Do animals go to heaven?

[Drew]

uh, the city of new jerusalem descends from heaven to the new earth.

we aint stayin in heavan forever.

I agree entirely and think that the belief that the redeemed will spend an eternity in heaven is an error that many Christians buy into.

I suggest that one should read 1 Corinthians to be rebuked from this error - in that chapter, Paul argues quite definitively that when Jesus returns, we will all be given resurrection bodies. Yes bodies - arms, legs, eyes, teeth, "piece of fish eatin" bodies.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

I was reading through this collection of books, poetry, and letters that many people call the Bible and I have yet to see where animals are promised a heavenly inheritance. I also do not see mankind being promised such an inheritance either. It seems that Jesus, you know, the King of Kings, only made the offer of a heavenly life available to his elect few. The hope of all of the rest of us has always been and still seems to be a resurrection to life (not necessarily in heaven).

 

[jasoncran]

I was reading through this collection of books, poetry, and letters that many people call the Bible and I have yet to see where animals are promised a heavenly inheritance. I also do not see mankind being promised such an inheritance either. It seems that Jesus, you know, the King of Kings, only made the offer of a heavenly life available to his elect few. The hope of all of the rest of us has always been and still seems to be a resurrection to life (not necessarily in heaven).

i smell a jw. are you a jw?

 

[handy]

It's been awhile since I've weighed in on this subject, which crops up fairly regularly...

I believe that animals will be resurrected and will join us in the new earth.

Why?

Well, there really isn't a lot of scripture to back it up, but I do have a couple of things.

One is the use of the word "nephesh" to describe both the animals and man. "Nephesh" being translated soul. Plants and trees are alive, but do not have souls. Animals do. Or better said, as someone around here has in their signature, "You are a soul, you have a body." Animals are souls too.

Secondly, the fact that animals were part of the salvation via baptism of the waters of the flood. This to me is the most compelling reason why I believe that animals will share in the resurrection. As it states in 1 Peter 3:19-22 "After being made alive, He went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. "

No, this doesn't refer to the animals being saved, but they were a part of God's salvation during the flood. He so very easily could have simply called forth more animals after the flood subsided, but He didn't. They had their place on the ark and the ark is clearly a type of God's salvation.

Thirdly, God created man to live forever. It was due to Adam's fall that man ceased to live forever. Animals were created to live forever as well. Until the fall, no animal died. All were created as vegetarians, nobody ate another animal. Even the lions, tigers and bears ate the plants and fruits that were good to eat.

Forth, an animal was the first sacrifice and therefore are considered innocent of sin. The first death was an animal which God killed in order to properly cover Adam and Eve's nakedness. This "covering" was the first sacrifice for sin. Animals remained the subsitute for our holy and innocent Lord up until His death on the cross, which fulfilled all sacrifices. If animals were sinful, they would not be able to be sacrifices. Since animals are without sin, then they should not remain dead.

That animals are part of the new earth is clear for Isaiah tells us that the animals will be restored to being vegetarians again "lion laying down with the kid, leopard with the lamb and a little child shall lead them"...paraphrased badly, but you all are familiar with this I'm sure. And, I believe that not only animals are part of the new world, Cleo, Miranda, Buzzy, Kitty-Kitty, and all the other critters will be resurrected as they were innocent of sin, and therefore should not remain dead, while I, riddled with sin and the cause of their death and the Lord's death should be alive.

Not that I'm going to argue the point with Jesus if Miranda and Cleo aren't waiting for me in my mansion, but this is why I believe what I believe.

 

[Glowstique]

Ive always believed that animals would be in heaven. I hope they are. I love cats but im allergic, but i wont have that problem when Jesus comes back.

 

[Mike]

One is the use of the word "nephesh" to describe both the animals and man. "Nephesh" being translated soul. Plants and trees are alive, but do not have souls. Animals do. Or better said, as someone around here has in their signature, "You are a soul, you have a body." Animals are souls too.

Dora, I have to cordially disagree with your statement here. First of all,

Gen 1 (NIV)
" 26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.†27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."

