The First Agreement with the Animals

Animal Sacrifice

THE EIGHTH CENTURY B.C. INAUGURATED AN ERA

of spiritual and moral evolution in Judaism that struggles to continue in our own day. It was a giant leap in consciousness that seemed to emerge, full-blown, in the teachings of the Latter Prophets.

The teachings of those men affirmed the primary importance of social justice, rejected ceremonial and sacrificial religion, and articulated a change from henotheism to monotheism. They also taught that homo sapiens is not the end-all or be-all of Elohim’s creation—that, in fact, the animal kingdom is an integral part of the Kingdom to come. It would be a peaceable kingdom where “they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Sovereign.” (Isa. 11:9)

Although this change in consciousness regarding animals was first articulated in the Hebrew Scriptures (or Old Testament), students of religion have traditionally credited India with the concept. They point to the teachings of Buddha and Mahavira, both of whom denounced the sacrifice of animals in the sixth century B.C. The Hinduism of their day required the slaughter of sacrificial animals; it was an integral part of that religion.

As is usual in a sacrificial cult, the priests wielded great power. The power of the Brahmin priests rested on the teaching that only they could offer the kind of sacrifices that were “the atonement for everything . . . the sacrifice that redeems all sin.”

Only the priests were empowered to utter the sacred formula over such sacrifices; they were the intermediaries between the gods and men. They alone could ensure that the gods were propitiated and that petitions would be granted. Without their mediation the people would be lost—they would be out of favor with the forces on whom they thought their very lives

depended. 

Of course, the priests were not going to accept any teaching

that repudiated the animal sacrifice that was the cornerstone of their power. Consequently, they saw Buddha and Mahavira as enemies. Not only did these sages teach that sacrificial worship did not secure the blessings of any god, they also taught that such sacrifices were intrinsically evil. They taught that inflicting pain and death on other sentient creatures retarded the spiritual growth of human beings. Since animals are equipped with the same five senses as human beings, they could obviously experience the same sensations of pain, suffering, and fear. To abuse these creatures in the name of any god was an affront to the concept of Deity.

But India was not the setting for the first religious reaction against animal sacrifice. The understanding that the suffering

and death of animals was repugnant to the Creator had surfaced among the Hebrews long before Indian sages articulated such concepts. Beginning with Isaiah in 750 B.C., the Latter Prophets condemned animal sacrifice. In so doing these prophets were reiterating the ancient knowledge found in Genesis: Animals were created in love and goodness, just as human beings had been. And humans were ordained to be the loving caretakers of animals, not their cruel abusers.

Although the Judaic prophecies regarding animals and their treatment predated the teachings in India, the message of the Latter Prophets did not stand out in clear relief because their teachings did not break from Judaism to form a separate belief system. Instead, their prophetic message was absorbed into the mainstream of the Hebrew religion and became still another current running through the spiritual history of Israel.

Consequently, the warnings against sacrificial religion continued to coexist with a priestly power structure that was

still developing complex rituals for slaughter.

This coexistence of opposing viewpoints is a great strength of the Old Testament; it is one of the reasons for its continuing impact on the human race. The Hebrew Scriptures record both the continuity and the changes that took place in Judaism’s understanding of the Sovereign. They tell of the struggle between opposing values that continued for many centuries. The Scriptures also provide a continuous, if selective, chronicle of a nation’s spiritual journey.

The Old Testament does not gloss over the negative history of its people. The good and the bad, the going forward and the sliding back, the high points of the nation’s history and its nadir—all are included in the record. But in reading this record it is important to understand that negative developments do not always receive a negative comment. Often, it is only when a later generation adds to the biblical record that it becomes evident that certain events had not received the unqualified endorsement that earlier accounts seemed to present. The story of Jacob and Esau is a case in point.

Although Jacob cheated his brother of his birthright, the original account in the book of Genesis does not comment negatively on the fact that he deliberately cheated his brother.

But hundreds of years after the fact, the Bible does refer to Jacob’s deception as something blameworthy. (See Isa. 43:27;

Jer. 9:4; Hos. 12:2–3 JPS.)

This negative assessment of Jacob’s action was not a new thought in Judaism; it had long been present in Israel’s discussions and disputations of the incident. Eventually this negative judgment of the event became part of the biblical record.

The same kind of deferred judgment occurs regarding the sacrifice of animals. For centuries the Scriptures presented a

seemingly one-sided view of the practice—a view that implied

sacrifice was unquestioningly accepted in Israel. But during that time there was an undercurrent that opposed such worship.

And with the advent of the Prophet Isaiah in the eighth century B.C., that current surfaced and entered the mainstream of Hebrew life. Opposition to the entrenched rituals of sacrificial worship then became part of the biblical record.

Because widely divergent viewpoints like these can only appear as contradictions in a short-term view of events, an overview of the Bible is necessary. An overview provides a longterm perspective. We see that it is conflict—not contradiction— that the Bible is reporting. Many ideals struggled for supremacy in Judaism over the centuries, and the various books of the Old Testament provide different perspectives on those conflicts. Without an overview and without a knowledge of the deferred judgment that is applied to some biblical events, it would seem that suddenly, for no discernible reason, there was a reaction in Judaism against the sacrifice of animals. This sudden reaction would be doubly confusing because at the time that the prophets began speaking out against the slaughter, the cult of Temple worship was at a zenith. And the ritual slaughter of animals was at the heart of that worship.

The priests who officiated at the sacrifices had enormous religious and political power. Like their Hindu counterparts, the Israelite priests had a vested interest in sacrificial worship. They had developed complex and intricate rituals for slaughter, all with appropriate prayers to the Sovereign. Those rituals had become completely integrated into their sacred tradition.

By the time Isaiah began his prophetic ministry, slaughtering

animals in the name of God had assumed the nature of an additional commandment in the eyes of the people. But Isaiah, and those who followed him, called the people back from their violent worship. The Sovereign, they said, had never asked for the slaughter of His own creatures: It was Man himself who had instituted sacrificial worship.

SEE Part 2