Nathan's nearly 3 year old anole lizard, known as Queen Lizard, passed away yesterday. This came soon after a sunday school class in which one of the elder's of our church announced emphatically that animals do not have souls and therefore do not go to heaven. The statement brought tears to the eyes of the girls during Sunday school, and made Nathan's grief just that much more yesterday afternoon. Which got me to thinking about animals and souls. DO animals not have souls? What IS a soul anyway? Where in the Bible does it say that animals do or do not have souls?
The scripture passage that the elder referred to resides in the first chapter of Genesis where the writer states that "God created man in his own image." (Genesis 1:27) But if you look at the context of that passage, it's very clear that being made in God's image means that humans have been made to rule over the earth. The poetic excerpt regarding being made in the image of God is neatly nestled between two prose passages that describe the role of mankind on earth. (Adam and Eve were set in the garden "to work it and take care of it" as is described in chapter 2. (Genesis 2:15)) There's no reference to souls anywhere in that chapter.
On the contrary, when the Pharisees had a cow over the fact that Jesus's disciples were praising him during the triumphal entry (Luke 19:37-40), Jesus replied that, "if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out." If the stones can cry out praises to God, then what is it in them that is doing the crying out? I'm not trying to imply that there is "a piece of God" inside everything. I don't subscribe to that form of theology. However, I do think it's a fair question to ask, "How do we know that animals won't be in heaven? Why is a soul necessary and how do we know that animals don't have them? If God's creation can shout out in praise to him, then why would this creation be barred from residence in God's heavenly kingdom (or in the New Earth at the very least)? (2 Peter 3:13)"
Shown to the upper right are Queen Lizard and her original companion, Little Green Riding Hood, who passed on (to who knows where) about a year ago.
*pout* I guess lots of our animal friends are passing this week. Tell the kiddos I'm sorry and that while I'm not a "believer", I do think pets have souls.
ReplyDeletei'll let them know.
ReplyDeletethe girls were actually a bit excited that the poor queen passed on. (the lizards are nathan's pets.) they're hoping to get some little warm blooded critters when lizzie (the last remaining lizard) passes on. we looked at several rats at the pet store today when we went to pick up crickets (do THEY go to heaven? maybe not just "the lion will lay down with the lamb" but the lizard will lay down with the cricket as well....) and the girls have already decided on what color they want their rat. ;-) no rats till they can keep their room cleaner than iowa after a level 12 tornado rips through, though.
ReplyDeleteI think your inference, that the problem is not so much whether animals (or us) have souls but what the actual nature is of a soul hits the nail pretty smartly on the head.
Also there is a difference between old and new testaments in this regard. Old: Soul is very integrated, New: Soul gets split off from time to time.
Possibly we need to be aware of the Greek influence here too.
They will love having pet rats!! I'm looking forward to the future journal entries about it! *wink*
ReplyDelete"... even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow..." (Hebrews 4:12)
ReplyDeleteare joints and marrow even connected? isn't marrow the stuff inside the bone and aren't joints the connection on the outside?
here's a related question -- do angels have souls? if so, how do we know that?
Does this mean to imply that we have a soul and and spirit and a body? DesCartes had a categorical problem, but this expands it even more...
ReplyDeleteFor the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. - Hebrews 4:12
ReplyDeleteI really think that dividing soul and spirit is hyperbole. It's like "washes whiter than white".
In any case it's clearly metaphorical - I don't think it necessarily means that there is a difference between spirit and soul, although that may feature elsewhere.
From Darby's Literal Translation:
ReplyDelete11 May we be diligent, then, to enter into that rest, that no one in the same example of the unbelief may fall,
12 for the reckoning of God is living, and working, and sharp above every two-edged sword, and piercing unto the dividing asunder both of soul and spirit, of joints also and marrow, and a discerner of thoughts and intents of the heart;
13 and there is not a created thing not manifest before Him, but all things [are] naked and open to His eyes -- with whom is our reckoning.
Is the whole passage metaphorical, or just the portion? How do you tell? The surrounding examples are of things that are separate but joined (joints and marrow, thoughts and intents) so why conclude that soul and spirit isn't also literally two different things in the thoughts of the writer?
I think we judge by the intention of the writer. I'm not meaning to say that the writer didn't believe that soul and spirit were separable, only that it isn't the primary intention of the passage to say such things.
ReplyDeleteThe surrounding examples are of things that are separate but joined (joints and marrow, thoughts and intents) so why conclude that soul and spirit isn't also literally two different things in the thoughts of the writer?
Since his whole point is that the word of God is so "sharp", it may be that it can split things which aren't normally splittable, as well as those that are.
We can't assume that the fact that he puts "joints and marrow" next to "soul and spirit" means that the writer thought they are alike except for the fact that God can tell the difference if he needs to. Indeed the fact that he needs 3 examples may be because he wanted to show instances that weren't so alike.
Even if that were the case, then it still means that "soul" and "spirit" are two different things, even if they're so intertwined as to be "[not] normally splittable".
ReplyDeleteNot a huge deal, but something interesting that I had not picked up on during my own studies.
Rats are awesome pets, several of my friends have had them. I'd say I'd have them when I am older, but want several cats, and it wouldn't be fair on the rats.....
ReplyDeleteI agree that rats are awesome, as several of my blogs will attest to. We have 2 cats and 3 rats. While I find it necessary to keep an eye on the rats when they're out of their cage along with the occasional scare of one of the cats staring into the rat cages, I haven't found it to be at all unfair to the rats, nor any more dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI've had bad experiences with just the one cat and a hamster in the house. 2 hamsters died because of our cat, and I'd be too scared of it happening again. though it was because the cat was in the house and the hamsters escaped from their cages.
ReplyDeletethat's what i've always assumed -- we're trinitarian styled.
ReplyDeleteARE joints and marrow joined? i don't think i know enough about either to know. but i thought marrow was inside the bone and the joint was where the bone met another bone. do the marrow and the joint actually touch? or is the marrow entirely enclosed in bone?
ReplyDeletethis is a great conversation. rats and marrow and souls, oh my!
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't think so. But it would depend on what was meant by "joint" I think. Marrow's entirely encased within the bone, so unless "joint" means the end of the long bones themselves, they don't touch.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I agree. It all depends on what you mean by "joint".
ReplyDeleteThey are clearly two similar concepts with slightly different emphases.
ReplyDeleteWe tend to think of spirits as beings in their own right. Does God have a spirit or is he a spirit? (I'm asking from a semantic point of view rather than theological one).
great question!
ReplyDeletei think my initial reaction would be to say that he has a spirit (the holy one), but there's that niggly verse that says, "God is spirit and his worshippers must worship him in spirit and in truth" which could be taken to mean that he's all spirit or it could be like saying "humans are sentient." well, obviously my bare piggies aren't all that sentient. but in general, i'm a sentient being.
this is getting into awkward questions of trinity which, like questions about time travel or rob's cooking, can lead down paths that seem contrary, confusing and pointless to be arguing about. i try to avoid them. :-P
Right, but that difference is what seems to me what the author(s) focused on and leads me to believe s/he saw them as separate things, no matter how related they are.
ReplyDeleteAs for the question of whether this god is or has a spirit is one of the great philosophical is-a/has-a questions, isn't it? If it has a spirit, then what else composes this god? Or, if it is a spirit and not an aggregate, then what does that mean when taken with the claim that people also have spirits?