Animal Rights

post 161

The other day I had a conversation with an Animal Rights activists.
He was greatly offended that I would trap and kill animals.
In America, I get that a lot, but mostly from women.

In this conversation he was convinced that I was sinning against God by violating one the “basic 10” commandments, and as a Christian I should know this.
He declared that God forbids the killing of animals in this verse because all life is precious to Him.

“Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
Exodus 20:13 (the 6th commandment)

Sounds good.
Clear, and simple, and easy to understand.

Jesus even confirmed this commandment in Matthew 5:21
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:”

So from his very clear logic and documentation, this guy has proven his argument, shown undeniably that I am acting in sin, and as a Christian I must stop trapping!

* * *

This is the kind of logic and reason that America is facing today in every area of life and government.
It is scripture. It makes logical sense. It is as clear and simple and understandable as possible.
Only a stubborn fool would argue with this truth!

* * *

And to be honest, with this as a confirmed precedent, an opposing argument is very hard to make simply and clearly. And yet it MUST be made, for significant reasons I trust you will understand by the end.

Argument one: Where do animals get their rights?

Confused Americans simply assumes animals have right.
All life has rights!… well except for the unborn.

You see, this assumption of thinking is rooted in rights being given by man;

“I decide who gets rights and who doesn’t.”
well not me of course, but the law.
“Congress decides who gets rights and who doesn’t.”
But suddenly with this belief comes a universe full of complications such as we find in abortion.
At what point in the pregnancy does the blob obtain human rights?
And so with the question, and specific circumstances, comes ever increasing need for clarification until today the “doctor” is allowed to birth a child all but the head, then jamb a tool into the head and scramble the brains.
This is ok because Congress says it is not killing until the child is fully born.
But at this point it is clearly not a blob.
So when does a human get human rights?
When Congress says it does.

But this man’s argument is based from the fact that God is the one who says; “Do not kill”

Now if God can give the commandment that we are obligated to obey, then it follows that
God is also the one who gets to decide the definition of killing, not Congress.

Our founding fathers understood this when they wrote the document declaring who they would and would not serve as a people, and why:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” - The Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

This declaration declares the accepted truth that is self-evident; that rights come from the Creator of man through God's Laws of Nature.

This declaration of truth makes it impossible for Congress to grant rights that are not in their power to grant.
Among the rights Congress does not have power to grant, is the right to Life.
This declaration specifically lists this right as an example of the other un-identified rights recognized therein.

Yet, Congress, in violation of this very foundational understanding that sourced the creation of this nation, has taken upon themselves that specific right which they do not have. To grant life to one child but deny it to another.

This act by Congress is a violation of this foundational declaration, and also in violation of the Creator of man who retains alone that power to grant the right to Life, because he retains the power to Create life in the first place.
Further this act of Congress is in violation of the Laws of Nature itself, which has declared by existence that all mankind has been given this right.
If Congress cannot create life, it cannot take upon themselves the power of endowment to grant the right to life or to deny it.
This power to endow the right to life is retained by the Creator of that life.

Therefore any Congressional act authorizing the denial of this endowment is in violation of their authority. To deny an endowment of such a right is to be held accountable for the resulting crime against God as it attempts to take from God his Godhood.

* * *
So what about the convicted murderer or other capital offence which Congress has determined should be put to death?
This too is a misunderstanding of authority.
Congress does not determine who’s right to life should be denied. God himself has declared that determination and Congress simply acts into legislation the obedience to that declared Law of God. Leviticus 24:11-14, 23

God himself has openly declared:
“And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.” Leviticus 24:17 among other crimes deserving capital punishment. Leviticus 20:27

* * *
With this understanding of authority, we see that animals do not get their rights from Congress because Congress did not give them life.

Who then grants animals their rights?
If animals have rights they would be granted by Him who gave them life.
“And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creapeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:25
So what does God declare regarding the life of animals?

* * *
Argument Two: The purpose of Laws regarding animals.

It might be believed that God has genuine concern for animals as we review his Laws regarding their ethical treatment.
Yet it is interesting to note that I find no scriptural law regarding the poor treatment of your own animals save for Exodus 23:12 “Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest.”
In the only recorded occasion where a beast actually talked, Balaam beat his ass three times for trying to protect him. “…And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.
And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? Was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.
Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand:…” Numbers 22:22-34
This is a great story well worth the full read, but I included this section to show clearly the animal was fully in the right, and Balaam was out of line and unreasonable.
Yet the ass did not cry “unjust!” but simply asked “what have I done?”
The Ass knew Balaam had every right to treat her any way he wished, and the Angel did not rebuke him beyond asking the same question the ass did; why?
The contention was never if he had a right to do so. The animal was his. The question was regarding Balaam’s state of mind.

