The Creator’s Concern for Creatures

In our first installment of the series, we introduced Lynn White, Jr. as the progenitor of the modern accusation leveled at Christianity that our worldview does not contain a concern for animals. He said that

“especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.”

But does the Bible really present a worldview that devalues non-human creatures? It is my contention in this paper that the natural worldview Christians inherited from the Hebrew Bible demonstrates that God values animals beyond their usefulness to man and that human concern for animals is an expression of righteous behavior.    Thus, any worldview that does not reflect God’s concern for animals should not be equated with “Christianity.” White’s accusation was leveled at a strawman since Christianity upholds God’s concern for the well-being of all his creatures and their habitat.

White is correct in noting that Christians view human life as superior in value to animal life. The Bible does present this hierarchy. After all, God commands the killing of animals as sacrifices, grants humans permission to eat animals, and simultaneously condemns animals who take human life.  This inequality was established by God:

“The fear of you [humans] and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives *shall be food for you.*And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”

Genesis 9:2-6

This point must be admitted. However, the hierarchy is not something which Christians need to eschew. Rather it is a matter of praise as a blessing from God: “You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas” (Ps 8:6-8, emphasis added).

Humans are undeniably invested with a privileged position in creation but the value humans enjoy in God’s economy does not imply disregard for animals. The Bible indicates that animals enjoy their own connection to their Creator, unmediated by man (e.g. Ps 104:21, 25-30; Ps 147:9; Job 38:41; Joel 1:20). Animals are entrusted to humans for their use and enjoyment, in emulation of the way God uses and enjoys them.

The value of animals to God includes their usefulness and compliance in God’s employment of them as emissaries of judgment. Evidence ranges from the ten plagues and the Red Sea to the seals, trumpets, and bowls of judgment in the Apocalypse. Examples of animals used by God for judgment or deliverance include: fiery serpents (Num 21:6); the warning that “I will send the teeth of beasts against them, with the venom of things that crawl in the dust,” (Deut 32:24); hornets to help in battle (Josh 24:12); a pair of she-bears that mauled the youths who mocked Elisha (2 Kgs 2:24); The judgment when “The LORD sent lions among them, which killed some of them,” (2 Kgs 17:25); and Jeremiah 5:6; Ezekiel 14:21; 33:27, which all foreshadow the fourth seal judgment of the Apocalypse involving wild beasts attacking people (Rev 6:8).

And yet the Hebrew Bible presents a robust regard for the natural world that extends well beyond its utilitarian value. For example, the regulation of rest on the Sabbath is extended to the livestock of Israel (Ex 20:10; 23;12) and the command to care for beasts of burden, even if they are not your own: “If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him” (Ex 23:4-5).

One of the reasons Israel was to not glean every last morsel to be found on a field was so that animals could find food there (Ex 23:11). There is also, in Leviticus 22:28, a prohibition to “not kill an ox or sheep and her young on the same day,” presumably as a sign of respect and acknowledgement of the dignity of the animals.

A consideration for the morays of conservation can be seen in the injunction to Israel that “If you come across a bird’s nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. You shall let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself, that it may go well with you, and that you may live long” (Deut 22:6-7).

God’s direct involvement in feeding animals is frequently taken for granted as a fact of life, for example in Job 38:39-41, “Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions … ? Who provides for the raven its prey, when its young ones cry to God for help … ?” and Psalm 104:21, “The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God,” and “The eyes of all look to you, and you give them their food in due season. You open your hand; you satisfy the desire of every living thing” (Ps 145:15-16) and “He gives to the beasts their food, and to the young ravens that cry” (Ps 147:9).

God is credited by the Psalmist for being active in the preservation of human and animal life (Ps 36:6), and for the provision of habitat for his creatures (Ps 104:10-30).

Concern for the animals under one’s stewardship is seen as a reflection of godly character and a demonstration of righteous behavior: “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel” (Prov 12:10).

In the eschaton, the portrait of a restored ecotopia is described as a reconciled relationship between man and beast where all is reverted to Edenic coexistence:

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall graze; their young shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The nursing child shall play over the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den (Isa 11:6-8).

Many of these examples build an implicit divine concern for animals, but Jonah 4:11 provides us with a case of God articulating his concern for animals explicitly.

The Book of Jonah provides a poignant case-in-point of God’s concern for animals, which scholars have viewed as particularly germane to ecotheology.[1]  In 4:11, God closes the book with a haunting question: “And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” or “and many animals” (וּבְהֵמָה רַבָּה).

