Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T21:54:55.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reverence for Life and Environmental Ethics in Biblical Law and Covenant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

Richard H. Hiers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Bible is generally recognized as the foundation and point of departure for later Jewish and Christian religious and moral understandings. Nevertheless, both conservative and liberal schools within these traditions have tended to assume that biblical religion has to do only with humankind. Much of Western secular philosophy likewise has been pre-occupied exclusively with the human situation. In recent years, many theologians and ethicists have begun to trace the roots of emerging environmental concerns back to biblical sources. Several excellent studies have resulted from this movement. None, however, has focused on biblical laws and covenants.

Commonly, biblical laws are thought to refer solely to Israel's relation with God (or Yahweh) and the structuring of relationships within the Israelite community. The term “covenant” generally refers to those reported occasions in biblical times when God designated Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants, as his particular people, and laid upon them certain obligations, typically in the form of laws. Yet a great many biblical laws refer to treatment of animals, the land, trees, and vegetation. And two major biblical covenants embrace not only the people of Israel, but all human beings and all living creatures.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , 1996 , pp. 127 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See White, Lynn Jr.'s oft-cited contention in The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, 155 Science 1205 (1967)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed: “God planned all [creation] explicitly for man's benefit and rule; no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes.” Others, too, criticized biblical texts for neglecting the value of non-human life forms. See, for example, Rockefeller, Steven C., Faith and Community in an Ecological Age, in Rockefeller, Steven C and Elder, John C., eds, Spirit and Nature 148 (Beacon Press, 1992)Google Scholar: “[T]he purpose of the creation of the universe is the establishment of a kingdom of God on earth by and for human beings.” Id. As to the “Christian Right's” neglect of biblical environmental concerns, see Barlow, Chuck D., Why the Christian Right Must Protect the Environment, 23 BC Env Affairs L Rev 781–91 (1996)Google Scholar.

2. See generally, Schweitzer, Albert, The Philosophy of Civilization (Macmillan, 1959)Google Scholar; McAfee, Gene, Ecology and Biblical Studies, in Hessel, Dieter T., ed, Theology for Earth Community: A Field Guide 31–44 (Orbis Books, 1996)Google Scholar. Notable exceptions include Bentham, Mill, Montaigne, Paine, and Voltaire. See Midgley, Mary, Animals and Why They Matter 11 (U of GA Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

3. See, for example, Anderson, Bernhard W., From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives (Fortress, 1994)Google Scholar; Austin, Richard Cartwright, Hope for the Land: Nature in the Bible (John Knox Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Barr, James, Man and Nature: The Ecological Controversy and the Old Testament, 52 Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 9–32 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berry, Wendell, The Gift of the Good Land: Further Essays, Cultural and Agricultural 267–81 (North Point Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Gottfried, Robert R., Economics, Ecology, and the Roots of Western Faith 29–65 (Rowman and Littlefield, 1995)Google Scholar; Malchow, Bruce J., Contrasting Views of Nature in the Hebrew Bible, 26 Dialog 40–43 (1987)Google Scholar; Rolston, Holmes III, The Bible and Ecology, 50 Interpretation 16–26 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Santmire, H. Paul, The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous Ecological Promise of Christian Theology, ch 10 (Fortress, 1985)Google Scholar; Simkins, Ronald A., Creator and Creation: Nature in the Worldview of Ancient Israel (Hendrickson Publishers, 1994)Google Scholar; and Steck, Odil Hannes, World and Environment (Abingdon, 1980)Google Scholar. Over 700 titles are listed in Hessel's Bibliography. See Hessel, , ed, Theology for Earth Community at 269–92 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar. See generally Fowler, Robert Booth, The Greening of Protestant Thought 28–44 (U of NC Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

4. The divine name YHWH, possibly vocalized as “Yahweh” (if not Jehovah), appears throughout much of the biblical tradition. English Bibles usually render this name as “The LORD.” See note 30.

5. “P” is the symbol used by biblical scholars for more than a century to designate the so-called “Priestly” traditions found in the “books” of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. These traditions are thought to derive from writers and editors associated with the priests who officiated at the Jerusalem Temple in the late sixth or fifth centuries B.CE. Typical emphases include the distinction between priests (“the sons of Aaron”) and Levites (here seen as assistants to the priests); genealogies, especially of priestly and Levitical families; ceremonial furnishings of the “tabernacle” or “tent of meeting” (conceived as a portable prototype of the eventual Jerusalem temple); and, detailed instructions as to carrying out numerous kinds of sacrificial offerings. In Genesis, texts attributed to P characteristicdly use the divine name Elohim, translated as “Godo” As to P tradition in Genesis 1—10, see generally Steck, , World and Environment at 89–113 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar; and von Rad, Gerhard, 1 Old Testament Theology 232–79 (Harper, 1962)Google Scholar.

6. Simkins notes that there is no biblical basis for the often-repeated assertion that the first man's naming other animals (Gen 2:18–20Google Scholar) signified human superiority or dominance over them. Simkins, , Creator & Creation at 183 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.

7. For a variety of critiques and responses by other commentators, see, for example, Barbour, Ian, II Ethics in an Age of Technology 74–80 (Harper Collins, 1993)Google Scholar; Cohen, Jeremy, On Classical Judaism and Environmental Crisis, 5 Tikkun No. 2 74–77 (1990)Google Scholar; Derr, Thomas S., Environmental Ethics and Christian Humanism 19–22 (Abingdon Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Dale, and Larsen, Sandy, While Creation Waits: A Christian Response to the Environmental Challenge 43–54 (Harold Shaw Publishers, 1992)Google Scholar; Nash, James A., Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity and Christian Responsibility 68–92 (Abingdon Press, 1991)Google Scholar; North, Gary, The Dominion Covenant: Genesis 27–36 (Institute for Christian Economics, 1982)Google Scholar; and Passmore, John Arthur, Man's Responsibility for Nature; Ecological Problems and Western Traditions 3–27 (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974)Google Scholar.

8. It also tends to over-estimate the impact of these biblical texts on cultures where Judaism, Christianity, and their scriptures have had little or no identifiable influence. And it under-estimates the influence of other and more plausible factors. See Commoner, Barry, The Closing Circle: Nature, Man & Technology 1–6 (Knopf, 1971)Google Scholar; Dubos, Rene Jules, A God Within 160–62 (Scribner, 1972)Google Scholar. Fortin, Ernest L., The Bible Made Me Do It: Christiamty, Science, and the Environment, 57 Rev of Politics 197–223 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mason, Jim, An Unnatural Order: Uncovering the Roots of Our Domination of Nature and Each Other (Simon & Schuster, 1993)Google Scholar; Miller, Alan S., A Planet to Choose: Value Studies in Political Ecology 67–74 (Pilgrim Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Nash, , Loving Nature at 75 (cited in note 7)Google Scholar; Russell, Colin Archibald, The Earth Humanity, and God 86–93 (UCL Press, 1994)Google Scholar; and Steck, World and Environment at 31–42 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.

