Bible Discussion Thread

Do Animals have souls? Do animals go to heaven?

Thank you Alex, I did read Hebrews 9:14 & then re-read 1 Peter 3:21. I assume your comments are directing my focus on the words "purge your conscience" (in Hebrews), & "a good conscience" (in 1 Peter).

If that's the case, then the Greek words that apply to those verses are 'katharizo' (meaning, to cleanse, or remove), and 'agathos' (meaning, good, pleasant, peaceful); different words - different applications. I fully agree that only the Blood of Jesus can cleanse & remove our sins & guilt completely, as that Blood presents before God continually to be applied to all who come to Him via the Cross; & yes, even make our consciences clear from old 'dead works', believing those Truths & the God Who truly does all that He says.

However in 1 Peter 3:21, the matter is about the other aspect of salvation, i.e. as Noah & family were saved by the flood water bearing them up in the Ark, so to water in baptism also saves - not for outward cleansing (of the flesh), but of cleansing our conscience in a visible act of identification with Jesus in His death, burial, & resurrection. And clearly Peter never implies that water baptism is needed for salvation, for baptism cannot save, only repentance & faith in Christ's finished Work can. But water baptism provides the new believer, through a physical act, a conscience (or, you can read it as 'a mind') that is satisfied, contented, at peace that all that has happened inwardly, is enacted outwardly as a testimony to self & others. When Satan comes knocking at our door, as he always does to refute our faith & new life in Jesus, that physical act of identification with Christ will be sufficient proof to hit him between the eyes - our testimony: Jesus died for me - I'm now identified completely with my Saviour.

So both passages of Scripture are different in application: one, the purging of sin-wrecked consciences; & the other, giving of peace & assurance to revived, renewed consciences.

Amen Chris also keep in mind that the flood of Noah was symbolic of the spirit that is gonna flood the World Joel 2 : 28 I will pour out my Spirit on ALL FLESH...Knowledge shall Cover the earth as the waters Cover the Seas...And John 7 : 39 says when Jesus speak of water it was just prophetic of his Spirit the H.G. For the H.G. was not yet given b/c that Christ was not Glorified...And Peter tells us of the water of the Word...the H.G. That living water That cleans the Church...I.E. when Jesus said if any man thirst it was not about h20 but his Spirit...Whosoever drinks of this water shall thirst again...But the water that i shall give him shall be a well of water springing up unto everlasting life...ok lemme go...GBU Chris

Ecclesiastes 3:21 indicates that the soul (or breath) of an animal descents downward to the earth; whereas of man it ascends upward (as man dies once and goes to judgment Heb. 9:27). This is; as far as I can see the only verse that indicates what happens after an animal dies.

One could infer that with "all creation travailing" ( Romans 8:22) that death has caused all of His creation; designed to live eternally to be interrupted from that purpose. There is no specific verse that would indicate a Resurrection of an animal; but with a new heaven and earth it certainly can't be ruled out.

Humans; as the scriptures show were created with "eternity in their hearts." ( Ecclesiastes 3:11). We also have some understanding of good and evil; hence unlike animals we are sinners (see Romans 1; Psalm 19). With Christ; we have His Spirit living in us; and praise God He will never leave nor forsake us. Without Christ; as the Psalms state we are as brute beasts; and we surely have no hope.

God did; however allow the serpent in the garden to be used as a conduit for Satan. This apparently caused the species to have to crawl in the dirt rather than stand upright after that event. It would seem somehow that the serpent itself was cursed as though it had some affinity for evil. That raises questions I can't fully answer. The case of Balaam and the talking donkey in Numbers 22 shows how an animal spoke; and surely showed proper reverence for God; as well as showing how an animal can see into the spiritual dimension when man is too dumb and blinded himself to do this. There is another example in Kings where a lion stood next to a donkey after mauling the disobedient prophet. There were also verses where lions were kept from mauling David; but afterwards God had them maul His enemies. God surely provides as He does for the birds in their great feast in Armageddon; even creatures in the burning fringes of hell in other verses. There is a master plan for all creation.

Ecclesiastes 3:21

As proof that the creature suffered the consequences of the fall, God sent the flood to kill all animals with the breath of life outside the Ark in addition to all unbelievers. However, God saved Noah and his household along with pairs of all unclean animals and sevens of clean animals in the Arc.

