|
Our Pets and |
||
|
The Prophet Nathan’s parable to
David gives us insight into how people in biblical days sometimes regarded
certain animals: ‘The LORD
sent Nathan to David. When he
came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich
and the other poor. The rich
man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, but the poor man had
nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it
grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup
and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.”’ (2 Samuel
12:1-3.) One notices that taking a particular
animal as a pet and becoming very attached to it must have been fairly
common, not only because Nathan used this as an illustration, but also
because of David’s deep-seated, emotional reaction to the story when
Nathan delivered the punch about the rich man stealing and eating the poor
man’s pet: ‘David burned
with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the LORD
lives, the man who did this deserves to die! He must pay for that lamb
four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”’ (2
Samuel 12:5, 6.) While this is an example of
people’s reactions to animals, God tells Jonah that he spared Ninevah
because he had “compassion on The Hebrew phrase that is used to
describe man at his creation, (pronounced NEH
fesh kha YAH) “living soul,” (Genesis 2:7.) is used of animals
(Genesis 1.
Only human beings are created in the Image of God. (Genesis 1:27.) 2.
As over against the certainty that Scripture gives us regarding
human beings who trust in Christ, that to be “absent from the body” is
“to be at home with the Lord,” (2 Corinthians 5:8.), there is no
certainty about the souls of animals after their deaths:
compare Ecclesiastes 3:21 (“Who knows that the breath of man
ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the
earth?”) with Ecclesiastes 12:7 (“Then the dust will return to the
earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.”) Yet we are informed that a variety
of animals will inhabit the new earth that Jesus remakes when he returns:
“And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down
with the young goat, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling
together; and a little boy will lead them. Also the cow and the bear will
graze, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw
like the ox. The nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the
weaned child will put his hand on the viper’s den. They will not hurt or
destroy in all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the
knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11:6-9, et
al.) It is difficult for us to walk the
balance between affirming the creaturely worth of other members of the
animal kingdom—that we are all God’s creatures, made of the same
substance, dirt—while at the same time remembering that humans alone are
created in the image of God, created directly and immediately by God, with
his divine breath having been breathed into us, and that the Lord Jesus
took onto himself human nature, not that of other animals,
nor of the angels, (Hebrews 2:16.) and only we humans “should be called
children of God.” (1 John 3:1.) My
two dogs, Ralphie and In order to protect the dignity of
man as the image bearer of God, some have tended to deny the cognitive
abilities of other species, but the account of Balaam’s donkey well
illustrates the point that higher order animals can reason within limits.
The only miracle was the opening of the animal’s mouth.
The Hebrew terms of Numbers 22:28 are identical to those used in
Ezekiel 24:27 and 33:22, where God removed the prophet’s inability to
speak. The Septuagint’s
translation of what God did to Balaam’s beast is reflected in the
language of Luke 1:64, where Zechariah’s inability to speak is removed
once he names his son John. The soul of this lowly beast of
burden abused by Balaam seems pretty reasonable to me.
Isn’t there every indication that the donkey had been a thinking
creature all of its life? I’ve observed this with my own
pets. One Saturday back in
early February of 2001, my canoe capsized in the icy water of our lake,
and I came bobbing up, weighted down with two jackets and motorcycle
boots, gasping for breath and crying, “Help me, Jesus!
Help me, Jesus!” As
I reached for the partially submerged canoe, grabbed on to it and tried to
swim, the dogs, particularly Ralphie, our soon to be sixteen-year-old
Boston Terrier, began crying and barking from the shore. He and Hamilton deduced
that I was in trouble. However,
in a true display of the present reality of Romans 8:18-22, none of the
beasts dove into the water to help me—well, they are pretty small and
maybe I need to start buying them canned dog food rather than that cheap,
dry stuff! A couple of years ago, I placed some
leftovers high on top of a stack of firewood, where none of the dogs could
reach them but only Edgar the cat. As
soon as Does that mean that dogs can reason?
What would I don’t know, and beyond what I
have written, I am not prepared to go because my stance is always that of
the believing skeptic. I
believe that the Bible is completely trustworthy, but if it isn’t
clearly taught by the Bible itself, I remain a doubter with regard to
everything else. In my
quest for truth, I am guided by reason, tradition, Scripture and other
things, but only Scripture is completely reliable, only it is the
infallible Word of God, not catechisms, creeds or “words of
knowledge.” So if something
does not come from the clear teaching of Scripture, I remain a skeptic,
and that means that I cannot be certain that I will one day see my beloved
pets in heaven or resurrected on the new Earth after our Lord’s return.
But I know without doubt that I am going to heaven, and I would
like to see my pets again. I was struck with the poignancy of a
comment written in 1907, by Joseph B. Mayor on 2 Peter 2: 15, 16 (“. . .
they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor,
who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but he received a rebuke for his
own transgression, for a mute donkey, speaking with a voice of a man,
restrained the madness of the prophet.”): ‘”There is a strange depth of
meaning in the appealing eye of an ill-treated animal. It is an appeal, in
the first place, to whatever remnant of pity and generosity may still
survive in the heart of the man who ill-treats it, but it is an appeal, in
the second place, to the justice of the God who made them both, a cry of
which we may be sure it has entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.
When animals are put to unnecessary suffering, either in the shambles or
as beasts of burden, or in the interests of science or sport, or for any
other reason, cases are sure to arise in which we may justly apply the
words of our Epistle, and say of such poor tortured creatures that with
their dying gaze, no less clearly than if they had spoken with man’s
voice, they forbade the madness of their torturers.” (Mayor, p. 203)’
[referring to The Epistles of Jude And 2 Peter, by Joseph B. Mayor,
quoted here by R. H. Strachan, in loc., The Expositor’s Greek
Testament, Vol. V, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans),
p. 140.] All
things bright and beautiful, Each
little flower that opens, The
rich man in his castle, The
purple headed mountains, The
cold wind in the winter, The
tall trees in the greenwood, He
gave us eyes to see them, |