Introduction
What sort of being is Human? This is an extremely
crucial question that needs justification in the context of all creation reflecting
in the light of the word of God. The Psalmist asked this question to God; why
God care for them, and why God made them dominant over all other creations (Ps. 8:3-8). According to Owen C.
Thomas, the doctrine of humanity has always been the implicit center of
Christian faith, and it has been the subject of explicit debate off and on
during the history of Christian thought.[1]
In this paper, we will deal with this question of theological anthropology in
line with our syllabus, highlighting the doctrine of human by giving some
evaluation.
What is theological anthropology?
Etymologically, theological
anthropology is a combination of two words viz. ‘theology’ meaning word of God,
and ‘anthropology’ meaning word or study of human kind. Theological
anthropology concerns with how and why human beings ought to relate to God, how
religion answer the persistent questions people ask and thus illumine human
life, upon whom or what human can rely when facing limits and failures, and
what maybe the hope beyond this existence.[2]
Jose
Kuttianimattathil, a Roman Catholic theologian describes theological
anthropology as the study of the meaning of human existence in the light of
belief in a transcendent being. Here, Christian theological anthropology means
study of human existence in the light of Jesus Christ and his salvation. It is
primarily concerned with humans in relation to God as revealed in Jesus Christ,
and with the origin, nature, life, and destiny of humans against this
background.[3]
Theological anthropology, as defines
by David H. Kelsey, is the doctrine about human nature or what it is to be
person. In a strict sense, it has tended to focus on either or both of two
major guiding questions such as: (i) What is it about human beings that makes
it possible for them in their finitude to know the infinite God? (ii) What is
it about human beings that make fallenness possible in such a radical way as to
require the kind of redemption to which Christianity witnesses? Kelsey further
asserted that these questions were not addressed in classic theological
tradition, and that theological anthropology became a topic in its own right
only in modern period.[4]
Classical theological understanding of
human being as created being
There are diverse views about
human existence in history. Apart for Christianity, all other religions have
their own understanding of human existence.[5]
Besides, the classical view of human was composed of elements from Plato,
Aristotle and the Stoics. In the middle ages, synthesis with Aristotelian
philosophy was pursued. Today, Roman Catholic position represents the
ecclesiastical endorsement of scholastic theology, especially that of Thomas
Aquinas.[6]
Moreover, there emerge views on human nature like scientific materialism,
humanism, Karl Marx’s communism, existentialism,[7]
and Sigmund Freud’s understanding. In our time of rapid change, there is
intense interest in what it means to be human. The doctrine of humanity thus
addresses an interest question.
The classic formulation of theological
anthropology, as expounded by Kelsey, was largely based on the story of the
creation and fall of Adam in Gen. ch. 1-3,
interpreted through conceptual schemes borrowed from Greek philosophical
traditions. The view of human nature generated by Adam’s story had two themes:
firstly, a picture of the place that human nature has in the unchanging
structure of the cosmos God created; and secondly, a picture of humankind’s
unique capacity for communion with God- what has traditionally been called
imago dei.[8]
We will deal further with the matter in the following.
Biblical understanding of human being as
created being
The doctrine of human creation is
fundamental to the whole of Bible[9]
(Deut. 4:32; Jer. 27:5; Zech. 12:1; Acts
17:25, 28). The first and most basic thing which the Bible says about human
beings is that they are creatures, part of God’s creation, and thus depend upon
God for their being and continued existence and that existence is essentially
good and real. Yet, human being is still a creature that is, dependent and contingent.
However, the existence is not a chemical accident, but has a meaning because it
is the result of the will and purpose of the creator. The doctrine of creation
provides the basis for the affirmation that human creaturely life in all its
finiteness, individuality, and temporality is meaningful and good.[10]
The
Old Testament gives us two accounts of the origin of human being. The earlier
of the two accounts belongs to the ‘J’ source found in Gen. 2:7-8, 18-23. The later account comes from ‘P’ source found in
Gen. 1:26-30. It appears that the
earlier account is placed second.[11]
In the first account, we see God does not create humans but formed man from the
dust of the ground. Woman is formed by God from the rib of man. The sequence of
creation is earth and heavens, man, plants, animals, woman. In the second
account, man and woman are created after God created everything else. This
indicates they are the crown of creation. Here, God does not form them but
creates (bara) them. Man and woman are created in the likeness of God.[12]
Regarding the creation of human, Robin
Boyd combining the two accounts, asserted that human is a created being, made
by God from the ordinary elements of the earth that is dust. Human’s physical
body unites him/her with the earth and with other creatures. They are not the
master of their own destiny, for they are a ‘creature’ made according to the
design of God the creator.[13]
Marcus Ward also wrote what the Bible says about human as the crown of creation
and that in him/her alone, of all created beings, the divine nature is
reflected.[14]
We see that the Bible by no means embodies
human as the product of evolutionary process.
