"Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood--I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, 'None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.'" (Leviticus 17:10-12 NIV)
I am often astonished at the favouritism people show to certain animals over others. When showing a slideshow of my photographs, everybody thinks bunnies and puppies are cute as anything, but gasps of disgust emanate from many of the viewers when they see a snake on the screen. It's not a matter of which animals are more dangerous. A harmless garter snake can be shown and it elicits the same response. Why, I can't help but think that a rabbit would do more bodily harm than that little snake! And it's not a matter of not knowing that an animal is harmless. Education isn't the issue. I've educated people as well as I know how, and they still have a illogical aversion toward the beautiful creature. It's an enigma.One thing that did pop out at me a couple days ago revealed something of how people justify their hatred for culturally unaccepted animals. I saw someone spot a nest of young golden orb-weavers (a kind of harmless garden spider that eats only insects and wont bite humans even when handled) and call for her father. The man promptly found a a pair of work gloves and attempted to quench their lives. He succeeded for the most part, though, when some escaped and ran panicking up his glove his eyes bugged out of his head in fear and he gasped in a momentary and brief panic attack. His urgency to destroy the infant spiders encouraged me to remain a silent observer up to this point. He was disturbingly determined to squelch that batch of harmless babies.
After things calmed down, I instructed him that the spiders that he had just killed were of a species that is of no harm to man, and actually benefit him in the management of pests in his garden. To this he replied in an irritated tone that he didn't like webs in his yard (the very mechanism that the spider designs to catch his garden pests) and that he had a right to kill spiders that were in his yard because they don't have nephesh life. The first comment about having a right to take life based on personal preference should be saved for another post, but he had a point with the nephesh life there.
 |
| Why do people have such an aversion to "creeping things?" This harmless garter snake, like most of God's smaller creatures, is stunningly beautiful. What's not to like about them? |
"This life" in the above verse from Leviticus is nephesh in the Hebrew. Also, Deuteronomy 12:23 says more clearly that "the blood is the life [nephesh]" (NIV). It seems to be the Biblical definition of what things may qualify for nephesh. They must have blood, because that is where the nephesh is. I had originally just assumed that insects had blood and, thus, they qualified. However, those of us not in the field of biology my doubt it, so here's some science.
Plants do not have blood. Blood serves a number of functions (like transporting water and nutrients or binding to oxygen with hemoglobin. Plants have fluids that transport water, but they are different than the fluids that transport nutrients. Some plants even have a hemoglobin-like molecule in their leaves, but it is not transported by a water based fluid. So, although plants perform the functions of blood, it isn't blood that performs these functions. They also lack plasma. No blood for plants.
Insects on the other hand have a fluid in their bodies that, is just like the blood of humans (complete with proteins and plasma), where it not for a few little differences. Vertebrate blood has hemoglobin with the base element of iron for the transportation of oxygen. Insects, on the contrary have a base atom of copper, so the molecule is called hemolymph rather than hemoglobin. It still serves the same function in the transportation of oxygen, though. Just a note: some invertebrates do have hemoglobin rather than hemolymph.
A more major difference between vertebrates and insects and their blood has nothing to do with the blood itself but, rather, the way it is distributed across the body for its functions. Vertebrates have a closed circulatory system, where blood flows through vessels and diffuses across the membrane of the capillary wall, and insects have an open circulatory system where the heart simply pumps blood directly into the nooks and crannies of the body without the use of vessels. But that wouldn't indicate that what the insect's heart pumps isn't real blood. So, scientifically, insects have blood and, therefore, nephesh.
So, there is absolutely no reason, given the above verses and science's confirmation, that we should doubt the nephesh status of invertebrates. However, there are other reasons.
The Bible is pretty clear that plants do not have nephesh life and are never actually described as dying in the Bible (rather, they "wither"). But what about invertebrates? Can we weed insects like plants simply based on personal preference? Or are they on an equal plane with other animals like dogs and horses having a "soul?"
If there was any doubt as to how important these nephesh creatures are to God, they were named by Adam in Genesis 2:19 at His prompting, they where brought on the ark in 9:10, and the sign of the rainbow was also for them along with man in 9:12. God certainly cares for his creatures (see better Biblical evidence for this at my link) and we should to.
Interestingly, the word "thing" in Genesis 1:21 ("every living and moving thing" NIV) is nephesh indicating that creatures of this level move. Invertebrates can definitely move (as Mom may testify when she stands on a chair in the kitchen screaming "spider!"). As another example, the word "creatures" in verse 24 of that chapter is the same word (nephesh) and is accompanied by a list: "Living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals" (NIV). In the KJV, the phrase "creatures that move along the ground" is a little more descriptive perhaps: "creeping things." Once again, I would say that insects qualify for nephesh! "Things that move along the ground" are distinctly stated to be of nephesh grouping in Genesis 1:30 (NIV). The seas are full of invertebrates and these too had nephesh life (Genesis 1:20 NIV). In Leviticus 11:46 the word is used again to describe the sorts of creatures described as clean and unclean in the preceding verses, which included "locusts, katydid, cricket or grasshopper [and] winged creatures that have four legs" (verses 22 and 23). The Bible gives absolutely no reason for us to think that invertebrates do not have nephesh life! In fact, as has just been demonstrated, it very clearly points to the contrary.