Noah is a type of Christ, and Christ will always be magnified and glorified over any of the Old Testament types that prefigure Him, like Adam and Able. Christ will resurrect and deliver far more than 7 other people through the salvation He has brought us. We can expect he will exceed Noah in terms of what He ultimately accomplishes for the other creatures that God places in His care that have the breath of life.

At the same time, not only did the wicked line of Cain perish in the flood, all descendants in Seth's family tree outside of Noah's household were deemed wicked and died in the flood as well. So like Noah in the case of the flood that came, salvation can only be found in Jesus Christ from God's judgement that is coming. A wife or husband can't know if they will save their unbelieving husband or wife. So we have to be prepared to glorify God as just and true no matter what He ultimately decides to do with our pets and cling to Christ for salvation. They and us were all created for God's pleasure and glory much more than for ours.

I want to acknowledge the incorrect and unbiblical way I summarized scripture when I quickly wrote:

"At the same time, not only did the wicked line of Cain perish in the flood, all descendants in Seth's family tree outside of Noah's household were deemed wicked and died in the flood as well."

As written this not true. The named individuals in the direct line from Seth to Noah were godly, even though only Noah did not die or get translated prior to the flood. I am also aware that the judgement of the flood was not pronounced on mankind until 120 years before the flood. Prior to that moment any number of unnamed individuals in the line of Seth may have died as godly individuals. However, once that judgement was pronounced, only Noah and those that believed his preaching and the animals God brought to him by the time the flood came would be saved. Tradition holds that Noah was widely mocked. Noah likely had brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, cousins and in-laws among the mockers. In any case, by the time the flood actually came only Noah and his immediate household believed. Whether or not any unnamed individuals that died between the time judgement was pronounced and before the flood came ever actually believed Noah's preaching is not known, but it is reasonable to say there were very few if any.

I should not have attempted to summarize all of that into a single sentence, and the summary I gave fails to account for most of what scripture says and is therefore unbiblical. So I accept that criticism from those who wrote it.

There are other critiques I could add about this post, but I hope this suffices to acknowledge I did a poor job in what I originally posted and had I taken the time to reread my posts more carefully when I was challenged I should have withdrawn them based on how I had failed to apply care in handling these passages.

Hi Rich,

You are saying some things I don't hear very often like "Christ is the second Adam" and "Noah is a type of Christ."

I'm sure your intent is to help answer a question, but I question whether those statements are true because I've never read those in the Bible, have you? If you believe you have can you please share your verses supporting these ideas?

Typology in Christian theology and biblical exegesis is a doctrine or theory concerning the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Events, persons, or statements in the Old Testament are seen as types prefiguring or superseded by antitypes, events or aspects of Christ or his revelation described in the New Testament.

Jesus told the Pharisees in John 5:39-40,45-46:

39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. 46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

So if you or I read Moses and we don't see Jesus in what he wrote, Moses will accuse us of missing the whole point of what he wrote that was supposed to lead us to eternal life. I can't afford to do that. Can you?

For Adam as a type of Christ

1 Corinthians 15:45-49

Christ as the last Adam. Adam is the first man and Christ is the second man. I think this verse gives me the latitude to say Christ is the second Adam, bit if you disagree read my post with the words last Adam instead.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22

Romans 5:12-19

Both of these passages show either by contrast or by similarity to how Christ's uniquely fulfills the role that Adam was supposed to fulfill, but failed at. Christ is the antitype of Adam according to Paul's teaching.

For Noah as a type of Christ

1 Peter 3:18-22

"By like figure" is Peter's way of saying baptism and the resurrection of Christ is the antitype of Noah and his household being saved in the Arc.

The bronze serpent Moses lifted in the wilderness is a type of Christ on the cross. Numbers 21:6-9. John 3:14-15

Sarah and Hagar are types of the Old Covenant of the Law and the New Covenant of grace. Galatians 4:21-31. Paul calls this an allegory, but he uses it extensively for his doctrine.

Hi Rich. I enjoy reading your comments as you have much to offer readers of God's Word & those who want to meditate further on it. But I want to address Adam's question to you which I believe is a fair one.