Human is not simply a tool-making animal, nor a political or rational
animal, or a descendant from animal at all. Rather, according to the Bible,
human is a unique and special creation of God.[15]
This doctrine of human being as a creation of God is the traditional and ever
accepted understanding of the Christian thought.
Human being as image of God
Let’s take a brief look at the
notion of some classical theologians concerning the image of God. Irenaeus
considers the whole human being to be a composite of body, soul and spirit. Augustine
gives importance to image and asserted that the image of God is not a static,
restful self-possession but a capacity to respond to God. Thomas Aquinas
considered the image of God in human not as the capacity to know and love
oneself, but as the capacity to know and love God. What is important in the
image is one’s capacity to relate to God. Martin Luther considers image and
likeness as the original righteousness. However, this image has been lost through
the fall but can be regained through the activity of the Word and the spirit.
Karl Bath considers the image of God consists a relationship between humans and
God.[16]
The fact that human is created in the
image of God is central to Christian revelation. It is a vital key to the
Christian understanding of human nature and to the affirmations of theological
anthropology. The Bible represents human as the crown of God’s handiwork, whose
special glory consists in this that s/he is created in the image of God and
after Thy likeness. Berkhof asserted that the doctrine of human creation in the
image of God is of greatest importance, for the image is that which is most
distinctive in human that distinguishes him/her from the animals and from every
other creature.[17]
So, human as an image of God has distinctive characteristics.
Human being is a unique and special
creation of God, made in the very image and likeness of God Thyself. In Gen. 1:26, we see God’s solemn divine
counsel. Human’s special character lies in the fact that s/he is created in the
image of God. While other creatures are created ‘after their kind,’ the Bible
told that human is created in Thy own image (Gen.
1:27, 5:1; Ps. 8). The direct agency of God brings forth man in a way that
differs from the creation of the animals. Though, this unique and exalted
nature of human, like the entire created cosmos, is still dependent upon God.
This dependent, or in other words fellowship/communion between the Creator and
Thy image bearer include commands which indicate God’s sovereignty over human,[18]
human as children of God.
According to Boyd, human, unlike other
creature is made in the image of God. However, this image obviously not relate
to physical characteristics like the shape of the body or the features of the
face, but surely it does mean that human is made in such a way that s/he is able
to respond to God. This is human’s great glory that although s/he is a creature
yet s/he is made in the image of God, made for fellowship with Thee.[19]
Kuttianimattathil also made a conclusion that image of God means that all that
is necessary to enter into communion with God and with others and to exercise
responsible stewardship of the created world.[20]
One aspect of human uniqueness, of being
in the image of God, is human freedom, the capacity to choose between obedience
and disobedience, good and evil (Deut.
30:15f). This is the immediate implication of human responsibility under
the demand of God, under the covenant.[21]
Thus, image of God refers to some kind of correspondence between God and
humanity, probably to human freedom, capacity to plan, decide and act, that is,
to all those aspects of human personhood which are applied analogically to God.
The qualities of reason, conscience, affection and responsibility are the
uniqueness of human as an image of God.
Unity of human personhood
The philosophical environment where
Christianity evolved was much influence by the Greek philosophy of dualism that
is matter and spirit. Theologians debated whether man’s nature was composed of
two diverse substances (body and spirit) or whether three divisions (body, soul
and spirit).[22] Berkhof
also highlights these two views on the essential nature of human. First,
dichotomy or the view that human consists of two parts, Body and soul. Second,
trichotomy, or the view that human consists of three parts, body, soul and
spirit.[23]
However, it comes into view that various words in the
Bible such as heart (leb/lebab/kardia), conscience (syneidesis), soul
(nephes/psyche), spirit (ruah/pneuma), flesh (basar/sarx) and body (soma) are
not different parts that constitute a human being; rather they refer to the
whole human being under different aspects. Owen C. Thomas viewed the overlapping
of these terms indicates that humanity is conceived of as a vital unity
composed of various interdependent elements.[24]
That means human being is an integral whole, one.
Unity of human personhood refers to
the Christian emphasis of the totality of humanity. Human body is the temple of
Holy Spirit (Matt. 10:28; John 2:21; I
Cor. 3:16ff, 6:19ff). For life on earth, the spirit needs a body which is
to be raised a spiritual body. Marcus Ward also opined that human is the
creature and child of God both in spirit and in body. His/her full life
consists in the harmony of both, not in separation of one from the other.[25]
Thus, a human being is one, a body-soul unity. Only in holding together in
delicate balance of the body-soul unity can human becomes what they are called
to be,[26]
and fulfill God’s purpose for life here in earth and life beyond.
