Should Christians be concerned about animal welfare? (Part 4)
by Vesa Hautala
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
Ethical instruction concerning animals in the Bible
This post is the final part of a series aiming to give Biblical background data to help Christian effective altruists consider whether they should care about animal welfare. This post explores biblical texts that provide ethical instruction about the appropriate treatment of animals. You can read the first, second and third parts of the series here.
Multiple texts in the Bible give ethical instructions about the treatment of animals. These texts may not be familiar to many Christians because they are located in the Old Testament, mostly in Exodus and Deuteronomy. This might raise the question of whether these passages still apply. Christian theology generally makes a separation between ethical and ritual commandments in the Law of Moses. The ritual commandments deal with things like sacrifices, cultic purity, and food laws. Most Christians believe that the ritual commandments belonged specifically to the Sinaitic covenant that God made with the people of Israel. This covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant in Jesus Christ, so Christians are no longer obligated to follow the ritual commandments of the Law of Moses. The ethical commandments on the other hand are seen as universally valid expressions of morality that God expects from all humans. Even ritual commandments and commandments that apply to circumstances that are no longer present can be valuable for Christian ethics, as they can give evidence about broader ethical principles that are still applicable.
Commandments of the Torah regarding treatment of animals
Muzzling a treading ox
A passage in Deuteronomy looks like animal welfare legislation: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” (Deut. 25:4 NRSV) Old Testament scholar Richard D. Nelson observes: “The law reflects an ethical principle of wisdom”.
In the New Testament, Paul applies this passage in an allegorical sense to the financial compensation of Christian teachers. “For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ Is it for oxen that God is concerned?” (1 Cor. 9:9 NRSV) This does not imply that the literal sense is completely excluded. Paul’s general hermeneutical strategy is to interpret the Scriptures as speaking about and to the Christian communities. He also applies this interpretative strategy to historical narratives in the Torah, such as the crossing of the Red Sea in 1 Cor. 10. This hermeneutical approach does not invalidate the historical meaning of the text, so I believe it is not necessary for Christians to dismiss the literal meaning of Deuteronomy 25:4 and its implications based on Paul’s use of the passage in 1 Corinthians.
Sabbath rest for working animals
Exodus 20:10, 23:12 and Deuteronomy 5:14 include animals in the prohibition to work on the Sabbath day, with Ex. 23:12 specifying that this is “so that your ox and your donkey may have relief” (NRSV). That rest is to be provided for animals as well as for human workers suggests care for the welfare of animals.
Animals and their young
Exodus 22:30 and Leviticus 22:27 command that the young of sheep, goats and cows must remain with their mothers for seven days. There is a prohibition to slaughter the young of a sheep, goat or cow on the same day as its mother in Leviticus 22:28. The Jewish Study Bible comments on the former that “[h]umane concern seems to be the only plausible explanation for this restriction”, and calls the latter a “humane law, respecting the mother-child relationship among animals”. A similar restriction concerning wild birds and their eggs or fledglings is found in Deuteronomy 22:6–7. If one collects eggs or fledglings from the nest, the mother bird must be let go. Nelson observes that it reflects an “inclination to include the nonhuman world in the circle of decent behavior”.
A curious prohibition is repeated three times in the Torah: a kid (young goat) should not be boiled in its mother’s milk. (Ex. 23:19, 34:26, Deut. 14:21) Opinions differ in whether this law is humane or cultic. Some commentators think it has to do with humane treatment of animals. Boiling a kid in what was supposed to sustain its life is seen as perverse. On the other hand, some commentators suggest the prohibition has a cultic reason and is probably related to ritual practices among the Israelites neighbouring people. However, even the ritual interpretation does not necessarily rule out the element of moral disgust. It is therefore plausible that the prohibition to boil a kid in its mother’s passage points towards moral worth in animals.
All the previously mentioned rules concerning animals and their young can be characterised as prohibiting acts of insensitivity against animals. This set of laws in the Torah gives credence to the view that animals should be considered to have value and should be treated well according to Christian theology. What is interesting about these passages is that they are not dealing with the mere physical comfort of the animal, but seem to imply some respect over the social bonds among animals.
The righteous and his beast in Proverbs
Proverbs contains what is perhaps the clearest example of moral consideration for animals in the Bible: “The righteous know the needs of their animals, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” (Prov. 12:10 NRSV) This text unambiguously describes compassion for animals as a property of a righteous person. In his commentary on Proverbs Old Testament scholar Bruce K. Waltke even makes an application to factory farming while treating this passage: “[T]oday, some farmers abuse chickens and livestock by reducing them to efficient machines and consider it a mercy to feed them the best grain to increase their production and/or to fatten them for market!”
Summary
Care for animals is not a central theme in Biblical ethical instruction, but neither is it non-existent. The Bible clearly contains ethical rules concerning the treatment of animals. These present a moral concern for animal welfare and include proper treatment of animals among the obligations of God’s people.
Because the instruction for proper treatment of animals is found mostly in a legal context, no extensive theological reasons for the commandments are given in the texts. Based on a framework of theology of creation outlined in the previous parts of this series, these commandments can be interpreted as stemming from humankind’s place in creation: God values his creation and cares for animals, and humans as created in the image of God are supposed to show a similar attitude. The passages discussed in this article spell out what this means in particular circumstances.