Video
Summary
In this lesson we will examine the spiritual nature of animals. Animals posses spirits and personalities, but do not have “the image of God” as mankind does, thus animals do not possess moral free will. This is the fundamental difference between animals and mankind, for while humans are sinful and in need of salvation, animals are not morally accountable and therefore cannot be spiritually redeemed in the same way as humans. However, animal behavior was negatively altered by the Fall. When Jesus returns and the Millennium commences, animals will be “redeemed” from some of the physical consequences of the Fall (seen most clearly in the removal of violence and hostility from among animals). But that is still a different thing entirely from spiritual redemption in a moral sense.
Although animals have spirits, this does not mean it is wrong to kill and eat them. After the flood, animals were given to humanity for food. Under the Law, animal sacrifice was instituted by God, so a moral argument against the killing and eating of animals cannot be made. This does not mean we are allowed to be cruel to animals. The Bible commands us to respect life. We should not forget that God loves all His creatures, for He feeds and cares for even the birds (Matthew 10:29). Given the known presence of animal life in both the garden of Eden and in the coming Millennium, the two “paradises” we know the most about, it is likely that animals will be present in the New Heavens and New Earth (i.e., the final paradise) as well.
Content
Animals have spirits, but not free will.
We know animals have spirits because of Ecclesiastes 3:21: “Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”
So given this, are animals the same as humans, spiritually speaking? After all, the fact that they have spirits makes us very similar in our overall compositions (since it means both they and we are combinations of flesh and spirit; see below).
The answer is not really. Human being have “the image of God” (Genesis 1:27). By interpretation, we understand this to be moral free will. Animals do not have the image of God—the text only mentions mankind specifically, which would be somewhat odd if other creatures were also given the image of God.
It should come as no great surprise that we are fundamentally different from the animals. Everyone with even a bit of common sense could tell you that we and they are not the same when it comes to moral accountability. Humans can sin; animals cannot. Is it sinful for the tiger to eat his prey? Does he know any better?
Some quotes from my mentor discussing these same sorts of things:
Animals have spirits, so indeed they have personalities. They are more like us in many ways than some are willing to see or admit, but they do not have the ability to make free will moral choices.
Animals have spirits too, but they are not made in the image of God. Free will is a characteristic of our spirits. That is true even in cases of individuals who are physically disabled. The handicap has to do with the body, but not the spirit. They have free will, but their ability to exercise it may be abbreviated or entirely curtailed.
As it says in Ecclesiastes 3:21, “Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” (TNIV). Well, thanks to later revelation, we now do know that upon death human spirits enter the third heaven where Jesus has “prepared a place” for us, and there receive an interim body as a home to await the permanent body of the resurrection (see the link: “Our Heavenly, Pre-Resurrection, Interim State.”). As to the animals, this verse suggests that they have comparable spirits – not free-will, not “made in the image and likeness of God”, but spirits nonetheless (as can be readily seen by their unmistakable individual personalities).
The relationship between breath and spirit holds for animals, just like humans
In both Hebrew and Greek, the word for “breath” and “spirit” are exactly the same; respectively: ruach (רוּחַ) and pneuma (πνεῦμα). This is far from accidental, and is not just a metaphor. (Also cf. Latin’s animus).
Plants don’t breathe (cellular respiration notwithstanding), but plants also don’t have spirits, so far as we know. But our verse in Ecclesiastes 3:21 tells us that animals do have spirits.
We needn’t exercise ourselves about whether or not fish truly breathe etc. (but cf. Psalm 104:29, which speaks of God “taking away the breath” of aquatic creatures, in the near context). The point is that these two concepts are inextricably linked in scripture.
Why we are emphasizing this is to make it clear that there is in fact a commonality to creature life in this universe of ours: creatures are created with flesh and spirit together, with breath/spirit given at the point of birth. Consciousness comes from the hand of the Almighty, not merely as a product of chemical reactions and so on in brain tissue.
This keeps the emphasis on God’s hand in life, which is commonly underplayed by the scientific establishment, which scoffs at the notion that anything immaterial is involved in life. They may not be able to measure or quantify consciousness arising from the spiritual part of our being (and animals’ beings), but that does not mean that it does not exist.
Here’s a long quote from my mentor discussing some of these matters:
As to animals, it says in Ecclesiastes 3:21, “Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” (NIV). Animals clearly have do have spirits. God is called the “God of the spirits of all flesh” (Num.16:22; 27:16), and that certainly would seem to include more than just mankind (please see the link: Aspects of the Genesis Curse on Animals). The problem with trying to research some of these things with the English Bible alone is that all translations are interpretations, so that where a particular version has “decided” what some passage means, it always affects the way a passage is rendered, and that will be for the worse if the translators have in fact understood incorrectly. Take, for example, this critical passage in Psalm 104:
24 How many are your works, O LORD!
In wisdom you made them all;
the earth is full of your creatures.
25 There is the sea, vast and spacious,
teeming with creatures beyond number—
living things both large and small.
26 There the ships go to and fro,
and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.
27 These all look to you
to give them their food at the proper time.