9. This point has been noted also by Anderson, Bernhard W., “Creation and Ecology,” in Creation in the Old Testament 152–171 (Fortress Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

10. See, for example, Abrecht, Paulet al., Faith, Science and the Future 34–43 (Fortress Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Anderson, , From Creation to New Creation at 111–31 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar; Bird, Phyllis A., “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Genesis 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Act of Creation,” 74 Harv Theological Rev 137–44 (1981)Google Scholar; Berry, , The Gift of the Good Land at 268–69 (cited in note 4)Google Scholar; Callicott, J. Baird, Genesis and John Muir, in Robb, Carol S. & Casebolt, Carl J., eds., Covenant for a New Creation: Ethics, Religion and Public Policy 107–40 (Orbis Books, 1991)Google Scholar; Hall, Douglas John, Imaging God: Dominion as Stewardship (Friendship Press, 1986)Google Scholar; Gottfried, , Economics, Ecology and the Roots of Western Faith at 36–39 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar; Grandberg-Michaelson, Wesley, A Worldly Spirituality: The Call to Redeem Life on Earth (Harper & Row, 1984)Google Scholar; Hayden, Tom, The Lost Gospel of the Earth 60–66, 81–102 (Wolfhound Press, 1996)Google Scholar; Jacobson, Diane, Biblical Bases for Eco-Justice Ethics, in Hessel, , ed., Theology for Earth Community at 46–49Google Scholar; Limburg, James, The Way of an Eagle in the Sky: Reflections on the Bible and the Care of the Earth, Catholic World 148–52 (07/Aug. 1990)Google Scholar; Nash, , Loving Nature at 102–8 (cited in note 7)Google Scholar; Rolston, Holmes III, Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World 338 (Temple U. Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Steck, , World and Environment at 102–08, 194–200 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar; Steffen, Lloyd H., In Defense of Dominion, 14 Environmental Ethics 63–80 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Trible, Phyllis, Ancient Priests and Modern Pollution, 12 Andover Newton Q 74–79 (1971)Google Scholar; Tucker, Gene M., Rain on a Land Where No One Lives: The Hebrew Bible on the Environmen, 116 J of Biblical Literature 3–17 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wilkinson, Loren, ed., Earthkeeping in the Nineties: Stewardship of Creadon 275–325 (rev. ed, William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1991)Google Scholar. As to the nature and somewhat limited extent of Jewish responses, see Schorsch, Ismar, Learning to Live with Less: A Jewish Perspective, in Rockefeller, & Elder, , eds, Spirit and Nature at 25–38 (cited in note 1)Google Scholar; and Schwartz, Eilon, Jewish Theory and the Environmental Crisis in Hessel, , ed., Theology for Earth Community at 53–63 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.

11. See parts III and X. And see generally McCoy, Charles S., Creation and Covenant: A Comprehensive Vision for EnvironmentalEthics, , in Robb, and Cvasebolt, , eds., Covenant for a New Creation at 212–25 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar.

12. See Gen 6:5Google Scholar, which characterizes the human condition before the flood: “YHWH saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Arguably, the P account at Gen 6:11–22Google Scholar likewise attributes “violence” to humanity, not to other creatures, though other creatures somehow may have been corrupted by human depravity. See Anderson, Bernhard W., Creation and Ecology, in Andeison, Bernard W., ed., Creation in the Old Testament 161–65 (Fortress, 1984)Google Scholar. Contrast Steck, World and Environment (cited in note 3), pointing out that nothing in the biblical narrative suggests that humans had been threatened or harmed by violent animals.

13. Granberg-Michaelson notes that after the flood, repetition of these commands was “conspicuously omitted.” Granberg-Michaelson, , A Worldly Spiritualty at 64 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar. The author of Psalm 8:5–8Google Scholar, however, may represent a strand of biblical understanding to the effect that humans were to have dominion over other life forms in the era after the flood. The character of such dominion is not indicated in the psalm. See Gray, Elizabeth Dodson, A Critique of Dominion Theology, in Hessel, Dieter T., ed., For Creation's Sake: Preaching, Ecology, and Justice 71–83 (Geneva Press, 1985)Google Scholar; and Tubbs, James B. Jr., Humble Dominion, in 50 Theology Today 543–56 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In the NT, Psalm eight is read as a prophetic description of Christ's not humankind's rule or dominion: Eph 1:20–22Google Scholar; Heb 2: 5–10Google Scholar.

14. In Job 40, YHWH urges that Job (and, implicitly, other humans) cannot hope to subdue the great creatures Behemoth and Leviathan. Several other texts in Job and Psalms make clear that many creatures for whom YHWH cares were meant to remain free from human control. See, for example, Job 38:39–41Google Scholar; 39:1–12,26–30; Psalms 50:9–12Google Scholar; 104:10–13, 17–18, 20–22, 24–30; 145:13–16; and 147:8–9. See generally Tucker, 116 J of Biblical Literature (cited in note 10). On the Book of Job as a critique of anthropocentrism, see Hayden, The Lost Gospel of the Earth at 74–81 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar. On Psalm 104, see Steck, , World and Environment at 78–89 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar. See Barlow 23 BC Env Affairs L Rev at 802 (cited in note 1).The absence of humankind's dominion as a theme in the remainder of the Old and New Testaments reflects the loss of humankind's status as dominator of the earth. Id. See also Nash, , Loving Nature at 102 (cited in note 7)Google Scholar.

15. See, for example, Judges 2:11–23Google Scholar; 1 Kings 11:26–39Google Scholar; 2 Kings 17:1–18; 24:18–20Google Scholar; Job 38:4–39:8Google Scholar; Psalms 90–91;94; 96–99; 135:5–12; 145:13Google Scholar; Amos 1-3; Jonah; and all other biblical prophets. See generally, McAfee, , Ecology and Biblical Studies at 36–38 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar. In some texts, other creatures are said to have dominion over humans. See generally, Kay, Jeanne, Concepts of Nature in the Hebrew Bible, 10 Environmental Ethics 309, 314–17 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16. “Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.” Gen 7:22Google Scholar.

17. That implication is made explicit in the covenant God made with all living beings in the following chapter (Genesis nine). See part III.

18. See, for example, Psalms 104:24Google Scholar: “O YHWH, how manifold are thy works!… [T]he earth is full of thy creatures.” Psalm 104 and P tradition were set down at approximately the same time. See also Sir. 1629-30.