So, according to the Bible, we have no more right to kill an invertebrate in our yard than we do to kill the robin feeding on them (unless we have legitimate reasons like "It's going to hurt my kid if he touches it"). It is powerful evidence from the Bible that supports a higher standard for viewing the importance of all life.
Because this is a reposting of an older post (May 27, 2013) before some of my renovations began, I would like to include some of the questions and comments I got for this post. Many are quite valid and address points of view not mentioned in the main text. You might find the original in the archives on my Biblical page, but here they are for your convienience.
My Mom commented on June 6:
I don't know too much about the science of 'nephesh', but I do believe that it all comes down to being good stewards with God's creation regardless of whether it is plant,vertebrate or invertebrate. I for one appreciate the 'good' invertebrates that eat pesty insects and bugs in my gardens, and you would be surprised to see what I consider 'good'. I also do NOT appreciate certain vertebrates roaming around my yard leaving their excrement in my wood piles, my gardens or yard. When it comes to creatures large and small, the great outdoors can belong to all in a balanced and controlled way. I don't want to intrude in the natural homes of creatures and I don't want them in mine. Although, I respect the necessity to be good stewards of creation, I do not believe that there should be the same regard for them as for humans. Humans have an eternal soul destined for either heaven or hell and for that I believe we should care for the sanctity of human life. As for creatures, no, I don't hold them in the same hand so to speak, but that doesn't mean that one should just carelessly go out and cull any creature that 'bothers' us or that we are 'afraid' of. Again, I do believe that it comes down to looking at life, in all of its aspects, with a Biblical point of view, and to try, with the best of our ability, to respect all of God's creatures and to be good, wise and not wasteful stewards of all of God's creation.
p.s. we need to also be gentle towards folks who have differences of opinions :^) and... I have never stood on a chair and screamed over a spider :^)
I replied on June 10:
Thanks for the comment. Just two things. First, I tend to avoid using the word "steward" because, while it is an accurate description of our relationship with this planet in a sense, it has become trite and many who claim stewardship seem to fall short of what it means to care for creation. "King" is a better word I think (see Genesis 1:28). Or maybe Duke. Jesus is the King.
Secondly, animals are certainly not equal with man. However, animal life is far more important than is generally believed among Christians. In essence, our view of human life aught to be much higher and our view of animal life should be closer to how we view human life at present (I speak in a broad sense). To cull an animal population as management is acceptable, but to cull a human population (abortion) is unacceptable. More on this can be found at my home page.
Sarah Elizabeth commented on June 6:
I guess I shan't tell a soul when I see a spider nest then...my lips are sealed.
And I replied on June 10:
Ha, ha, ha! Of course, if it were a nest of highly poisonous spiders that posed a threat to human life, you may want to report that.
Then things got really interesting. Daniel Bomske commented on June 12:
I haven't read the previous comments yet, so bear with me if I repeat things already mentioned. Here's my comments:
I have a beef with the sentence: "The first excuse wasn't even worthy of being addressed, but he had a point with the nephesh life there."
I disagree. I think the opposite is true. The argument of nephesh, though interesting on a scientific and theological issue, does not really seem to come into play in the aforementioned scenario.
We, as humans, have dominion over God's creation. While this is DEFINITELY not an excuse to be wasteful, it has certain implications. If we want a bearskin rug to look nice on the floor (weirdos) than we have the go-ahead by God to go kill the bear. We cannot waste it, however, and the meat etc. should be used as well.
This goes for the spider example as well. It is a hassle to have a nest of several hundred little spiders on a chair or deck and end up crawling all over one's self. It also, as the 'man' said, creates webs all over his yard and house. This is not only cosmetically displeasing (MOST people dislike the "spider web look"...), but also can become an annoyance as well. Since we have God-given permission to exercise our dominion and subdue the earth, we have also have permission to remove (kill a spider or remove a web) or prevent (kill spider nests) these displeasing events from happening.
This argument cannot be taken to an extreme, however (like all arguments). If a spider is in the corner of the shed, leave it be. Don't go killing spiders found in the garden. They are a VITAL part of the domestic ecosystem and as was mentioned in the blog keep pests down. If we didn't have spiders I'd move to the moon!
I guess what I'm saying is we have permission by God to exercise our dominion in relation to our living our lives. If we go out of our way to wastefully kill things for spite (or out of FEAR, which happens to be a sin...) than that would be unethical.
I replied that same day:
Hey! Thanks for the chalanging comments! I regret coming across the way I did on that comment. Everyone has their own excuses for why they do things that make sense to themselves, and I suppose everything should be addressed whether I think so or not.
The reason I addressed nephesh life in regards to insects is because, it is argued, that if they don't have nephesh life, then they would have died before the fall like plants did, thus making it equally fine to kill invertebrates and plants alike. As you read, this is not the case biblically and invertebrates are on the same level as other animals. But that's great if you don't think that it is a good excuse to kill invertebrates.
