i. Humanity
[11/03/19]
After so much time spent considering the spiritual order of beings, it seems almost a letdown to come back to consideration of our own order, and in fairness, I am only looking at it in brief here, given that I have the expectation of considering mankind much more thoroughly in a subsequent portion of this effort. My inclination is to ask, what shall we say about man? But, given the purpose of this whole exercise, the proper question is really, what does God, through the Bible, say about man?
David, it seems, had thoughts along these lines, although in his case, it became a matter of putting a portion of that Bible into words. We’ve considered it already, but it’s a verse that bears revisiting. “What is man, that Thou dost take thought of him? And the son of man, that Thou dost care for him? Yet Thou hast made him a little lower than God, and dost crown him with glory and majesty!” (Ps 8:4-5). Actually, let me cap that off with the statement that follows, for it supplies a bit of purpose to this business of humanity. “Thou dost make him to rule over all the works of Thy hands; Thou has put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes through the paths of the sea” (Ps 8:6-7).
If I am honest, I’m a bit put off by David’s words when he writes that we are made ‘a little lower than God’. From any other source, this should count as great hubris, but here it is written, and not only is it written, but it is referenced by other that is written. Hebrews 2:7-9 makes reference to this very statement, although it changes the message to being ‘for a little while lower than the angels’. Perhaps I am not alone in that discomfort. I note, for example, that the King James translates this as angels, even though the underlying word is `elohiym. So, a brief survey shows that indeed, while this is most often a reference to God, if not to false gods, it is also used in other contexts to speak of judges. Moses himself, who so often speaks of God by this name, utilizes the term to speak of mere mortals, humans, in matters of justice. Exodus 22:8-9, for example, is concerned with a matter of theft and the determination of guilt or innocence, and other issues between men. “Both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor.” While the judge is certainly acting as God’s representative in such a situation, it would be hard to read this as setting God as personally and directly assessing the case. That is to say, this is not two neighbors brought to the tent of meeting. It’s simple, civil law that is discussed. Judges, however much they may think of themselves, are not gods, but if they are indeed wise, they know themselves servants of God, representatives of God, and thus judge humbly.
I find another exception to the usage in 1Samuel 14:15, describing the battle Jonathan led against Israel’s enemies. He and his armor bearer had just utterly destroyed some twenty men, as we learn, “And there was a trembling in the host, in the field, and among all the people, and the spoilers, they also trembled and the earth quaked: so it was a very great trembling” (KJV). That ‘great trembling’ is again `elohiym. It may have been God-caused, but it was assuredly no god itself. That, near as I can tell, is the sum total of all exceptions in usage for this term. Apart, then, from Psalm 8, we have two instances, both of which could be construed as indicating God’s representation in judgment; the judges being fundamentally involved in judgment, and the earthquake a sort of evidence of judgment. But, as to the angels, is it not written that we shall judge them? Yes, but it is also observed – for example in the preparations for the wilderness sojourn of Israel, that they would judge the unrighteousness of those they guided by God’s design. So, it would seem a sort of mutual judgment, taken in turns. I am far too glib in that statement, but it makes my point, I think.
But, I find I am once more far afield from my topic. What is man, that God should be mindful of him? Well, David’s laid it out for us. He is the creature God fashioned to rule all the works of His own works. He is the creature that God fashioned in His own image (Ge 1:26), and in that act was our role in creation established. “Let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” That’s the creation mandate, if you will. “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it” (Ge 1:28).
In an earlier section, I considered the question of life on other planets, and I have to say that this presents at least a small problem to acceptance of such an idea, but I don’t think it insurmountable entirely. The image of God in man is not primarily a visual one, so far as I can discern, but rather a matter of intelligence and a need for fellowship most intimate. How this sets us apart from, say, dolphins or elephants is not, perhaps so clear as I would like it to be, but the fact remains that atop our resemblance in these things, there is also the mandate given to man that was not given to dolphin or elephant. I further observe that there is at least the hint of a boundary to that dominion given to man. It stops with the birds of the sky. Nothing is said of other planets. I wouldn’t read too much into that, given that man, at that juncture, was effectively clueless as to the existence of other planets, let alone life-bearing ones. The idea having not entered the mind of man, there was little cause to address its implications. But, I do think this leaves just a little room for us, if perchance intelligent life is discovered elsewhere. They may have their own God-assigned dominion, apart from ours. Who’s to say besides God?
But, I’m here to consider man. In these two brief passages we have a pretty solid picture of his place in the physical order, at least as that order applies to our experience to date. He is to have dominion. He is to multiply and fill the earth. Isn’t that something? We have whole movements afoot today that would advise self-imposed extinction for all intents and purposes. We have a generation that has decided that maybe the best thing they could do for the planet would be to avoid reproducing. There’s just too many of us, the reasoning goes, and the planet can’t sustain our presence. But, this displays an ignorance of the plan declared by God, whether that ignorance is willful or simply lack of instruction. Honestly it seems to me it must be willful, for the briefest glance at this much-beloved nature, overtly worshiped nature in their case, would show that multiplication is the natural order. There is not, to my knowledge, so much as one form of life out there that would willingly, intentionally seek to curtail its own presence. Suicide, it seems, is a particularly human frailty.
