Man's Stewardship Position (# 8 in a series)

At this point, #8, I am about halfway through my notes on the subject of Pets in Heaven. I cannot be sure that I am halfway through writing the series because God may show me more, or I may decide that something I thought was relevant before really isn't. Unlike a college term paper, I never know exactly where I am ending when I write for my blog—I simply start out in a general direction to an end point, and that may be at the end of a circuitous trail, or it may be a straight shot down a highway. For this series, the end point is that ultimately your pets will be in Heaven because you love them. But first... 

In today's blog, we are going to look at the God-ordained stewardship that God placed on Adam, and how this affected the relationship between animals and humans. Hopefully we can find some evidence that our stewardship position over our pets gives us the authority to "love them into Heaven."

Our steward assignment is initially and clearly stated in Genesis 1:26 when God is speaking as His triune-Self and making an announcement to the witnesses around the Throne. That would almost certainly include the four living creatures described later in Ezekiel and Revelation, and most probably quite a few other high-ranking eternal beings. And unless you are ready to argue that the first chapter of Job is allegory only,  Lucifer would have been there. The two points that are important for the Pets-in-Heaven quest are these:  1. God spoke a purposeful Declaration of Intent to Create, and 2. there were witnesses.  

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, to rule the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, all wild animals on earth, and all reptiles that crawl upon the earth (the creatures that move along the ground)."

He made man to rule. In many of the classic translations, the phrase "to rule" is rendered "let them have dominion."

As a kid, I thought this was fairly straightforward; humans are in charge over animals. When I researched it for this blog, however, 👀!  Let's just say the debate was fairly eye-opening.
For example, Gill's Exposition says that having dominion means "to make use of it (the animals) as should seem convenient for them (humans)." I'm thinking that Gill, who wrote his commentary between 1746 and 1763, would probably want to phrase that differently if he were writing today because the common usage for the word "convenient" has changed over time. In that era, it meant suitable. For Gill, if a food was convenient, it would be suitable for his body, having the right mix of nutrients to make him strong and give him energy, whereas today, convenient would mean suitable for our schedule and ready-to-eat in just minutes. I don't want to get too far off-topic about our pets-in-heaven quest, but if we are going to keep a well-rounded perspective, I probably need to interject this:
→  Having dominion includes the foundational authority for making animal sacrifice. We know that God has a respect for animal blood because he accepted it as a covering for sin. Far spread in both time and geography, this dominion over animals has been abused in pagan sacrifices and luciferian rituals to fallen spiritual entities. We can deduce some good news/bad news conclusions here. The bad news is that dominion has been misused to further corruption. The good news is that God valued animal blood highly enough to accept it; the purpose may seem grisly to contemporary sensibilities, but blood from clean animals was valued nevertheless.    

The "them" in "let them have dominion" is sometime disputed as meaning either Adam and Eve specifically, or as humankind in general. I do not know Greek grammar and have no opinion in that respect, but most scholars whose views I have read are on the side of "them" being all humankind. I don't see why it could not be both.
It makes sense to me that conferring dominion over animals was first a decision by God, then a directive given to Adam, and that eventually Adam would commission all his heirs with that authority. By Genesis 4, first-generation Abel is caring for flocks.

The herdsman is the first and probably the most obvious biblical example of man's rule over animals, but a web-search will turn up quite a lot of interesting-in-a-nerdy-way speculation over what is meant by "having dominion."¹  For the purpose of out Pets in Heaven question, we can simplify this to say, despite what may be going on in those little animal brains (and those of cats in particular), it is the human that has authority over his or her pet, not the other way around.

Two verses after His Declaration of Intent to Create Man, in Genesis 1:28, God speaks to the now fully-formed Adam and his wife. The "Man's Dominion Plan" is expanded upon with five verbs in three sets.
A. pertaining to human beings
   1. be fruitful
   2. multiply
B. pertaining to the earth
   3. fill
   4. subdue
C. pertaining to every living thing that moves
   5. rule over

And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Scripture establishes that animals are under human dominion on Earth. It is also significant that God said this before the fall. That makes it more of a job description than a direct order.  The precise boundary between those may seem blurred, but a job description has more personal discretion about how to get the job done, while a direct order will have strict consequences for non-compliance. Before the fall, Adam had only one direct order, "Do not eat that." But when it came to being fruitful, multiplying, filling, subduing, and ruling, Adam was being appointed to fill those positions in creation. They are not one-man jobs. They are the positions humanity was created to fill on Earth.

Things Get Complicated

In Eden, the five "job assignments" listed above would have been toil-free. The work would have been delightfully fulfilling to man and joyously pleasing to God. Adam's disobedience and the subsequent fall of mankind changed many things in the environment, and after the Flood in the days of Noah radical changes would take place again.

Some theologians teach that man lost his "dominion mandate" over animals. Some give very persuasive speeches. I have several reasons for believing they are wrong, which I will cover in the rest of this blog post. If they are correct and man did lose his authority over animals, we have very little standing when we ask God to keep our specific pet in Heaven just for us.  On the other hand, if mankind retained this authority after Eden, then we have not only legal standing, but also a duty of stewardship over out pets.

