Biblical Theology of Bestiality and Human Nature

The biblical theology of bestiality is rooted in the understanding that it is a grave offense against God's created order. The Bible explicitly prohibits bestiality in several passages, including Leviticus 18:23 and 20:15-16, and Deuteronomy 27:21. The severity of this prohibition is underscored by the fact that both the human perpetrator and the animal involved are to be put to death ^{[9, 10]}.

In biblical thought, bestiality is not merely a matter of moral or legal transgression but is deeply connected to the understanding of human nature. The biblical account of creation presents humans as stewards of the earth and its creatures, with a distinct role and responsibility towards animals (Genesis 1:28-30, 2:15). Bestiality subverts this order, blurring the lines between humans and animals.

The imagery used in biblical texts to describe the consequences of sin and the nature of evil often employs animal metaphors. For instance, bears and wolves are used to symbolize ferocity, cruelty, and the destructive power of evil ^{[1, 2]}. In this context, the natural world is seen as reflecting the moral and spiritual state of humanity. When humans engage in bestiality, they are, in effect, aligning themselves with the very forces of chaos and disorder that God has condemned.

The Patristic tradition views human sin as having a beast-like quality, suggesting that sin distorts human nature, making it akin to that of animals. Augustine, for example, notes that human vice can be likened to a beast's nature, highlighting the dehumanizing effect of sin ^[7].

In the Reformed tradition, Charles Hodge discusses the hypostatic union of Christ's human and divine natures, emphasizing that human nature, though fallen, is capable of being redeemed and elevated through union with the divine. This understanding underscores the dignity and worth of human nature, contrasting with the degradation represented by bestiality ^{[4, 5]}.

The Catholic Scholastic tradition, as represented by Aquinas, also addresses the issue of cruelty and brutality, likening it to savagery or brutality that is akin to the behavior of wild beasts. Aquinas distinguishes between human cruelty and the instinctual behavior of animals, emphasizing that human actions motivated by a disregard for justice and reason are particularly egregious ^[6].

The Jewish Rabbinic tradition, as reflected in the Babylonian Talmud, discusses the legal and moral implications of bestiality, emphasizing that both the human and animal participants are culpable. The Talmud highlights the Torah's concern with maintaining the integrity of both human and animal creation ^{[8, 9, 10]}.

The biblical prohibition on bestiality, therefore, is not isolated but is part of a broader theology that encompasses the nature of humanity, the created order, and the consequences of sin. It reflects a deep concern with maintaining the distinctions and boundaries established by God in creation, and with upholding the dignity of human nature.

The understanding of human nature in relation to bestiality is further illuminated by James 3:7, which notes that humans have a capacity to tame animals, implying a natural superiority and stewardship role. This capacity is perverted when humans engage in bestiality, indicating a profound disorder in human nature ^[3].

Sources

Torrey's Topical Textbook “Torrey's Topical Textbook: Bear, The — Inhabits woods -- 2Ki 2:24. Described as Voracious. -- Da 7:5. Cunning. -- La 3:10. Cruel. -- Am 5:19. Often attacks men -- 2Ki 2:24; Am 5:19. Attacks the flock in the presence of the shepherd -- 1Sa 17:34. Particularly fierce when deprived of its young -- 2Sa 17:8; Pr 17:12. Growls when annoyed -- Isa 59:11. Miraculously killed by David -- 1Sa 17:36,37. Illustrative of God in his judgments. -- La 3:10; Ho 13:8. The natural man. -- Isa 11:7. Wicked rulers. -- Pr 28:15. The kingdom of the Medes. -- Da 7:5. The kingdom of Antichrist. -- Re 13:2.”
Torrey's Topical Textbook “Torrey's Topical Textbook: Wolf, The — Rapacious nature of -- Ge 49:27. Particularly fierce in the evening when it seeks its prey -- Jer 5:6; Hab 1:8. Destructive to flocks of sheep -- Joh 10:12. Illustrative Of the wicked. -- Mt 10:16; Lu 10:3. Of wicked rulers. -- Eze 22:27; Zep 3:3. Of false teachers. -- Mt 7:15; Ac 20:29. Of the devil. -- Joh 10:12. Of the tribe of Benjamin. -- Ge 49:27. Of fierce enemies. -- Jer 5:6; Hab 1:8. (Taming of,) of the change effected by conversion. -- Isa 11:6; 65:25.”
James “James 3:7 (Geneva1599) — For the whole nature of beasts, and of birds, and of creeping things, and things of the sea is tamed, and hath bene tamed of the nature of man.”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 79: fact of its wide and long continued prevalence may be taken as a proof that it does not involve any palpable contradiction. Human nature, therefore, although endowed with intelligence and will, may be, and in fact is, in the person of Christ impersonal. That it is so is the plain doctrine of Scripture, for the Son of God, a divine person, assumed a perfect human nature, and, nevertheless, remains one person. The facts, therefore, revealed in Scripture concerning Christ constrain us to believe, (1.) That in his person two natures, the divi”
CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 79: The Scriptures teach that the human nature of Christ remained in its integrity after the incarnation; and that the divine nature remained divine. The Bible never requires us to receive as true anything which the constitution of our nature given to us by God himself, forces us to believe to be false or impossible. The Union is a Personal Union. Thc union of the two natures in Christ is a personal or hypostatic union. By this is meant, in the first place, that it is not a mere indwelling of the divine nature analogous to the indwelling of t”
theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part (Secunda Secundae), Of Cruelty, Art. 2: Article: Whether cruelty differs from savagery or brutality? I answer that, "Savagery" and "brutality" take their names from a likeness to wild beasts which are also described as savage. For animals of this kind attack man that they may feed on his body, and not for some motive of justice the consideration of which belongs to reason alone. Wherefore, properly speaking, brutality or savagery applies to those who in inflicting punishment have not in view a default of the person punished, but merely ”
Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 5: Augustine — Anti-Pelagian — CHAP. 46.--DIFFICULTY OF BELIEVING ORIGINAL SIN. MAN'S VICE IS A BEAST'S NATURE. (part 2): For the one is of God, and is His work, while the other emanates from man's own will. The stronger nature, therefore, that is, the angelic one, keeps the lower, or human, nature in subjection, by reason of the association of vice with the latter. Accordingly the Mediator, who was stronger than the angels, became weak for man's sake.5 So that the pride of the Destroyer is destroyed by the humility of the Redeemer; and he who makes his boast over the sons of men of ”
Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Bava Kamma 40b.19: He clarifies: With regard to an animal that engaged in bestiality, the Torah renders a case where it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control like a case where it acted willfully, as it is disqualified in either case. By contrast, with regard to an animal that gores, the Torah does not render a case where it is a victim of circumstances beyond its control like a case where it acted willfully. Conversely, with regard to an animal that gores, its owner pays the ransom; whereas the owner of an animal that engaged in bestiality does not pay a ransom. Th”
Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 54b.15: And it is derived from the fact that the Merciful One expresses the halakha of one who engages in bestiality passively using the term for one who engages in bestiality actively: Just as with regard to one who engages in bestiality actively the Torah both punishes for this action and prohibits it, so too, with regard to one who engages in bestiality passively, the Torah both punishes for this action and prohibits it.”
Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 54b.17: Abaye says: Even according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael he is liable for transgressing two prohibitions, as it is written: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death.” If the verse is not needed for the matter of one who engages in bestiality actively, as this prohibition is stated explicitly in the verse: “And you shall not lie with any animal” (Leviticus 18:23), apply it to the matter of one who engages in bestiality passively. And it is derived from the fact that the Merciful One expresses the halakha of one who engages in bestiality passiv”

Ask Your Own Question