In this minor prophet we unearth a major vein of evidence that God, has concern for animals, albeit a subordinate value in relation to humans. In this account Jonah’s parochial ethnocentricity (like Israel’s) provides an apt foil for the expansiveness of God’s redemptive love. Where Jonah is concerned exclusively about preserving his own comfort from the heat of the desert (4:10) and no regard for the lives of Gentiles, God shows concern for the preservation of Gentiles and even their animals. Any view of creation must start with a recognition of God’s ownership and use of it for his redemptive purposes.[2]

The events in the book take place around the date 793–753 B.C.[3]Nineveh,“a_city_of_bloodshed”_(Nah_3:1),_was_the_Assyrian_capital,_the_largest_city_of_its_day._The_preaching_of_Jonah,_is_thus_set_in_a_Gentile_context,_making_it,according_to_Charles_Feinberg“the_great_missionary_book_of_the_Old_Testament.”[4] An Israelite prophet deployed to call a pagan nation to repentance signals to Israel that God values the souls of Gentiles. The problem starts with Jonah’s dissent, as he refuses to warn the Ninevites because he knows God is gracious enough to save them—a humiliating eventuality Jonah cannot brook.

The story commences with a command to action, namely, to arise and cry out against Nineveh. But Jonah boards a ship heading in the opposite direction of God’s commanded destination. Jonah is untethered spiritually and is existentially adrift. From this point, God’s commands, though ignored by his prophet, are nevertheless uniformly received with instant compliance by the nonhuman elements and creatures: the wind, the waves, the fish, the gourd, and the worm. Raymond Person agrees that “from the narrative’s perspective, these nonhuman characters are understood as active, independent agents who obediently respond to the Lord.”[5]_Even_the_sailors_and_Ninevites_bow_to_God._Only_the_obdurate_Israelite_prophet_must_be_cajoled_into_docility._Arguably,_this_is_precisely_why_God_selects_a_defiant_prophet.James_Hamilton_gives_this_insight:“The_book_of_Jonah_is_about_God’s_glory_in_salvation_through_judgment_and_in_some_ways,_it_is_a_microcosm_of_the_whole_history_of_Israel.”[6] The dereliction of Jonah’s mission is a synecdoche of the greater problem: Israel was insular, ethnocentric, self-focused, and just as Jonah was. The storm results in Jonah being pitched overboard, and a great fish is dispatched by God as a vessel to rescue Jonah from death, to keep him in a holding pattern, then to deposit him on dry land, having redirected his resolve (if not his attitude).[7]

Instances of God exercising control of animals to preserve human life are not uncommon in Scripture. For example, where God shut the mouths of lions (Dan 6:22) or dispatched ravens to feed Elijah (1 Kgs 19). Conversely, God can use animals to take life too, as with the worms that attacked Herod (Acts 12:23), or where the wild beasts are said to turn on humans when a third of the population is eliminated (Rev 16:8). God’s use of animals shows that they are not mere bystanders in his plans, but can are employed at times as compliant participants in bring about God’s will.

Jonah preaches a startlingly brief message. And yet it is charged with a paradoxical double entendre, as this thorough explanation by R. J. Lubeck proves: “Nineveh was overturned, not by annihilation, but by experiencing a unanimous change of heart. And Yahweh sovereignly and ironically overturned Jonah’s perverted proclamation in a way that accomplished his divine purpose (the repentance of Nineveh) while safeguarding from falsity the very letter of Jonah’s utterance.”[8] What is of significance to our study, is the intriguing response that involves animals.

The repentant king decrees: “Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any [food]. Let them neither eat, nor drink water. And let man and beast be covered by sackcloth, and let them cry out strongly to God,” (3:7-8).

The pagan king is clutching at straws. He has no idea what is expected of him, but he believes Jonah’s warning, he acknowledges that this God is ruler of all, including animals, so he trusts that the only hope is if God is convinced of their remorse. An extreme fast is undertaken, and the animals subjected to it. Animals are equally in danger and thus are co-opted into the outward demonstration of the universality and extent of the Ninevites’ desperation.[9] This expansive gesture was received; God relented. The animals are not actually repenting but are harnessed into the human display of repentance. The fate of the animals is inexorably linked to the fate of their stewards. When God judges the city, the animals will be collateral loss. 

