farm is exactly the opposite of a “normal” industrial farm where the vast majority of your meat and foods come from. Industrialization conquered agriculture a century ago, and took over animal husbandry fifty years ago. Now almost all that we eat is processed, and treated with cruelty, in the case of meat. I sympathize with vegetarians who avoid meat for moral reasons. The modern meat production system is a spawn of Satan and evil. However, Polyface Farms produces all kinds of meat without cruelty.

That is the one point of caution for viewers: there are a few animals killed on camera, during demonstrations of the Polyface meat production. I remember chickens, turkeys, and rabbits being killed. It is a bit disturbing for the faint of heart, but it is not cruel. It is simply something you don't often see. Industrialists hide their processes out of shame and the grotesque nature of their methods. Polyface does it properly.

Most of the DVD is entirely peaceful and fun. I learned a lot about farming practices and it did remind me of my grandfather's beef cows and chicken coops.

Salatin and family are Christians and that comes out mainly toward the end of the program.

Probably the most encouraging thing, to me, was the demonstrated impact of Polyface Farm on other farmers. The idea is spreading, and being practiced by new and reforming farmers around the US.

The big agribusiness companies lie; claiming that the world could never survive on organic farming. Polyface produces enough to feed 6000 people, if I remember the number correctly. And it produces all of that food without chemicals or cruelty, and produces better soil without exploiting it. There are no giant cesspools of animal poo; no horrible stenches covering neighborhoods; and the farm is open for public viewing. Cameras are welcome there because there is nothing to hide.

I recommend the DVD Polyfaces to everyone interested in seeing how a farm should and could work.

Does God Care about Animals? Part One

Posted on by

We will first talk about the negatives: that is, the verses that skeptics claim prove that God does not care about animals.

Muzzling the Ox

I Corinthians 9:9-11, “For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.’ Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be the partaker of this hope.”

These verses of I Corinthians 9 are the only Bible passage that MAY imply that God is not concerned about oxen. However, it has been badly translated and interpreted for centuries, as most scholars and theologians admit.

In these verses, Paul is rebutting critics who say that he and other apostles are “only in it for the money.” Paul did sometimes accept funds or perks for his ministry. In this chapter he also points out that Peter (Cephas) has perks and no one complains about him. And then Paul says, “is it not the Old Testament principle that you should not muzzle the ox while it treads out the grain?”

We modern people no longer use oxen to work with our grain…we have machines for that now. Oxen would pull a wooden beam around, causing a large millstone to turn, that crushed the hard husks around grain kernels and allowed the good grain morsel to fall below. God told the Jews in Deutero-nomy not to take cruel advantage of the animals performing work, but to let them eat while they work. Some mill owners were strapping muzzles on the ox to keep him from eating even while surrounded with food. God said “no” to that.

The Jews never contested this law. They always agreed that God wanted oxen free to eat, and applied this to other animals like donkeys, goats, sheep, etc. Even people. They said that if God gives us a rule that shows a principle in a small way, we should also apply it to bigger cases. So you should treat your workers well, also.

The problem is that translators messed up in choosing one of several possible meanings for pantos, a Greek word. It can mean “altogether” or “no doubt.” But it can also mean “surely, mainly, or especially.” Albert Barnes, Walter Kaiser, and many others have shown this. So Paul could be better translated here:

“Is it ONLY oxen that God is concerned about? Or does He say it also for our sakes? For our sakes, as well, SURELY this is written.” Even oxen get some perks for their work, so Paul asks, why not me? Paul is using the standard Jewish interpretive method, of extrapolating a larger truth from a lesser truth.

John Calvin wrote about this passage, “…from this it is inferred, from the lesser to the greater, how much equity he requires among men, when he wishes that it should be shown to brute animals. When he says, that God does not take care for oxen, you are not to understand him as meaning to exclude oxen from the care of God’s Providence, inasmuch as he does not overlook even the least sparrow…” (Commentary on Corinthians)

John Wesley likewise explains Paul: “Doth God take care for oxen?” Without doubt he does. We cannot deny it, without flatly contradicting his word. The plain meaning of the apostle is, is this all that is implied in the text? Hath it not a farther meaning?” (General, 121)

Another obvious reason to believe that the translation was done badly is the problem of how we interpret the Bible. Paul is usually very literal in interpreting, and so are modern pastors. If Paul is really teaching that “do not muzzle the ox” actually means nothing of the kind, but means pastors deserve payment, that opens a huge can of worms! When else should we interpret the Old Testament not to mean what it actually seems to say?

