Posted: 12/03/07

David Barton on Animals Going To Heaven and Veganism

The following is a letter that David Barton wrote responding to a college age student about his presentation at a recent Code Blue Rally. The young person that wrote to David was sincere and truly desired to seek more information from David Barton. We encourage this free exchange and the opportunity to lovingly articulate a Biblical worldview on such topics.

Dear (name removed)

Thank you for your kind email, and for graciously raising the concerns you held over my talk at Worldview Weekend's Code Blue Rally at Shades Mountain Independent Church.

I appreciate the means in which you personally found God, and your search to find solutions for your health situation. I am also extremely grateful that you did find God!

Nevertheless, there are still a couple of points you made with which I would still disagree. For example, you characterized vegetarianism and veganism as being without a real distinction, explaining to me that "both are simply a lifestyle that people choose in an effort to maximize their health." However, prominent websites associated with veganism clearly disagree with your characterization; while vegetarianism is related to a dietary preference related to health, veganism goes well beyond any dietary approach to health. As the website www.veganvalues.org explains:

"As a dietary practice, veganism goes a step beyond vegetarian abstention from meat, chicken or fish; vegans won't consume milk, eggs or honey, either. They also won't wear leather or silk derived from animals or use products that have been tested on animals. Vegans don't eat, wear or use animal products.

The Vegan Society website similarly explains:

"Being vegan is about more than what we do or do not eat. It is a prayer – a petition asking why animals and people suffer greatly in a Universe created by a benevolent and loving God. . . . Veganism is a corollary of ahimsa [a Buddhist religious principle of life]. . . . Veganism is not so much about dietary abstinence as it is about spiritual sustenance – spiritual sustenance that fills the dark and empty spaces. . . . This ethical standard is based on two things: a desire to decrease or at least not contribute to the suffering of any sentient being, and the interrelatedness and common origin of all life on Earth. If she, he, or it suffers, we suffer. What constitutes suffering, the way most Buddhists define it, is that everything/everyone wants to live and nothing/no one wants to feel pain."

(The vegsource website also links itself directly to biospirituality – not at all a Biblical or Christian approach.)

As an example of distinct differences between veganism and vegetarianism, under the vegan approach, the belief is that the honey bee feels pain, and therefore it is immoral to partake of honey; similarly with milk, or a chicken laying an egg. Significantly, while the vegan will not use milk or honey, the Bible endorses both milk and honey for their positive health benefits in numerous verses. In fact, recall that God directly led His people to the Promised Land – a land He described as flowing with milk and honey (Exodus 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3, etc.). If these two food sources are unhealthy, would God directly lead His people to them? Certainly not. Similarly; Jesus Himself endorsed partaking of eggs. While vegetarians will partake of these food elements, vegans will not – and not merely for dietary and health reasons, but much more for spiritual beliefs associated with Hinduism and ahisma about milk, eggs, honey, and a number of other similar foods.

Also, you set forth your belief that animals will go to heaven, and you cite two verses in support of that premise. For example, you cite 1 Corinthians 15:39-44; I assume that you are relying primarily upon verse 39, which declares that "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." You then seem to tie that verse to verse 44, which says that "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." Significantly, however, every verse in that section – and especially in the section preceding and succeeding the verses you selected – is related to a discussion of the type of a body that man will have when he is resurrected – what he will look like in heaven. Verse 39 simply points out that there are different types of flesh on earth in order to prove that differences do exist; it then proceeds to prove that man himself will have a different type of countenance on his resurrection. Notice, for example, that in verses 45-47, the Bible then points both to Adam and to Jesus to prove this, explaining: "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 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." The passage is all about mankind, and only cites animals to acknowledge that there are different types of flesh on earth.

The second verse you cite is:

"A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." Proverbs 12:10

Other translations phrase it this way:

"A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel." Proverbs 12:10 (the new international version)

"Good people are good to their animals; the 'good-hearted' bad people kick and abuse them." Proverbs 12:10 (the message version)

Being kind to animals certainly does not mean the animals to which we are kind have eternal life – or that they are going to heaven. Similarly, the fact that I should be kind to another human being does not mean that person will go to heaven or that he will have eternal life. Rather than this verse "saying clearly that God will hold animals responsible," to the contrary, it instructs men on how they should treat animals and holds man responsible.

The Bible is patently clear about what is required to go to Heaven and have eternal life:

1. Unless someone is "born again," they will not enter Heaven (John 3:3; etc.)
2. No one can be born again and enter Heaven or have eternal life unless they believe on and confess the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 10:32-33; Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:10-13; John 3:15; 5:39; 17:3; etc.)
3. No one can enter Heaven and have eternal life unless they have been cleansed from their sin; and no one can be cleansed of their sin unless they specifically confess their sins and specifically ask God to forgive them (1 John 1:7-10; Romans 6:23).

There are numerous other Scriptures that consistently and repeatedly reemphasize these three requirements as the key to entering heaven and having eternal life; animals are incapable of meeting these requirements: they do not recognize sin, they do not confess sin, and they do not believe in Jesus Christ for salvation and then continue in His teachings (see also 1 John 2:24-25, John 6:51-54, Romans 5:11-21, etc.).

While I disagree with you on the two points you made in your email, I do agree with you that "The Bible says that God has placed man over animals. Consequently, it is our responsibility and privilege to be kind to them and care for them as is practical and reasonable – certainly not an option to abuse them, as creations from God's Own hand."

Thanks again for your kind and gracious email.

Dave Barton

By David Barton Click here for bio and archived articles