The typical "Our dominion was relinquished by the fall" argument goes something like this:

 Snakes and wasps bite and sting. Some dogs maul their owners. Tiger tamers have been killed and orca trainers have been drowned. Most wild animals flee in fear from man, and those that don't will savagely attack. Why, God Himself says that man cannot even put a nose-ring in behemoth (Job 40:24)! Man has never been able to make the lion lie down with the lamb.  Clearly, mankind has no rule, control, right, or power over these creatures—therefore, his dominion must have been revoked.

To counter an argument like that, we need to decide if God's declaration, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over (animals)," is physical-realm decree only, or if it pertained to spirit and soul as well. I think that as we work our way through the counter-argument, it will become clear that the connection with animals is beyond the physical body only, and that our dominion was not permanently revoked, only radically changed by the fall.

Some of my readers are going to find this first point to be either too flakey or too mystic to suit them. That's okay; our Western culture has trained us to think in terms of the scientific and the concrete.  The pet-in-heaven question does not stand or fall on this first part, and I will be adding more scripture-based content later, but an awareness of the spiritual happenings in the Garden of Eden can increase our understanding and may even offer an additional layer of comfort.

We know that by the end of the sixth day of creation, God saw all that He had made and judged that it was "very good," Genesis 1:31.  The "very good" status would include not only Adam's body, but also his purpose, his abilities, and his communication skills. The animals were also part of the creation judged as very good, and they were given skills and abilities commensurate with their purpose. When anthropologists study ancient civilizations, they find that one common thread among the legends is that at the beginning of the world animals once talked. I am not going to claim that animals in Eden had the muscular structure and nervous system control to form spoken words, but I do think this points to a universal support that man and animals once had communication skills that were greatly enhanced from what we experience today. I am not comfortable calling it "mental telepathy" either, but I do believe that in some measure, Adam was able to "tune in" to the needs and desires of the animals that he was to rule over. It is against the nature of God to give him an assignment without equipping him for the task. This would indicate that the authority to rule over animals was more than simply physical. 

There is little doubt that the animal kingdom was altered by the fall, but Genesis 3:14 provides this information indirectly. God, speaking to the serpent, says, "Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field."  With the logic of the Mad Hatter tea party, when Alice is asked if she'd like more tea, and she replies, "Well, I haven't had any yet, so I can't very well take more," we work out that if the serpent was more cursed, the cattle and the beasts were somewhat cursed. 

Some of the stronger evidence of  the fall's effect on animals in early Genesis is actually found in the parallel effect on the plant kingdom.   Thistles and thorns sprang up from the direct curse of the ground, but because plants were the food source for all creation, we would expect collateral damage for animals. Genesis 3:17-18 reads, "Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;" Life became harder and full of struggle, but the original mandate was not revoked.  Adam was not relieved of his duty, but was transferred out of the home office in Eden to go colonize the wilderness. And now that the animals were getting a substandard diet, they lost some of their ability to communicate and became irritable. When it rains, it pours,

The Woodpecker on the Ark

...which happens to be a perfect segue to talk about the the flood of Noah's day.  God has decided that it is time to hit the reset button. He proceeds with His plan to wipe out all humanity except for eight persons on an ark. And what is Noah's main job when cataclysmic catastrophe hits? Steward over animal life!  He is ruling, exercising dominion over the land animals. It is hard to imagine a more dramatic confirmation than this to show that God still expected His original declaration of man's rule over living beings to remain in effect. At least Noah caught a break with the aquatic animals being able to fend for themselves. 

After the waters receded, God reiterates to Noah the declaration that he had made at the time of creation of man:  

God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear and terror of you will be in every living creature on the earth, every bird of the sky, every creature that crawls on the ground, and all the fish of the sea. They are placed under your authority.
But you, be fruitful and multiply; spread out over the earth and multiply on it." Then God said to Noah and his sons with him, "Understand that I am confirming My covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you—birds, livestock, and all wildlife of the earth that are with you—all the animals of the earth that came out of the ark.  
Genesis 9:1-2, 7-10  Holman Christian Standard Bible®

Some Bible teachers believe that this Noahic covenant replaces what God first declared in Genesis 1:28, and they teach that man's dominion over animals was either revoked or lost because the 1. be fruitful, 2. multiply, and 3. fill parts are still an exact match, but the 4. subdue and 5. rule-over parts are not.  I do not see it that way. It seems to me that this augments and adapts the original to fit a post-flood environment, but that it never changes God's original intent. The fear and terror of mankind will be in every living creature now, so God adapted the subduing and ruling to a more realistic level by saying "They are placed under your authority," or "into your hand are they delivered" in the King James version, Genesis 9:2.²

We have indications that Jesus' disciples understood and accepted man's dominion over animals. When Jesus used this precept in making a soul analogy, Peter clearly understood what was meant by "Feed my sheep." Not only was he being instructed to provide believers with the truth of the Word, but he was also being given a shepherd's authority—this is the paradox of ruling as a servant; it is stewardship authority. This particular authority, under God, was conferred to Peter by Jesus. Not any random person pulled off the street has the authority to feed Jesus' sheep; but my point here is that it is a picture of how God designed our designated dominion to work.  