Martin Luther had a clever interpretation of these verses. He said that Paul was making a joke about oxen that can read. Was God writing Deuteronomy for oxen to read? Of course not, it was written for us! So again, Paul was not saying God didn’t care about oxen. He was saying that we draw principles from all of God’s commands, even the ones about animal treatment.

Swine and Demons

There is another passage that critics use to say God cares nothing about animals: the story of Jesus and the Gadarenes Demonic, found in Matthew 8:28-34, Mark 5:1-20, and Luke 8:26-39. It is too long to cite here, so I encourage you to read it on your own.

The basic plot is that Jesus finds one (or two) demon possessed men on the east side of the Sea of Galilee, where Gentiles like to raise pigs. One of the demons calls himself Legion “because we are many.” A legion was several thousand troops in a Roman army. The demons beg Jesus not to send them to Hell, but to let them instead flee into a nearby herd of pigs. Jesus says “Go,” and the demons leave the man (or men) and enter the pigs. All 2000 pigs then run into the Sea and drown. The demoniac asks to be a disciple, but Jesus tells him to stay and preach here. The locals ask him to leave.

Saint Augustine, unfortunately, started the poor interpretation of this wonderful miracle.

“Christ Himself shows that to refrain from the killing of animals and the destroying of plants is the height of superstition, for, judging that there are no common rights between us and the beasts and trees, he sent the devils into a herd of swine and with a curse withered the tree on which he found no fruit.” (Passmore, 111-112)

Augustine was trying to extract himself from some bad philosophical ideas of his youth. A number of eastern Christians were trying to push vegetarianism as a key element of our faith, and Augustine took every opportunity to oppose its promoters. He used the Stoic angle, claiming that humans only have moral obligations to “rational” creatures, not animals or plants. (Wennberg, 306) Thomas Aquinas later adopted the same perspective, and this pair of great theologians set the church on the wrong track, toward animals.

The interpretive method being used here by St. Augustine and Aquinas is not proper. They are arguing from the specific to the general, but they are not using a commandment or principle, but details from a narrative story. Their argument is basically this: since Jesus allowed or caused 2000 pigs to die in order to save one man from demonic possession, then animals are clearly not important to Jesus. Proponents of animal industries cite this as proof that God doesn’t mind us wiping out animals even in large numbers, since Jesus did it.

Is this proper interpretation?

Not at all.

The assumptions in this interpretation are unfounded.

One- Jesus did not care about the pigs, they say. This is not stated, nor implied. The assumption is that Jesus would never send demons into pigs if he cared about animals. For all we know, Jesus may have been very sad at the pigs’ demise. Nor does this incident prove that pigs (or animals) have no value. All this event proves is that Jesus believed that the human(s) involved had higher value than the pigs. It was better for demons to be in pigs than to be in humans.

Two- they say that this proves that we humans can kill large numbers of animals without compunction. Absolutely false. It proves that large numbers of animals can be killed for righteous reasons. Jesus never sinned, so His action is righteous. It is up to the industrialists to prove that their killing of large numbers of animals is righteous and just. Jesus was entirely just. Are they?

So what is a proper interpretation of this strange miracle? There are many facets to it, and I will focus on those relevant to the discussion of animals.

This miracle was a demonstration of Jesus power over demons to the disciples, to the local population, and to one healed man.

Look at the context! That is a good way to start any interpretation of the Bible. All three gospel accounts have a very similar order of events before, during, and after the Gadarene case.

1) Jesus was healing people and casting out demons. Matthew 8:1-15. Mark 3:1-30. Luke 7:1-17 and 8:1-3.

2) Jesus saved the disciples in the boat from a severe storm. Matthew 8:23-27. Mark 4:35-41. Luke 8:22-25.

3) Jesus casts out Legion. Matthew 8:28-32. Mark 5:1-13. Luke 8:26-33.

4) The locals ask him to leave (rejecting Him). Matthew 8:33-34. Mark 5:17. Luke 8:37.

5) Jesus heals more people. Matthew 9:1-7, 18-38. Mark 5:21-43. Luke 8:40-56.

6) Jesus sends the disciples out to heal people and cast out demons. He tells them how to deal with acceptance and rejection from people. Matthew 10. Mark 6:1-13. Luke 9:1-6.

