Dominion in Genesis
When the writer of Genesis tells us that humanity was given “dominion” over the animals (Gen. 1:26), the Hebrew word used is radah. Now radah can mean “to rule” or “to tread down,” but its meaning is always shaped by the character of the ruler. In Leviticus 25:43, God commands Israel, “You shall not rule (radah) over him with harshness.” Dominion, therefore, is not tyranny but care—an authority modeled after God’s own kingship, which is always just, merciful, and protective (Psalm 72).
Genesis 2:15 deepens this calling: humanity is placed in the garden “to till it and keep it.” The Hebrew words here are abad (“to serve”) and shamar (“to guard, to protect”). The garden, with all its creatures, is not ours to exploit, but ours to serve and safeguard. From the very beginning, dominion is bounded by stewardship.
Covenant With All Creatures
After the flood, God speaks not only to Noah but to “every living creature” (nephesh chayyah, Gen. 9:10). This phrase is the same used of human life (Gen. 2:7) and animal life (Gen. 1:20). In other words, both man and beast share in the divine breath and are included in God’s covenant promises.
This covenantal vision is staggering: animals are not mere backdrop to human drama, but participants in the story of redemption. They are bound up in God’s purposes and are never outside His care.
Law, Wisdom, and Prophets
The Law of Moses reflects this covenant in practical ways:
- Even the ox and donkey rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10).
- A working ox must not be muzzled but allowed to eat (Deut. 25:4).
- The mother bird must not be taken with her young (Deut. 22:6–7).
Each law whispers the same truth: animals matter to God.
The Wisdom literature is equally clear: “The righteous care for the needs of their animals, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel” (Prov. 12:10). The Hebrew word for “care” is yada—to know intimately, to attend personally. To be righteous is to know and care for animals as God knows and cares for His people (Ps. 1:6).
The Prophets, too, condemn abusive dominion. In Ezekiel 34, God rebukes the shepherds of Israel for ruling (radah) with cruelty. Dominion without compassion is always sin.
Jesus and Mercy Without Boundaries
In Jesus, mercy (eleos) becomes the hallmark of the kingdom. “Blessed are the merciful” (eleēmones, Matt. 5:7). The sparrow sold for a penny (Matt. 10:29) does not escape His Father’s care. If even the smallest creature is remembered, how much more should those who bear His image act with mercy toward them?
The parables of Jesus draw upon animals not as disposable symbols but as valued beings: the lost sheep (Luke 15), the ox fallen into a pit (Luke 14:5). In each case, the lesson is clear: compassion extends to all God has made.
Paul and the Redemption of Creation
Paul lifts our eyes higher still. In Romans 8:19–22, he writes that “the whole creation” (ktisis) groans in longing for redemption. The same word ktisis is used in Mark 16:15: “Preach the gospel to every creature.” Salvation is cosmic in scope.
Here is the great Christian hope: not merely the rescue of souls, but the renewal of all creation. Animals, too, share in this groaning, and they will share in this glory.
Implications and Lessons
- Dominion is responsibility, not exploitation. To rule as God rules is to serve, to protect, and to bless.
- Animals are covenant partners under God’s care. They are not beneath His promises but within them.
- Righteousness is measured by mercy. The biblical test of godliness includes how we treat the least and the lowly, even the animals.
- Creation is destined for redemption. Our stewardship today anticipates God’s tomorrow, when all things will be made new.
Conclusion
The Bible speaks with one voice: animals are not disposable, nor are they ours to waste. They belong to God, and we are their stewards. Our dominion must mirror His mercy; our rule must reflect His care.
To be Christian is to live with eyes lifted both to the Creator who made all things, and to the creation that groans for redemption. To honor animals is not sentimentalism—it is obedience, covenant faithfulness, and a foretaste of the kingdom where, as Isaiah says, “the wolf will dwell with the lamb” (Isa. 11:6).
I understand you are trying to recast the Christian dominion interpretation, but it is worth mentioning that as an ideology it has long been overwhelming opposed or indifferent to animal welfare. Most popular dominion interpretations are in the mold of Rene Descartes, who thought animals automatons. The dominion framing is so severe that the most popular shocking vegan film is named after it.
Furthermore, the modern animal welfare movement is highly correlated with atheism, or at least skeptical approaches to understanding our relationship with non-human animals. It may be easier to push non-religious framings around animals rather than trying to re-interpret dominionism. I'm not sure how successful that will be depending on the culture where you live.
Your observation about the correlation between the modern animal welfare movement and secular or skeptical worldviews is astute and widely recognized. It's a valid point that for many, a non-religious framing of our relationship with animals feels more intuitive and less burdened by historical baggage.
However, the effectiveness of any approach depends heavily on the cultural and social context. In many parts of the world, including in some communities within historically Christian nations, a significant portion of the population is deeply religious. For these individuals, a purely secular argument for animal welfare may not resonate as deeply as one rooted in their faith tradition.
For someone whose worldview is shaped by their faith, demonstrating that compassion for animals is not only compatible with their beliefs, but is a core expression of them, can be a powerful motivator. This is where reinterpreting concepts like "dominion" comes in. It's not about ignoring the problematic history of the term, but about offering an alternative, faith-affirming understanding that emphasizes stewardship, care, and love for all of creation.
Ultimately, a multi-pronged approach is likely the most successful. Secular arguments can be very effective for one audience, while faith-based arguments can open doors and change hearts in another. The goal is to reduce animal suffering, and to achieve that, we should use every tool at our disposal, in a way that is most effective for the specific audience we are trying to reach.
If this subject is of interest, you might enjoy Matthew Scully's "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." His article a Brief for the Pigs gives a sense of his style & arguments:
> In the early 1980s, standing in the very place where Saint Francis lived, Pope John Paul II said of him: “His solicitous care, not only towards men, but also towards animals, is a faithful echo of the love with which God in the beginning pronounced his ‘fiat’ which brought them into existence. We too are called to a similar attitude. . . . It is necessary and urgent that with the example of the little poor man of Assisi, one decides to abandon unadvisable forms of domination, the locking up of all creatures.” Pope Benedict XVI, too, cautioned against “the industrial use of animals” and “the degrading of living creatures to a commodity,” as his successor, Francis, has spoken about the “disordered use” of animals in factory farms, the “wretchedness that leads us to mistreat an animal,” and the truth that, where cruelly made products are on offer, “purchasing is always a moral — and not simply economic — act.”