Our dominion (רָדָה Strongs H7287) is a stewardship dominion, that is, we rule over animals to serve God's glory, not our own.   Do you remember the Westminster Shorter Catechism? 

Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever. 

That is how our dominion over animals is to be used: to glorify God. We cannot fulfill it perfectly because we are not in an Edenic environment, but it is a skill that we will be called to use in our future home with God. There is coming a restoration of all things—
Peter, speaking at Solomon's colonnade, said, "Repent, then, and turn back, so that your sins may be wiped away, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that He may send Jesus, the Christ, who has been appointed for you.  Heaven must take Him in until the time comes for the restoration of all things, which God announced long ago through His holy prophets," Acts 3:19-21.

A Two-Point Takeaway
Given all this information, I come to two conclusions that promote our Pets-in-Heaven investigation. 

First, God designed humanity with a complete array of attributes needed to exercise our stewardship over fish, birds, reptiles, wild animals, livestock, and all forms of animals in which there is the breath of life.  That "Complete Array" goes beyond tending to physical needs to include relating to animals at the level of their soul as well, whereby we can communicate approval, displeasure when necessary, and even love. God has designed us with an affinity for animals. These are skills that we do well to develop while we are here on Earth because they will be needed when we "reign with Christ."

Secondly, animals in general, and pets in particular, were given to help train us for our place in the age to come.  That gives animals value, because they glorify God by assisting us in reaching our eventual destiny that is sung about in Revelation 5:10, "And they sang a new song: 'Worthy are You (Jesus) to take the scroll and open its seals, because You were slain, and by Your blood You purchased for God those from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them into a kingdom, priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.'"

 Man's stewardship over animals is then a symbiotic relationship. We benefit from our relationship with animals and they benefit from their relationship with us.  Our pets are actually smack-dab in the center of God's design when they accept our benevolent rule over them.
 
There is a verse in the book of Ruth that, on the surface, seems to have nothing to do with pets in heaven.  But it does reveal the nature of God's character, and so in that regard it applies. 
 "May the LORD reward your work, and your wages be full from the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to seek refuge," Ruth 2:10.
It would not be out of character for God to reward a pet that has served a human by allowing it admission to Heaven.





Footnotes

¹ Remembering that since only plants had been "given for food" at this point in history, one of the debates is over dairy products. We assume Eve nursed her children, so Cain was not strictly vegan. Flocks have many non-food uses; one commonly overlooked is lanolin in sheep, which is used to keep skin soft and would have been valuable in the thorns & thistles environment outside the garden. 

 ²  Another school of thought claims that Adam lost his dominion over animals at the time of the fall, and that his dominion was transferred to Satan. I am skipping that in this post because (a) a full rebuttal would require a long, long explanation of what happened in the spiritual realm and its impact on our terrestrial realm, and (b) it is not really necessary since Genesis 9:2 says "every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are delivered." So even if that was the case, there was at least a modified restoration after the flood. Besides which, that view argues for an Adam-sourced dominion that I am not proposing here; I am building the case for stewardship dominion that is delegated to man, but fundamentally God-sourced.

John Wesley, Outtakes from The General Deliverance (#7 in a series)

#7 in a series on will my pets be in heaven?

Hearing from God takes many forms: visions, audible voice,  prophetic exhortations, words of knowledge, enlightenment from reading scripture, an inward witness, etc.  In Luke 1:3,¹ Luke tells how he "heard" that he should write what came to be known as the Gospel of Luke. He said, "it seemed good to me," or "it seemed fitting," depending on which translation you use.  When I was researching for my last post on how other theologians answer the pets-in-heaven question, I came across an archive of John Wesley's sermons, and "it seemed good to me" to explore the one titled "The General Deliverance" further. 

A bit of deduction is involved since Wesley was not directly talking about pets being in heaven, but below are some of the more pertinent quotes about animals and afterlife from his sermon on the eventual general deliverance of all creation. I have heavily edited it, removing everything that does not push my point, but you can read it in its entirety here:
Wesley's The General Deliverance

John Wesley lived during the 1700s, so a lot of his verbs end with "-eth" instead of "-ed."  I think you can handle the slightly outdated language and British vowel spelling, however. So while I have deleted many paragraphs, the language remains "as is" on the portions that I have kept. His sermon is in this color. My own comments are added in italic and any underlining in the sermon text was added by me to help find what my comments refer to. The numbering system may seem erratic because it would restart with each subheading, which I have not included. I left the numbering system in place just in case you wanted to compare it with the full text, so if you don't, just ignore them.

His scripture text for this sermon was:
 "The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that subjected it: Yet in hope that the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth, and travaileth in pain together until now." Rom. 8:19-22.