You will find this pattern in Matthew, Mark and Luke. What does this mean?

These chapters of Jesus’ life show that He is preparing them to become apostles. They were fishermen. They had no idea how to teach, heal, or deal with “unclean spirits.” Of course Jesus is demonstrating His power, that comes from God, that they will also be using in the future.

The real point of the story of the Gadarene swine is that Jesus does a miraculous work. It saves a man from demonic possession. And the locals are not happy about it, and want Jesus to leave. The disciples will encounter the same kind of rejection when they start doing miracles.

As for the pigs, the point was this: there were thousands of demons in the man, called Legion, and the thousands of pigs committing suicide was proof that all the demons were gone.

If only ten pigs had died, would the locals conclude that only a small portion of the demons were gone? The pig keepers were watching Jesus’ conversation with the possessed man, and apparently hearing it also. If only twenty pigs ran off and died, would these men have run into the city to tell everyone what happened?

Critics say that this story proves that one man is worth more than 2000 pigs.

Maybe. Or you might ask it a different way? Is losing 2000 pigs better than having thousands of demons terrorizing the countryside? Trading 2000 pigs for 6000 demons is a better trade, perhaps?

The city people, rather than being thankful for the deliverance from thousands of devils, begged Jesus to leave. They rejected Jesus.

So, no. The incident with lots of dead pigs is no proof that God cares nothing about animals. The worst that can be said is that Jesus permitted a “lesser evil.” Invisible demons fleeing the man would not be seen by the onlookers or disciples. The only way for people to “see” the departure of the demons was by their entry into the pigs and the suicide of that herd. (Bauckham, Living, 98) If you were forced to choose between the life of a human and the life of an animal, the human would always be preferred. That is the most that we can infer from the incident of the swine.

In the next blog, Part Two, we will look at positive proofs that God does care about animals.

Balaam’s Donkey and Animal Minds

Posted on by

Balaam’s Donkey and Animal Minds

August 10, 2016

Numbers 22:21-35, “So Balaam rose in the morning, saddled his donkey, and went with the princes of Moab. Then God’s anger was aroused because he went, and the Angel of the Lord took His stand in the way as an adversary against him. And he was riding his donkey, and his two servants were with him.

Now the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand, and the donkey turned aside out of the way and went into the field. So Balaam struck the donkey to turn her back onto the road. Then the Angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on this side and a wall on that side. And when the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord, she pushed herself against the wall and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall; so he struck her again. Then the Angel of the Lord went further, and stood in a narrow place where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. Now when the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord, she lay down under Balaam, so Balaam’s anger was aroused, and he struck the donkey with his staff.

Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?’ And Balaam said to the donkey, ‘Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!’ So the donkey said to Balaam, ‘Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?’ And he said, ‘No.’

Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand; and he bowed his head and fell flat on his face. And the Angel of the Lord said to him, ‘Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to stand against you, because your way is perverse before Me. The donkey saw Me and turned aside from Me these three times. If she had not turned aside from Me, surely I would also have killed you by now, and let her live.’ And Balaam said to the Angel of the Lord, ‘I have sinned, for I did not know You stood in the way against me. Now therefore, if it displeases You, I will turn back.’ Then the Angel of the Lord said to Balaam, ‘Go with the men, but only the word that I speak to you, that you shall speak.’ So Balaam went with the princes of Balak.”

In case you doubt the story of Balaam and his donkey, consider that Balaam was named as a historical person in Deuteronomy, Joshua, Nehemiah, Micah, II Peter, Jude, and Revelation. So this guy gets mentioned in eight books of the Bible. A 1967 archaeological discovery at Deir Alla, Jordan, appears to refer to this same Balaam son of Be’or.

Balaam is a pagan prophet, but he knows God, and he is apparently planning to cast a curse upon the Israelites. His donkey sees the “Angel of the Lord,” which usually refers to Jesus, taking angelic form. Jesus has a sword ready, and waits to kill Balaam. Balaam does not see the danger.

There are only two conversations between humans and animals in the Bible. The Serpent in Eden talking to Eve, and the donkey with Balaam. In each case, the humans seemed un-surprised.

Many Christian writers suggest that animals could speak to Adam and Eve in Eden.