I understand you were happy to accept both phrases, 'the second Adam & the last Adam' as being applicable. I understand that the 'last Adam' phrase is significant because of the Plan of God to physically intrude into humanity for the purposes of effecting His Salvation. If Jesus was to be referred to as the 'second Adam', there would leave room for a third or a fourth Adam (i.e. other salvific efforts by God to correct any failed attempts by the previous ones). Therefore, the 'last Adam' should speak to us that as the first Adam failed in dealing with the onslaught of sin upon him, the last Adam was God's One & Only Plan to correct that failure by rejecting any dart of sin against Him. Had Jesus failed, there would be no other 'Adam' available for fallen man - we would remain condemned & doomed to eternal punishment - Why? That God gave it His all, His Best, Himself.

And in reference to 1 Peter 3:18-22, I sense that this passage doesn't speak of Noah being the antitype of Christ, but the 'water' & by extension, the Ark that the water bore. As Peter writes, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...", the 'figure' being that which is likened to, is the water (i.e. "eight souls were saved by water"). I agree that through Noah's obedience to God, his family were saved; but I actually see Noah as that "preacher of righteousness", or the evangelist, who preached to others & urged the only ones who believed & worthy to be saved, to avail themselves of God's salvation Plan: by water, being lifted up & away from the anger & destruction of the Lord. A sidenote, the Rapture of Church is clearly evident here & I would say, that the events around the Flood typifies that which God will do for His Church, saving her from His Wrath to come on all.

Christ is the fulfillment of Noah on a much larger scale if Noah actually was "that "preacher of righteousness", or the evangelist, who preached to others & urged the only ones who believed & worthy to be saved, to avail themselves of God's salvation Plan: by water, being lifted up & away from the anger & destruction of the Lord."

How does Christ and baptism into Him by water and the Holy Spirit not fulfill that for you? He certainly fulfills that for me. He alone is the Word preached that leads to righteousness, salvation and eternal life in this age, and before He sent out any Apostles He Himself preached that very message. The great commission is God's salvation plan.

He is the head of the only household God will save in these latter days and these "days of Noah". He is the door of the Arc and the sheepfold. All must go through Him to be saved. If anyone tries to claim they can fulfill Noah's role for anyone in this age apart from preaching Christ, they are a thief and a robber that the sheep will not hear and run from.

So try again. How exactly is Noah not a type of Christ?

I fully agree with what you have written, Rich. One can certainly use the Ark, its door, the man Noah, possibly even the dove (if one tries hard), to find references to the Person & Work of Christ for mankind's salvation.

However, since you quoted 1 Peter 3:18-22 & then wrote, ""By like figure" is Peter's way of saying baptism and the resurrection of Christ is the antitype of Noah and his household being saved in the Arc", I then wrote that the 1st Peter reference wasn't directed to Christ being the antitype of Noah, but to the 'water'. That is, the "like figure" that Peter mentioned looks back to the flood of water & not to Noah, to which Peter then talks of water baptism: that any salvific component in it was not for the cleansing of the flesh but of imputing a pure conscience of the baptizee towards God. As said earlier, Noah & other aspects of this account can help us to see some glimpses of Christ, but I don't believe that Peter intended that in his passage.

Chris

I decided to do an exposition of 1 Peter 3:19-20 under the 1 Peter 3 discussions to give my view of the full set of parallels Peter is making in what I believe is the chiastic (inverted parallel) structure of these four verses that all hinge on the phase "The like figure whereupon". If you want to discuss this further please do it there. I appreciate your thoughts on the passage, and critiques of what I've said here and would value your response to that post.

The controversy I stirred up by my introduction of this passage and my admittedly casual and free use of topology and short-hand summary terms that are far more objectionable to many than I had any idea about in a quickly drafted and not fully thought through series of posts has taken this thread side ways. Hopefully my new post under 1 Peter 3 takes the critiques offered here into account and sticks to what the passage actually says, at least in my view, much better.

Chris ya need to read Hebrews 9 : 14 ...Its only by the blood of the lamb Christ Jesus,..That New Covenant the CROSS that can purge your Conscience...not by water baptism....lest our lord shed his blood in vain...In the O.T. it was by the blood of animals but now its by the Blood of Christ Jesus...ok...Actually Chris it wd be a good idea to read the whole book of Hebrews...Keeping in mine the CROSS WAS A New Covenant in his Blood...When i was young i tried to memorize the whole book of HEBREWS...but it was just too many words but i did manage to memorize the whole 11 th chapter...the faith Chapter...ok GBU Chris

Alex, please look to the top of this thread for my comments to you - went there in error.