19. See Gen 10:8–9; also 25:27; 27:3–4,30–33Google Scholar.

20. Gen 9:2Google Scholar. Strangely little is said about fishing or eating fish in the Jewish scriptures or Old Testament. The only explicit instances are Num 11:5Google Scholar; Ezek 47:10Google Scholar; and Tobit 6:1–5Google Scholar. See also Neh 13:16Google Scholar.

21. See note 115 and accompanying text.

22. Clearly more is involved here than a mere “visceral prohibition against the consumption of blood.” Schorsch, Ismar, Learning to Live with Less, in Rockefeller, & Elder, , eds, Spirit and Nature at 31 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar.

23. See Lev 17:10–14Google Scholar; Deut 12:20–27Google Scholar.

24. According to Gen 10:1–32Google Scholar, all later humankind descended from Noah.

25. Acts 15:19, 28–29Google Scholar.

26. The vessel was said to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, with three decks.

Gen 6:15–16Google Scholar.

27. Gen 6:20Google Scholar. See also Gen 7:14–15Google Scholar.

28. Holmes Rolston refers to Noah's ark project as the first “Endangered Species Act” Rolston, , Environmental Ethics at 94 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar. Critics who consider texts such as Gen 1:26–28Google Scholar dispositive as to the biblical viewpoint in regard to human relations with other creatures typically ignore Noah's ark project See, for example, Singer, Peter, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals 193–95 (Random House, 1975)Google Scholar. Such critics generally make no mention of the P covenant with every living creature (Gen 9:8–17) eitherGoogle Scholar.

29. Gore, Albert, Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit 244–45 (Plume, 1993)Google Scholar. Contrast Moyers, Bill, Genesis: A Living Conversation 111–53 (1996)Google Scholar. Moyers and his conversationalists make no mention of Noah's role in preserving all kinds of air-breathing species or of the the covenant with all living beings for all generations. But see Babbitt, Bruce, Between the Flood and the Rainbow: Our Covenant to Protect the Whole Creadon, 2 Animal L, 5 (1996)Google Scholar: “God did not specify that Noah should limit [passengers on] the ark to two charismatic species, two good for hunting, two species that might provide some cure down the road, and two that might draw crowds at the city zoo. He specifies the whole creation.” Id. (emphasis in original).

30. “J” is the symbol commonly used by biblical scholars to designate texts thought to derive from the “Yahwist” collectors) and editor(s) of earlier traditions that appear in most of the biblical “books” from Genesis to 1 Kings. The symbol derives from the first letter of the transliterated divine name Jahveh (German) [Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH in English] typically used in these texts as early as Genesis, chapter two. It is commonly thought that the “J” texts were collected and edited in the 10th century B.C.E. in Judah either during the time of Solomon, or a few decades afterwards. On major themes in J tradition, see Steck, World and Environment at 64–78 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.

31. This covenant is the basis for the later prophetic affirmation that YHWH's “covenant of peace” would never “be removed.” Isaiah 54:9–10Google Scholar.

32. See generally, Anderson, , From Creation to New Creation at 156–64 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar, and Granberg-Michaelson, , A Worldly Spirituality at 73–90 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar.

33. See Gen 7:22Google Scholar.

34. The other main biblical covenants include those described in Gen 12:1–3; 15:1–21; 17:1–14; 26:1–5; 28:13–15Google Scholar; Exod 19:5–6Google Scholar (Exod 20:1–23:33)Google Scholar; and Exod 34:10–27Google Scholar. On biblical covenants, see generally, Simkins, Creator and Creation at 152–72 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.

35. Compare Isaiah 24:5Google Scholar, (“the everlasting covenant”), and Psalm 145:13 (“everlasting kingdom”)Google Scholar.

36. Simkins, Creator and Creation at 154–56 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar, who characterizes the P covenant as God's covenant with all creation. Jay Byrd McDaniel reflects on contemporary implications of this P covenant in his chapter, A God Who Loves Animals, in Pinches, Charles & McDaniel, Jay Byrd, eds., Good News for Animals? 86–91 (1993)Google Scholar.

37. In Gen 9:13Google Scholar, the covenant is said to have been made between God and “the earth.” It is unclear whether, in this context, “the earth” itself is meant, or whether “the earth” stands for the fuller expression, “every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth” as in Gen 9:16 and 17Google Scholar.

38. “The covenant [Gen 9:17]…Google Scholar suggests that the Creator's purpose is to provide living space for all organisms, so that they may share the earth together.” Nash, , Loving Nature at 101 (cited in note 7)Google Scholar.

39. As to biblical creation traditions, see Barbour, Ian, I Religion in an Age of Science 130–35 (Harper and Row, 1990)Google Scholar.

40. Babbitt, 2 Animal L at 5 (cited in note 30), (regarding the rainbow, the sign of the covenant): “We are thus instructed that this everlasting covenant was made to protect the whole of creation, not for the exclusive use and disposition of mankind, but for the purposes of the Creator.” Several other commentators have also demonstrated that biblical faith generally is not anthropocentric. See, for example, Bergant, Dianne, Is the Biblical Worldview Anthropocentric? 4 New Theology Rev no. 25-14 (1991)Google Scholar; Cobb, John Jr., Sustainability, Economics, Ecology, and Justice 92–93 (Orbis Books, 1992)Google Scholar. See also, Barlow, 23 BC Env Affairs L Rev at 783 (cited in note 1). “In short, the [biblical] environmental narrative is neither biocentric nor anthropocentric; it is theocentric.” Id.

41. Nothing in this covenant suggests that humans were to have dominion over other creatures. God, who initiated this covenant, was the one who had dominion. See note 15 and accompanying text.

42. See, for example, Psalms 36:5–6Google Scholar; 104:10–26; 136:25; 145:8–9, 14–17; Wisdom 11:26Google Scholar; Sirach 18:13Google Scholar.

43. See section X of this article.

44. See part V.B.2. of this article.

45. Interpreters often include Leviticus 17 in the Holiness Code. Because of its affinity to characteristic Priestly motifs, however, that chapter is considered part of the Priestly Code in this article.

46. Lev 19:21;24:14Google Scholar.

47. In this article, we also consider Exodus 13:1–16 part of the PCGoogle Scholar.

48. Biblical commentators typically pass over such texts in silence, while studies of biblical faith and environmental ethics hardly ever mention them at all.

49. It was YHWH or God, of course, who created all life forms in the first place. Gen 1:11–27Google Scholar [P]; Gen 2:6–23 [J]Google Scholar.

50. Both the CC and Genesis 22 probably were included in E or Northern tradition which was collected and written down between 950 and 850 B.CE. In that tradition, the Genesis 22 story would have functioned as case law (or common law), construing the sacrificial ordinance set out in Exodus 22:29–30Google Scholar.