More to the point, we are not called to self-select, as it were, but to subdue. We are not called to be tyrants over the earth, but stewards. That said, what has been given has been given for our use. “I have given every green plant for food” (Ge 1:30). The life of man was and is so significant in God’s sight, that He imposes the death penalty upon all those who take a life. Starting with Cain, murder became a sin known to man, and it passed to his progeny, sadly. Lamech would proudly boast, “I have killed a man for wounding me; and a boy for striking me; if Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold” (Ge 4:23-24). This is not the serving of justice, but the lashing out of wounded pride, just as it was with Cain. This is not how things were designed to be, which is not to say that God was taken by surprise with Cain and his ilk.
But, let me observe this as well. God ‘created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created’ (Ge 5:2). I observe a few things in this: First, God named them. That naming, as I have often observed, and particularly in connection with the unfolding of the Old Covenant, indicates superiority and authority over the one named. Mankind was created to be obedient to God, his creator. Second, Man is a name given to male and female alike. This modern sensitivity to anything that speaks of man, as if it were of necessity a deference to the male of the species is wholly unfounded, at least so far as meaning is concerned. Yes, one can find males who lord it over the females. Of course, one can just as readily find females who lord it over the males. Neither course is in keeping with God’s plan and purpose for humanity. They were created together, to be together, to unite as one both for purposes of multiplication and for that fellowship which is needful to the completeness of Man. Finally, the nature of our being, man and woman, was arranged by God as a blessing. “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him” (Ge 2:18). I would read that as, “I will make him a helper that is his equal, a true and beneficial partner in all things.”
[11/04/19]
So, then, Jefferson Airplane got at least this much right. “You are the crown of creation.” That indeed is the testimony of Scripture; man the rightful ruler over all else that lives and moves upon the earth. That said, man in his right mind recognizes that there is one before whom we will willingly, gladly lay our crowns down, lauding Him and Him alone as King of kings and Lord of lords. We, know, too, to our eternal sorrow, that man was not in his right mind, and in that first act of Adam’s rebellion, he laid our rightful rule upon the serpent. He gave the devil a foothold, and the devil’s foot has been firmly planted ever since, except that the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Son of David has come and bruised his heel (Ge 3:15). That foot had to withdraw its hold, though he still roams the earth. Man has once more been given to know his dominion over all things under the authority of the Son. Man still inclines to take more than is given, and to assume all authority period, because the poison of the Fall still fills our veins. But, hope of restoration to shalom, to all things as they should be, as they were intended to be, is made real and certain in our Redeemer.
He has left us in charge of this His garden. We are no longer in Eden where we were created, but we are still in His garden, for all the earth is His. We are still given work to do in His garden, to tend to it, and see to the general welfare of His creatures. It’s not just that we were marked out as special amongst all that lived and breathed. It’s that we were given dominion – not as tyrants but as superintendents. I observe in this a basis for being environmentally conscious, or perhaps better, environmentally conscientious. It is not ours to abuse, for it is not ours. It is ours to manage and make profitable as best we may, for that is our duty, our primary duty after that of worshiping God and loving Him forever. How better to honor the God who made all this and set us over its operations than to see it run well, and all its denizens cared for? But, to make the environment our god? To make the creature to be of greater significance to us than our own offspring? These things are more than a step too far. These are crass idolatry and the whispers of the devil, counseling against the clear dictates of even the creation covenant; “Go forth and multiply.”
Man, fallen though he be, is yet assigned that duty. The command has never been rescinded. It has never been revoked. Ours is to care for all else that God has made, to see it properly maintained, properly appreciated, and properly given its due – no more, but certainly no less. The little mouse that I happened across in our recycling bin yesterday, so long as he knows his place, has not earned the death penalty for being where he was. He left quickly, and was granted leave to do so. The hawk that visited our pine tree, much to the consternation of the rest of avian society there present is functioning according to his design and has as much right to eat as do those birds who are its prey. If we honor God, I don’t think we have room to pick winners and losers amongst His creatures. We cannot decide, much though we are inclined to do so, that this one is to be eradicated, and that one to be preserved and even cultivated. This doesn’t mean that we have no business pursuing horticulture or animal husbandry, nor does it insist that we eschew the consumption of meat as inherently contrary to our assigned duties.
I will acknowledge that it may be inferred from those earliest instructions given Adam that he and Eve were vegetarians, and perhaps the whole animal kingdom at that juncture were likewise vegetarian in diet. It also appears that when all is made new, or restored to the original design, even such animals as lions, not currently known for their inclinations towards leafy meals, shall in fact eat grass like more docile animals. But, we are neither in the period of the beginning, nor are we yet blessed to abide in the renewal of creation. We are in the interim, and it is clear that at least as early as Cain and Abel, animal husbandry was part of the deal. Animal sacrifice had already been a thing, else where did Cain even come up with the idea? God Himself essentially endorsed it by providing Adam and Eve with animal skins in which to dress after their initial sin. The original order, if it had been entirely vegetarian in diet, was no longer so. God has set things in a different order for this period, and done so, we can safely assume, for the good of man. That being the case, it is something of an insult to Him and a rejection of His rightful rule to insist otherwise.
