Dominion over Animals

Preamble

In Genesis 1:26-28, we are told that humankind is to have dominion over animals.  I intend to investigate the meaning of this dominion and what is might mean for how we are to treat animals.

Meaning of "Dominion"

The Hebrew verb radah (dominion) occurs twice in Genesis 1:26-28:

Then God said, "Let us make humankind [adam] in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion [irdu] 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."  So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.  God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion [rdu] over the fish of the sea and over the the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

The meaning of radah in the rest of the Old Testament for the most part has to do with one entity ruling another.  1 Kings 5:24 is typical:

For he [Solomon] had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates; and he had peace on all sides.

It is interesting to note here that the seeming result of Solomon's dominion was peace!  Psalm 72 is also about Solomon and his dominion.  It begins by asking God to give the king justice and righteousness so that he may defend the cause of the poor, deliver the needy and crush the oppressor.  Then it asks that the king be granted dominion (72:8).  It is noteworthy that even though Solomon's rule was over foreign peoples (72:9-11), the king himself was benevolent.  Psalm 110:1-2 is also interesting, especially from a Christian perspective:

The Lord says to my lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."  The Lord sends out from Zion your mighty scepter.  Rule [rde] in the midst of your foes.

For Christians, this passage has Jesus in mind (see Acts 2:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Heb 1:3, 13) and Jesus' dominion is perfectly benevolent.  In this connection, dominion is applied to the "shepherds of Israel" in Ezekiel 34:4.  Since dominion is said in connection with shepherding, and since Jesus is the Good Shepherd, it goes without saying that dominion can be applied to a benevolent shepherd.

Leviticus 25 thrice mentions dominion in connection with a master not ruling a hired servant with harshness (vs. 43, 46, 53).  Again, this rule is benevolent.

In God's Image

Some scholars think that the meaning of the "image of God" in Genesis 1:26-27 has to do with the mandate for humanity to be the representative of God on earth.  This accords with the concept of the king as the icon of his god found in Mesopotamia.  Compare this with Psalm 8 where the human is a little lower than elohim crowned with glory and honor.  The human is given dominion (different word than radah but same word for 'rule' used in Genesis 1:16) over the animals (!) in vs. 7-8.  Psalm 8 and Genesis 1:26-28 are very similar.  The upshot of this is that there does seem to be a connection between the "image of God' and dominion.  The proximity of the two ideas in Genesis screams that this is the case.

Upshot for Treatment of Animals

If humanity is to be God's representatives on earth, it goes without saying that their treatment of animals ought to be as God would treat them.  First of all, Genesis 1:29 proves that human dominion excludes killing animals for food.  It was not God's plan that animals be killed for food, that only come after the fall.  A certain symmetry is set up between animals and humans because God blesses both and tells both to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:22, 28).  There is no doubt that God loves animals.  He saved them from the flood and included them in his covenant thereafter.  In Jonah, God has regard for the animals too (4:11).  In this regard, humans ought to love animals with the same care.  Also, as Christians, we are told to make future realities present realities.  A big theme in Paul is to make the the future resurrection a present reality.  We Christian could also make the future reality where animals are in peace and where carnivores are vegetarians (Isaiah 11:6-7 and 65:25) a present reality by treating animals likewise.

Conclusion

Both in Hebrew (nephesh) and in Greek (psyche) animals are refered to as "living souls".  It's high time for us Christians to start treating them thus!

 

 

John 3:36 Revisited

The Issue

The main issue is how the word “apeithon” is to be translated.  My claim is that its use points beyond mere “unbelief” defined as simple mental assent.  I claim that translations that define apeithon as “disbelieves” or “rejects” are basically trying to stay within the orbit of mere mental assent.  Anything more than mere mental assent is legalistic “works salvation” the claim would go.  I want to further my argument by passing over the use of apeithon here because it is only used once and its meaning cannot thereby be proven without further textual ramping-up.  But it ought to be pointed out that if John wanted to mean mere mental assent, he could have just used “not believing” as in 3:18.  Also, John uses a word for “rejects” (atheton) elsewhere (see 12:48, which I discuss below), a word that occurs in the gospel of Luke 5 times, but that word is not used in 3:36.  Why not?  

“Believing” in John

I want to argue that “belief” and “believing” are not defined by John in terms of mere mental assent.  I briefly mention two facts that are often overlooked.  First, John does not use the noun “faith” (pistis).  The noun “faith” occurs in the rest of the New Testament 243 times but never in John.  Rather, he uses the verb.  This is highly significant, for it is strong evidence that for John “believe” and “believing” are not internal mental states, but involve actions.  Second, John uses the preposition (eis = in[to]) after the verb pisteuein (believe) and that the object is a person (the Father, Jesus or the name of Jesus).  This is evidence that something more is going on when John has believing in[to] someone rather than just believing.  Proof of this claim can be seen in the parallel set up between “coming to” Jesus and “believing”.  Certainly, one does not come to Jesus (itself an action) to merely mentally assent to something.  The parallels are as follows:

·         6:35:  the one coming to me never hungers and the one believing in me will never thirst again.

·         7:37-38:  if anyone thirsts let him come to me and let the one who believes in me drink.

This highlights what is said in John 3:21 (from the chapter under discussion):  “But the one doing the truth comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”  This provides a nice segue to the discussion of 3:16-21, where “belief” figures so importantly.

John 3:16-21

This section states that those who believe in Jesus have eternal life and those who do not believe are judged.  The judgment is then described as the result of meeting the light who came into the world.  It is stated that some preferred darkness.  The reason given for the preference of the darkness is that their “works were evil” (v. 19b).  The person who “practices evil things” does not come to the light (v.20).  The positive result is stated in verse 21 quoted above.  This is clear evidence that “believing” and works are highly associated in the thought of John.  This should be fuel for our fire in interpreting 3:36.

Instructive also is the comparison with 12:46-48:

·         12:46 I a light into the world have come   -----  3:19  the light has come into the world

·         12:46 cont. everyone believing in me may not remain in darkness ----- 3:15, 16 that everyone believing in him may have life eternal… that everyone believing in him may not perish.

·         12:47 I did not come that I may judge the world, but that I may save the world ---- 3:17 God did not send the Son into the world that he might judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

·         12:48 the one who rejects me and does not receive my words already has his judge ----- 3:18 the one not believing already has been judged.

What is interesting about this correlation in what is also stated in 12:47: “if anyone who hears my words and does not keep them…”  This clearly describes those not believing.  That “keep” has to do with actions is brought out clearly by a passage in Matthew 7:26:  “everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them…”  Clearly “keep” and “do” are synonymous.  In Mark 10:20 the same word for “keep” is used in the context of doing the Ten commandments.  Also, the “words” of Jesus are synonymous with “commands”.  This is brought out by comparing John 14:15, 21 with John 14:23, 24.

Back to 3:36

Now, when we come to 3:36, we notice the similarities with the discourses at 3:16-21 and 12:46-48.  Regardless of how apeithon is interpreted, it and “believing” are in the present tense.  This is significant, because it signifies on ongoing state of affairs.  If those verbs referred to mere mental ascent as that which saves or that which rejects we would have expected past tenses: those who believed in the Son have eternal life and those who rejected the Son will not see life.  The similarities between 12:50 (“his commandment is eternal life”) also jibe with 3:36 (“believing in Jesus” = eternal life).  This proves that believing for John is on par with obeying commandments.  All this evidence is piling up and points to the translation of apeithon as “disobeys” and not merely “rejects”.