51. But see Judges 11:30–40Google Scholar (because of his tragic vow, Jephthah sacrificed his daughter after defeating Ammonite invaders); 1 Sam 1:9–28Google Scholar (Hannah, who had been infertile, true to her vow, gave her first-born son, Samuel, to the priest Eh' as his assistant); and a few traditions where the practice was condemned (1 Kings 16:33–34Google Scholar; 2 Kings 16:2–4Google Scholar; Ezek 20:25–26Google Scholar; and Micah 6:6–8)Google Scholar.

52. Later Priestly law provided that all male infants descended from Abraham were to be circumcised on the eighth day (Gen 17:9–14)Google Scholar. It might be conjectured that circumcision on the eighth day was a ritual vestige of the ancient law requiring sacrifice of first-born male sons on the eighth day.

53. See part VI.

54. Exod 22:29b–30Google Scholar.

55. See part V.B.2. of this article.

56. Compare Deut 17:1Google Scholar, to the same effect.

57. See Deut 12:15–16, 20–25Google Scholar.

58. See, also Num 18:14–19Google Scholar; cf. Exod 22: 29b–30Google Scholar.

59. Exod 13:14–16Google Scholar makes this connection explicitly.

60. See also Num 3:41a, 45a; 18:6Google Scholar.

61. That story tells how Hannah, out of gratitude to YHWH for granting her prayer for a son, “loaned” this son, Samuel, to YHWH by giving him as an assistant to the priest Eli.

62. Compare Gen 22:1–14Google Scholar.

63. Here, as in most other biblical texts, “cattle” probably refers to all kinds of domestic or farm animals.

64. Perhaps the writer of Numbers 3 was thinking of these cattle as the source of first-born sacrificial offerings. See also Num 35:1–8Google Scholar and Joshua 21:1–42Google Scholar which provide pasture land for the Levites.

65. See part V.B.2.

66. “You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with the leaven; neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of passover be left until morning.” Exodus 34:25Google Scholar. The other sacrificial law in RD is given in Exod 34:19-20. See section V.A..1.

67. “You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread, or let the fat of my feast remain until morning.”

68. But see Deut 21:1–9Google Scholar, described in part V.B.3.b. of this article.

69. Cf., Mal 1:8-14.

70. Major shrines reportedly used in earlier times include Bethel, Gilgal, Hebron, Shechem, and Shiloh. See, for example, Joshua 8:30–35Google Scholar; 24:25–26; 1 Sam 1:24; 9:11–14Google Scholar. On the Deuteronomic Reform program, see generally von Rad, Gerhard, Deuteronomy: A Commentary 87–94 (Westminster Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

71. Israelites did not succeed in occupying Jerusalem until the time of David, some 200 years after their settlement or conquest of the rest of the land; and the temple was not built until the time of Solomon, ca. 950 B.C.E., nearly 300 years, according to tradition, after YHWH gave Moses “the law” on Mt. Sinai.

72. Deut 12:5–7, 11–14, 17–19, 26–28Google Scholar. This “one place,” the Jerusalem Temple, was also regarded as a bird sanctuary in Psalm 84:1–3Google Scholar. See Gaster, Theodor H., Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament 765–66 (1969)Google Scholar.

73. See Exod 23:14–17Google Scholar; Lev 23:4–21, 33–34Google Scholar.

74. See Deut 16:2, 5-6, 7, 10–11, 15, 16Google Scholar.

75. Compare Exod 34:13Google Scholar.

76. “For every abominable thing which YHWH hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deut 12:31)Google Scholar.

77. See, for example, Lev 18:21Google Scholar; Deut 18:10–12; 23:17–18Google Scholar; Judges 11:30–31Google Scholar; 1 Kings 16:34Google Scholar; 2 Kings 3:27; 16:3; 21:6Google Scholar; Jer 7:31; 19:5; 32:35Google Scholar; Ezek 16:20–21Google Scholar.

78. See, for example, Exod 22:14–17Google Scholar; Lev 23:4–44Google Scholar; 1 Sam 9:11–13, 22–24; 14:31–35Google Scholar.

79. Deuteronomy 12:21Google Scholar provides that animals may be slaughtered without religious ceremony only if the trip to Jerusalem is “too far.” Deuteronomy 12:15Google Scholar, however, gives blanket permission for secular slaughter without that limitation.

80. Presumably the same procedures were to apply when wild animals were killed for food. See Deut 12:15, 22Google Scholar; compare Lev 17:13–14Google Scholar.

81. See Gen 9:3–4Google Scholar; Lev 17:10–11Google Scholar.

82. Wellhausen, Julius, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel 1–82 (Peter Smith, 1973)Google Scholar.

83. See part V.B., and text accompanying notes 66-69.

84. The tent of meeting or tabernacle and its elaborate furnishings probably represented a glorified version of what had been Solomon's temple as remembered or imagined and projected back into the wilderness period by P writers in later times.

85. See also Exod 30:10Google Scholar, referring to “the blood of the sin offering of atonement.”

86. See, for example, Exod 16:1–36Google Scholar; Num 11:4–15Google Scholar.

87. See 1 King 5-8.

88. Contrast Tobit 6:4, 6–8 (fish heart, liver, and gall used for exorcism and healing)Google Scholar.

89. Compare Deut 21:1–9Google Scholar, which prescribes a ceremony for “purging the guilt of innocent blood” in circumstances where someone has been killed, but the murderer undetected. Elders of the nearest city were to take a young heifer to an uncultivated valley with running water, break its neck, and then wash their hands over it. Although this ceremony is not described as a sacrifice, its stated intent was to provide forgiveness for the community that might otherwise be held accountable for “the guilt of innocent blood.” (Deut 21:7–9)Google Scholar. Nothing is said about returning its blood to the ground. Perhaps it was meant that the dead animal should either be buried or left on to decompose and thereby return to the ground. As in the case of animals sacrificed in lieu of first-born sons, the underlying sense appears to have been that the life of the animal is of the same value as die life of the human.

90. Whether Azazel was thought to be a place in the wilderness or a spirit of some sort is not entirely clear, though the latter meaning is commonly assumed. It is unclear whether the goat sent into the wilderness was expected to survive there.

91. Deut 12:15–16Google Scholar. See V.B.2.b.

92. Compare Lev 17:8–9Google Scholar.

93. The added rationale in Lev 17:7Google Scholar, “So they shall no more slay their sacrifices for satyrs,” may be a later gloss. As to satyrs, see generally Smith, W. Robertson, The Religion of the Semites 120–139, 441–446 (new ed. Adam & Charles Black, 1907)Google Scholar (considering mainly how such beings were understood in extra biblical cultures).