 
1. Nothing is more sure, than that as "the Lord is loving to every man," so "his mercy is over all his works;" all that have sense, all that are capable of pleasure or pain, of happiness or misery. In consequence of this, "He openeth his hand, and filleth all things living with plenteousness. He prepareth food for cattle," as well as "herbs for the children of men." He provideth for the fowls of the air, "feeding the young ravens when they cry unto him." "He sendeth the springs into the rivers, that run among the hills, to give drink to every beast of the field," and that even "the wild asses may quench their thirst." And, suitably to this, he directs us to be tender of even the meaner creatures; to show mercy to these also. "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn:" — A custom which is observed in the eastern countries even to this day. And this is by no means contradicted by St. Paul's question: "Doth God take care for oxen" Without doubt he does. (...)

   Wesley establishes that deliverance is for the whole of creation, animals as well as man.

We may inquire, in the First place, What was the original state of the brute creation And may we not learn this, even from the place which (Adam) was assigned them; namely, the garden of God All the beasts of the field, and all the fowls of the air, were with Adam in paradise. ...  He was endued with a will, exerting itself in various affections and passions: And, lastly, with liberty, or freedom of choice; without which all the rest would have been in vain, and he would have been no more capable of serving his Creator than a piece of earth or marble; he would have been as incapable of vice or virtue, as any part of the inanimate creation. In these, in the power of self-motion, understanding, will, and liberty, the natural image of God consisted.

   He describes the importance of free choice... at which point I've deleted a passage where Wesley preaches on the perfection of the man Adam, including his harmony with of all the creatures in the animal kingdom.

To this creature (Adam the Human) endued with all these excellent faculties, thus qualified for his high charge, God said, "Have thou dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Gen. 1:28.) And so the Psalmist: "Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field, the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." (Psalm 8:6, &c.) So that man was God's vicegerent (like a deputy administrator) upon earth, the prince and governor of this lower world; and all the blessings of God flowed through him to the inferior creatures. Man was the channel of conveyance between his Creator and the whole brute creation.

   The concept of our dominion and authority is important if we are going to make the argument that Pugsley, a specific pet, will be in heaven, as opposed to generic bulldogs existing in heaven. God has animals in heaven because He likes animals, but for "our" pets to be there in the role of  belonging as "ours," our authority and free will have to be a part of the picture. Now, we do know that although ultimately all things "belong" to God, Jesus was very specific that He was going to prepare a place just for us, a heavenly mansion that would be "our place." And what is a mansion without a house pet? Incomplete.   

4. But what blessings were those that were then conveyed through man to the lower creatures What was the original state of the brute creatures, when they were first created This deserves a more attentive consideration than has been usually given it. It is certain these, as well as man, had an innate principle of self-motion; and that, at least, in as high a degree as they enjoy it at this day. Again: They were endued with a degree of understanding; not less than that they are possessed of now. They had also a will, including various passions, which, likewise, they still enjoy: And they had liberty, a power of choice; a degree of which is still found in every living creature. Nor can we doubt but their understanding too was, in the beginning, perfect in its kind. Their passions and affections were regular, and their choice always guided by their understanding.

   Wesley takes the conveyance-through-man concept full circle: Not only does mankind have authority over animals, animals receive blessings from mankind.

5. What then is the barrier between men and brutes the line which they cannot pass It was not reason. Set aside that ambiguous term: Exchange it for the plain word, understanding: and who can deny that brutes have this We may as well deny that they have sight or hearing. But it is this: Man is capable of God; the inferior creatures are not. We have no ground to believe that they are, in any degree, capable of knowing, loving, or obeying God. This is the specific difference between man and brute; the great gulf which they cannot pass over. And as a loving obedience to God was the perfection of man, so a loving obedience to man was the perfection of brutes.

  Wesley did not find any biblical grounds for thinking that animals can know, love, or obey God; yet we know that animals can know, love, and obey humans.  
  This 'God : man :: man : animal'  analogy is also found in the writing of C S Lewis. This is foundational to the argument of some scholars that animal souls which are developed enough to be self-aware and capable of choosing love and obedience are developed enough to exist in the spiritual dimension of heaven, whereas lower forms of animal life are "soulless" and cannot. 

   I would like to point out, briefly, that the "Earth was created with Heaven's blueprint" concept figures into play here: that we have animals on Earth because they first existed in Heaven. Our question is, "Can they get back?" If the ability to love outside one's self figures into it, then there may be more to Muskrat Love than we first realized!     

And as long as they (the animals of Eden) continued in this, they were happy after their kind; happy in the right state and the right use of their respective faculties. Yea, and so long they had some shadowy resemblance of even moral goodness. For they had gratitude to man for benefits received, and a reverence for him. They had likewise a kind of benevolence to each other, unmixed with any contrary temper. How beautiful many of them were, we may conjecture from that which still remains; and that not only in the noblest creatures, but in those of the lowest order. And they were all surrounded, not only with plenteous food, but with every thing that could give them pleasure; pleasure unmixed with pain; for pain was not yet; it had not entered into paradise. And they too were immortal: For "God made not death; neither hath he pleasure in the death of any living."