But, man is not authorized for general slaughter. Species extinctions may occur, but woe to us if we are the root cause thereof. That is not husbandry and supervision. That is blood sport. It is akin to the distinction between necessary warfare and wanton murder. The impact on those who have died may be pretty much the same, but the guilt that accrues to the act depends entirely on the reason for the act.
Man is not free to do as he pleases, either in regard to the abundant life of the earth or in regard to his choices in worship. Man is not a law unto himself, as much as the devil has tried to convince us otherwise. Adam did not find himself in control after eating of that forbidden fruit, but rather found himself for less in control. We are no different. Sin gives us a feeling of being in charge, but we soon find that sin has charge over us, and not we over it. We are not even, as the popular saying would have it, captains of our own souls. We pose, and we play the part as best we may, even fooling ourselves by and large, but in the final assessment we discover that no, we never were nor ever shall be so in charge of ourselves. As somebody commented recently, borrowing from Dylan, we all serve someone, and it ain’t ourselves.
What, then, is man? He is one created in God’s image, and set here for the purpose of ruling Creation as God’s representatives. At this we have failed most utterly, it seems to me, but nevertheless it is our task. Represent God. This has a twofold aspect. In the first and primary aspect, it demands from us the honor that is due the God we represent. He created us. He assigned us this task. He is sovereign. As such, He alone is worthy of our worship. He alone is due our instant obedience in every regard. He alone has say over our disposition and our duties, and we do well to remember this. As to the second aspect, how we pursue our duties must be as properly suits His representatives. As we tend to creation, we do so in accordance with His ways, else we do it wrong. We do so with the same loving care that He has demonstrated.
Now, some might look around and question His loving care. That hawk again, how is it loving to arrange things such that one animal attacks and devours another? Well, we can write that off to the effects of the Fall, and be correct in doing so. But, even with that, we must recognize that there remains good purpose, even to the doings of this fallen creation. The hawk, in that his meals consist in the slower, weaker denizens of those prey species, renders the overall species healthier in having done so. That may sound to near to Darwinian thinking for comfort, but it’s true, isn’t it? The hawk does not practice genocide in its hunting, but rather more of a culling. Its hunting, properly perceived, is not so very different from man’s pursuits in husbandry. We, too, kill and eat, although for most of us, the messy business of killing is so far removed as to be forgotten in the eating. But, we do not, generally speaking, eradicate that species we take for food. We see to it that the food species continues to abound, that we may continue to eat. There have been exceptions, granted; and primarily where other concerns have distorted the pursuit. I think primarily of matters of fishing, where we have come near to depleting certain fish stocks because demand was allowed to outstrip the possibility of supply. Some efforts at fish farming might be observed as trying to alter the case, and to the degree that various regional authorities are able to manage the situation, perhaps there can be success even with maintaining wild stocks. But, then, the fisherman has to make a living, and if prices won’t support his expensive and dangerous labors with minimal catches, what are his options? Shall he starve himself and his family to preserve the fish? Is he granted to charge what is reasonable for his wares? Therein lies the problem for regulation. It regulates not only the size of the catch, but also the prices to be paid, and the two are not always rationalized one with the other, leaving the regulated one in a bind from which he cannot readily escape.
Back to the topic of man more generally: Man is, as we observe, a socially organized being. He is, apparently by design, inclined to organize himself into societies, whatever form those societies might take in a given setting. The society of the aborigine may be very much distinct from the society of the urbanite. For all that, the society of the agrarian differs pretty wildly from that of the merchant or the financier. But, they do have certain aspects in common, don’t they? There is some system in place for the maintenance of justice. There is some sort of legal recourse when one is wronged. We find basis for this in the Mosaic Law, and where the Mosaic Law has been rejected or simply unknown, similar systems have arisen. It’s not just that God imposed Law on man. Man, by his nature, finds law necessary. God’s just happens to be a law with a higher authority to it, and a higher purpose than merely maintaining our ability to live in proximity to one another.
Man, for all that he wants to be a law unto himself, soon discovers that a society in which every man is a law unto himself is no society at all, and cannot long survive. He needs governance, and desires wise governance. No, that’s not entirely true, is it? He desires such governance as will prove most profitable to his own cause. If that consists in a government that abuses others to his benefit, he will, in general, gladly accept such governance. Why not? He’s doing well by it. But, if the tide should turn, and he finds himself the provider at loss to another’s benefit by force of government, well then, he shall look for better governance, won’t he? This, I have to say, explains 99% of what transpires in the world of politics today. Unfortunately, a larger and larger percentage of the populace cannot see past the immediate advantage offered them to recognize the implications, and so, as with Rome in decline, we find a society satisfied with bread and circuses. Keep us fed and entertained and you can abuse us as much as you please. But, woe to the one in charge when bread can be had no more, and the circuses lose their appeal.
Man will organize into societies, because he knows it is needful to his wellbeing. It is needful, we can rightly argue, for his survival. One man alone will not last all that long, even if he does have theoretical dominion over every animal of the earth. Faced with a recalcitrant grizzly, and no weapon to hand, that authority won’t get him very far. But, man in society may face even a grizzly with some hope of success. If weapons won’t overpower, perhaps force of numbers will. Again, forgive me if that sounds too Darwinian for comfort. It does, however, reflect reality on the ground, doesn’t it? Animals certainly seem to understand it. How many hunter species function in this fashion, using their numbers to overcome prey that would clearly prove superior to the individual hunter? Man is not so very different.