[It's my understanding that animals have the "breath of life", as it reads going forward]

Gen 1 (NIV)
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.â€
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.†And it was so. "

to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him. "

No, this doesn't refer to the animals being saved, but they were a part of God's salvation during the flood. He so very easily could have simply called forth more animals after the flood subsided, but He didn't. They had their place on the ark and the ark is clearly a type of God's salvation.

I'm not sure this is evidence of the ark's plan of salvation for animals. There was a reason He wanted a male and female for every kind, clean and unclean. I'm thinking that the clear directive of having one of each sex was for them to continue appropriation. And speaking of Noah's story, in Genesis 9 (NIV)
" 1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

[Stopping here for a moment, God gives animals to man for food. It doesn't follow with me that if these animals were part of His eternal plan for salvation, they would be sacrificed, eaten and given dominion over.]

4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man."

Verse 4 seems to imply that they could have souls if someone reads "souls" into "lifeblood", and He is saying there will be accounting for every animal, but the punishment for shed blood of man is much stiffer than that of animals. So man could eat animals, but they would have to kill them first and not drink the blood from them. To me, this isn't describing beings with spirits preciously cared for in His plan for eternal Salvation. What did Christ say about our value compared to birds?

That animals are part of the new earth is clear for Isaiah tells us that the animals will be restored to being vegetarians again "lion laying down with the kid, leopard with the lamb and a little child shall lead them"...paraphrased badly, but you all are familiar with this I'm sure. And, I believe that not only animals are part of the new world, Cleo, Miranda, Buzzy, Kitty-Kitty, and all the other critters will be resurrected as they were innocent of sin, and therefore should not remain dead, while I, riddled with sin and the cause of their death and the Lord's death should be alive.

I certainly see the Kingdom being populated with many animals. I just don't believe that animals are part of the resurrection. But, we're all speculating here, aren't we? For all I know, I could be way off. And I could see the Lord leading pets to us who are uncannily similar to ones we once had.

 

[handy]

Admit it Mike, you just don't want to face the possibility of an eternity with a kitty-cat!

All speculation, to be sure, and on about as far away from an essential issue as one can get. Whatever God chooses to do with Cleo, Miranda and the rest of my beloved critters is OK by me. He created them first anyway and knows them far more than I ever could.

You said, "It doesn't follow with me that if these animals were part of His eternal plan for salvation, they would be sacrificed, eaten and given dominion over."

My answer to this is simply that Jesus was part of God plan of salvation, and He was sacrificed and in a very real sense we "eat" Him every time we take communion do we not?As for the dominion, I don't see why it makes a difference, even if they were a part of God's eternal salvation...after all, God gave Adam dominion over the animals prior to the Fall, when the animals knew no death.

 

[Mike]

Admit it Mike, you just don't want to face the possibility of an eternity with a kitty-cat!

All speculation, to be sure, and on about as far away from an essential issue as one can get. Whatever God chooses to do with Cleo, Miranda and the rest of my beloved critters is OK by me. He created them first anyway and knows them far more than I ever could.

You said, "It doesn't follow with me that if these animals were part of His eternal plan for salvation, they would be sacrificed, eaten and given dominion over."

My answer to this is simply that Jesus was part of God plan of salvation, and He was sacrificed and in a very real sense we "eat" Him every time we take communion do we not?As for the dominion, I don't see why it makes a difference, even if they were a part of God's eternal salvation...after all, God gave Adam dominion over the animals prior to the Fall, when the animals knew no death.

Well, maybe in the New Kingdom to come, they won't shed all that cat hair off on me.

Since it's obvious we're not talking about a salvation issue, it is interesting to discuss. Look at Gen 9 again. It seems to me that God gave Noah the same dominion over animals and all living things. In fact there, He said they were theirs to eat! I'm not sure - well, I am sure we never had dominion over Jesus.

I'm going to go back and see if you weighed in on that mega-thread happyjoy was hepped up over many months ago asking if Animals have spirits or souls. Gosh, it would stink if you contradicted yourself! ;) So many people chimed in and very few agreed with her. I'm hoping you did chime in. That would just be juicy! :type

 

[Ashua]

might not get itunno


i've heard animals don't have a soul...

oh well

Only God knows

Right.