The place and role of humanity in
creation
In the second creation story (Gen. 2:4b-3:24), the intimate relation
between human and earth is highlighted by saying that human (Adam) was made
from dust/ground (Adamah). This signifies human and earth/land are related to
each other and conjoined to each other. Adam’s naming of the animal (Gen. 2:19) shows human as a caretaker
of other living beings.
The creation account in Gen. ch. 1 says that God create human to
exercise dominion over the earth and subdue it. The term dominion (radah) of
course means to rule, to dominion and to exercise power. However, the context
of Gen. 1:26-28 shows that this kind
of dominion is not the attitude God wants humans to have towards creation.
Further, God is presented as the one who plants the garden (Gen. 2:8) and makes
everything grow (Gen. 2:9), God is the planter and the grower. God entrusted
the garden to the human to till it and keep it (Gen. 2:15), that is to
cultivate it and guard it, preserving it from pillage and destruction.[27]
In the New Testament, authority
(lordship/kingship) is understood in terms of service (Mt. 20:25-28; Lk. 22:24-27) and humans are stewards who act in the
place of the master (Mt. 24:45, 25:15. Hence the Bible does not give human unbridled
license to bleed and destroy creation. They are care-takers, stewards of
creation. This stewardship is to be exercised, by gaining scientific
understanding of the universe, by caring responsibly for the natural world
including animals and the environment, and by guarding their own biological
integrity.[28]
Human’s having dominion over other
creations is related to being God’s image. So it is to be exercised in the way
what God would do it. God’s dominion is revealed in God’s creating and
sustaining activity. Therefore humans are commissioned to care for the ecosphere;
not devastate or destroy it. Thus, it is not a dominion and subduing of caprice
and exploitation but of benevolence and justice patterned on God’s own
benevolent justice.[29]
In other words, humans are stewards of creation and must work for authentic
human ecology.[30]
There is no doubt that human being has
dominion over all creatures (Gen.
1:28-30). At the same time, it is also clear that God has given the natural
resources of the earth for use which are to be used rightly, refraining from
exploiting them in such a way that the environment is destroyed through
pollution, or from treating with cruelty or carelessness the animals which God
has placed in human control,[31]
is the direct imperative of God to human and the role of human in the sphere of
creations.
Non-anthropocentric theological
anthropology in the context of ecological crisis
The world that God created was a
world of eco-justice. God saw all that Thou had made was very good (Gen. 1:31). In Gen. Ch. 1-2, we find that there was eco-justice in the world that
God had created. There was peace (shalom) and harmony between God and human,
between God and nature, between human and human, between human and nature, and
between nature and nature.[32]
Human should not exploit and destroy creation, but must consider them as
brothers and sisters, in kinship and harmony. In Psalm 24:1 we see that the earth is the
Lord’s and everything in it, all creation glorify God. From this perspective,
there is no way to abuse the properties of God by human who is the property and
belonging of God too. Despoiling the Earth is a blasphemy, and not
just an error of judgment, a mistake. It is a sin against God as well as
humankind because there is no way to survive without other creations, a
companion of human beings. Humans are with other creatures.
Therefore,
we need to look afresh the human-earth relationship. Reinterpret the place of
human being in nature not as standing above nature or as a centre of nature,
but as being part of nature. Non-anthropocentric theological anthropology should consider God as creator, nature including humans and all
created things as an organic whole, human as co-creature with nature and has
his/her oneness with nature despite unique relationship with God. God’s
valuation of creation is not merely on the basis of its biocentric or
anthropocentric but in terms of its cosmos centredness. The Bible’s vision is
simultaneously biocentric, anthropocentric and theocentric. Hierarchy in
creation should be perceived as one of the responsibilities and humility of the
higher to the lower. Biblical understanding of redemption focuses on the fact
that there can be no redemption of humanity apart from the redemption of
nature.[33]
We must remember that theology is not
done by God. It is done by humans and for humans. Therefore, we must be open
and willing to understand our own position in the universe.[34]
Human beings are not the masters of other creations but also a creation created
as the image of God to steward, a covenant partner along with the rest of
creation.
Conclusion
The human being is indeed a wonder and
marvel of God’s creation. Theological anthropology, as a perspective of
Christian theology, tries to give us a proper understanding of human beings in
relation to the word of God. We know that the Bible is the word of God and the
only infallible rule of faith, a source of our faith measurement. It affirmed
God’s creation of human beings, the value of each individual, the existence of
human beings only after the relationship with God, the duty of human beings to
glorify God, the place and role of human beings amidst all creations, the end
of human beings at the hand of God.