I must observe that the particular beauty of this religion of Christianity is that it recognizes man for what he is, and does not require of him that he be some unrealized ideal being before it can be accepted and upheld. Oh yes, we are urged to an ideal, commanded even to pursue that ideal with all that is in us. At the same time there is the explicit acknowledgement that it is utterly beyond us to attain to the ideal. It requires another to attain the ideal on our behalf, and that Other has come in the Person of Christ Jesus.
I might also observe that he particular genius of our American form of government, as established and codified at the outset, is that it, too, recognizes man as he is, and does not insist on some way of being that is utterly at odds with the citizenry to be governed. The laws accept that man will be self-centered and self-serving, and establish a framework in which this can be the case and yet be to the benefit of society at large. I’m not inclined to go down a path of political science or sociology at this juncture, but only to observe that that system of societal co-existence that is capable of sustaining itself is that system which accepts man as he is and encourages and provides for his improvement towards a higher ideal.
[11/05/19]
This brings me to another aspect of man as created. Man needs an ideal for which to strive, else he grows flaccid and powerless. Would you like an ideal towards which to strive? Try this. “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48). That is the goal, the standard, the ideal. That is our standard. Well, perhaps that is to general. After all your perfection may not be the same as mine, right? Very well. We have it spelled out more clearly in two commands. “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength” (Mk 12:30). Even without the repeating ‘all’, that command is beyond us to obey. But, there is a second one to consider. “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mk 12:31). There is, as Jesus says, no commandment greater than these, because in these two are summed up the whole of the Law and the Prophets (Mt 22:40). Further, even that second commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves is so far beyond us, so far out of line with our natural, if fallen, preferences, as to prove impossible to heed. Yet, perfection is required in the heeding.
The unbeliever, seeking excuse to continue in unbelief, will point to our failure to comply with this rule of life we claim to follow. So will the devil, for all that. And they will be quite correct in noting our failures. Of course, we are also fully able to note our errors, and to recognize that the ideal remains far from our daily experience, a goal toward which to strive, not a laurel upon which to rest. Truth is, those unbelievers have their own ideals and, if they are in fact ideals, we can be assured that they fall short of them. Honestly, the ideal that does not remain beyond our grasp is not an ideal, but just a marker on our progress. To continue to hold that forth as an ideal when once it has been obtained is to come up short. It is to settle for less, to succumb to what I have elsewhere called the Codex of the Achievable. If we lower our standards, our ideals, to that which we are able to maintain, our standards shall prove to be low indeed, and lower by the day.
But, the more cynical, recognizing the unobtainable nature of proper ideals, even those misguided, will insist that we should and must not merely strive to realize those ideals, but to actually maintain them. They will insist that we be perfect, Father or no Father, and when we fail to do so, as we surely must, they will insist this failure discredits both the ideal and the person. See, you worthless fellow? You don’t even practice what you preach! Ah, but the wise soul knows that there is a reason we speak of it as practicing what we preach. That which we do perfectly, arguably no longer requires practice. Practice, on the other hand, recognizes the presence of error in our current state. We shall have to try again, train again, until such time as we get it right without really trying. We speak of it as muscle memory when it comes to sports or music or other such skills. Even with the simpler tools I use for my work, tools like a text editor and a command shell, there are things that, as I have occasionally noted to younger coworkers, my fingers know which my mind no longer does. They are so ingrained that to think about what the fingers need to do is to get in their way and cause error. Ask me how to do such and such a thing, and I shall have to stop and slowly work through it, so that thought can catch up to finger without having disrupted what finger was doing.
In music, I find much the same thing. Songs that are all but impossible to play while looking at the notes and the progression of chords will actually prove much easier to play if those notes and chords are summarily dismissed and the fingers, the breath, allowed to do what they know to do. That may seem weird, and probably isn’t advice to give your child as they begin to practice, but there’s a truth to it. Why do you practice? So that fingers and breath and such know naturally what to do. You practice so that upon hearing a particular note or chord, your fingers already know where to place themselves. If you were asked to name the note, you may or may not be able. I know I wouldn’t be able to answer. In my case, if you pointed to a note on the chart and asked what it was, I should have to think about it a bit more than I would like. That is primarily because my practice rarely uses such charts, and so my eyes aren’t trained to it. But, even in the days when I read music more regularly, I tended to skip that step of ‘what note is that’, and go straight to ‘where do my fingers belong’. Ask me to play a high C, and I would likely have asked you to point one out, at which point compliance would be swift and correct. Now, it seems, I have reversed course. Point to the note, and I’m going to have to calculate what it is. Ask for it and my fingers know where to go.