>> A substantial section of the sermon is omitted here where Wesley makes the point that though no fault of their own, animals were affected by Adam's sin and became like... well, animals.

2. Nothing can be more express: Away with vulgar prejudices, and let the plain word of God take place. They (the whole animal creation) "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into glorious liberty," — even a measure, according as they are capable, — of "the liberty of the children of God."

A general view of this is given us in the twenty-first chapter of the Revelation. When He that "sitteth on the great white throne" hath pronounced, "Behold, I make all things new;" when the word is fulfilled, "The tabernacle of God is with men, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them and be their God;" — then the following blessing shall take place (not only on the children of men; there is no such restriction in the text; but) on every creature according to its capacity: "God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying. Neither shall there be any more pain: For the former things are passed away."

   The view from Revelation reinforces what was introduced earlier—before, we spoke of the capacity to love, and now the scriptures approach it from the side of capacity to feel sorrow. Our pets feel the sorrow of loss just as they have the capacity to love. I like this quote from Kate Braestrurp, a chaplain to game wardens, "Grief is love squaring up to its oldest enemy."
  
3. To descend to a few particulars: The whole brute creation will then, undoubtedly, be restored, not only to the vigour, strength, and swiftness which they had at their creation, but to a far higher degree of each than they ever enjoyed. They will be restored, not only to that measure of understanding which they had in paradise, but to a degree of it as much higher than that, as the understanding of an elephant is beyond that of a worm. And whatever affections they had in the garden of God, will be restored with vast increase; being exalted and refined in a manner which we ourselves are not now able to comprehend. The liberty they then had will be completely restored, and they will be free in all their motions. They will be delivered from all irregular appetites, from all unruly passions, from every disposition that is either evil in itself, or has any tendency to evil. No rage will be found in any creature, no fierceness, no cruelty, or thirst for blood. So far from it that "the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid; the calf and the young lion together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain." (Isaiah 11:6, &c.)

4. Thus, in that day, all the vanity to which they are now helplessly subject will be abolished; they will suffer no more, either from within or without; the days of their groaning are ended.

   Bible timelines can get confusing fast, but the Great White Throne is at the end of the biblical timeline. I doubt that anyone who is asking the "Will my pet be in Heaven?" question in 2017 would be fully satisfied with the answer that, "Yes, your pet will be restored when God makes all things new, but you'll have to wait out the Millennial Reign of Christ first." We will have to save the "when" mortal puts on immortality issues for later.  The takeaway point is that God's character is that of Restorer. 

5.(...) God regards his meanest (lowliest) creatures much; but he regards man much more. He does not equally regard a hero and a sparrow; the best of men and the lowest of brutes. "How much more does your heavenly Father care for you!" says He "who is in the bosom of his Father." Those who thus strain the point, are clearly confuted by his question, "Are not ye much better than they" Let it suffice, that God regards everything that he hath made, in its own order, and in proportion to that measure of his own image which he has stamped upon it.

    Wesley speculates about promotion and utility for another couple of paragraphs at this point, but in the end he summarizes that God makes decisions for His glory even though we may not understand. 

... To consider so much as we do understand, so much as God has been pleased to reveal to us, may answer that excellent end — to illustrate that mercy of God which "is over all his works."  ...  If "the Lord will save," as the inspired writer affirms, "both man and beast," in their several degrees, surely "the children of men may put their trust under the shadow of his wings!"

   Wesley encourages his audience that the saving mercy of God's character includes all His works.   

9. May it not answer another end; namely, furnish us with a full answer to a plausible objection against the justice of God, in suffering numberless creatures that never had sinned to be so severely punished They could not sin, for they were not moral agents. Yet how severely do they suffer! — yea, many of them, beasts of burden in particular, almost the whole time of their abode on earth; So that they can have no retribution here below. But the objection vanishes away, if we consider that something better remains after death for these poor creatures also; that these, likewise, shall one day be delivered from this bondage of corruption, and shall then receive an ample amends for all their present sufferings.

   Wesley clearly believed that "something better remains after death" for animals.  I suppose you could try and argue that he meant as a species, not as individual animals. He is not around to ask for clarification on this, but that puts the suffering on generations that have no recourse to change their situation and puts the reward on distant offspring—so we must judge that idea by asking if that truly reflects God's character. In Exodus 34:7² God limits this to three or four generations, within living memory, not until the end of days.
   For me, taking Wesley's statement at face value means that at whatever level of soul an animal has, the degree to which it submitted or complied with God's ordinance that Man have authority over it will determine its future state.  True, many animals in the wild live their entire life without ever coming in contact with humans, but there are also humans who live their whole lives without ever hearing the Gospel.  For both, we have to trust that God's justice is big enough to cover that; and we are responsible only for what we have been given. 