28 When you give it to them,
they gather it up;
when you open your hand,
they are satisfied with good things.
29 When you hide your face,
they are terrified;
when you take away their breath,
they die and return to the dust.
30 When you send your Spirit,
they are created,
and you renew the face of the earth.
This is not a bad translation, but it obscures the critical point that “breath” in verse 29 is the same word as “Spirit” in verse 30 (i.e., ruach). It is entirely defensible to see “Spirit” as the Holy Spirit since He is the One who performs the quickening function of initiating or restoring life (Rom.8:11; and also Jn.3:5; Gal.2:25; cf. Gen.7:22 and Rev.11:11 compared with Rom.8:2). However, since the Spirit gives life by providing breath which is identical to providing a spirit – and this in the context above is what it means to be “a creature” (v.24) and to be “created” (v.30) – this quintessential role of the Spirit in creating life by providing a breath-spirit (or a living spirit which animates and provides independent life) along with the concomitant truth that breath and spirit are not only the same word but clearly conjoined (i.e., the immaterial spirit is represented by the breath-spirit whose presence in a body is always temporally coterminous) is largely lost to the English reader.
I am not a scientist or a medical doctor, and I certainly allow as to how we ought not to overlook empirical facts. However, while I do take that approach, when I see information reported as empirically factual and these facts seem to contradict what scripture says, I know by very simple deduction that either my understanding of the Bible is wrong or that the so-called facts do not actually mean what they are being interpreted to mean. No scientific testimony can tell us when life begins precisely because science assumes that animals and human beings are purely material, whereas scripture attributes a spiritual part to each. […] Since science is not looking for a spiritual part and since it could not find it if it were (because by definition the spirit is not material and therefore undetectable by any materialistic investigation), science really cannot tell us when life begins.
Further discussion
Animals will likely be present in eternity, but that is an inference more than anything else
We do not have scripture that directly comments on this one way or the other. However, we have two indirect arguments that, in my opinion, make it likely:
- There was animal life in the garden of Eden and will be animal life in the Millennium (cf. Isaiah 11:6, and see below), the two other “paradises” we know the most about. So it would track if in the New Heavens and New Earth (i.e., the final paradise), there were also animals.
- All spirits of angels and of all mankind are indestructible from the moment of their creation by the Lord, and the same Greek and Hebrew words are used for animal spirits, so it is likely they are also eternal.
Some quotes from my mentor discussing these same sorts of things:
Personally, I do think it likely that animals will be found in eternity; they are not moral creatures in the sense of having to make a choice in this life for or against God, but that is the most important distinction between us.
Scripture does not say, so I am entirely within the realm of speculation here, but I would not be surprised to learn that animals are “resurrected” in eternity too (or whatever the correct word is). Since they did not have free-will, there is no reason for them to face judgment or oblivion (and I would imagine that there is animal life in the eternal state; there certainly is in the garden of Eden and the Millennium, the two other “paradises” we know the most about).
As it says in Ecclesiastes 3:21, “Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” We do know from the Bible (albeit not from the unbelieving human viewpoint Solomon uses here and in most of Ecclesiastes to express the materialist viewpoint from which everything really is “vanity”) that the human spirit does rise up to God (now). Since animals are not morally responsible, I would be very surprised to learn if all animals with spirits are not also going to be part of the New Heavens and New Earth. Scripture does not say so explicitly, so I cannot be dogmatic about it, but all spirits of angels and of all mankind are indestructible from the moment of their creation by the Lord, and the same Greek and Hebrew words are used for animal spirits. I certainly find no biblical basis for arguing that these animal spirits “dissolve” or disappear after they leave the animal body. If they did, it would be in direct contrast to what we know happens to the spirits of human beings which, as I say, are etymologically the same and work with our bodies in precisely the same physiological way (i.e., life begins at the entrance of the spirit and ceased on its departure; see the link: “Aspects of the Genesis Curse on Animals”).
Question #19:
Does the Bible reference whether our beloved pets will be in Heaven? […]
Response #19:
[…]
While scripture does not say directly, there is reason to believe that all “animals”, that is, creatures with animae or “spirits”, are not lost forever. We know that in the case of human beings, no created spirit ever suffers annihilation. For unbelievers, of course, it would be better for them if they had never been born, for though they are resurrected, they are cast into the lake of fire (e.g., Matt.26:24; Rev.20:11-15).
Animals, however, do not face the issue of believing in Jesus Christ for life eternal or suffering the consequences for rejecting Him, since they do not possess free will as we do, the image of God. So there is no reason for them to be condemned, obviously, but also no reason for them – that is to say, their spirits – to be discarded. In any case, since God never allows a human spirit once created to go out of existence, that parallel at least argues for animals in eternity.
Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?
Wherever the spirits of animals are being kept until eternity begins, the verse above seems to make it clear that God is concerned for them.
Finally, the original creation before Satan’s rebellion had flora and fauna; when God re-created the earth for mankind, He of course created the present flora and fauna we now see; and in eternity, in the New Jerusalem, we do see the Tree of Life. An eternity without some additional flora and no fauna whatsoever would not fit the pattern.