[Comment Removed]

Noah is not an allegory. He is an actual person. Noah is not Jesus and Jesus is not Noah. However, Noah is given in scripture to us with a message for our time. His age was wicked and our age is wicked. God destroyed the cosmos (the world system of the wicked) of Noah's day with a flood, yet God chose to show his grace to save mankind through one man Noah. God has said he will destroy the cosmos of our day with fire. Has God in His grace chosen one man to save mankind from that destruction? Yes, Jesus Christ. I just listened to two sermons by Billy Graham on Noah, and when you boil it all down that was Billy Graham's message. That is mine. It takes no more mental gymnastics than that to say Noah is a type, and Christ is his antitype for us.

Rich, I think you know that your first 2 sentences is a straw man argument.

You're saying some weird things that aren't in the Bible.

[Comment Removed]

I would retract my original posts to avoid this entire discussion. I admit to giving in to speculation in answering a question that invites speculation. I presented ideas that I made sound more authoritative than they are. Nothing like that has ever happened on this forum before, and I am sorry I was the first to do that.

I agree there are limits to typology that I have exceeded. In that I will admit to posting things that are wierd and can be questioned. I reacted defensively when the first challenge was written and looking at my response now I made it sound like I had written my manifesto of doctrine. I had not.

However, that escalated until you basically called me a false teacher. Harsh and hardly a basis for holding a conversation. But I am willing to admit I went too far and should have probably have just removed my original posts when I had the chance.

I am sure nothing like this has ever happened to anyone else in an online forum with questions like "Do animals have souls and are there animals in heaven?" before. Only the best theological answers to questions like that have been offered on this forum before I came along and no one has posted anything they later regretted. I'll be the first.

If you can agree that my summary of Billy Graham's message is a correct use of typology at least admit that. That doesn't require you to agree with anything else I have written and you are welcome to flatly say that you don't. Are you willing to show at least that much grace? Matthew 18:21-35.

Also. If you have any thoughts on the original question I would like to hear them.

[Comment Removed]

[Comment Removed]

Hi Brother Chris.

This is very interesting, I've always pictured as the second Adam but knew he was the Last. But yet he's both being that there's only two.

However each way you term it there is a difference.

That is something I missed!

The conclusion is we are in one or the other, and terming Jesus as the Last makes a significant difference considering our everlasting Identification.

"The first a living soul, The last a quickening spirit."

Considering Adam was made a living soul before he sinned, it seems there were changes needed to be made in man before he could enter heaven. "Even before Adam sinned, being he wasn't made incapable of sin.

Those changes came by way of the last Adam. "quickening spirit".

One day we will have a sinless body.

1 Corinthians 15:46-51. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.

God bless.

Indeed brother S. Spencer, Amen. Christ was indeed the second Adam, but more importantly, I feel, the last Adam, i.e. there could be no further attempt by the Father to give any better than the best He gave in Jesus, His Word.

That is why I sense that Paul quoted the first part of 1 Corinthians 15:45, "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul" referring to Genesis 2:7. But the latter part, "the last Adam was made a quickening spirit", to which there was no direct OT reference in terms of 'another Adam', was Paul's belief that Jesus too had to come in perfection just as the first Adam, if there was to be any hope for us. But now, with the failure of the first & sin's consequences upon all, the Last would effect a Work that not only showed His perpetual purity but also be the God-given means of giving new life (resurrection) to dead souls through His Life & Death.

Amen Brother Chris,

Well stated, God bless you.

Actually Now that I think about it we should say Christ is both the second and last Adam, not one or the other only. If we just say Christ is the last Adam, someone could say He is the last of 50 Adams and get our attention wasted on the 48 new Adams that person wants to talk about. Paul says both things about Christ, so that means there is only one Adam before Him, the original, and no Adam after Him. I think you can agree with me that is what Paul means. It is certainly what I mean to say. Christ is uniquely our Savior and no one else is worthy to be compared to Him.

I can accept that the last Adam is the better term for the reasons you said. The second Adam is still a true statement, but doesn't close the door on their being another. In any case, I assume we are agreed that Adam is a type of Christ in the way Paul has described him.