94. See also Lev 1:2–17; 21:6Google Scholar; Num 28:24Google Scholar.

95. See also Lev 7:26–27Google Scholar; compare Deut 12:15–16, 20–25Google Scholar.

96. Later rabbis strongly opposed wanton killing of animals and disapproved of hunting and hunters. Kaplan, Zvi, Animals, Cruelty to, 3 Encyclopedia Judaica 5–6 (MacMillan, 1973)Google Scholar.

97. Compare Gen 2:7, 19Google Scholar: (like the first man, in J tradition, all “beasts” and birds were made from the ground—to which, all alike would return).

98. See also Deut 15:19–23Google Scholar. However, killing animals by causing their blood to drain out may not be the most humane method of slaughter now available. See Rolston, , Environmental Ethics at 83–84 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar; Singer, , Animal Liberation at 153–57 (cited in note 28)Google Scholar as to Jewish and Muslim slaughter procedures. It appears that reverence for the life of the slaughtered animals has given way to concern to avoid contamination by consuming the animals' blood, an entirely anthropocentric matter, and in the process, religiously grounded ethical care for the animals' interests have disappeared altogether.

99. Samson, who appears to have been a Nazirite, was married and also indulged in various “affairs,” including, but not limited to, the one with the famous Delilah. (Judges 13:8–16;31)Google Scholar.

100. See part V.B.3.b.

101. Twelve bulls, 12 rams, and 12 male lambs were to be offered as a burnt offering; 12 male goats as a sin offering; and 24 bulls, 60 rams, 60 male goats, and 60 male lambs as a peace offering. (Num 7:87–88)Google Scholar.

102. See V.A.2. and 4.

103. See V.B.3.b.

104. Later Christian theology moved away from biblical tradition's recognition that humans and nonhumans were not only different, but in many respects similar. See Barbour, , Religion in an Age of Science, at 205 (cited in note 40)Google Scholar. “Only in the early centuries of the Christian church were the differences accentuated and absolutized by the introduction of the Greek idea of an immortal soul. I will suggest that by drawing an absolute line between humanity and other creatures, later Christianity contributed to the attitudes that encouraged environmental destruction.” Id.

105. See, for example, Psalm 50:9–15Google Scholar; Isaiah 66:1–4Google Scholar.

106. See, for example, Isaiah. 1:12–17Google Scholar.

107. See, for example, Amos 5:21–24Google Scholar; Hosea 6:6Google Scholar; Micah 6:6–8Google Scholar. See also Psalm 40:6–8Google Scholar.

108. Amos 5:25Google Scholar; Jer 7:21–24Google Scholar; but see Isaiah 43:23Google Scholar.

109. See V.B.

110. See V.B.2.

111. See Haggai 1:1–11Google Scholar, Isaiah 43:23Google Scholar may reflect the situation during the exile: the exiles had not offered sacrifices both because they were in Babylon and because the Temple had been destroyed. See also Psalm 137:1–6Google Scholar.

112. See 1 Maccabees 1—4.

113. According to Acts 2:46Google Scholar, some Christians previously had worshiped there as well.

114. Related, non-legal texts include, for example, Num 22:21–35Google Scholar; 2 Sam 12:1–6Google Scholar; Prov 12:10Google Scholar; Sirach 18:13Google Scholar. For a survey of contemporary issues apart from biblical perspectives, see Francione, Gary L., Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, 48 Rutgers L Rev. 397–469 (1996)Google Scholar; and his book, Animals, Property, and The Law (Temple U Press, 1995)Google Scholar.

115. Schweitzer developed what he called the “philosophy” or “ethic” of “reverence for life” in The Philosophy of Civilization (cited in note 2). See also his essay The Ethics of Reverence for Life, in Clark, Henry, The Ethical Mysticism Of Albert Schweitzer: A Study of the Sources and Significance of Schweitzer's Philosophy of Civilization 180 (Beacon Press, 1962)Google Scholar. Schweitzer's contribution to modern environmental awareness is examined by Ice, Jackson Lee, Schweitzer: Prophet of Radical Theology 99–125 (Westminster Press, 1971)Google Scholar.

116. See text accompanying notes 52-53.

117. The Holiness Code does not include any provisions for offering first-borns, whether animal or human.

118. No age limits are indicated. Leviticus 22:27Google Scholar says that the young animal may be offered as a burnt offering on the eighth day, but that practice was not mandated. The Iambs to be presented as burnt offerings in Lev 23:12, 18–19 were to be a year oldGoogle Scholar.

119. See Frear, George L. Jr., Caring for Animals: Biblical Stimulus for Ethical Reflection, in Pinches, Charles & McDaniel, Jay B., eds, Good News for Animals? at 7, (cited in note 36)Google Scholar.

120. See, for example, Deut 22:1–4, 6–7; 25:4Google Scholar.

121. See Gaster, , Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament at 205–51 (cited in note 72)Google Scholar. Gaster also considers sources or parallels in other cultures. Id at 251-63. See von Rad, , Deuteronomy: A Commentary at 102 (cited in note 70) (citing a Ugaritic milk spell)Google Scholar.

122. See also Deut 22:6–7; 25:4Google Scholar.

123. The text also refers to eggs, but does not say whether they may be taken. Perhaps it was assumed that they might be.

124. Compare Deut 14:11–20Google Scholar.

125. See part VII. A.& B. See von Rad, , Deuteronomy: A Commentary at 141 (cited in note 70)Google Scholar: “[T]he ordinance … can probably be attributed only to humane motives and hardly to considerations of utility.”

126. See Berry, , The Gift of the Good Land at 273 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar. “This, obviously, is a perfect paradigm of ecological and agricultural discipline … The inflexible rule is that the source must be preserved. You may take the young, but you must save the breeding stock.” Id. See also von Rad, , Deuteronomy: A Commentary at 141 (cited in note 70)Google Scholar.

127. See notes 26-29 and accompanying text.

128. Compare Paul, , in 1 Cor 9:8–11Google Scholar, who interprets the text allegorically to mean that a human missionary is worthy of the benefits of his office.

129. See Gen 8:1Google Scholar; Exod 22:30; 23:4Google Scholar; Lev 22:26–28Google Scholar; Deut 22:1–4Google Scholar; Psalm 50:10Google Scholar; Isaiah 66:3Google Scholar; Jonah 4:11Google Scholar.

130. Thus Schorsch, , Learning to Live with Less in Rockefeller, & Elder, , eds, Spirit and Nature at 31 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar. Such Biblical laws have had some influence on American Jurisprudence. See Stephens v State, 3 So. 458, 458–59 (Miss. 1888)Google Scholar, quoted in Wise, Steven M., The Legal Thinghood of Nonhuman Animals, 23 BC Env Affairs L Rev 471, 542 (1996)Google Scholar.