George Hawkins Pember says that since God gave dominion to Adam, and the animals were his subjects, it makes perfect sense that Adam and the animals should be able to communicate with each other. It says that God “opened the mouth of his donkey,” which might imply that animals have had their mouths closed, so to speak, since the Fall. In Job 39, God says about ostriches that “God has made her to forget wisdom,” which implies that ostriches used to be much smarter. Maybe all the animals were much smarter before sin came into the world.

Another reason to think that animal brains are less smart than human brains is found in the book of Daniel. When King Nebuchadnezzar becomes arrogant, an angel warns him what will happen in punishment if he remains proud.

Daniel 4:15-17, “…and it must live with the animals in the earth’s vegetation. It’s human mind is to be changed: it will be given the mind of an animal. ”

Then the king spends a long time grazing grass like a cow. But when he repents, God restores him. Nebuchadnezzar said, after repenting, in 4:36, “So at that moment my reason returned to me.”

It seems that Nebuchadnezzar had his mind changed to a cow mind, until he learned humility. The King himself described his return to human mind as “my reason returned to me.” This is one reason to think that a big difference between humans and animals is “reason.” That does not mean that animals have NO reason, but a lesser level of abstract thinking.

So back to the story of Balaam.

The donkey spoke. You might say, maybe God or an angel was speaking through the donkey?

No, there are a few reasons to reject that view.

The biggest one is the pronoun. “SHE” spoke. It was a female donkey, and a female that spoke. In the Bible, God is not referred to as a female, nor are any angels apparently female, as far as we know. Also, II Peter 2:16 says that “a dumb donkey speaking with a human voice restrained the madness of the prophet.” [That word is dumb, meaning speechless, not dumb as in stupid.]

Why can’t we say that God was talking through the donkey? First of all, God, that is Jesus, is standing nearby as the angel of the Lord, and He is going to speak in a few moments. So why would God speak out of the donkey and then speak moments later out of the angel?

Also, why would God speak out of the donkey like a ventriloquist or impersonator? The phrase, “the Lord opened her mouth” would be meaningless. If God is pretending to be the donkey, why would that be? It just doesn’t make any sense.

As for the donkey talking, how much intelligence can we grant to the donkey? Aside from being supernaturally enabled to speak Hebrew (or whatever language Balaam used)… are these “her own words”? Did she have the ability to think these things on her own account, and only now she is able to express them verbally? The implication of the text is that the donkey is speaking her mind.

I am agreeing with what a writer Cameron Howard wrote about this story, with some modifications of my own.

Balaam’s donkey clearly knows a few things.

Rather than telling Balaam that she sees a fiery angel standing ahead with a sword, what does she say? She speaks about her feelings about her relationship with Balaam. “Haven’t I been a good donkey for you for many years? Did I ever cause trouble for you before?”

Don’t you find that strange? If Balaam had been riding in a rickshaw, pulled by a male servant, he would say, “Balaam, I am trying to save your life from that vicious looking angel up ahead!” A human slave wouldn’t talk like this donkey does. Maybe she doesn’t even know what an angel is, just that it is scary looking. She says, “why are you hitting me after my long years of good service?” In a manner of speaking, this female donkey refers to the importance of her relationship to the man, not just the current circumstances.

What seems to be the most important issue to Balaam’s donkey? Their relationship. She asks basically, “why have you been hitting me?”

You may be thinking I have gone off the deep end. But I ask you, as divine revelation, given by God to Moses, do these verses not mean something? If so, what alternative do you have for interpreting this passage? Either you think it a myth, which puts you outside of the Bible-believing audience, or you think it is true. I cannot see any alternative to saying that the donkey has some memory and amount of intelligence. She is not citing poetry here, waxing creative; nor explaining the mysteries of the universe. What she does seem to know, and say, is that she recognizes her role as the helper to Balaam, and her constant obedience to that role, until now.

One might think that God had created domestic animals with the very basic understanding that their role was to help humans. Would it not make sense that if God intended for certain animals to be man’s helpers, they would have enough brains to submit to that role? That is implied in many Scripture passages, such as Isaiah 1:3, “An ox knows its owner, and a donkey its master’s manger, but Israel does not know, My people do not understand.” This verse strongly infers that domestic animals know at least two bits of useful information: 1) who their owners are, and 2) where they get their food. In John chapter 10, Jesus repeatedly emphasizes how sheep know the voice of their owners, but not strangers voices.

