Animal Rights in The Book of Genesis

From the Old Testament to the New Testament, the Bible contains numerous references to other living beings besides humans. Animals, for example, are first mentioned in the Book of Genesis and appear in other parts of Scripture as well. Since biblical times, awareness of animals and their treatment has grown. With recent movements developing in support of animal rights today, it could be beneficial to examine whether the Bible could be used as a source to show support for contemporary animal rights campaigns. Inspecting the Bible more deeply on this topic is important since it is a relevant text that many people hold true in their lives today. Because the Book of Genesis discusses animals and their creation at length, I will be examining whether this specific book fits in with the idea of animal rights. As animal rights can include a multitude of viewpoints, I will specifically be focusing on animal rights in the sense of promoting the well-being of animals, minimizing the undue suffering of animals at the hands of humans, and protecting against the abuse of animals by humans. Based on this narrower scope, it is my contention that the Book of Genesis from the Old Testament of the Bible does not undermine animal rights upon careful examination of the term “dominion” as well as the command of vegetarianism and its revocation.

In the beginning of life in chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis, God creates a relationship of peace between humans and animals. When discussing diet for humans, God states “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food” (Gen 1:29). The diet God prescribes here is representative of vegetarianism. At this point in the Book of Genesis, both humans and animals can fulfill their dietary needs by strictly eating from plants. Because animals are not mentioned here, God implies that they are off limits for consumption. These lines from Genesis suggest “a state of paradisal existence” (Linzey 228) with “no hint of violence between or among different species”. As a result, God is creating an environment where animals are free to live without having to deal with the suffering accompanying being consumed as food by humans. Foundational to the idea of animal rights is the minimization of animals having to deal with suffering at the hands of humans during their lives. As a result, the vegetarian diet in Genesis 1 is supportive of the idea of animal rights. We see that from creation itself, God has the intention of building a world where the welfare of every creature is supported.

Though the instruction of vegetarianism during creation does show support for animal rights, there is an argument that the hierarchy of humans being above animals undermines animal welfare. Just before discussing diet, God declares “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth” (Gen 1:26). God reiterates this point by telling humans “have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Gen 1:28). The idea of animals being of a lower status than humans is also enhanced by Adam giving names to the animals (Gen 2:19). Scholars have argued that such an act reinforces the dominion humans have over animals since “Naming = defining and controlling”. With God’s discussion of dominion, it seems as if humans are all-controlling and may do whatever they would like with the animal species mentioned. Biblical scholar Ryan Patrick Mclaughlin mentions that the word dominion carries “a violent, military connotation” (Mclaughlin 149). Though traditional interpretations of “dominion” seem to hinder the welfare of animals, scholars have introduced different ways of interpreting this word. One such interpretation is that God gives humans dominion with the intention of “bringing order to chaos and bringing blessing and goodness, not tyrannical mastery, to the world.” It is also important to examine the word “dominion” in the context of peace promoted in the command of vegetarianism in the verses that follow. Thus, God’s decision to give humans control over animals was not to undermine the welfare of animals, but to promote the mutual protection of all. God trusts that humans may rule the lands with power in order to create a better world for not just them, but animals as well. Additionally, though God’s granting of a dominion to humans does allow them to use animals as necessary for practical purposes, it does not allow for the ruthless exploitation and abuse of animals. This is because it is important to keep in mind that “all creatures are God's creatures and recipients of divine concern” (Preece and Fraser 258). Thus, when God allows humans to use animals for their benefit with the introduction of a human dominion, the well-being of animals is not completely disregarded since God does not lose His concern for them. Because God cares about all creatures, He finds that the best way to promote the prosperousness of both animals and humans is to give humans a dominion with which humans can create a blessed environment. Because God’s intention of promoting animal welfare and preventing undue suffering of animals has not disappeared in these verses, animal rights are still not undermined in the Book of Genesis.