The common law recognized no rights in … animals, and punished no cruelty to them, except in so far as it affected the rights of individuals to such property. Such statutes [as that in question] remedy this defect, and exhibit the spirit of that divine law which is so mindful of dumb brutes as to teach and command, not to muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn; not to plow with an ox and an ass together, not to take the bird that sitteth on its young or its eggs; and not to seethe a kid in its mother's milk. To disregard the rights and willfully or wantonly injure or oppress the weak and helpless, is mean and cowardly. Human beings have at least some means of protecting themselves against the inhumanity of man … but dumb brutes have none. Animals whose lives are devoted to our use and pleasure, and which are capable, perhaps, of feeling as great physical pain or pleasure as ourselves, deserve, for these considerations alone, kindly treatment.

131. Slightly different versions of the “ten commandments” appear in Exodus 20:1–17Google Scholar and Deut 5:6–21Google Scholar.

132. Compare Deut 5:14Google Scholar, which also refers specifically to oxen and asses.

133. On the signficant difference between theocentric and anthropocentric ethics, see generally Gustafson, James M., A Sense of the Divine: The Natural Environment from a Theocentric Perspective (Pilgrim Press, 1994)Google Scholar. Compare Derr, Thomas S., Environmental Ethics and Christian Humanism (Abingdon Press, 1996)Google Scholar (undertaking to make a strong case for anthropocentric environmental ethics); and see James A. Nash's critique of Derr's position. Id at 105-124.

134. See VII.B.

135. Compare 2 Kings 19:29–31Google Scholar, which refers to a two-year period when, after the Assyrians withdrew from Jerusalem, the people of Judah would “eat what grows of itself.”

136. Compare Exod 16:22–30Google Scholar.

137. As to YHWH's providing food for wildlife, see also Job 38:39–41; 39:5–8Google Scholar; Psalms 104:26–28; 145:15–16Google Scholar.

138. Gen 6:21–22Google Scholar.

139. See, for example, Exod 21:35–36Google Scholar (when one person's ox causes the death of another's); Exod 21:33–22:1, 4-6, 9-15Google Scholar; Lev 24:17–18, 21Google Scholar (laws providing for restitution). See also Exod 21:28–32Google Scholar (when an ox kills a person). Steven M. Wise examines biblical laws concerning goring oxen as a measure of biblical attitudes toward animals. Wise, 23 BC Env Affairs L Rev at 476-88 (cited in note 130). He concludes that the Covenant Code's insistence upon “capital punishment” for oxen who have killed humans reflects an anthropocentric and hierarcnical cosmology, and contributed to modern legal treatment of animals as mere things. Id at 488. Arguably, these provisions could be said instead to indicate that such oxen were regarded as accountable beings, like humans who killed other humans, rather than merely as things.

140. Compare Lev 19:19Google Scholar.

141. The verses immediately preceding and following, Exod 22:18, 20Google Scholar, prohibit certain alien religious practices.

142. Somewhat more positive references to dogs' relations to humans are found in Tobit 5:16Google Scholar; 11:4; Matt 15:21–28Google Scholar; Mark 7:24–36Google Scholar; Luke 16:20–21Google Scholar.

143. See the detailed description by Feliks, Juhuda, Animals in the Bible and Talmud, 3 Encyclopedia Judaica 7–19 (1972)Google Scholar. See also Caras, Roger, The Promised Land, Israel, for Biblical Beasts, 3 Wildlife 3, 4–13 (1973)Google Scholar (biblical wildlife preserves in modern Israel).

144. Compare Lev 11:46–47Google Scholar. Curiously, the text does not say explicitly that other birds might be eaten. Compare Deut 14:11, 20Google Scholar.

145. Compare the diet of John the Baptizer, according to Matt 3:4Google Scholar.

146. Included under these criteria, but also specified, are all animals “that go on their paws… on all fours” (Lev 11:27)Google Scholar. This category would include bears, wolves, many other woods creatures, dogs, and all kinds of feline animals. Horses and asses (or donkeys), though not specifically mentioned, also would be excluded because they do not chew their cud.

147. See, for example, Lev 11:44–47Google Scholar.

148. Contrary to the views expressed in 2 Esdras 6:55 & 7:11Google Scholar, biblical tradition does not hold that the world was created for the sake of Israel, or even of all humankind.

149. It is possible, of course, that later P editors could have inserted this abbreviated list into the book of Deuteronomy.

150. See also Deut 22:9–11Google Scholar.

151. Schorsch, , Learning to Live with Less in Rockefeller, & Elder, , eds, Spirit and Nature at 32 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar.

152. See Rolston, , Environmental Ethics at 23 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar.

A thoroughgoing humanist may say that only personal life has value, making every other life form tributary to human interests, but a sensitive naturalist will suspect that this is a callous rationalization, anthropocentric selfishness calling itself hard science. The first lesson learned in evolution was perhaps one of conflict, but a subsequent one is of kinship, for the life we value in persons is advanced from, but allied with, the life in monkeys, perch, and louseworts. Mixed with other values, this Noah principle of preserving breeding population is powerfully present in the Endangered Species Act.

See also text accompanying notes 26-29.

153. 1 Cor 8:1–13; 10:18–32Google Scholar.

154. Compare Deut 2:26–3:7Google Scholar, where the narrative states that the Israelites destroyed “every city, men, women, and children,” but saved the cattle and other spoil as booty.

155. See text accompanying notes 5-13.

156. See Steck, , World and Environment at 107 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.

The limitations laid down in Genesis 1 show that for P the possibility of an exploitation of the earth to the point of the exhaustion of its resources, or the contingency that autocratic man might poison and destroy living space on earth, is not remotely considered in this authorization. The subjection of the earth is only so that man may be supplied with useful plants-and, in addition the passage presupposes a permanent and completely sufficient supply of wild vegetation for the nourishment of wild animals, birds, and creeping things. Gen 1:30Google Scholar.

157. See, for example, Deut 11:11–12Google Scholar; Job 38:25–27Google Scholar. See generally Berry, Wendell, The Gift of Good Land: A Biblical Argument for Ecological Responsibility, 64 Sierra 20–26 (11/Dec 1979)Google Scholar.

158. See, for example, Exod 9:29bGoogle Scholar; Deut 10:14Google Scholar; Psalms 24:1–2Google Scholar; 50:10–12. See generally Anderson, , From Creation to New Creation at 1–18 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar; Santmire, , The Travail of Nature at 190–92 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.