10. One more excellent end may undoubtedly be answered by the preceding considerations. They may encourage us to imitate Him whose mercy is over all his works. They may soften our hearts towards the meaner creatures, knowing that the Lord careth for them. It may enlarge our hearts towards those poor creatures, to reflect that, as vile as they appear in our eyes, not one of them is forgotten in the sight of our Father which is in heaven. Through all the vanity to which they are now subjected, let us look to what God hath prepared for them. Yea, let us habituate ourselves to look forward, beyond this present scene of bondage, to the happy time when they will be delivered therefrom into the liberty of the children of God.

   When Wesley "gives advice" such as this in his sermon, it helps our understand to remember the cultural climate that he was speaking in.  Born an Englishman,  living from 1703 to 1791, Wesley was in his prime of life a century and a half before gasoline powered automobiles were invented. He would have been very familiar with horses used for transportation and donkeys and oxen used for plows. He visited America in 1736 with the intent of preaching to Native American Indians, and although that did not work out,² it did expand his world view. His life spanned many major changes in British politics including the the loss of the American colonies as they won their war for independence from British rule.  With this in mind, it is easy to see why he was motivated to say, "let us habituate ourselves to look forward."

11. From what has been said, I cannot but draw one inference, which no man of reason can deny. If it is this which distinguishes men from beasts, — that they are creatures capable of God, capable of knowing and loving and enjoying him; then whoever is "without God in the world," whoever does not know or love or enjoy God, and is not careful about the matter, does, in effect, disclaim the nature of man, and degrade himself into a beast. Let such vouchsafe (concede, grant in a condescending manner) a little attention to those remarkable words of Solomon: "I said in my heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, — They might see that they themselves are beasts." (Eccles. 3:18.) These sons of men are undoubtedly beasts; and that by their own act and deed; for they deliberately and wilfully disclaim the sole characteristic of human nature. It is true, they may have a share of reason; they have speech, and they walk erect; but they have not the mark, the only mark, which totally separates man from the brute creation. "That which befalleth beasts, the same thing befalleth them." They are equally without God in the world; "so that a man" of this kind "hath no pre-eminence above a beast."

   I think I left this section in only because it used the word, "vouchsafe." 🤔 It does not contribute directly to our exploration of pets in heaven. However, I plan to eventually address the contrast between man and beasts in Ecclesiastes 3, so there may be some "perspective" benefit in it. 

12. So much more let all those who are of a nobler turn of mind assert the distinguishing dignity of their nature. Let all who are of a more generous spirit know and maintain their rank in the scale of beings. Rest not till you enjoy the privilege of humanity — the knowledge and love of God. Lift up your heads, ye creatures capable of God! Lift up your hearts to the Source of your being!

Know God, and teach your souls to know The joys that from religion flow.

Give your hearts to Him who, together with ten thousand blessings, has given you his Son, his only Son! Let your continual "fellowship be with the Father, and with his Son, Jesus Christ!" Let God be in all your thoughts, and ye will be men indeed. Let him be your God and your All, — the desire of your eyes, the joy of your heart, and your portion for ever.

   Wesley's conclusion also has little that directly applies to our main topic of pets being in heaven, but I had two reasons for keeping in this post. (1) You've read this far, you might as well see how he closed his sermon with a call to give God your heart, and (2) I was stunned by the line, "and ye will be men indeed."   Granted, I have not attended any all-male conferences to hear what they talk about, but the idea that "letting God be in all your thoughts makes you a real man" is not one that I have heard preached from today's pulpits. Not only would that make you a real man, but you'd be a better pet owner, the good women would love it! 



Footnotes
¹ Luke 1:3, It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

² Exodus 34:7 He graciously loves thousands, and forgives iniquity, transgression, and sin. But he does not leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of the ancestors on their children, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generation.
³ Wesley's trip to America had been a sponsored "assignment" from the Church of England. He had signed up hoping to preach to the Indians, but the church kept him ministering primarily to the British colonists in Savannah, Georgia. His personal life did not go so well there. He fell in love with a woman, but when he stuck to church rules and refused to serve her communion because she did not meet the requirements, she made accusations against him with the intent to seek revenge. (Roy Moore wasn't the first, and unfortunately, he won't be the last.) Regardless of the questionable degree of veracity in her accusation, the end result was that Wesley cut short his trip and returned to England.

Other Theologians' Beliefs (# 6 in a series)

In today's post, you won't have to take my word for it!  That is because today I am writing about other people, mostly theologians, who have expressed a belief that, yes, our pets will be in heaven. So who are these people and what are their backgrounds?

I have tried to get a variety of thoughts spanning the Christian spectrum, both contemporaries and dipping back a few centuries, as well as from other locations and cultures where the Bible has gone. You will not find the counter-arguments in this post; they will be covered later.  

