http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=582
Do Animals Have Souls?
Q.
I know the Bible teaches that every human has an immortal soul. But do animals have souls?
A.
If you ever owned a dog, a cat, or any other kind of animal to which
you grew attached, you may have wondered whether or not that animal had a
soul. Men and women through the ages have pondered the same question.
Animals— whose vast numbers stretch into the millions—are ubiquitous as
our co-inhabitants on planet Earth. They serve as an unpaid,
ever-dependable, and quite invaluable work force as they help the farmer
plow a rough field or the blind person cross a busy city street. They
account for a considerable portion of the total world food supply for
humans. They provide joy and companionship for young and old alike. They
are an undeniable boon to mental health, especially for sick children
and the infirm elderly. Surely none among us would doubt the many
benefits that accrue as a result of the presence of animals among us.
But do animals possess souls? And if they do, is their soul the same as
a human soul? That is to say, is it immortal—will it eventually inhabit
either heaven or hell?
The English word “soul” derives from a number of different words in the
Old and New Testaments and is used in the Bible in a variety of ways.
First, it is employed as a synonym for a living, breathing person. Moses
wrote: “All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy
souls” (Exodus 1:5; cf. Deuteronomy 10:22). In legal matters also, the
word soul was used to denote any individual. The Lord told Moses: “Speak
unto the children of Israel, saying, ‘If a soul shall sin through
ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things
which ought not to be done’ ” (Leviticus 4:2). When Jacob was speaking
of himself in Genesis 49:6, he used the expression, “O my soul”—which
meant simply “me.” In each of these instances, actual
people—individually or collectively—were under discussion.
Second, the word soul can be used to describe the physical form of life
that both men and animals possess and that ceases to exist at death. In
their
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, and Briggs noted that the word “soul” (Hebrew
nephesh) often is employed to mean “life principle” (1907, p. 659). In Genesis 1:20,24,30, God spoke of the
nephesh hayyah—literally
“soul breathers” or “life breathers” (often translated as “living
creatures” or “life”—cf. Leviticus 11:10). The writer of Proverbs
observed in regard to animals: “A righteous man regardeth the life (
nephesh) of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (12:10). Hebrew scholar Hugo McCord therefore suggested:
Then the translators realized that the first meaning of nephesh
is “breath,” and so Genesis 1:20,24,30 and Genesis 2:7 all fit together
in understanding Moses as saying that all animals and man too are
breathers. Breathers, coupled with hayyah, “living,” the
translators thought, would be well translated, in the case of animals,
as “living creatures,” and in the case of man as a “living being” (1995,
23[1]:87-88).
Third, the word soul can be used to describe something that is immortal
and thus never dies. In speaking of Rachel’s death at the birth of her
son, Moses wrote: “And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for
she died)” (Genesis 35:18). While Elijah was at the house of a widow in
the city of Zarephath, the woman’s son died. But Elijah “cried unto
Jehovah, and said..., ‘O Jehovah my God, I pray thee, let this child’s
soul come into him again’” (1 Kings 17:21). Hezekiah celebrated the fact
that the soul survives the death of the body: “But thou hast in love to
my soul (
nephesh) delivered it from the pit of corruption” (Isaiah 38:17).
Centuries later, the Lord Himself warned: “And be not afraid of them
that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear
Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28)
When the apostle John was allowed to peer into the book “sealed with
seven seals” (Revelation 5:1), he “saw underneath the altar the souls of
them that had been slain for the word of God” (Revelation 6:9). Each of
these passages is instructive of the fact that there exists within man a
soul that survives the death of the body.
The question therefore becomes: Can the word “soul” be used correctly
in referring to animals? The first definition obviously cannot apply to
animals since animals are not persons. But the second definition most
certainly would apply to animals. Compare the following passages. In
Psalm 78:50 we find an example of the usage of “soul” as “life” when the
writer said in speaking of the people of Egypt (who tried in vain to
prevent the Israelites from leaving their country’s slavery) that God
“spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the
pestilence.” In this instance, the word “soul” (Hebrew
nephesh)
is used to denote the physical life of humans. But in Genesis 1:20,24,
the identical Hebrew word is employed to speak of animals as “living
creatures” (Hebrew
nephesh hayyah). In this sense, then,
yes, it is correct to say that animals have “souls”—since the word soul
means only physical life. In responding to the question, “Do animals
have souls?,” McCord wrote: “Yes, when the word soul,
nephesh, only means ‘breath,’ as in Genesis 1:20 (
ASV), ‘Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures,’
nephesh hayyah, literally, ‘living soul’” (1999).
But can the third definition be applied to animals? Do animals possess
immortal souls that one day will inhabit heaven or hell? In this era of
evolutionary fervor and an increasing fascination with all kinds of
“rights,” we are reminded constantly that man shares a “kinship” with
members of the animal kingdom that positively must not be overlooked.