Sports are similar, are they not? The skilled sportsman knows what to do without thinking about it. He reads the situation at a glance and sees his path or his play. If he has to think first, the opportunity will be lost and the play never made. It’s a game of split seconds, and that leaves no time for, “Let’s see… what should I do here?” No, it’s ingrained response, muscles knowing their duty without so much as a thought. Driving, for all that, is similar. The driver who needs to hesitate and pause and consider the situation before responding to it will soon be in an accident, or cause others to be in one. We navigate almost by instinct behind the wheel. The feet know their place, the hands know how much pressure to apply to the wheel to achieve what result. If it’s our car, we know its abilities and limitations like it were our own skin. And as we go out amidst the multi-lane traffic with myriad other drivers around us, we effectively see into the future. We know exactly where we will be in a few moments time, and don’t even give it a thought. We see our path through the gap between this moving object and that, and navigate it to a tee. But, if we have to think it through first? Danger!
I think of that time in my younger years, driving down a snow-slicked freeway when I came upon a conga-line of snow plows travelling at a much more sedate speed. Knowing the conditions, I knew brakes were not an option. The space available to stop in and the capacity of the car to stop without losing traction on the snow pack were simply incompatible with the idea. There was only one other option: To thread the gap between two lumbering piles of steel. One slip up and those objects would swiftly obliterate the little box I was in. This was not a time for slow calculus, but for swift response. Had the body not long since learned to simply do, the likelihood of success would be slim to nil. But, I made it. I am inclined to credit heavenly intervention in this instance, covering for my foolishness even in this pre-belief period, but some of that intervention is in the way God made the body to function without recourse to such response-slowing necessities of thought.
Where am I going with all this? Simply here: Those ideals towards which we strive, towards which we are commanded to strive, are the training of our spiritual muscles. We are designed to be at least as spiritually minded as we are physically minded. This does not mean we neglect the physical. It does mean we recognize a higher order, if you will, a better state towards which we are progressing. Let me be careful with that. We are not, ala the progressives or the communists or other such philosophies, progressing toward some idealized state of humanity. We are progressing heavenward, becoming more and more fully conformed to the image of the Son, in Whom we see the Father. Arguably, rather than progressing toward, we are reforming into. No, it’s not arguable. It is in fact the scriptural description of what is going on. It is both the description and the command of its own pursuit. “But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit” (2Co 3:18). See both the ideal and the reality declared. We don’t see it clearly. We are not at the ideal toward which we aspire. But, we are being transformed. We are not transforming ourselves, per se, but are being transformed by the Lord who saved us.
Yet, there is the command. “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Ro 12:2). Did you hear the echo of Jesus there? “Be perfect, as your Father is perfect.” And here, too, is the key to success. He is doing it. He is renewing the mind, and He will renew the body in due course. His will, His purpose in us, is good and acceptable and perfect. Our imperfections do not alter His perfect will. He does not lower His standards so that we can comply. He renews us, transforms us, so that in due time we not only can comply, but we will.
What then is man in this consideration of the orders of creation? He is that singular creature made to be the very image of God. He is, in that regard, the pinnacle of creation, not merely of the physical order, but of the whole range of created life. Yet, man is not thus made a law unto himself, but remains, akin to the angels, servants of God Most High. As it happens, Table Talk made reference to a passage in the Revelation this morning that speaks to this point. John, seeing the marriage supper of the Lamb, and hearing the blessing spoken of by the angel escorting him, fell at the angel’s feet to worship him. But the angel wouldn’t have it. “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who uphold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev 19:10). If the angels remain servants, so too does man; even in that glorified, renewed state to come.
ii. Animals
I don’t know that a great deal need be said in regard to animals, other than to observe that they are quite obviously part of the physical order. I can observe that they have clearly been impacted by the Fall, although I would find it improper to assign to them any blame for sin. Unlike man, the animals are not moral agents, but rather creatures of instinct. Yes, we can observe some evidence of something resembling intelligence in certain species. Yes, we find evidence of something that operates much like memory. But, we do not find moral agency. This does not require us to completely reject any idea of animals having some sense of right and wrong, of justice and injustice, yet still there is this distinction that sets us apart, that man is responsible – directly responsible to God – for his choices, whereas animals are not.
Yet, as I write what I have written above, I find myself acknowledging that this is not entirely the case, as we have it laid out in Scripture. Certainly, the serpent as a species seems to pay a penalty for sin, and that sin finds its place in the Fall, as the serpent came to speak lies to Eve. Yes, that serpent, as is recognized repeatedly, is the devil, or at the very least, the devil’s agent. Yet, it is not until very late in the text that the association is declared. As to the original relaying of events in Eden, it is merely the serpent, ‘more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made’ (Ge 3:1). That statement doesn’t carry well if it is assumed to be comparing the devil to, say, a cow. Nobody would expect there to be much of a contest as to craftiness in such a case. Is this, then, to suggest that before the Fall animals were sentient beings like ourselves? I don’t think so. Yet, here we have a talking serpent, a phenomena which Eve doesn’t find utterly shocking but apparently rather commonplace. I honestly don’t know quite what to make of that. Perhaps C. S. Lewis is not so far off the mark in his imagining of things in Narnia.