Proverbs 12:10 simply makes an observation; “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.”
It seems clear that the owner has the right to treat his animal any way he chooses, and tho it may offend our sensibilities, Congress does not have the right to interfere.

Exodus 21:28-32, 22:10-15,19 23:4-5 all go into lengthy discussion regarding livestock and their condition. But investigation shows clearly that the discussion regarding livestock is actually all about human relations and has nothing to do with the welfare of the beast.
“And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; the owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.” Exodus 21:33-34
“And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.” Leviticus 24:18 and 21

Now we can comprehend that if God regulates the conduct of man, then the welfare of the animal is maintained in good order. Yet the purpose for the regulation is not for the good of the beast, but for the accountability of the man.
God’s concern is the state of man, the welfare of the animal is a by-product.

God goes further and openly allows hunting and catching of animals by man with rules regarding the respect of the life taken.
“And whatsoever man …which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.” Leviticus 17:13
This rule is not for the sake of the animal but for the health and right mind-frame of the man.

We see then that all life is indeed valuable to God, but this does not extend to the assumption that all life must be preserved. This verse is not about the animal but about life itself.

* * *

Argument Three: Sin and Death.

Before the first sin of man that brought death into the world, there was no death.
God did not design man to kill. Not man nor beast. And God did not design animals to kill. For any reason whatsoever.
Before the fall of man, there was no death.
Both man and beast was made to eat vegetation;
“And God said, behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creapeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” Genesis 1:29-30

Yet even in this perfect un-fallen state, God gave man authority over all life on the earth:
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Genesis 1:28

The first sin was disobedience to the only declared law God gave;
“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Genesis 2:17
This was not a “punishment” it was a law of nature, a natural consequence of eating that fruit. But what they did not understand beforehand was how that law of nature would act upon them.
They ate the fruit, but did not “die”. So they shrugged and walked away.
But something did change.
They probably first became aware of the change as something new… guilt.
But there was far more change that actually did take place.
Death entered into the world, and not just simple death, but the spirit of death.
And they were the ones that brought it.
The ground became cursed (Genesis 3:17-19)
Thorns and thistles became the natural crop of the previously productive soil, and beneficial produce became laborious to grow.
And mankind now had a termination date.
And though it does not specifically tell us just when, animals began to kill and eat each other.
Everything had changed.

At the sudden realization of their nakedness, Adam and Eve made coverings of leaves.
It was God himself who killed the first animal to make them cloths.
“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” Genesis 3:21
Not because God was a killer, but because sin and death had entered into the world. And here we see the very first example of the need for death to cover man’s condition.
The Law of Nature had been changed.

* * *
Argument Four: Atonement.

We are not immediately told of the law of atonement but Adam was, as seen by his son bringing his animal sacrifice before the Lord.
“And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.” Genesis 4:3-4
Now we know they were aware of the natural law of atonement because Abel’s sacrifice was accepted by God, while Cain’s sacrifice was rejected;

“…And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen?
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door…” Genesis 4:5-7

This was the same kind of sin as that of his parents; Disobedience otherwise called Rebellion.

Is this simply because God is a hardnose who likes what he likes and demands it?
No.
It is the Law of Nature that came as a result of the sin man introduced into the world.
“doing not well” is unacceptable. This is the same thing as saying; “Doing something wrong does not work.”
Is it the lock’s fault if it won’t open because you did the combination wrong?
Is the lock stubborn? Is it vengeful?
No, it is the Law of Nature that requires the correct combination before the mechanism will work. The failure to open is wholly in the action of the operator.

So what hope is there once we fail to “do well”?
The Law of Nature requires payment. i.e. consequences.
If this / Then that.
One significant law is the law of sin. It requires death as payment.
This is the reason God declared to Adam, The day you eat of it, you shall die.
God was just informing him of the law of sin.

Curious the first recorded comprehension of this law and a desire to find atonement comes from Pharaoh;

“Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in hast; and he said, I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you. Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and intreat the LORD your God, that he may take away from me this death only.” Exodus 10:17
This law is found scattered throughout the bible.
But as Pharaoh comprehended the hope that there must be a way by which we can bypass the end result of sin, he did not understand the means.

