One topic of concern in the field of Science and Theology, especially in discussions of evolution, has to do with the human-animal distinction. It is quite common for theologians in this field to reduce or eliminate this distinction. The result of this elimination is that many theologians argue that animals are therefore in need of redemption. The thesis of this paper is that this move is outside the boundary of Scripture, and that a proper theological and biblical understanding of the atonement provides a better basis for understanding animals and sin.
In the first part of this paper I will outline the arguments of major theologians who argue either than animals sin (Moritz), or that Christ’s work on the cross must provide redemption for animals in some way (Clough, Linzey, Deane-Drummond, and others). I will give an overview of their major arguments, and show that they rely on a very thin reading of Scripture.
In the second part of the paper, I will show how a proper biblical and theological doctrine of the atonement provides a better “answer” to their questions. I will show that atonement in the Bible is tied to the two federal heads Adam and Christ, and that this is necessary to make sense of the biblical storyline. I will expand on the work by Wellum in highlighting the priestly work of Christ in the atonement that it is both salvific and brings judgment. Due to the Adam-Christ headship and Christ’s priestly work (typologically connected the Old Testament sacrifices to Christ’s work) shows that Christ’s work in both salvation and judgment is not aimed or applicable to animals.
In the final part of the paper, I will provide an argument that better makes sense of the biblical data. As humans are made in the image of God and his vice-regents over creation, their sin impacts all of creation. In this way, animals are in need of reconciliation and renewal (Rom 8; Col 1) which is provided by the redemption of believers and Christ’s final dealing with sin. One major outworking of this is that since Christ’s priestly work on the cross guards against outsiders, this also means that animals are not considered “outsiders.” Therefore the aim of many animal theologians might better be maintained by emphasizing humanity’s vice-regency over creation and the effects of Christ’s work on all creation which does not pit humans against animals ethically.