We have discussed that understanding the
human beings as the image of God has a long history starting from Genesis. It
was a prominent theme during the Patristic Period especially among the Greek
fathers. However, in later theology it was not much highlighted. Today, the
theme is again coming to prominence in theology, illuminating a wide range of
topics from ecology to human rights. For conclusion, let me jot down the word
of Bishop Kallistos:[35]
In an important
sense we do not know exactly what is involved in being a person, what is the
true fulfillment of our personalness, what are the possibilities as yet latent
within it. There is, …, a specific reason for this mysterious, indefinable
character of the person. It is because the human being is made in God’s image
and likeness; since God is beyond understanding; Thy icon within humanity is
also incomprehensible.
[1] Owen C.
Thomas, Introduction to Theology, Indian
Edition (Delhi: ISPCK, 1989), 119. Hereafter cited as Owen C. Thomas, Introduction to Theology.
[2] Jose
Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology, A Christian Vision of Human Beings (Bangalore: Theological
Publication in India, 2013), 7. Hereafter cited as Jose Kuttianimattathil, Theological Anthropology.
[3] Jose
Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology, 7.
[4] David H.
Kelsey, “Human Being,” in Christian
Theology, An Introduction to its Traditions and Tasks, edited by Peter C.
Hodgson and Robert H. King (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 167. Hereafter
cited as David H. Kelsey, Human Being.
[5]
Jose Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology, 11-30.
[6] Fred H.
Klooster, “The Nature of Man,” in Christian
Faith and Modern Theology, edited by Carl F. Henry (New York: Channel
Press, 1964), 156. Hereafter cited as Fred H. Klooster, The Nature of Man.
[7] R.H.S.
Boyd, Khristadvaita, A theology for India
(Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1977), 65-68. Hereafter cited as R.H.S.
Boyd, Khristadvaita.
[8] David H.
Kelsey, Human Being, 168.
[9] Wm.
Hoste, Studies in Bible Doctrine
(Bangalore: The Scripture Literature Depot, 1932), 150.
[10] Gilkey,
“Maker of Heaven and Earth” cited in Owen C. Thomas, Introduction to Theology, 121-122.
[11] Rev.
Dr. Lalsawma, Kristian Thurin Zirna
(Aizawl: Synod Literature & Publication Board, 1998), 127-128.
Jose Kuttianimattathil, Theological Anthropology, 71-72.
[12] Jose
Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology, 72.
[13]
Hereafter cited as R.H.S. Boyd, Khristadvaita,
71.
[14] A.
Marcus Ward, The Outlines of Christian
Doctrine, Volume II (Madras: The Christian Literature Society, 1972), 1.
Hereafter cited as A. Marcus Ward, The
Outlines of Christian Doctrine.
[15] Fred H.
Klooster, The Nature of Man, 148.
[16] Jose
Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology, 100-105.
[17] L.
Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1933),
127-128. Hereafter cited as L. Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine.
[18] Fred H.
Klooster, The Nature of Man, 150.
[19] R.H.S.
Boyd, Khristadvaita, 71.
[20] Jose
Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology, 98-99.
[21]
Owen C. Thomas, Introduction to Theology,
123.
[22] Fred H.
Klooster, The Nature of Man, 154.
[23] L.
Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine, 121-122.
[24] Owen C.
Thomas, Introduction to Theology, 122.
[25]
A. Marcus Ward, The Outlines of Christian
Doctrine, 20, 22.
[26] Jose
Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology, 168-169.
[27] Jose
Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology, 109-110.
[28]
International Theological Commission, “Communion and Stewardship,” no. 61 cited
in Jose Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology, 110-111.
[29] W.
Sibley Towner, “Clones of God: Genesis 1:26-28 and the image of God in the
Hebrew Bible,” in Interpretation 59/4
(October 2005): 347-348 cited in Jose Kuttianimattathil, Theological Anthropology, 110-111.
[30] John
Paul II, Centesimus Annus, nos 36-38;
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, nos 27-45
cited in Jose Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology, 110-111.
[31] R.H.S.
Boyd, Khristadvaita, 71.
[32] Yim Tesu, “Eco-Justice in the Old Testament,” in The Journal of Theologies and Cultures in
Asia, Volume 11 (2012): 31.
[33]
V.J. John, “Biblical and Theological Legitimacy on Theologies of Ecology” in The Journal
of Theologies and Cultures in Asia, Volume 11 (2012): 45-50.
[34] Somen Das, “Modern Science and Technology and the
Distress of Earth: A Theological Critique,” in The Journal of Theologies and Cultures in Asia, Volume 11 (2012):
10.
[35]
Jose Kuttianimattathil, Theological Anthropology,
111-112.
Comments