And we need not look any farther than Genesis to see it. God made MAN in His own image. What is God? A spirit. Man is made after the likeness of spirit. Animals are separated from man in that they do not have spirits as men are sovereign among creation in that privilege/curse.

 

[Theofilus]

As far as I can see, the Bible doesn't say anything, one way or the other, about our pets being in Heaven. It does, however, say a few things about Heaven and who will be there, from which we can infer an answer as to our pets' eternal destiny.

First of all, the Bible meantions two resurrections - the resurrection of the just (those who will be in Heaven) and the resurrection of the unjust (those who won't be in Heaven). There is no mention of a resurrection of puppies.

Secondly, the Bible states that not all people will be in Heaven, but only those who are saved through their faith in Christ. Since animals are not spiritual beings and therefore not capable of the kind of faith required for salvation, it follows that they will not be in Heaven.

So, since the Bible doesn't actually support the idea, why do so many people belive that they will meet their pets again in eternity? The reason is simple. People base their theology not on what the Bible says, but on their emotions. If it were only regarding this one thing, that wouldn't be so much of a problem, but people do the same in other areas. I don't want to hijack the thread, so I won't go into it, but we have all heard people say something along the lines of "I can't beleive God would do such a thing", when the Bible clearly says that He does. We have to stop basing our theology on our emotions and start basing it on God's Word.

 

[handy]

Well, maybe in the New Kingdom to come, they won't shed all that cat hair off on me.

Since it's obvious we're not talking about a salvation issue, it is interesting to discuss. Look at Gen 9 again. It seems to me that God gave Noah the same dominion over animals and all living things. In fact there, He said they were theirs to eat! I'm not sure - well, I am sure we never had dominion over Jesus.

I'm going to go back and see if you weighed in on that mega-thread happyjoy was hepped up over many months ago asking if Animals have spirits or souls. Gosh, it would stink if you contradicted yourself! ;) So many people chimed in and very few agreed with her. I'm hoping you did chime in. That would just be juicy! :type

I'm sure I did weigh in on it, I usually do when this topic arises...but if you prove to the world that I contradicted myself, I'm sending my five cats in full ninja gear to Michigan...


Theo, I'm truly not one of those who believe Fluffy will be in heaven because if she isn't then God's just a big ole meanie. Actually, I was raised to believe that animals will not take part in the resurrection, and have changed my mind strictly due to studying the issue in the scriptures, not because I'm just a big sentimental softy!

Animals do have souls, or rather animals are souls...simply checking into the Hebrew word for soul and seeing that it is the word used when creating the beasts proves that beyond any question.

As to whether or not the making of man in the image of God means that man has a spirit, there are many who will argue that point...but I don't see as germane to this issue. The resurrection is the rejoining of the body and soul at the end of time.

The animals, were created to be eternal. If God created them for death, then death did not enter the world through sin, something we know isn't true. Death is the curse of sin, yet the animals are innocent of sin. If the animals do not share in the resurrection, to me, this gives rise to the final victory of death over innocence, something that I think Jesus took care of on the cross.

So many people seem to think that if God made man in His own image, that somehow negates the fact that animals have souls, animals are innocent of sin, and animals were created to live eternally just as man was. I don't see that at all.

 

[jasoncran]

I'm sure I did weigh in on it, I usually do when this topic arises...but if you prove to the world that I contradicted myself, I'm sending my five cats in full ninja gear to Michigan...


Theo, I'm truly not one of those who believe Fluffy will be in heaven because if she isn't then God's just a big ole meanie. Actually, I was raised to believe that animals will not take part in the resurrection, and have changed my mind strictly due to studying the issue in the scriptures, not because I'm just a big sentimental softy!

Animals do have souls, or rather animals are souls...simply checking into the Hebrew word for soul and seeing that it is the word used when creating the beasts proves that beyond any question.

As to whether or not the making of man in the image of God means that man has a spirit, there are many who will argue that point...but I don't see as germane to this issue. The resurrection is the rejoining of the body and soul at the end of time.