Billy Graham
I am starting with him because this is the one name that most people recognize. He has been in ministry since 1943. The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association was founded in 1950 to organize his crusades, publishing, radio and television, and film projects. It is estimated that he has preached to 300 million in person and millions more have heard him via other media. He has preached throughout the free world, and behind what was once known as the Iron Curtain and Bamboo Curtain. Reading his autobiography can give the impression that he is a name-dropping celebrity, except that his influence actually did extend that far, and he met practically every world leader of his time. He is still alive and celebrated his 99th birthday last month.
Despite his prominence on the world stage, his comments on pets in heaven come from a very personal story. A little girl, probably about seven years old, asked him if her recently deceased pet would be in heaven. His response was that yes, if that is what it takes to make you happy, God will make sure your pet will be there.

John Wesley
   Wesley was an Anglican (Church of England) cleric who is credited (sometimes co-credited along with his brother Charles) for founding the Methodist Church. His biography, however, is a bit more ecumenical. He was influenced greatly (a) by his mother, Susanna, who, although she married an Anglican preacher, was the daughter of  Dr. Samuel Annesley, a dissenter of the established church;  (b) by Moravian settlers that he encountered on a voyage to America; (c) by the evangelist George Whitfield, although he disagreed with Whitfield's Calvinist slant, and (d) by Quaker writings on the evils of the slave trade.  It is not an understatement to say that John Wesley liked to think for himself. 
   I may be stretching it a bit here. I did not find any place where Wesley came right out and said, "Your pets can go to Heaven."  But in his sermon on "The General Deliverance," we can read his personal beliefs on deliverance; and wiping out our pets with permanent death is not deliverance!
   I am doing a separate post on his sermon later, but to summarize, Wesley believed scripture indicates that when mankind is restored, all that mankind was originally given jurisdiction and authority over will also "be delivered."  He specifically says that this deliverance is "not by annihilation; annihilation is not deliverance." He also said, "They (animals) 'shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into glorious liberty,' — even a measure, according as they are capable, — of 'the liberty of the children of God.'"  A link to Wesley's full sermon is in the footnotes.¹


Randy Alcorn
   Alcorn is a best-selling Christian author and speaker who began Eternal Perspective Ministries which, as the name indicates, focuses primarily on what lasts for eternity.
   Acorn's argument was a bit disappointing for me.  I guess that because of his popularity as a Christian author, I'd expected that he would have found a stronger support in scripture than I had been able to find.  Mostly, he reaffirmed things I have already posted or that are in my notes to cover later.  His conclusion is pretty much that we have a Creator who loves animals and he hasn't found any reason that pets should not be in Heaven.  Still, it is satisfying to discover that a respected researcher and author came to many of the same conclusions that I did.

Peter Kreeft
   I wasn't familiar with this name. He is a Catholic philosopher and Christianity Today charges to read their archive, so…  anyway if you have a few extra bucks and want to search their web-only archive for June 2003, go ahead and have at here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/juneweb-only/6-2-51.0.html
   In researching what others have said about him, his argument seems to be "Why not?"

James Herriot
   Herriot is the late Scottish author of All Creatures Great and Small, originally published in 1972. It is sort of a "feel good" book and does not have much biblical backing, but rather observations from a long life spent around animals. Maybe he does not belong on a list of theologians, but the library classifies his writings as "spiritual," so I have listed him mostly to be inclusive, even though I don't give his opinion much weight.
   He wrote, "If having a soul means being able to feel love and loyalty and gratitude, then animals are better off than a lot of humans." That could be true only in an Ignorance is Bliss kind of way—and it also makes presumptions about the quality and depth of love, loyalty, and gratitude. 

Hank Hanegraaff
   Hanegraaff is known on Christian radio as The Bible Answer Man. Earlier this year he converted from evangelical Protestant to Eastern Orthodox.
   Most of my personal disagreements with his positions come from when he is answering questions about the antediluvian period; then again, I haven't really listened to him extensively.  He does believe that our pets have souls, and he leans strongly toward the idea that even if they are not in the current Heaven, that they will be restored in the resurrection.

Jack Van Impe
   Van Impe is a televangelist who mixes endtime prophecy with current events. This at-the-edge of politics approach coupled with his pre-Trib rapture belief causes him to be called a "false prophet" more than anyone else that I have included on this list, however, his core doctrine is biblically solid even if the edges are a bit flaky.    
   Van Impe is one of the few theologians who will come right out and state, "your pets will definitely be waiting for you in Heaven," without couching it by saying, "the Bible is silent on this subject, but in my opinion..." (Instead, he begins his video stating that the most important thing about Heaven is that we will see the face of Jesus. Apparently a Christian-identity audience gets touchy without some initial concessions when discussing this topic!)  He builds his argument on verses like Romans 8:21, that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God, pointing out that "creation" is inclusive of animals. He supports this with scripture from the Gospels, Luke 3:6, And all flesh will see the salvation of God, (the NIV uses all people, but the literal translation is all flesh, and animals have flesh); from the Old Testament, Isaiah 40:5, And the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all flesh will see the salvation of God together; from the Epistles, 1 Corinthians 15:39, For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish, which he couples with several other verses to show that "all flesh" being saved includes animals; and Revelation 5:11, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders, claiming that the animal/beast voices are there in heaven singing praises.
   Personally, I think that last one from Revelation is a bit shaky; these "beasts" are four supernatural living creatures who are attendants at the Throne, not animals from Earth. Also, as I worked through his evidence, Van Impe seemed to switch from "pets waiting for you" to "they will be raised at the resurrection and/or rapture," so that point was not always clear. Meeting human friends and family in Heaven is usually meant as meeting them in their spiritual bodies, and new resurrected bodies will be provided for the return to Earth with Christ.   