But, we know that certain animals were effectively created as herd animals for tending by man, and others were made to roam wild. The evidence for the keeping of sheep, for example, comes back to the second generation, wherein Abel was ‘a keeper of flocks’ (Ge 4:2). The superintendence aspect of the Creation ordinance apparently included this idea in its scope. Certainly after the Fall, when animals are more clearly part of man’s food chain, this is the case. But, I see no particular reason to suppose this did not extend back into Eden as well. Perhaps in that idyllic place, the lion lay down with the lamb, as we are told it shall be in the New Creation (Isa 11:6-9). In that place, “they will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” That hints at a degree of intelligence even in the animals, doesn’t it? So perhaps this hunter and prey nature of things that we are familiar with as the normal course of things is not normal at all. Perhaps this is all the impact of the Fall, and as it shall be at the end – “They shall do no evil or harm in all My holy mountain” (Isa 65:25) – so it was in the beginning. Perhaps.
Yet, there is Abel with his flocks. Was this an act of disobedience on his part? No particular denouncement is made of his choice of profession, only his choice of offering. Indeed, Abel’s offering is the more acceptable to God, and Cain’s offering from his harvest is not accepted (Ge 4:4). Whatever the case prior to the Fall, after the Fall, God had made provision for man in the flesh of the animals. He Himself had made clothes for Adam and Eve from the skins of animals, something we must note that Adam and Eve never considered doing for themselves. They were satisfied to use leaves. Why? Did they simply not know how to kill and skin animals? Perhaps. Perhaps they recognized something about the blood being life, and life being sacred. After all, they communed with God rather frequently. Presumably they had picked up at least a few ideas as to His views.
But, with the Fall came the need for atonement, the need for purification. Life must be given for life, and yet, to take the life of man, except for a very limited set of circumstances, was forbidden. God made very clear, particularly as He laid out the Law for His people through Moses, that life in all its forms was precious. Even that lion, even the wolf that might prey upon the lambs of the herd was precious insomuch as it bore within it its blood, and the life is in the blood. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is by the blood by reason of the life that it makes atonement” (Lev 17:11). Thus, blood was off the diet. It is not for eating, it is for atoning. Yet, for the most part, meats were not off the diet. The slaughtering of animals for food was not ruled out, nor the use of their hides. Indeed, the tabernacle was made with recourse to the hides of animals.
All of this dictates that we accept that animals have their place in the physical order, but that place is significantly different and significantly lower than that of man. They are given for his sustenance, and he is given for their supervision. Man is to have dominion, and animals are to serve. I don’t suppose for a moment that animals have any sense of this being the case. They don’t know that they serve us, nor how to do so. We may train them and domesticate them in certain cases, but it’s not in their nature, as it were. What is in their nature, quite clearly, is the fear of man. I need do no more than open my front door to recognize that this is the case, as every bird with possible exception of a brave chickadee takes instant flight from the feeder in spite of the fairly clear historical evidence that said feeder is put their for their benefit, and not as a trap. Likewise the chipmunks, who might have a slightly less consistent history to fall back upon, are set to flee at first opportunity when they see man coming. Even larger animals generally prove wary when man is encountered. There is something recognized there, whether or not it is appreciated. Here’s the boss. He may not be the best, but he’s the boss, and we’d best be careful.
What of the heavenly estate of animals? Do they undergo salvation? Do all dogs go to heaven, as the popular thought has it? Is every pet gone ‘over the rainbow bridge’ at its demise? I can find nothing in Scripture to support such beliefs. Of course, I can’t find much of anything to support the idea of keeping pets generally, although you find certain cases of royalty receiving exotic animals from their peers. Whether that is any suggestion of propriety in the act, or a model set for others is a wholly different matter. I personally do not suppose that there is an equivalent resurrection of the animal kingdom. I don’t find cause to suppose an eternal soul in every least creature, nor even in some of the grander ones. Do we really want a future estate in which every mosquito, every fly, every tick that ever knew its brief moment of life on earth is rendered eternal? Even if they don’t bite anymore, the sheer volume of their numbers would prove an annoyance beyond accounting in my opinion.
I needn’t limit my example to the insects. What would be the response were we to find every squirrel, every mouse, or even every coyote? For all that, what if we find every dog, cat, and goldfish? Perhaps we accept that heaven is big enough that the sheer force of numbers will not overwhelm the available space. Perhaps every animal is so thoroughly transformed as to be no annoyance whatsoever, perhaps even so transformed as to make for good company. We just don’t know. But, the minimal evidence I see is for a place for animals in the new earth. That is to say, when all is restored as it was first intended at the return of Messiah, animals are still part of the picture. They are more docile than we know them. There is no longer the idea of prey species. The wildebeests should be particularly happy to learn of this. Yet, they are still animals, and still not the peers of man.
Does this mean they are in heaven as well? Is there even any great distinction remaining between the two anymore at that juncture? I’m not certain. Perhaps I will consider that more in the final major section of this exploration of beliefs, but I cannot guarantee it. I should. It needs to have its place. But, if there is a distinction, I suspect one part of that distinction shall be found in that heaven is not a place of animals, but of humans and angels.
iii. Plants
Let’s move on to plant life. To be sure, while there is not blood in the plant, there is life, but that life is, at least by God’s standard, of a lesser sort. The life is not in the sap. It is in the blood. While there are occasions for making a grain offering, it is as thanks for provision, because the grain is most assuredly provision. Man may partake of meat, but not meat alone. The larger part of the diet is grain-based, and bread in particular has a great deal of significance in the flow of life. It is more than mere sustenance.