The animals, were created to be eternal. If God created them for death, then death did not enter the world through sin, something we know isn't true. Death is the curse of sin, yet the animals are innocent of sin. If the animals do not share in the resurrection, to me, this gives rise to the final victory of death over innocence, something that I think Jesus took care of on the cross.

So many people seem to think that if God made man in His own image, that somehow negates the fact that animals have souls, animals are innocent of sin, and animals were created to live eternally just as man was. I don't see that at all.

lol, ahhhhhhhhhhhh i'm in heaven and the velocoraptor wants to eat me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dinosaurs shall be in heaven all of them! and uh.

for those that ignored my point.

we have spiritual animals that we ride.pet play with?

 

[Drew]

The City of God will come down to earth where we will live forever! It will be as God has designed it in the first place: perfect and without the blight of sin.

Absolutely correct - this idea that we will be in heaven in a disembodied state forever is simply not Biblical. The final state of the believer will be in a physical body - just like the one the resurrected Jesus had - and we will live in a restored and redeemed physical cosmos.

 

[Mike]

I'm sure I did weigh in on it, I usually do when this topic arises...but if you prove to the world that I contradicted myself, I'm sending my five cats in full ninja gear to Michigan...

Darn it, anyway!! I didn't find the thread I was looking for, but I found others, and you were consistent! How could I ever have imagined that my sister would contradict herself. The upside is, I get no cats sent to me from Iowa... er, Montana... er, Idaho. Whatever. I get no cats!

Absolutely correct - this idea that we will be in heaven in a disembodied state forever is simply not Biblical. The final state of the believer will be in a physical body - just like the one the resurrected Jesus had - and we will live in a restored and redeemed physical cosmos.

I didn't realize there were so many that took up the false assumption that we would be living eternally in some other realm called "Heaven". If I'm not mistaken, that's what the Jehovah Witnesses believe. Good stuff, Theo and Drew!

 

[jasoncran]

Darn it, anyway!! I didn't find the thread I was looking for, but I found others, and you were consistent! How could I ever have imagined that my sister would contradict herself. The upside is, I get no cats sent to me from Iowa... er, Montana... er, Idaho. Whatever. I get no cats!



I didn't realize there were so many that took up the false assumption that we would be living eternally in some other realm called "Heaven". If I'm not mistaken, that's what the Jehovah Witnesses believe. Good stuff, Theo and Drew!

uh. no. the jehovah's wittness only maintain the the 144,000 go to heaven eternally. They believe in the millenial kingdom and also that they believer will be on the earth for ever and God dwelling with them.

 

[Ashua]

All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" -Ecclesiastes 3:20-21

 

[handy]

All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?" -Ecclesiastes 3:20-21

Wow, I didn't realize that there was scriptural support for animals having a spirit (ruwach) as well as a soul (nephesh).

If animals have body, soul and spirit, and yet are without sin (only suffering the consequences of sin, as is all creation) I truly cannot see them not participating in the resurrection.

 

[Alabaster]

Wow, I didn't realize that there was scriptural support for animals having a spirit (ruwach) as well as a soul (nephesh).

If animals have body, soul and spirit, and yet are without sin (only suffering the consequences of sin, as is all creation) I truly cannot see them not participating in the resurrection.

The word used for spirit is also for soul (the seat of the mind, will and emotions). Animals do not have spirits. Their souls die along with their bodies and return to the earth only, and yes, they do not benefit from the resurrection.

 

[Mike]

Little hamster doesn't like the truth... I'm sorry, little hamster. Salvation is by faith alone, and you, well... you're a hamster.

(sorry. this video never gets old)


[video=youtube;y8Kyi0WNg40]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8Kyi0WNg40[/video]

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

i smell a jw. are you a jw?

Not at all. I am neither that nor am I an adventist. I just am a student of the books of the Bible and a person who reads all he can to get a better understanding of the writings by studying the time periods contemporary with the writings.
What the older writings teach us is that man IS a living soul as opposed to being in a possession of a living soul.