God ultimately repeals the command of a vegetarian lifestyle later in the Book of Genesis, but this does not diminish the support for animal rights in the text. After a devastating flood on earth, God makes a covenant with Noah. God’s words are “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything” (Gen 9:3). Though this verse does clearly indicate that humans have now been given the ability to kill animals for food, it is important to examine this reversal of God’s command of vegetarianism in Genesis 1 in context of the verses that follow. God states “For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life” (Gen 9:5). This verse suggests that God’s intention is not that the now permissible act of consuming animals would encourage the ruthless destruction of the lives of animals. Rather, the word “reckoning” shows that God wants the consumption of meat to be responsible and controlled. Humans should “remember that the life you kill is not your own—it belongs to God” and that “for every life you kill you are personally accountable to God”. Although meat is now allowed to be consumed, humans must keep in mind that it is God’s creation that they are exploiting. It is clear from Linzey’s argument that the animals he created are not the property of humans, but the property of God, just like humans are. In reiterating this equivalence of humans and animals, both of whom belong to God, it disputes the idea that humans can freely exploit animals how they choose. As a result, with the new proclamation that humans can eat meat, animal welfare is not completely disregarded. Animal rights are not undermined here because God remains concerned for animals since He wants humans to be held accountable in every animal and be responsible with their consumption of animals.

Animal rights continue to not be undermined with the discouraging of hunting and eating meat in the Book of Genesis. After the flood and Noah’s covenant with God, the new humanity is described. One of the descendants of Noah was Nimrod who “was a mighty hunter before the Lord” (Gen 9:9). Nimrod established a kingdom beginning at Babel (Gen 9:11), but this turns out to be disastrous for him. Upon learning about the ambition of Nimrod and the others involved in the construction of the Tower of Babel, “the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth” (Gen 11:9). With this punishment from God, Nimrod is portrayed in a negative manner. Norm Phelps contends “the Jewish tradition regards Nimrod’s hunting as a sign of his rebelliousness demonstrated in the construction of the infamous Tower of Babel”. Based on this argument, Nimrod’s hunting also played a role in God deciding to administer a punishment on him. Therefore, it is not just Nimrod and his actions in the construction of the Tower of Babel that is negatively portrayed, but his hunting as well. As a result, the story of Nimrod seems to discourage the consumption of animals, which promotes the idea of animal welfare. Only one other character in the Book of Genesis was described as a hunter: Esau. “Esau [Isaac’s son] was a skillful hunter, a man of the field” (Gen 25:27). However, Esau is portrayed negatively in later sections of the Book of Genesis. One such example is how Esau grows resentment toward his brother, Jacob and considers killing him (Gen 27:41). Commentaries of Esau are similar in that they depict him as “rebellious, vengeful, and lacking judgement” (Phelps 186) when compared to Jacob. The similarity between both the portrayal of Esau and Nimrod is that they are regarded as antagonistic characters. Though Esau’s negative portrayal is not directly related to his hunting, the unpleasant representation of the two hunters may suggest God’s unfavorable attitude towards hunters. As a result, God may be discouraging the idea of killing for food, which is suggestive of support for preventing undue suffering of animals in the Book of Genesis. In the end, animal rights are not undermined by these stories of Nimrod and Esau since God tries to protect animals by discouraging hunting.

Key events in the Book of Genesis include the creation of humans and animals, the establishment of a dominion of humans over animals, and the prescription and rescission of a vegetarian diet. It is important to understand the dominion God gives to humans as not one of tyranny, but love. With this loving control humans have over animals and God’s restriction of killing animals for food, we see a promotion of welfare for animals. Though, God does allow the consumption of meat later in the Book of Genesis, it is discouraged. In the end, the Book of Genesis can be interpreted as a text that does not undermine animal rights since it minimizes the undue suffering of animals and allows animals to live without ruthless abuse from humans. Though animal rights are not undermined by the Book of Genesis and today’s animal rights activists can perhaps draw from this source to support their cause, it is difficult to say whether the remainder of the Old Testament and the New Testament speak in support for animal rights. On the one hand, concern for animals is shown in the declaration “The righteous know the needs of their animals” (Proverbs 12:10). On the other hand, Jesus, a respectable figure in the New Testament, eats a piece of fish despite the seemingly discouraging attitude towards eating meat in the Book of Genesis. As a result, further exploration of this topic may require considering a few books or sections of the Old and New Testaments at a time.