But, I observe no sacrifice for vegetables or flowers. Perhaps I am merely short-sighted, but I don’t recall any such provision made. I could again turn to Abel and that offering he made from the fruits of his field. It was not merely declared inferior, it was wholly disregarded. It didn’t count. Why? Life is not in the sap. Yes, it is good for food, and even quite necessary for our diet, but it is not life-giving, as is the animal.
In the beginning, we are told, every green plant was given for food. After the Fall, this system was also disrupted, and it would require the sweat of the brow – hard labor – for man to gain his sustenance from the plant life (Ge 3:17-19). In the new creation it would seem there will be trees which bear fruit in all seasons, and both leaf and fruit are for the sustenance of man. “And he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street. And on either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations” (Rev 22:1-2). Perhaps there is no clearer indication that the new creation is in its fashion a restoration of Eden. The forbidden tree of life is now made available to man, for man is made suitable for eternity, for an eternity free of sin’s taint.
But, plants, even in the tree of life, remain a matter for consumption, for the sustenance of man and beast. They are not to be accounted as alive in like fashion to man or animal. We see a certain movement in some circles today to pronounce plants properly possessed of the same rights given animals. Of course, that is building on what was already a perversion of the natural order, in that animals were given rights equal to humans, and in many ways superior to humans. Just ask yourself which would cause a greater uproar, the aborting of a baby, or the killing of a puppy. In point of fact (and this is wandering far off course for the current topic) the whole idea that one can ‘give’ rights is already so far off course as to defy all reason. Rights are not rights because we give them. They are rights because they are right. They derive from a higher authority than man in his shifting sentiments. They derive from the God of Truth, Who is unchanging and unchangeable. We can no more come up with new ones than we can give the old ones. What we can do, and what we ought to do is to respect those rights which God has given, and to avoid their abuse in our sinfulness.
As to plants, I’m sorry. They have no rights. They have their uses, some of them. I suppose all of them have their uses, it’s just that some of those uses are not particularly to our benefit. Again, go back to that curse that ensued from the Fall. “Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field” (Ge 3:17b-18). Now, to the best of my knowledge, neither thorn nor thistle makes good eating. These are not plants to be cultivated, but to be uprooted. They are the cause for that sweat on the brow, for if bread grains are to grow, it will be necessary to keep things weeded, and weeding is hard, unpleasant work.
Nothing precludes us from uprooting and eradicating as best we may those plants that are undesirable. Mind you, nothing requires us to do so, either. Yes, there are those occasions and locations that require it by their purpose. The garden, if it is to be fruitful, must be weeded. But, wildflowers in the yard? Crabgrass amidst whatever other grasses grow? That’s a matter, I think, of taste rather than necessity. There is no higher law that demands every plant other than Kentucky Blue Grass be accounted a weed and destroyed. Neither is there any higher law saying every plant, however noxious to us, must be preserved. That’s just not how it is. One might, I suppose, derive such a rule for animal life, although even there, I think it’s an overly exercised viewpoint, an attempt at greater piety that has no basis in real righteousness, but I suppose if it is undertaken in the earnest desire to honor the God who created all things, perhaps it is acceptable, even if a bit overwrought.
iv. Microbial
[11/07/19]
Working down the ranks of physical life, I suppose we arrive at the amoeba before we approach microbial life, but let us perhaps consider the two together under the guise of life in simplest form. This, too, is life of God’s creating. This, too, bears the stamp of His workmanship. As such, it, too, serves a good purpose here, and as such we may also suppose that it has felt the effects of man’s fall from grace. It, too, awaits the unveiled redemption of and reformation of all creation.
There is, however, one observation I wish to make here. Nobody debates that these simplest lifeforms are indeed lifeforms. Nobody speaks of them as just a bunch of cells, which, after all, would describe man fully grown with equal validity, for we are effectively just a bunch of cells – a rather large and variously specialized bunch, but a bunch nonetheless. Yet somehow, when taken to task for their penchant for destroying young human beings in the womb, beings which have in them already more cells, more complexity than the amoeba, supports of abortion try to write it off as something not yet ‘alive’. The utter duplicity of that argument is stunning, and the fact that it is given any credence whatsoever speaks very poorly of mankind. The fact that the one offering that argument can do so straight faced even while upholding with conviction that these amoeba, and plankton, and so on are clearly alive indicates a mind sealed to its own reasoning, incapable of recognizing the foolishness of its own framework of beliefs.
As concerns the physical order of Creation, however, is there anything we might observe in regard to these simplest forms of life beyond the inference that they, too, are creatures of God’s making, and therefore under the dominion of man? You know, I don’t think we generally consider our dominion of earthly life in that degree, do we? Yet, these creatures are as much within the scope of the creation mandate as are sheep and birds and cattle and ‘creeping things’. I guess nobody particularly wants to be known for having dominion over bugs or amoeba or the like, but there it is. These, too, are to be subdued. These, too, are set out for our benefit, to be understood and applied, to be tended and husbanded.