There is a great deal about the eternal state we don’t know (see the link for a discussion what we do know). As I often have remarked, it is really beyond the scope of our present perception to appreciate the wonders to come (cf. 2Cor.12:4). What scripture does say mostly describes things in terms of the LACK of troubles, pain, problems, death with which we are currently plagued in this world. As I also often say, if we knew just how wonderful eternity really is, it might just ruin us for being able to endure this present one any longer – and we’re here just as long as Jesus wants us to be here to do just what He wants us to do.
Here are a few links:
One thing I DO know: God is absolutely loving and absolutely faithful, and He knows very well the concerns of our hearts, all of them. We can trust Him that, one way or another, everything is going to work out just fine – for those who belong to Him through faith in Jesus Christ.
Further discussion
Some general questions concerning the spiritual state of animals
Let’s go through some questions now, and see if we can answer them based on everything we have discussed:
Q: Do animals have a soul or a spirit?
Animals have spirits, like all created creatures. Biblically speaking, creatures don’t “have” souls, but are souls. Psukhe (ψυχή), the Greek word we translate as “soul”, can also be translated simply as “life”.
Both animals and humans are composed of flesh and spirit together, which form a “soul” = lifezo.
Q: Can animals go to heaven or hell?
Because animals do not have free will, they will likely be “automatically saved” = find themselves in the paradise of the New Heavens and New Earth in eternity. I should note that I believe this is the same way God treats human beings who also have restricted free will (like children who die before reaching an old enough age that they are morally accountable, or folks with a severe enough mental handicap that they cannot really morally choose).
Q: If animals “can be saved”, can the Holy spirit indwell them?
Animals have spirits, but they are not indwelt with the Holy Spirit like believing humans are post-Pentecost. (At least we have nothing in scripture that suggests such a thing).
Q: Do animals have the intellectual capacity to understand sin; can they repent?
Animals do not have free will = the image of God. Therefore they are not morally capable of understanding right or wrong, or sinning in a moral sense. There is thus also no real way for them to repent, or have any sort of awareness about sin.
Should we judge animals as we do humans?
Because animals do not have free will, we cannot judge them in the same way as we do humans, with a moral component. They simply cannot be held morally accountable for their actions in the same way humans can.
Because animals have spirits like us, is it wrong to cage them, kill them, eat them, etc.?
Clearly not, because this happens all over the place in the Bible.
Compare Genesis 9:2-4. After the flood, animals were given to humanity to eat; it literally says it right there in the biblical text. Vegan moral outrage about the killing and eating of animals is therefore straight up unbiblical. People are welcome to abstain from animal products due to taste preferences, etc. But if someone claims to be a Christian and also rejects the killing and eating animals on moral grounds, they do violence to this verse.
We are to respect life, however. (Blood is a symbol of life; hence the directive in Genesis 9:4 to avoid eating meat with its lifeblood still in it).
Compare also the practice of animal sacrifice under the Law. That was instituted by God, and involved the systematic capture and slaughter of animals. There is no way to somehow wriggle out of that fact.
Yet that practice was supposed to be a terrible thing that viscerally made clear the horrible cost of sin.
I suppose we can feel sorry for the slaughtered animals, but they will not face the Lake of Fire like unbelieving humans will, a fate far worse than physical death. And we should feel orders of magnitude sorrier for what Christ paid for us on the cross, when he faced spiritual judgement for our sins, and suffered far beyond what we can even imagine.
I think it is rather obvious that we should not be cruel to animals. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, after all, not the Shepherd Who Beats His Sheep. But the point is that we do not get to pretend like the Bible doesn’t talk about killing animals for food or ritualistic reasons, because it clearly does.
That this makes some squeamish is neither here nor there. Many people have theological issues with hell as a concept, God’s command to slaughter the Canaanites down to man, woman, and child, etc. That does not make these things not so. And so too here.
The Bible says Jesus will redeem creation. Would animals fall under that? Can a cow, for example, be “redeemed”?
Animals cannot be spiritually redeemed in the same way as humans because they are not morally fallen in the same way as us. Again, because they do not have free will.
However, there will be physical manifestations of creation’s redemption, including in the behavior of animals. These things will happen when Jesus returns again, at the commencement of the Millennium. The most clear manifestation of this will be the removal of violence and hostility from among animals, as prophesied in Isaiah 11:6.
This will set to rights what was thrown out of alignment in the Fall. Most interpreters (myself and my mentor included) believe that animal behavior was fundamentally altered for the worse by the Fall. For example, a quote from my mentor:
[T]he situation Genesis describes in Eden is certainly one that is inconsistent with violent animal behavior. Adam and Eve need no protection – they do not even have clothes. From an interpretative point of view, therefore, it is far less likely that there was aggressive and carnivorous activity in Eden than that this only came as a result of the curse on the earth. Thorns and thistles are new developments; sharper more violent animal behavior would fit this pattern perfectly.
When these negative changes are undone at the commencement of the Millennium, animals are “redeemed” from some of the physical consequences of the Fall. But that is still a different thing entirely from spiritual redemption in a moral sense.