I am going to give real consideration to your view on 1 Peter and Noah as something I need to meditate on more. Baptism does correspond to the water of the flood, but I think there is more of Christ being prefigured than your allowing, given that Christ Himself is brought forward by Peter when he talks about the Resurrection. I also feel the union between Christ and a believer is such that I believe we are always meant to see Christ through their faith when they consistently prevail in obedience as Noah did. All grace is empowered with Christ always being the substance of the likeness they are being conformed to. To the extent that You or I actually live out the Christian life from the heart, that is what is at work in us, never our abilities unsupported by grace or without Christ's likeness being revealed.

Noah's failure with the wine gives the first glimpse of when his obedience fails. The theme of Old Testament characters starting strong until they get a great victory and then suddenly failing as soon as the pressure is off or they seem to think God isn't watching shows how much God's grace enabled them. Adam fits this pattern and as far as I can recall to varying degrees so does everyone else until Christ fulfills all of the patterns prefigured without failure. But Adam is the template for gaining insight from the Holy Spirit. Still one of the challenges of correctly applying typology is that there are always similarities and dissimilarities at work, some subtle (Able and Joseph) and others swinging between extremes on both sides (Sampson and David).

Anyway, we are not meant to be duplicates of each other. We can both gain something from each other honestly stating our views.

Actually I had not connected that the first response to this original question was yours, there was such a separation of that from the point where you jumped in to give your thoughts on me. So never mind on the last statement of my prior post about sharing your ideas on the original question.

Thank you Rich. I only saw this comment of yours after replying to the later one from you.

Romans 8:15-23

The purpose of this passage is to explore what is promised by the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father. The promise goes far beyond our souls and the glorious redemption of our bodies. It encompasses all aspects of the creation God gave Adam and Eve dominion over.

Since Adam did possess a soul and was put over all creatures, the consequence of his fall and the curse placed on Eve, Adam and the Serpent has affected far more than humanity. The creatures remained subject to Adam and Eve have been subjected to the fall and curse with them.

Fortunately for them and us, Christ is the second Adam, and the redemption God will bring about through Him won't merely equal the fall and curse in it effects, it will far exceed them. As a result, the creatures also share in the reign of Christ and the fulfillment of the promised hope of His Spirit of adoption in us.

So do animals need a soul to benefit from Christ? No. Is there a future for them in God's plan in Christ? Yes.

I should not have said,

As a result, the creatures also share in the reign of Christ and the fulfillment of the promised hope of His Spirit of adoption in us.

The way I wrote that implies the creature reigns and in all ways would be the same as those that receive the adoption as sons, which would be wierd and Paul does not teach that. I did not intend to say that. Even if I had changed the word share to benefit or something else, I should not have asserted this statement or most of what I said with such certainty. Paul's words were:

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

I should have just quoted the full Romans passage and said it potentially has application to the question with much less commentary. Looking back at what I wrote and reading through the full passage more carefully I admit I did a rather slipshod and overstated exegesis of it.

Hello,

The Bible doesn't specifically address this, but I personally don't believe animals have souls. Human beings are very different from other animals as we are made in the image of God. We make moral decisions of right and wrong among other unique qualities we have.

Most people ask this because they love their dog and want to be with their dog in heaven. The Bible doesn't address this. But I wonder what the real question is. If the question is is heaven worth it, someone can read Revelation 21 for what it may be like. Someone can also read about the alternative of rejecting our creator.

If the question is will you feel loved and happy and fulfilled in every way in heaven, the answer is yes times a million, beyond anyone's wildest dreams. But even if there was something like regret in heaven, which I don't think there will, but if anything, I would think the higher regret would be about your loved ones rejecting Christ and not entering heaven. Maybe we'll wonder if we we could have done more to help. I would think this would have a much heavier weight than if you have your pet nearby. But it's possible some dogs will be heaven.

I don't think someone's feeling of entitlement will be allowed to interfere with others though. When I was at the airport, someone had a dog on a leash extended in a crowded area and the dog darted and interfering with travelers, nearly tripping people including frail elderly travelers, and became a real nuisance. Sometimes dogs carry ticks, disease, and leave inconveniences on the floor for others to step in. Some people have been attacked and killed by dogs so not everyone would have the same fondness toward such animals in heaven. Regardless it will be an amazing place.

Ecclesiastes 3:21