159. See, for example, Hosea 4:1–11:7Google Scholar; Amos 3:1–9:8aGoogle Scholar; part Vm.D. See generally Lilburne, Geoffrey R., A Sense Of Place: A Christian Theology of the Land 45–54 (Abingdon Press, 1989)Google Scholar.

160. See, for example, Deut 10:14Google Scholar (“Behold, to YHWH your God belong heaven and … the earth with all that is in it”); Psalm 24:1Google Scholar (“The earth is YHWH's …”).

161. See Hart, John, The Spira of the Earth A Theology of the Land 51–55, 119–23 (Paulist Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

162. Leviticus 25 and 27; see Westbrook, Raymond, Property and the Family in Biblical Law 24–35, 53, 58–68 (JSOT Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Hiers, Richard H., Transfer of Property by Inheritance and Bequest in Biblical Law and Tradition 10 J Law & Relig 121 (1993–1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

163. See Berry, , The Gift of the Good Land at 269–81 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.

164. Compare Exod 23:10–11Google Scholar; Lev 25:2–7Google Scholar.

165. Exod 20:8–11; 23:12Google Scholar; Deut 5:12–15Google Scholar.

166. See part VI.F.1.

167. See also Lev 25:2–7, 8–12Google Scholar, considered in part VI.F.2. See Westbrook, , Property and the Family in Biblical Law at 37 (cited in note 162)Google Scholar. “There is no mention of the poor [in Lev 25]; however, the reason assigned is that the land, being God's land, must keep the Sabbath, that is, the Sabbath principle is extended to cover nature as well as man.” Id.

168. See part VI.F.2. of this article.

169. Compare Lev 25:1Google Scholar.

170. Exod 23:10–11Google Scholar; Lev 25:1–12Google Scholar.

171. Sec part III of this article.

172. Compare Deut 19:19Google Scholar which articulates deterrence theory in connection with the punishment of malicious witnesses and applies the lex talionis in that context. (Deut 19:16–21)Google Scholar.

173. Biblical tradition contains few other references to defecation: 1 Sam 24 3Google Scholar; 1 Kings 18:27Google Scholar.

174. Compare the trial scene in Susanna vv 28-60.

175. Compare the procedure prescribed in Deut 12:1–9Google Scholar, where the murderer had not been found. See part V.B3.b. See generally Gaster, , Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament at 69–72 (cited in note 72)Google Scholar.

176. See also Deut 7:1–11Google Scholar.

177. Compare Lev 25:23Google Scholar: “[T]he land is mine;… you are strangers and guests with me.” Translation by Hart, The Spirit of the Earth (cited in note 161).

178. Compare former interior Secretary James Watt's explanation for his decision to open 800 million acres of federal land for corporate exploitation: “My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.” (Maclean 94 (06 15, 1981) 41)Google Scholar. There is, of course, no such biblical text or requirement Lekachman's, RobertGreed is Not Enough: Reaganomics 51 (Pantheon Books, 1982)Google Scholar: “At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Watt casually confided to the senators in attendance that ‘I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns.’… [TJhis uncertainty appeared, mysteriously to justify opening of public lands to coal miners, oil explorers, lumbermen, resort developers, stock grazers, and other predators. Scripture, asserted Mr. Watt, endorsed his plan.” As to Protestant fundamentalist pre-occupations vis-à-vis environmental concerns, see Fowler, , The Greening of Protestant Thought at 45–57 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.

179. On New Testament expectations, see summary of recent scholarship by McAfee, , Ecology and Biblical Studies at 38–41 (cited in note 2)Google Scholar.

180. See, for example, Prov 27:18Google Scholar; Zech 3:10Google Scholar; Micah 4:4Google Scholar; compare Luke 13:6–9Google Scholar.

181. See Job 40:21–22Google Scholar; Psalm 104:16–17Google Scholar; Ezek 17:22–24Google Scholar; but see Matt 13:31–32Google Scholar; Luke 13:18–19Google Scholar.

182. See, for example, Psalm 148:9Google Scholar (“fruit trees and all cedars”); see also Song of the Three v 54 (“all things that grow on the earth”).

183. This is the second instance of “forbidden fruit” in biblical tradition. The first, of course, was the “tree of knowing good and evil.” (Gen 2:16–17)Google Scholar.

184. See part IX.B.4.b.

185. See von Rad, , Deuteronomy: A Commentary at 133 (cited in note 70)Google Scholar.

186. See part V.B.2.

187. See von Rad, , Deuteronomy: A Commentary at 115 (cited in note 70)Google Scholar; Wright, G. Ernest, Biblical Archaeology 6–7 (Westminster Press, 1960)Google Scholar.

188. Compare Deut 16:21Google Scholar, which prohibits planting trees as Asherim by the altar at the one place. Of course, if trees were regarded as Asherim in Deut 12:1–3Google Scholar, they too would have been subject to destruction as such.

189. Gen 2:5Google Scholar,15; 323—all in J tradition.

190. Psalms 65:9–13Google Scholar; 104:14–15.

191. See also Psalm 104:10–13, 16–18Google Scholar. See generally Tucker, 116 J of Biblical Lit (cited in note 10).

192. See text accompanying notes 207-208.

193. See part VI.F.2.

194. See also Exod 3:8Google Scholar and Num 14:8Google Scholar. Compare Num 16:13Google Scholar, where two dissidents complain that Moses took them out of “a land flowing with milk and honey,” namely Egypt! Aldo Leopold once complained, “Conservation is getting nowhere because it is incompatible with our Abrahamic conception of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us.” (Leopold, Aldo, A Sand County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There, viii (Oxford U Press, 1949)Google Scholar. Leopold explained, “Abraham knew exactly what the land was fon it was to drip milk and honey into Abraham's mouth.” Id at 204-05. Actually, biblical tradition does not characterize the promised land as one flowing with “milk and honey” until the time of Moses, several centuries after Abraham; moreover, no biblical text authorizes Abraham (or anyone else) to exploit or abuse the land.

195. See Hiers, Richard, Jesus and the Future: Unresolved Questions for Understanding and Faith 72–86 (John Knox Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

196. See also Prov 3:9–10Google Scholar; Haggai 1:7–11; 2:15–19Google Scholar; Mal 3:9–12Google Scholar. See also Gaster, , Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament 481–82 (cited in note 72)Google Scholar (as to 2 Sam 21:1–2)Google Scholar.

197. See part VII.D.

198. See, for example, 1 Kings 17:1; 18:46Google Scholar; Amos 4:6–9Google Scholar; Haggai 1:2–11Google Scholar; Zech 10:1–2Google Scholar; Mal 3:5–12Google Scholar.