Michael Fox wrote:
There is indeed a kinship in the present diversity and evolutionary
continuity of all life.... It is more important today than ever before
for human beings to be aware of their kinship with all life. It is
essential for our survival that we have a strong reverence for all forms
of life as our kin... (1978, p. 121).
Those who do not believe in God or accept the Bible as His Word (and
thus deny the existence of an immortal soul) generally perceive animals
as man’s equal in almost every aspect. Thus, they often refer to animals
as being not one whit behind humans in regard to how they should be
viewed or treated. For example, in his book,
The Case for Animal Rights,
Tom Regan acknowledged that each human is “the experiencing subject of a
life, a conscious creature having an individual welfare” (1987, p. 59).
But he likewise viewed animals as “the experiencing subjects of a life,
with inherent value of their own” (p. 59) and so he asked:
What could be the basis of our having more inherent value than animals?
Their lack of reason, or autonomy, or intellect? Only if we are willing
to make the same judgement in the case of humans who are similarly
deficient. But it is not true that such humans—the retarded child, for
example, or the mentally deranged—have less inherent value than you or
I. Neither, then, can we rationally sustain the view that animals, like
them, in being the experiencing subjects of a life have less inherent
value. All who have inherent value have it equally, whether they be
human animals or not. Inherent value, then, belongs equally to those who
are the experiencing subjects of a life (p. 60).
This type of thinking—that men and animals both possess “inherent value
equally”—has set the stage for those who profess a belief in God to set
forth their claim that animals do indeed possess immortal souls. In his
book,
All Creatures Here Below, Frank Hoffman stated:
...if the animal sacrifice is the precursor, or type of the final
sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, which is a mainstream Christian
teaching, is God’s Word not also telling us that animals do have souls?...
Now then, why are we reluctant to accept the fact that animals do have
souls? Because we are still trying to hold on to some of our pride, and
perhaps our greed. If we do not accept the fact that animals have souls,
then we may have a self-acceptable excuse for the way we treat the rest
of God’s creatures, which is not in accordance with God’s desire, but
ours (1998, emp. added).
The position advocated by such writers is completely at odds with the teaching found in God’s Word. First, man and animals
do not
share kinship—all the claims of evolutionists (and those sympathetic to
them) notwithstanding. The apostle Paul addressed this very point in 1
Corinthians 15 when he wrote: “
All flesh is not the same flesh:
but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another
flesh of birds, and another of fishes” (v. 39, emp. added). As Stuart
Walker correctly commented: “Genesis 1:26-30 and 2:7,21-25 clearly
states that man was a special creation with no phylogenetic relationship
to any other creature. Thus, there is a phylogenetic
discontinuity between man and animals—
we are not physically interrelated”
(1991, 5[2]:21, emp. added). As Adam previewed the animals in the
Garden of Eden for a mate and went about naming them (Genesis 2:18-20),
this “discontinuity” became clear. Among all the animals that God had
created, there was none that corresponded to him. Not one sufficed to
remove him from his personal isolation of being “alone” (Genesis 2:18).
As Walker went on to note:
Thus, we share in the life principle, but it is not the life principle
itself that is precious.... Ontological continuity cannot be established
upon the experiences of life, the intrinsic value of life itself, or
physical parallels between animals and humans; rather, we are separated from the animal world by an impassable gulf—a chasm of essential difference in who we are (1991, 5[2]:22, emp. added).
Second, man was commanded to “subdue and have dominion over the fish of
the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28). The Hebrew word for
“subdue” (
kabash) is described in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance
as meaning “to tread down,” “to bring under subjection,” etc. The same
word is used in Numbers 32:22, 29 and Joshua 18:1 where it is used to
describe the subduing and pacifying of Israel’s enemies. To
kabash, therefore, is to
face that which opposes us and is inimical in its present state to our
goals and well-being, and bring it into conformity with our
needs—completely pacifying it.... Thus it can be inferred that when God
gave Adam dominion over the creative order, He was describing a
pre-emptive authority which man would wield over the creation as he
interpreted the cosmos and manipulated its functions to man’s benefit...
(Walker, 5[2]:25).
Man’s “pre-emptive authority” over the creation, including the animal
kingdom, was demonstrated quite forcefully in a single stroke when God
granted mankind permission to kill and eat animals for food (Genesis
9:3-4). Interestingly, however, within the same context God specifically
forbade manslaughter “for in the image of God made he man” (Genesis
9:5-6). If man “shares kinship” with animals or if animals possess
immortal souls, why would God permit him to kill his own kin—relatives
whose souls are no different than his own? As Neale Pryor commented:
“Animals also have a
ruach [a Hebrew word for “breath” or “life”—
BT/SE] (Genesis 6:17). Killing one who has a
ruach or
nephesh
would not necessarily constitute murder; otherwise animals could not be
sacrificed or slaughtered” (1974, 5[3]:34). God’s prohibition against
murder carried over even into New Testament times (Matthew 19:18). At
the same time, however, God broadened the list of animals that men could
kill and eat (Acts 10:9-14). Why was it that men
could not kill other men, but
could kill animals? The answer lies, of course, in the fact that animals were not created “in the image of God.”