Instinct is a sort of automatic, unthinking programmed response to situations. Intelligence requires thinking and flexibility. Choosing between two possible courses of action requires some decision making. Domestic animals are making decisions, making choices, some wrong, and some right. Your dog sometimes decides the cookie on the table is more desirable than staying off the table as previously trained.

Balaam’s donkey has habitually obeyed, until now, when a frightening angel keeps blocking her path. Balaam is unable to see this danger. She chooses to disobey and suffer Balaam’s retribution, unjustly, to avoid the angel.

About the donkey’s mind, what do we see?

  1. She has memories. She remembers a long history of faithful service to her owner. She remembers doing well and not being a problem for Balaam.
  2.  She can count to three, at least.
  3. She knows who Balaam is, and that she belongs to him, and works for him.
  4. She recognizes dangers and chooses to disobey Balaam in order to help him, when necessary.
  5. She has a sense of right and wrong. She knows that she has done right, and that Balaam is doing wrong by beating her, in this incident. That is not to say that animals have a biblical sense of right and wrong. I think that animals have an instinctual idea of fairness. If you have two dogs laying side by side, and you give one dog a treat, does the dog with no treat find this situation acceptable? I suspect that one dog feels “cheated” and is watching you expectantly for another treat. In this example, perhaps the giving of food to one dog and not the other is not truly “injustice” but more a lack of fairness.

Animals also can learn new ideas of right and wrong from us. You can train animals to believe that good is evil and evil is good. For example, a pit bull trained by a drug lord will attack police because the dog is loyal to the owner. The dog does not recognize that his owner is wicked and the police are good.

If you teach your dog not to sit on the couch, then the animal learns that couch is bad, even though there is no biblical rule about dogs on couches. Domestic animals decide what is right and wrong based on the teachings of their owners. And that is a lot like children, is it not?

Notice also that the donkey is a person. Not a human person, but an individual. She says I and me, those are personal pronouns. She knows that she is her and Balaam is another person.

What bothered the donkey was the breach of trust in her relationship with Balaam. We joke about the differences between dogs and cats, saying that the dog looks at its owners as gods, and the cat views itself as god and the domestic humans as servants. In a sense, we are gods to domestic animals. We act in ways completely beyond their comprehension; have powers or abilities they cannot match; and provide for their needs.

When God enabled the donkey to speak its mind, the central problem in her mind was showing Balaam her faithfulness and the injustice of his now cruel treatment of her. She does not seem angry as much as confused or worried, perhaps hopeful that he will see his error.

Elephants and camels are notorious for reacting angrily to injustices perceived.

This case proves only that Balaam’s donkey was intelligent. But it would seem unreasonable to assume that God only made one donkey intelligent just to speak to Balaam, one time. More likely, it infers that domestic animals, designed by God to help man, have enough intelligence to perform that work well. A lot of wild animals seem to have high intelligence also. Whales and dolphins and sea lions. Tigers and lions.

My guess is that the cherubim may be a clue. The four living creatures have faces of a man, lion, bull, and eagle. They praise God in Heaven. If indeed they represent animal kingdoms on Earth: human, domestic animals, wild animals, and birds, then we might say that their ability to praise God infers that those four animal kingdoms are capable of doing so. Birds, domestic animals, and wildlife (at least mammals) are the most intelligent, scientifically speaking, as opposed to fish, reptiles, and insects, which seem less “bright.”

When Balaam has failed to temper his anger against the donkey, even with her new-found abilities of self-expression, Jesus appears. The very first thing the Angel of the Lord asks is exactly what the donkey asked. “Why did you beat your donkey three times? I was going to kill you, and she saved your life.”

Just as Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, the Father knows (and cares) when any sparrow falls to the ground. Do you not think that the Father knows (and cares) when a man beats a beast?

And how did Balaam respond to the challenge of the Angel? “I have sinned.”

I suspect that donkeys are among the more intelligent animals God made. I encourage you to consider that your pet probably is a “person” in the sense of being an individual with thoughts about himself or herself, and about you. Your pet probably knows that you are the owner, and has some ideas about fairness and right and wrong.

One other interesting possibility to consider,…

In the new heavens and new earth, you may actually get to talk to your pets, just as you will talk to your Christian family.

Explaining “God’s Animals Living Abundantly”

Posted on by

This “blog” constitutes the first step in the planned creation of a non-profit organization to be called “God’s Animals Living Abundantly.” It will be an on-going process: gradually growing.