God has provided the means, which does not violate the Natural Law of sin and death.
That way is Substitution. And that substitution provided by God is the life of an animal.
The Natural Law intends for the violator of the law to pay the consequences. But by providing a substitute, the law is fulfilled.

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the alter to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” Leviticus 17:11

As the Creator, God has shown that he recognizes the life of the animal, but that he values the life of mankind far more. Not because one life is worth more than the other, but because one life has with it a more precious part, the soul.
Because the soul is eternal and the flesh is not, the sacrifice of the temporal is worth the salvation of the eternal, but a sacrifice with no value is no sacrifice at all.

We see this truth in the unacceptable sacrifice of Cain.
And again in Malachi 1:8 “And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil?...”

Clearly the sacrifice must have sufficient value to make the atonement.

* * *

Question:
So the question needs to be asked; Is the life of the animal so valuable that it can successfully substitute for that of Man?

At first is seems that it must be so, because God had given us this provision.
But if it was true, then the taking of the animal’s life by force would be equal to murder.
Therefore because we are directed by God to take the life as atonement for ourselves, we must believe the life of the animal is not equal to that of man, yet therefore must not be able to make the atonement.
What a quandary!
This question is significant enough the scriptures must have something to say about it:

“…in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;” Hebrews 9:9
“For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
FOR IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND OF GOATS SHOULD TAKE AWAY SINS.” Hebrews 10:1-4
It is evident that God never intended the blood of animals to wash away sins like a shower after work. But we see here that the animal sacrifice was not even able to do a thorough cleansing, but rather a perpetual pushing back the tide that was ever increasing.

Clearly the animal sacrifice was barely keeping man’s proverbial head above water while waiting for the sufficient cure for his sin…

“But Christ…by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” Hebrews 9:11-14
Oh how I wish I could convince you to read all of Hebrews 9 and 10.
But I have run way long as it is and must find a place to stop,
It must be understood that we would not have the eternally sufficient sacrifice of Jesus our Savior if he had not provided us the forerunner of animal sacrifice to prepare the way of understanding.
This is why the Jews will be given the chance to sacrifice in the new temple for 3-1/2 years before it is again taken away. (Daniel 9:27) This short period will familiarize them with the sacrifices of animals after 2000 years of lack, thus preparing them to comprehend the willing sacrifice of Jesus dying once for all sin.
This "fore runner" is mirrored in John the Baptist coming first to prepare the way for Jesus in his ministry.
"...The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." Matthew 3:3

* * *
Surprise!

Here I speak to the present Gentile Church;
Just as the Jew of old leaned on the animal sacrifice to the neglection of righteousness, so today the Christian rests feeling secure on the sacrifice of Jesus to the same neglect.

I am actually surprised to find how many times Old Testament scripture points out that God does not delight in sacrifices, and that regardless of the sacrifice, the wicked are not forgiven;
“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? Saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.” Isaiah 1:11
“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind?” Proverbs 21:27
But somehow the “modern Christian” waves that off as Old Testament.
“We have the blood of Jesus” they say, just as the confident Jew said of old; “We are the sons of Abraham.” Or “We have the animal sacrifice”.
THERE IS NO DISPENSATION!
Can you not see that God does not change? What was true then is still true now?
Today we are confident in our “Complete work” of the New Testament, and so shake our heads at the Jews for missing the "improvement". We readily agree with the NT when it shows the failure of the Jews as they “just don’t get it” by rejecting Jesus as the Savior.
But suppose I could reverse the table and show you an Old Testament passage written to the church today rebuking us for treading on Christ?

* * *

New Testament accusation found in the Old Testament!

“…I have not caused thee to serve with an offering, nor wearied thee with incense.
Thou has bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices:
But thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.” Isaiah 43:23-24

Nothing has changed, there is no dispensation. The desire of God is the same, and the sin is the same! MAN IS THE SAME.
Why can we not see that we cannot be both light and darkness? I John 1:5
You cannot live in compromise and be faithful. I John 3:6-8

Neither the animal sacrifice nor the blood of Jesus is capable of cleansing your sin if you don’t get out of the sewer! Old Testament or New, Jew or Gentile it matters not!

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” Psalm 51:17
*