One topic of concern in the field of Science and Theology, especially in discussions of evolution, is the attempted removal of the human-animal distinction. If humans are different only in degree and not in kind from animals, then much of traditional Christian Theology must be reworked. One downstream effect of this reconsideration is the nature, goal, and effect of Christ’s incarnation and atoning death. It has become vogue in these discussions to reconceive of Christ’s person and work as not merely for humans but all creatures. The thesis of this paper is that the creeds of Nicaea and Chalcedon are not silent on this issue. Although they do not speak of animals explicitly, the theology expressed in the creeds address these issues and offer crucial resources to the church when these ideas slip into the pews.
In the first part of this paper, I will discuss the work by several theologians (Linzey, Clough, Moritz, and others) who base their understanding from Niels Henrik Gregersen’s notion of “Deep Incarnation,” that Christ came as flesh and not merely as man. These theologians attempt to expand Christ’s life and death to apply directly to all other living creatures who also need redemption. Next, I will examine these claims by looking at how “flesh” is used in Genesis 6–7 and in the writings of John.
The next part of this paper will turn to the creeds. I will examine how the affirmation that Jesus Christ, for us men and our salvation, became incarnate and was made man is a faithful interpretation of the biblical texts previously analyzed. The notion that the Son of God became incarnate as generic creaturely flesh is not only exegetically baseless but runs counter to the faithful interpretation of the Bible confessed at Nicaea.
I will then look at the anthropology that is inherent in the Chalcedonian Creed. The Son of God became truly man of rational soul and body. This definition is helpful in navigating discussions of animal theology. Not only is the use of “rational” soul instructive, but the creedal distinction of “person-nature” can also help answer these questions—and, as Michael Wilkinson has recently argued, this latter distinction is a necessary part of what it means to be human.
In the final part, I will examine other theological themes found in the creeds, such as sin and judgment, confirming that Christ’s incarnation and death were aimed to resolve the problem of human—not animal—sin.