Does the Bible Teach that Animal Death Is Brought in by the Fall?

This is just a question I was thinking about. I haven't landed one way or another, as I don't know if this can truly be known by us. However, here are some points to ponder. 

I was always taught that carnivorous animals once ate vegetation, and that their entire ontological makeup was altered after the Fall. This, however, seems a bit odd. Carnivores wouldn't simply need to be changed in terms of their metabolism, but their teeth in order to grab onto prey, their muscles in order to overpower them, their speed would need to be altered, etc. And why are some wild animals changed from being herbivorous to being carnivorous if it is just the Fall affecting them?  Wouldn't all herbivores become carnivores in the same way that all men become destroyers instead of life-givers in the Fall?

But if carnivores were made from the beginning, that would mean that animal death was something that is prelapsarian. But what does the Bible say? Doesn't it teach that all death came in through Adam? Romans 5:12-14, 17-19

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come . . .  17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

This passage is often used to argue that death did not exist before the Fall and so no animals could possibly be carnivorous or die before the Fall. However, it is clear in the context that this is talking about death for humanity. Humans, as God's images, were not meant to die before the Fall and it was only after Adam's sin that death for humanity came into the world. The text is explicitly clear in v. 12: εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ⸋ὁ θάνατος⸌ διῆλθεν "death came to all men." It does not say that death came to all creatures. 

It should also be understood that even though we talk about plants dying, the Bible does not consider plants as having living souls and therefore as things that die in the sense that a soul departs from its corporeal existence. Fruit could be said to "die" because God gave it to Adam and Eve to eat before the Fall but, again, this is not considered death in Scripture.

It is disputed as to whether bacteria, micro-organisms, insects, etc. would be considered living creatures by the Bible, but certainly anything from reptiles and fish to larger livestock and wild animals would be as they are all referred to as חַיָּה, which literally means "living thing" but is often just translated as "animal," an English word derived from the Latin animalis "having life/a soul." Of course, by "soul" I don't mean that they have an eternal soul but that they have a life source/breath that animates them. We're told in Ecclesiastes that their lifesource returns to the ground as opposed to man's that returns to God upon death.

Returning to the question at hand, then, the argument for a postlapsarian animal death is then drawn from Romans 8. In vv. 18-23, Paul states:

18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

The problem in using this passage is that it says nothing about death being brought to all creation. In fact, because it is talking about all creation, and not just animals, it would be strange to import that into the text here. Instead, the creation is subject to futility. Futility concerning what? Well, in the context, Paul is talking about how we suffer in this world and still die, so the creation, that was originally made to support a human-filled world, because of the Fall, was subject to the fact that it won't be able to do its job and keep those humans but instead, in its fallen state, will lead to their suffering and death. It, therefore, groans (anthropopathically speaking) until the day that the sons of God are resurrected in their glorified bodies and it can finally be placed in a state of success in that it can preserve the humans that fill it up. It's existence for that purpose will no longer be futile. This really has nothing to do with our question, then, as to whether animals only die as a result of the Fall.

A further argument might be made from federal headship. Although this is theological rather than a connection the Bible makes to this issue, it's an interesting one to consider. The idea would be that if Adam was not under death then the animals under him would not be under death either, but this may not be a proper application of federal headship, as a man who is not under the death penalty in the civil sense today might still kill his livestock for food and in the OT as a sacrifice. In other words, his animals don't necessarily share his fate by being a part of him. They actually could just be a part of him by being consumed by him or sacrificed for him. Furthermore, if animals served a purpose in their dying in order to keep the man's ecosystem running properly before the Fall as it does now, then these deaths would serve him rather than detract from him. In other words, like the fruit, the animal perishes so that death does not come to the man. It does not perish because he is under judgment but rather because he is under blessing and provision. 

Still, it is interesting to ponder why God gives only the fruit for man to eat and not animals before the Fall if these animals are dying anyway. The counterpoint might be that the fruit mentioned isn't because it is the only thing being eaten but simply letting the man know that none of the fruit is forbidden to him (which might make the reader ask if the forbidden fruit is symbolic in the next chapter since all fruit was granted to the man in the first), whereas some of the animals might be forbidden to him just because they don't make for good eating. The distinction between wild animals and domesticated animals in the language of these chapters may bear this out but who knows in the end?

Here is what is clear. No man was under the penalty of death until Adam sinned. Humans die as a result of the Fall. That is the clear biblical teaching. There is no human death before the Fall. Hence, Christ came into the world to redeem humankind from death, and in doing so, all of creation from futility. Whether carnivores were made by God to be carnivorous and had actually eaten before Adam sinned remains a mystery that we simply must guess at either way.

If you know of any verses or arguments I might be missing, let me know.