Yael Shemesh conducted a thorough survey of commentaries and she concluded that scholars are almost unanimous in reading 4:11 as a rhetorical question, which demonstrates that God’s mercy extends to animals.[10]_Animals’_fates_are_intertwined_with_the_salvation_or_judgment_of_humans._To_make_this_connection,Shemesh_notes_that_the_animals_in_Nineveh_are_descendants_of_the_animals_in_the_flood_narrative(literarily_and_literally)._God’s_saving_grace_to_Noah_and_his_family_was_extended_to_animals,_and_yet_many_other_animals_perished_along_with_the_sinners_in_the_deluge_of_judgment.The_covenant_God_makes_with_Noah_is_also_a_covenant_with_all_animals(Gen_9:9-11,_17).[11] The loss of animal life was a collateral loss resulting from human depravity, and so the covenant that assures humans that their future existential survival is secure must include the animals whose fates are bound with their stewards.

Jonah’s reaction to God’s reprieve of judgment on Nineveh is a pantomime of rebellion. He is so angry that God acted according to his character, as he anticipated (4:2), that he throws a tantrum and requests death! The sullen prophet situates himself east of the city and he constructs a booth that proves insufficient. In verse 6, God appoints a plant to spring up to save Jonah from discomfort (4:6). This is followed by a worm (4:7) and a scorching wind (4:8), both of which are “appointed” by God to remove the comfort, as an object lesson.[12]

Then comes the probing question God poses to his prophet: “And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?” (4:11).

God is presenting a compelling a minore ad maius(lesser to greater) argument that Jonah has compassion for a plant of undeniably lesser value because it was of some tangible benefit to him. But remarkably, he possesses no compassion on the people of greater value, nor even the “middle-value” innocent animals.

The book ends with that unanswered question hanging like a dissonant note in an unresolved symphony. It serves to underscore the absurdity of Jonah’s disregard for human life. But in so doing, the narrator accentuates God’s perspective on the worth of animals.

God considers their fate when he plans judgment. They are, after all, his creatures, created for his glory and his pleasure. As Person concludes: “If the satirical targets of the Jonah narrative are the ethnocentrism and anthropocentrism of its ancient readers, then it certainly seems likely that the readers are being asked seriously to consider identifying with those other beings that the Lord created, including even Israel’s enemies, the people of Nineveh, and their “many cattle as well” (Jonah 4:11, emphasis added).[13]

One perspective on the mention of cattle, is to see it as a dark reminder of the animal sacrifice that the Ninevites’ repentance would generate, just as the sailors’ repentance did.[14]But_this_interpretation_is_not_as_substantiated_as_the__a_minore_ad_maiusargument.[15] However, even if the animal sacrifice interpretation is accepted, it is not as incompatible with a high view of animal life as it first appears to be, since it is precisely why animal sacrifice is a worthy substitute for sinful people in atonement: animals have value to man and God. And they are innocent, as opposed to sinners whose punishment is always deserved.

Douglas Stuart examines the possible interpretations and concludes that “the people of Nineveh are of enormous worth. They are human beings … the animals (בהמה) in turn are of less worth, but still significant … The gourd, on the other hand, is of minor worth… . [Jonah] can have no good argument, then, against the worth of Nineveh, with all its people and animals,” (emphasis added).[16]

At the very least, this verse shows that human worth does not imply a disregard for animal life from God’s perspective. This is God’s world, and he is aware of the fate of every creature in it.

It is undeniable that the New Testament does not present animal life as a theme. However, the natural worldview presented in the Old Testament is never abrogated in any sense in the New Testament, and in fact traces of this worldview can be glimpsed in the life and ministry of Christ. Jesus assumes the Jewish understanding that righteous behavior manifests in care for animals when he says, “Does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the manger and lead it away to water it?” (Luke 13:15) and “Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well on a Sabbath day, will not immediately pull him out?”” (Luke14:5, emphasis added).

In the teachings of Jesus, as established above, humans are clearly of more value than animals, but that does not imply that animals have no value to God. For example, Jesus says, “Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God” (Luke 12:6, emphasis added). And in teaching on anxiety: “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father… Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Matt 10:29, 31, emphasis added). This lesson relies on the premise sparrows have some value, albeit lesser value than humans, and that the a minore ad maiusargument applies again, just as it does in Jonah 4:11.

Jesus himself exhibited copacetic relationships with the animal kingdom, as when he proved able to ride an unbroken colt (Mark 11:2, 7). Colts take hours to break, so this seemingly incidental detail hints at a remarkable feat that may imply Christ’s extraordinary ability to relate harmoniously with animals. Also, the text of Mark 1:13 presents Jesus in the wilderness as being “with the wild animals.” Richard Bauckham points out that in Mark the concept, “to be with someone” as in where Mark records that Jesus “was with the wild beasts” (ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων) “frequently has the strongly positive sense of close association or friendship or agreement or assistance …”[17]Also,Bauckham_comments_that“Mark’s_phrase(‘with_the_wild_animals’),_indicating_a_friendly_companionship_with_the_animals,_would_certainly_evoke,_for_his_original_readers_the_Jewish_expectation_of_the_age_of_messianic_salvation.”[18]

Paul refers to Jesus as the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (Col 1:15), and Paul presents Christ as the one “for whom, and through whom” were all things created, in whom “all things” will be reconciled: τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν (Col 1:16-17). This fits well with the natural worldview of the Hebrew Bible.

