A Vegan Review of Norm Phelps’s The Dominion of Love. Dr. Chapman Chen
- Chapman Chen
- Aug 9
- 5 min read
Introduction: US animal rights advocate and autodidactic theologian Norm Phelps’s (1939-2014) important book, The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According to the Bible (published in 2002), sensibly posits that the prime directive, or ultimate test, for any biblical passages seemingly condoning animal consumption or abuse is whether they align with the two commandments declared by Jesus Christ – the love of God and of thy neighbour. And as God everything has everything, the only way to serve God is to serve His creatures (Phelps 2002, 35-37). With this golden principle, Phelps overcomes quite a few hurdles to veganism and highlights many vegan-friendly passages in the Bible, though he misses out on some salient points, and there is room for improvement regarding the organisation and format of the book. Below are some representative examples.
1. Dominion as Governorship
Regarding challenges to veganism, Phelps interprets “dominion” in Genesis (1:28) as governorship in the sense of civil service, rather than a Nazi-like dictatorship (Phelps 2002, 51). However, power tends to corrupt people, and when humans believe they have authority over other sentient species, they are prone to abuse that authority. Phelps does not note that the pre-Masoretic Hebrew word in consonantal form for “dominion” is yirdu, which could mean either to subjugate or to lower oneself (cf. Ehrenfeld & Bentley 1985:301). IMO, the latter is the correct interpretation, as Jesus insists, “I came to serve, not to be served!” (Matthew 20:28). Moreover, Genesis 1:28 is immediately followed by a vegan prescription issued by God.
2. God’s Permission for Noah to Eat Animals = A Concession?
Phelps claims that God’s permission for Noah and his offspring to eat animal flesh is a concession to “man’s moral weakness” rather than an ideal (Phelps 2002, 96-97). But how could God, who is love (1 John 4:8), have made any concession in relation to the well-being of His creatures? Phelps fails to note that remes, the Hebrew word for “moving thing” in Genesis 9:3, refers to creepers, which could be either animal or herbal. Yet, animal creepers or reptiles as food items are strictly forbidden in the Torah (Leviticus 11:41-42). Therefore, the creeper that God allowed Noah to consume must be creeping plants (cf. Metcalfe 1804).
3. Fish and Fishweed
Concerning the five loaves and two fish miracle, Phelps rightly points out that “opsarion,” the Greek word for fish in John’s account (John 6:9), could mean a veggie delicacy, but he fails to mention that “opsarion” could well be a misspelling of “opson,” a kind of fishweed (cf. Hicks 2019; Giron 2013). Furthermore, Phelps just states that the Greek word ichthys in Matthew’s, Luke’s, and Mark’s accounts of the miracle means fish but does not mention that ichthys is an acronym for “Jesus, Son of God, Saviour,” a secret code used by early Christians to avoid persecution.
4. Jesus Went Scot-Free After Sabotaging a 2000-Pig Farm?
Concerning the drowning of 2,000 pigs (Mark 5:13), Phelps convincingly argues that in those days, a 2,000-pig farm could only have been owned by some powerful, wealthy man. If Jesus had truly driven the 2,000 pigs to their death, He would have been arrested, punished, fined, and even charged with rioting and enslaved. Yet, Jesus apparently went scot-free. Thus, the story must be a legend originating in anti-Roman nationalism (Phelps 2002, 140-1). Phelps, however, fails to mention that “legion,” the name of the demons in the story, insinuates the Roman army unit, implying an anti-colonial message (cf. Leander 2013). Phelps also ignores the psychoanalytic approach adopted by Leslie D. Weatherhead (1951) to address this passage, viewing the word “legion” as an expression of the possessed person/psychiatric patient’s repressed traumatic memory of being brutalized by the Roman soldiers or witnessing brutality by them.
5. Paul as an Agent
Phelps accurately points out that Paul who maintained that the weak eat only vegetables and we can buy anything sold in the meat market without guilt, was a Herodian, and that his aristocratic, Greco-Roman background prevented him from applying God’s and Christ’s principle of love to women, slaves, homosexuals, and animals (Phelps 2002, 172-5). Phelps concedes that Paul was an agent of the High Priest to persecute followers of Jesus’ movement, but believes Paul eventually became a leader of that movement (Phelps 2002, 159). However, Phelps fails to consider Professor Robert Eisenman’s (2012) and Thijs Voskuilen’s (2005) well-evidenced argument that Paul was a secret agent sent by the Roman Empire to corrupt Jesus’ vegan church from the inside.
6. Jesus as the First Animal Liberationist
Phelps rightly argues that Jesus is the first animal liberationist engaged in direct action in human history, and that Jesus’ condemnation of the priests for turning the house of prayer into a den of robbers stems from Jeremiah 7:22 (Phelps 2002, 88). Yet, Phelps fails to credit his predecessors, such as Keith Akers (2000) and J.R. Hyland (1993), in this regard.
7. Jesus Ate the Passover Lamb?
Phelps rightly stresses that throughout the entire Bible, nowhere is it ever mentioned that Jesus ate the Passover lamb (Phelps 2002, 88), but he fails to mention that Jesus deliberately set the Last Supper before the Passover (John 13:1), which implies that the meal was not a traditional Passover meal, as Phelps suggests.
8. Animals Do Have a Soul
In terms of vegan-friendly verses, Phelps rightly points out that contrary to popular beliefs, animals do have a soul for “nephesh chayah” as given by God to animals in Genesis 1:20, 21, etc. actually means “living soul” rather than just “life” (Phelps 2002, 58-59).
9. Animal Sacrifice as Superstition
He also observes that animal sacrificial rituals in the OT are superstitious practices borrowed by the Israelis from certain neighbouring tribes while wandering in the wilderness as a homeless, terrified people, that true prophets including Isaiah, Amos, Micah, Jeremiah, and Hosea staunchly opposed animal sacrifice and their vegan legacy was inherited by Jesus, who famously declared, “I desire compassion, NOT sacrifice!” quoting Hosea 6:6 (Phelps 2002, 76-84).
10. The Beatitudes
“Blessed are the merciful…” (Matthew 5:7) is a beatitude often quoted by vegan Christians to support their cause. Phelps not only highlights this beatitude but also interprets in a vegan-friendly way the other beatitudes less cited by vegans, including “Blessed are the pure in heart” (Matthew 5:8), “Blessed are the meek” (Matthew 5:5), and “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9), etc. (Phelps 2002, 150-154).
11. Format Issues
In Appendix I of his book, Phelps helpfully categorises biblical verses into topics like Animals with Intelligence and Emotions, Covenant with the Animals, Animal Sacrifice Allegedly Commanded by God, Animal Sacrifice Condemned by God, and more. In Appendix II, Phelps provides an annotated and categorised list of works for further reading.
Regrettably, Phelps does not provide an index, which is unscholarly and makes it inconvenient for readers to find specific pieces of information they desire. Further, Phelps could have organized the chapters of the book more logically; for example, placing 'The Prime Directives' as Chapter I rather than Chapter IV.
12. Conclusion
Norm Phelps’s The Dominion of Love is an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to understand the biblical foundations of veganism, though it does have its shortcomings. While Phelps provides insightful interpretations of scripture from a vegan perspective, his work sometimes overlooks key points and fails to credit earlier scholars who have advanced the animal liberation cause. Nonetheless, Phelps’s overarching thesis that love and compassion for animals are deeply embedded in the Bible remains a powerful argument, and his book is a helpful guide for anyone exploring the intersection of faith and vegan ethics. #VeganChrist #VeganGod #VeganChurch #VeganTheology
Comments