Third, although it is true that at times the Bible uses the same terms
to refer to the life principle/force in both humans and animals (e.g.
Genesis 7:22), and although it is true that those terms may be used to
refer to the immortal soul of humans (Ecclesiastes 12:7; Matthew 10:28),
they
never are employed by Bible writers to refer to an immortal soul in animals. In their
Commentary on the Old Testament, Keil and Delitzsch observed:
The beasts arose at the creative word of God, and no communication of the spirit is mentioned
even in ch. ii:19; the origin of their soul was coincident with that of
their corporeality, and their life was merely the individualization of
the universal life, with which all matter was filled in the beginning by
the Spirit of God. On the other hand, the human spirit is not a mere
individualization of the divine breath which breathed upon the material
of the world, or of the universal spirit of nature; nor is his body
merely a production of the earth when stimulated by the creative word of
God. The earth does not bring forth his body, but God Himself puts His
hand to the work and forms him; nor does the life already imparted to
the world by the Spirit of God individualize itself in him, but God
breathes it directly into the nostrils of the one man, in the whole
fulness of His personality, the breath of life, that in a manner corresponding to the personality of God he may become a living soul (1982, 1:79-80, emp. added).
Man alone was created “in the image and likeness of God” (Genesis
1:26-27)—something that may not be said of animals. Walker therefore
asked: “If the putative parallels either do not exist or are
insignificant before God, what then is the critical essence of man that
distinguishes him from all of creation, and what are the ramifications
of this distinction? The key is found in Genesis 1:26-28, 2:18-25, and
9:5-7; it is that
only man is created in the image of God” (1991, 5[2]:22, emp. added). Gary Anderson addressed this same point when he wrote:
Man’s concepts of spiritual values, his recognition of morals and his
universal acknowledgement that he is responsible for his own behavior
set him far apart from the animal world. That is to say, they have no
immortal soul, as the following point documents. The spirit of man
returns to God who gave it when one dies (Eccl. 12:7). Such is not said
of the animal! Adam is called the son of God in Luke 3:38, obviously by
creation. What animal is called the son of God or offspring of God? (1989, p. 76, emp. added).
Nowhere does God’s Word indicate that animals were created in God’s image. As Philip Hughes commented:
Only of man is it said that God created him in his image. It is
in this charter of his constitution that man’s uniqueness is
specifically affirmed as a creature radically distinguished from all
other creatures. In this respect a line is defined which links man
directly and responsibly to God in a way that is unknown to any other
creature. Nothing is more basic than the recognition that being
constituted in the image of God is of the very essence of and absolutely
central to the humanness of man. It is the key that unlocks the meaning
of his authentic humanity (1989, p. 30, emp. added).
But do animals have souls? Animals may be said to have souls—
if
the word “soul” is used as the Bible employs it in discussing members of
the animal kingdom (i.e., to describe only the physical life force
found within all living creatures). But if the word “soul” is used to
refer to an
immortal soul that one day will inhabit heaven or
hell, then no, animals may not be said to possess a soul. This is the
only conclusion that can be drawn, respecting the instruction on the
subject found within the Word of God.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Gary L. (1989), “The Lord...Formeth the Spirit of Man within Him,”
In Hope of Eternal Life, ed. Bobby Liddell (Pensacola, FL: Bellview Church of Christ), pp. 70-81.
Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver, and Charles Briggs (1907),
A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (London: Oxford University Press).
Fox, Michael (1978), “Man and Nature: Biological Perspectives,”
On the Fifth Day, ed. Richard K. Morris and Michael Fox (Washington, D.C.: Acropolis Books).
Hoffman, Frank (1998), “Of Life and Soul,”
All Creatures Here Below [Online],
URL: http://www.all-creatures.org/book/book-alcr3.html.
Hughes, Philip Edgecumbe (1989),
The True Image (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1982 reprint),
Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
McCord, Hugo (1995), “What is the Soul,”
Vigil, 23[11]:87-88, November.
McCord, Hugo (1999), “Do Animals Have Souls?,” personal correspondence.
Pryor, Neale (1974), “Abortion: Soul and Spirit in the Hebrew Language,”
Spiritual Sword, 5[3]:33-35, April.
Regan, Tom (1987),
The Case for Animal Rights (Clarks Summit, PA: International Society for Animal Rights).
Walker, T. Stuart (1991), “Animal Rights and the Image of God—Part II,”
Journal of Biblical Ethics in Medicine, 5[2]:21-27, Spring.
.jpg)
.jpg)