199. See, for example, Jer 2:4–28Google Scholar; Hosea 2:1–13Google Scholar.

200. See, for example, Deut 6:1–15; 7:12–14; 8:6–20Google Scholar. Compare Haggai 2:15–19Google Scholar; Mal 3:9–12Google Scholar.

201. See also Lev 26:1–26Google Scholar.

202. The substantive provisions of that code probably concluded either with Deut 25 or 26.

203. Compare Deut 27.

204. Compare Gen 9:2–3Google Scholar.

205. But see Lev 26:21–22Google Scholar; Deut 32:24Google Scholar; Ezek 39:4–5, 17–20Google Scholar; where wild beasts act as agents of YHWH's judgment. Such texts may have inspired the denouement scene in Clive Staple Lewis's novel, That Hideous Strength A Modern Fairy-Tale for Grownups (MacMillan, 1965)Google Scholar.

206. See Lam 5:19–22Google Scholar.

207. See also Exod 12:1–20, 43–49Google Scholar.

208. See generally Gaster, Theodor H., Festivals of the Jewish Year: A Modern Interpretation and Guide 31–104 (Morrow Quill, 1978; Sloane, 1953)Google Scholar.

209. See also Deut 26:12–15, discussed belowGoogle Scholar.

210. See Ruth 2.

211. See also Lev 23:22Google Scholar. See generally Hart, , The Spirit of the Earth at 77–81 (cited in note 161)Google Scholar.

212. Compare provisions for the sabbatical year, part VI.F.2.

213. See part V.B.2. (as to the Deuteronomic reform). To facilitate that reform, Deut 18:1–8Google Scholar provided that local Levites who wished to move to Jerusalem might do so and there enjoy the same status and perquisites as those Levites (priests) who had previously officiated at the temple. Since local shrines had been closed, Levites who remained outside of Jerusalem were now unemployed and in need of assistance.

214. Compare Lev 19:9–11Google Scholar & Deut 24:19–20Google Scholar. Under such laws, the poor had a right to engage in such gleaning. Compare Prov 29:7Google Scholar: “A righteous man knows the rights of the poor.”

215. See note 213.

216. But see Mark 2:23Google Scholar.

217. Lev 26:6Google Scholar; Ezek 34:25Google Scholar.

218. Hosea 2:18Google Scholar.

219. See also Gen 6:19–20; 7:8, 14 and 8:17-19Google Scholar (“every creeping thing …” and God's covenant with “every living creature … for all generations” in Gen 9:8–17Google Scholar.) See part III.

220. See Simkins, , Creator and Creation at 219 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar.

221. Gen 3:17–18; 4:12Google Scholar.

222. See also Amos 9:13–14Google Scholar.

223. See, for example, Jer 31:27–28Google Scholar; Ezek 17:22–23, 36:8–11Google Scholar; Joel 2:21–23Google Scholar; Matt 13:31–32Google Scholar; Mark 4:30–32Google Scholar; Luke 13:18–19Google Scholar. On the place of “nature” in biblical eschatology, see generally Towner, W. Sibley, The Future of Nature, 50 Interpretation 27–35 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

224. See Matt 6:10Google Scholar: When God's kingdom comes, His will would be done on earth.

225. Compare Simkins, , Creator and Creation at 225–27 (cited in note 3)Google Scholar, urging that this text is concerned only with “violence that occurs between the human and the animal world,” not with “violence within the animal world.” On its face, Isaiah 11:6–9Google Scholar anticipates that, in the new age, neither kind of violence would any more occur. See Gowan, Donald E., Eschatology in the Old Testament 104 (Fortress Press, 1986)Google Scholar. See also McDaniel, Jay B., Of God and Pelicans: A Theology of Reverence for Life 14 (John Knox Press, 1989)Google Scholar: Isaiah's vision represents “an end to predator-prey relationships.” Ezek 47:7–12Google Scholar suggests that this prophet believed that in the new age, the human diet would consist of fish and fruit. See generally Hiers, Richard H. & Kennedy, Charles A., The Bread and Fish Eucharist in the Gospels and Early Christian Art, 3 Perspectives in Religious Studies 20–47 (1976)Google Scholar.

226. Reference to “the fading” (Isaiah 11:6Google Scholar) does not necessarily imply that animals formerly slaughtered for food would still be fattened and slaughtered in the messianic age. Instead, the term may refer simply to animals (or young animals) that in earlier times would have been fattened for slaughter.

227. See also Isaiah 65:25Google Scholar.

228. Acts 28:2–6Google Scholar. From Paul's standpoint, even though “the whole creation” was in the process of undergoing a new birth (Rom 8:17–22)Google Scholar, the new age had not yet come. See Nash, James A., In Flagrant Dissent in Derr, , Environmental Ethics and Christian Humanism at 109 (cited in note 133)Google Scholar (noting New Testament expressions of “hope for cosmic redemption”).

229. See also, for example, Hosea 2:21–22, 3:5Google Scholar; Joel 3:18Google Scholar; Amos 9:11–15Google Scholar; Haggai 2; and Zech 14.

230. Isaiah 65:25Google Scholar.

231. See generally, Hiers, Richard H., Ecology, Biblical Theology, and Methodology, 19 Zygon 43–59 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wink, Walter, Ecobible: The Bible and Ecojustice, 49 Theology Today 465–77 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Conservatives and evangelicals divide over the extent to which biblical tradition warrants environmental concern and concern for other species. Some ground such concern in biblical texts. See, for example, Sider, Ronald J., Message from an Evangelical The Place of Humans in the Garden of Eden, 17 Amicus 12–14 (1995)Google Scholar. Generally, however, these groups tend to ignore or hold negative views as to these concerns. See generally, Guth, James L., et al., Faith and Environment: Religious Beliefs and Attitudes on Environmental Policy, 39 Am J of Pol Sci 364–82 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

232. See note 7 and accompanying text See also, Hiebert, Theodore, Re-Imaging Nature: Shifis in Biblical Interpretation, 50 Interpretation 36–46 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kay, Jeanne, Human Dominion over Nature in the Hebrew Bible, 79 Annals of the Assn of Am Geographers 214–32 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kay, , Concepts of Nature in the Hebrew Bible at 309–327 (cited in note 15)Google Scholar; Paul, Pope John II, For the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, 30 Natural Resources J 1–8 (1990)Google Scholar; Simkins, Creator and Creation (cited in note 3).

233. See note 3 and accompanying text.

234. See Hayden, , The Lost Gospel of the Earth at 63–66 (cited in note 10)Google Scholar.

235. See generally, Niebuhr, H. Richard, Radical Monollieism and Western Culture at 24–63 (Harper and Brothers, 1960)Google Scholar, and Sturm, Faith, Ecology and the Demands of Social Justice (cited on the first page of this article, biographical note).