As for your other thinking, to "have dominion over" (KJV) is certainly a Biblical concept (I usually refer to it in its more contemporary translation of "rule over" (NIV), and indeed we need to be sure we are not wasteful. There is nothing wrong with using animal products and resources, as long as the creatures was killed in a humane way and, again, we aren't wasteful. I agree with you there too.
Unfortunately, there is no "using of resources" involved with squelching a batch of baby spiders. As I mentioned to Sarah Elizabeth, if the spiders were highly venomous and posed a threat to human life, then there would definitely be a cause for removing them. However, I think a little education will clear up some of your knowledge about these spiders. As to webs: Spider webs, regardless of the kind, are incredible masterpieces of engineering and design and, personally, I would feel honoured if a spider chose to use my house as a pedestal (I guess I like the "spider web look"). However, it is true that some spiders create large cobwebs that can be, to most eyes at any rate, very "cosmetically displeasing" but education is the key. You see, the creatures in our region that, as juveniles, huddle together in a mass known as a "spider nest" is, in fact, the garden orb-weaving spider. These spiders do not create cobwebs. They create a web that is so beautiful, that it has been the subject of many camera lenses. They nearly always construct their webs between two objects less than a meter apart which is usually out of the way. If they do build one that is in a walkway (between to gate posts, for example) then one can break it down and, nearly always, the spider gets the message and builds someplace else where you can enjoy without running into it (spiders are among the smartest animals in the world). It's little inconvenience to the spider, who can build a new web in less than an hour if need be. If you do run through one of their webs, use logic, not fear, and remember that the little spider panicking down your arm, is intent only on escape; garden spiders don't bite people (I've handled them on many occasions) and the nest of babies would be incapable of doing so.
I don't think God ever gave us permission to kill an animal because we disliked it, because it made us uncomfortable, or because it was a "hassle" to see them (see my "Love Creation" page). I am glad you appreciate the ecological role of spiders, however, and I really appreciate the comment. It's good to think about why we do what we do.
Daniel came back with the following, again on the 12:
The key to your entire argument is "I don't think" (last paragraph). The word (subdue) or (dominion) I guess is subjective. If it is cosmetically unpleasing I view that as alright. You don't. The Bible is not clear. If the Bible is not clear, than then it must not be an important issue. If it's not an important issue then people have no right to attempt to so adamantly say that their OPINION is TRUTH.
Your house and yard is full of cobwebs. You don't kill spiders. That's ok to God. His house has no cobwebs. He kills spiders but is not wasteful. That's ok to God. If it bothers your conscience, it's sin to you. (Romans 14:14 "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.") This is the principle of convictions, but only applies to that which is not clearly stated in scripture. Killing spiders (or animals in general) for purposes other than safety and food (but still unwasteful) is not clearly stated. Thus, it's a matter of convictions.
Paul shook of the snake into the fire. He could have let it go. What about invasive species? Is it ok to kill them? It's not their fault. So now we are killing animals because it DISPLEASES us that they might be replacing other animals. Why not let them figure it out for themselves? Why not completely stay out of it? Because we are told to have dominion over the earth. If it displeases us (in an unwasteful way) we are permitted to do something about it.
I was a little taken aback by this and replied a couple days later on the 14th:
Those are strong words, Daniel. "I don't think" was a diplomatic way of saying that God certainly did not give us permission to kill things whenever we want. Search your Bible, it's not there. Yes, subdue and dominion are very subjective words and those commands must be balanced with our perception of the rest of the Bible. The Bible is, in fact, quite clear on this. Rather than repeating what I have already said, I encourage you to read my "Love Creation" page and perhaps my other "Love" pages. You will find Biblical answers there.
Convictions or no, God has permitted many things in the past (e.g. Matthew 19:8). Sometimes what God permits and what is the best course of action are different. You may chose something that is fine, but you've missed what is best. Think of Saul when he did what was good, but it was not what was best (1 Samuel 13). In that case, though it usually is not, he suffered serious consequences. How is killing something because you don't want it not wasteful.
I'll admit that some of these things are grey. Exactly what to do is debatable. However, our attitude toward nature is clear (again, see my "Love Creation" page) and it would not permit wasteful killing. With this in mind and in regards to Paul's snake, I think Paul understood that the snake was dangerous (a viper) and chose to dispose of it. I think I might have just moved it to a different location, myself, but then again, I think I would have been in rougher shape than Paul after being bitten. See my comment to Sarah. The point of that is, human safety comes first. Excellent point regarding introduced species. A perfect example where "ruling" over creation is our responsibility. We don't do it because it displeases us, rather, we do it because God has commanded us to rule it. I still don't see how destroying the lives of spiders because we don't like them is unwasteful, especially in light of spider ecology and biology. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
Thus our little discussion was ended. I like how Daniel pointed out that fear was a sin. Very good point on this topic. As you can see, there is some grey ground involved with determining exactly when it is appropriate to take a life.
No comments:
Post a Comment