The argument that Christians do not value animals because of the systemic preoccupation with human souls, is clearly untenable. God reveals himself as a Creator who cares for all his creatures. Yes, he values humans more highly than animals (Ps 8:4-8), as we are made in his image and invested with the privilege of rulership and stewardship over the animals (Gen 1:28). And yes, he uses animals to accomplish his will (e.g. judgment and deliverance of humans) and he allows people to kill animals for human use (Gen 9:2).  Nevertheless, the Old Testament reveals that God is attentive to the plight of animals (Matt 10:29), he is actively involved in sustaining and managing the life of his creatures (Ps 147:9) and that he considers man’s care for animals to be a manifestation of righteous behavior (Prov 12:10). God considers animals as having less value than people, but more value than plants (Jonah 4:9-10), and of enough value that he chides his prophet for overlooking the collateral loss of animal life in the destruction of Nineveh (Jonah 4:11).

This mindset of concern for all creatures, as seen throughout the Hebrew Bible is assumed and demonstrated in the life and teaching of Christ and is nowhere reversed or erased in the New Testament. Therefore, it is fallacious to equate reckless disregard for animal life with Christianity, as Lynn White and others in the field of ecotheology have alleged. Far from being “the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen,”[19] true biblical Christianity is a religion that reflects Christ’s example and teaching that the Creator shows concern for his creation.

Godly concern for animals is a patently biblical worldview that, far from cultivating  detrimental attitudes towards the environment, rather has an ameliorating effect on society, the environment, and on all God’s creatures.

[1] Schalk Willem van Heerden, “Shades of Green – or Grey? Towards an Ecological Interpretation of Jonah 4:6-11,” OTE30/2 (2017), 459–77. See Raymond Person, “The Role of Nonhuman Characters in Jonah,” in Exploring Ecological Hermeneutics, Norman C. Habel and Peter Trudinger (Atlanta: 2008); Kathryn Schifferdecker, “‘And Also Many Animals’: Biblical Resources for Preaching about Creation,” Word & World27 (2007), 210.

[2] Ernst M. Conradie, “An Ecological Hermeneutics,” in Fishing for Jonah (Anew): Various Approaches to Biblical Interpretation,ed. by Louise Jonker and Douglas Lawrie (Stellenbosch, South Africa: Sun Press, 2005), 226.

[3] Jonah the Son of Amittai is mentioned in 2 Kgs 14:25 as one who lived and ministered as a prophet at the time of Jeroboam II (793–753 BC).

[4] Charles L. Feinberg, The Minor Prophets (Chicago: Moody Press, 1948), 134.

[5] Person, “The Role of Nonhuman Characters in Jonah,” 87.

[6] James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 246.

[7] For a thorough examination of the significance of the fish vomiting Jonah to give him a second chance to accomplish his mission, see Brent A. Strawn, “On Vomiting: Leviticus, Jonah, Ea(a)rth,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly74, (2012), 445–64.

[8] R. J. Lubeck, “Prophetic Sabotage: A Look at Jonah 3:2-4” Trinity Journal 9 (1988), 44.

[9] Yael Shemesh, “And Many Beasts (Jonah 4:11): The Function and Status of Animals in the Book of Jonah,” JHebS10 (2010). Also see, Kathryn Schifferdecker, “‘And Also Many Animals’: Biblical Resources for Preaching about Creation,” Word and World27 (2007): 210.

[10] Shemesh, “Function and Status of Animals,” 3.

[11] Shemesh, “Function and Status of Animals,” 16–17.

[12] Schifferdecker, “And Also Many Animals,” 216.

[13] Person, “The Role of Nonhuman Characters in Jonah,” 90.

[14] Thomas M. Bolin, “Jonah 4.11 and the Problem of Exegetical Anachronism,” SJOT 24/1 (2010), 101.

[15] van Heerden, “Towards an Ecological Interpretation of Jonah 4:6-11,”  470.

[16] Douglas Stuart,  Hosea–Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 31 (Dallas: Zondervan, 1987), 211.

[17] Bauckham, Living with OtherCreatures, 108.

[18] Bauckham, Living with Other Creatures, 109.

[19] White, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” 1205.