C S Lewis
   Lewis was a professor of medieval and Renaissance literature at Oxford and Cambridge universities, but he is perhaps best known for his children's books, the Chronicles of Narnia series, which is anchored by The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. His best known theological writing is Mere Christianity, which is a classic of apologetics that has its origins in a radio series, the broadcast topics later being edited into a book.
   Lewis wrote more than thirty books, and his views on animals in heaven are found in The Problem of Pain. I was really surprised to find that his writing on the topic so closely paralleled the conclusions that I have come to.  For example, I think the best chance of a specific animal on earth making it into Heaven is if that animal is sentient, meaning that it has a self-awareness and can respond to stimuli, particularly if it can respond to its name. (I will be covering the importance of Naming in a future post.) Along this line, Lewis wrote: 

The real difficulty about supposing most animals to be immortal is that immortality has almost no meaning for a creature which is not 'conscious' in the sense explained above. If the life of a newt is merely a succession of sensations, what should we mean by saying that God may recall to life the newt that died today? It would not recognise itself as the same newt; the pleasant sensations of any other newt that lived after its death would be just as much, or just as little, a recompense for its earthly sufferings (if any) as those of it's resurrected - I was going to say 'self', but the whole point is that the newt probably has no self.

He fleshes this out further leading to his conclusion that tame animals may enter heaven through their relationship with humans, similar to the way humans enter heaven through Christ.

If, nevertheless, the strong conviction which we have of a real, though doubtless rudimentary, selfhood in the higher animals, and specially in those we tame, is not an illusion, their destiny demands a somewhat deeper consideration … Man was appointed by God to have dominion over the beasts, and everything a man does to an animal is either a lawful exercise, or a sacrilegious abuse, of an authority by Divine right. The tame animal is therefore, in the deepest sense, the only 'natural' animal - the only one we see occupying the place it was made to occupy, and it is on the tame animal that we must base all our doctrine of beasts. Now it will be seen that, in so far as the tame animal has a real self or personality, it owes this almost entirely to its master. And in this way it seems to me possible that certain animals may have an immortality, not in themselves, but in the immortality of their masters.

   Why does Lewis limit this belief to tame or domesticated animals? I am not entirely sure, but certainly part of it relates to the original charge to Adam to "have dominion" and the domesticated ones are submitted to that position in God's purpose. Also, there is Isaiah 35:9, speaking of the glorious Highway of Holiness that leads to Zion says, "No lion shall be there, nor shall any ravenous beast come up on it; they shall not be found there, but the redeemed shall walk there." ² This verse also excludes animals that are not in compliance with God's purpose.
   I haven't found much else where Lewis addressed the question straight on, but his allegories and fictional writings often incorporate the idea of "tame" animals being "saved" or making it to heaven. Remember Reepicheep from the Chronicles of Narnia or Merlin's liberation of the animals at NICE (the National Institute for Coordinated Experiments) in the final volume of his Space Trilogy? In the allegory of The Great Divorce, the observer is seeing people arrive in Heaven and has this discussion with his angelic guide: 

"And how... but hullo! What are all these animals? A cat — two cats — dozens of cats. And all those dogs... why, I can't count them. And the birds. And the horses."
"They are her beasts."
"Did she keep a sort of zoo? I mean, this is a bit too much."
"Every beast and bird that came near her had its place in her love. In her they became themselves. And now the abundance of life she has in Christ from the Father flows over into them."

My Summary
  Each of these men—and I did find a woman, but she was a New Age psychic, so, not on the list—have come to the conclusion that there is at least a strong probability that animals known on Earth will exist as themselves in the age to come. Opinions vary as to whether the animals are raised at the resurrection and restoration of all things, whether they are raised and go at the rapture, or whether their animal souls go straight to heaven now and await new bodies at some future point in time when mortal will put on immortality.
   The two points that I looked for were (1) a belief that the animals have souls, meaning that they keep a distinct personality and are not generic cats and dogs, etc., and (2) that they will at some point, although beliefs on the exact timing vary, be restored to their Edenic state of immortality.   




Footnotes
¹ Wesley's sermon on The General Deliverance

² Bible scholars are all over the place with this verse! I checked out several commentaries.  Some say the animals are no longer vicious because they have been tamed by the time this prophecy is fulfilled. Some take the position that ferocious animals are simply excluded. Still others say this is an allegorical reading that refers to no wicked persons, and that "no lions" denotes no tyrannical kings of the earth.