I don’t know what that might look like, but I can think, for example, of those plankton blooms that serve as the first flush of life in the oceans, and yet can result in red tides – at least I am pretty sure those are related. Here is a place for man’s dominion. Plankton blooms are good for life in all its variety – except, I suppose, for the plankton. But then, to the degree that said plankton is serving its designed purpose we can accept that it is good for them as well. But, red tides are not good for life. It behooves us, then, as tenders of God’s earth, to encourage the former and discourage the latter in whatever fashion we are able.
We find microbial life that is to our benefit, and this is to be encouraged and cultivated. We find, also, microbial life that is to our detriment and I think it falls within our divine mandate to encourage the former and eradicate the latter. Again, the fact of all life being by God’s creation does not require us to view all life as equally good and sacred. We are forbidden to kill our fellow man under most circumstances, yet we are not forbidden to kill sheep, for instance, or wolves in defense of sheep. We are not told by Scripture that all such lifeforms are equal in value, but rather are shown a propensity for making distinctions. Swine certainly hold a lower place in the estimation of the biblical record than do lambs. Dogs are not held in particularly high regard, but donkeys are. Even in the sacrificial system we see something of a valuation made – this animal is worth more than that. Would we really suppose that things are different when it comes to these simplest forms of life?
I wonder, for those who would insist that all lifeforms are equally sacred, if they will refrain from treating microbial infections, for these, two are the effects of a lifeform. Perhaps this is one purpose for the existence of these least of lifeforms, that they provide us with a limit against which to measure our views on life. If our system of belief does not apply equally at this level as it does at higher levels, are we consistent in our beliefs, or are we becoming situational in our ethics?
But, we also recognize that by God’s design these least of lifeforms have significant roles to play in the overall scheme of creation. Think, for example, of what we are coming to understand about the microbial life of our own gut. Without what we deem beneficial creatures living within the confines of our intestinal tract, our own bodies malfunction, and fail to take nourishment from the foods we ingest. We cannot digest properly. We cannot assimilate to ourselves the minerals and such that food provides except that these little creatures are feeding and doing their thing in their own turn. Is this not a marvel?
Have you seen some of these submicroscopic movies of what’s going on inside your body, as these tiny little forms march about doing their thing? I don’t even know how to describe this properly, but there they are, wandering the highways of the body – no, not wandering, but dutifully pursuing their tasks, bringing one amino acid, or whatever, from point A to point B, racing to the defense of the host body, if they are to our benefit, or somehow duped into serving the spread of some viral infection. But, these seem to be little lifeforms in their own right, not exactly parts of the body proper, but supporting actors if you will. I don’t know. Perhaps I misinterpret what’s going on there. So, let me back out a bit.
My larger point is this. These least of lifeforms are within and around us. We carry them in and upon our bodies, primarily without ever noticing our passengers. But, their presence is generally for our benefit, or at least to our benefit. We are in many ways dependent on these hitch-hikers for our own wellbeing. Think of those oceanic scenes so popular amongst nature documentaries. Here is a shark, the great villain of the sea in our estimation, and yet, here are little fishes swimming alongside, even attaching themselves to the shark. They do a service for the shark, and the shark effectively gives them no notice. I think as well of the shot I saw the other night, of a Moray eel opening its mouth, and out swims this rather lovely blue fish. It is not escaping from having become a meal. It’s been doing some housekeeping duties, playing the role of dental hygienist or some such, and is in no particular rush to make good its exit. These seem to me to demonstrate in more visible form the nature of our relationship to the microbiome of our own bodies. These things do their housekeeping chores in and upon us, and we give them no notice. We have benefit of their services and don’t even realize they’re about for the most part.
And all of this, from the grand scale to the sub-microscopic, is the phenomenally intricate working of God’s creativity and organization. All is per His design, and all works together in utterly astounding ways for the good of man, yes, but truly for the good of all that He has created. It all works together. I suppose we should have to argue that if it doesn’t all work together, then it most assuredly falls apart. But, then, I also have to acknowledge that just as nations and empires have their seasons according to the will of God, so do species. If not one sparrow drops from the sky apart from His divine will, then certainly, no species arises nor does any species become extinct apart from His divine will.
Therein I find the limits of ecological concern, and another case of cognitive dissonance amongst the educated. If evolutionary theory is correct, even in part, then why, pray tell, are its staunchest defenders also deeply concerned to preserve every last species as they stand today? How are these two perspectives compatible? If evolution is natural, then so, too, is the occasional extinction of species, if only to make space for a new species to arise. Isn’t that, according to such theories, how man came to dominance after the age of dinosaurs? Had the dinosaurs not become extinct, could we have fared so well? Yet, near panic arises at the thought of even the least beneficial of species disappearing. I simply don’t understand how these two views are compatible one with the other. Either evolution, and the shifts in species entailed in that process are a normal part of life and to be accepted, or everything must always be as it is now with the implication that it always was as it is now, and evolution is a bunch of hooey. Perhaps it’s the speed of change that offends, or perhaps the frivolity with which mankind has allowed their amusements to lead to the demise of this species or that. I will grant that we have very poor understanding in general of all the interconnections of life, and are rather foolish to be playing fast and loose with it. But, then, I would apply that same understanding to our propensity for gene manipulation and the like. We just aren’t that good at long-term prognostications.
I see, however, that I am yet again far afield from my topic, and having little more to say on that topic, will put paid to this section.