The name was chosen for two reasons. God’s Animals is the title of the non-fiction book I have nearly finished writing. God’s Animals Living Abundantly is both a summary of my hope for the future of animals on Earth, and a pleasant acronym of GALA.

First and foremost, the key element is that all animals belong to God. More specifically, for Christians, they belong to Jesus Christ. He created the world and will receive it again as a gift from the Father at the end. As the New Testament quotes often from Psalm 8, “all things” will be put under His feet.

The animals belong to God, not to Satan, nor to humanity.

A common and mistaken Christian view is that God and Satan played a cosmic card game in the Garden of Eden. The deal was, purportedly, winner take all. If Adam sticks with God, then God keeps the universe. If Adam and Eve sin, then Satan takes possession of the world. They think that the Devil became the ruler of this universe, and God is working to win it back.

That is nonsense. Satan is only referred to as “the god of this world” in the sense of the human world. He rules that because the human souls are dead in sin. Satan does not control the weather, or command the animals, or claim ownership of the Earth. The fallen angel is still under the complete control of God. When Satan wants to do anything important he must grovel in Heaven for permission to do so. The animals, and the world, are not under the control of the Devil.

Finally, the more pernicious doctrine is beloved of modern industrialists, and greedy consumers. They wish to believe that God created the Earth for our appetites and desires. Using a false understanding of “dominion” from Genesis 1, and Psalm 8, they claim that God has ceded ownership of the world to humans. They see the Earth as a giant pinata full of goodies, and we must blast the planet to get the goodies out. These people claim that animals are of no importance to God: He intended for us to exploit them for our needs and wants without restriction.

This is not nonsense. This is blasphemy.

God did not cede the world to humanity for domination. Dominion was never intended to be absolute tyranny. God established rules, laws, principles, and examples of the proper care of His animals in the Bible. God never ceded control of the Earth. The Earth is the Lord’s and all it contains! Humans are granted a kind of ownership; the kind of ownership we call stewardship. Animals are on loan from God for our careful use, with restrictions.

Cruelty at a personal and societal level are based on the blasphemous notions that we ourselves own the animals rather than God. If people had the correct notion, and lived by recognizing that God owns the animals and Earth, our planet would be a far nicer place to live.

The Title

So, “God’s Animals” refers to the true owner of all creatures: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the Christian God.

The rest of the sentence, “Living Abundantly,” is the intention of God for His creatures, which His people should be promoting on Earth. It was the original plan of God,. He intends for Christians to work toward implementing that plan now and in the future.

In Genesis, in Eden, God wanted the animals of air and water and land to teem, populate, spread, and fill the Earth. Jesus did not plan for a planet overflowing with people with a few animals here and there. Abundance is the word, in quantity of living creatures. Psalm 104 celebrates the provision of God for various creatures in many different habitats. Some places on Earth were created by God specifically for certain kinds of animals to live in. Not every corner of the Earth is to be claimed by humans. People may share and visit, but not monopolize the whole planet.

At the end of Job, God brags about his many creatures, even the ones now extinct or unknown to humans, like Behemoth and Leviathan. Where in the Bible were humans told that the animals should be exterminated? When God gave the Israelites the land of Judea, He ordered that the people should leave some food in the fields. Why? For the poor humans and the wild animals to eat. Baby birds and its mother were not to be captured or killed together.

Abundant living must not only be considered in quantity of animals, but also in the individual animal’s quality of life. A life can be abundant in the sense of enjoyment. Living creatures can go beyond basic needs. They can have a surplus of life, wherein it can be joyous. You have probably seen the You Tube videos of baby animals frolicking…goats hopping and puppies rolling and kittens tumbling and birds bathing. A life blessed by God is a happy life. Of course, sinful humans have difficulty finding joy because sin is a tremendous downer. But animals are not sinners. Animal hardships are part of “the Curse” wherein human sin brought pain and death and travail into the world.

Christ is the conqueror of Death. Though death is the last enemy, Jesus gives life to many humans by saving them and restoring their ability to enjoy life. Jesus wants His disciples, including us, to spread this good news throughout the Earth. The good news transforms human lives. Then humans also transform their relationships with each other and the Earth. Christians should be improving the Earth along with evangelism, because the Good News includes the complete restoration of the Earth.

Romans 8:19-21, “For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

Although the glories of the New Earth will not be complete until Christ removes the Curse and death, should not His people be active in healing what parts of the living world can be healed?

lorikeet