Introduction:
The classic formulation of
theological anthropology was largely based on the story of the creation and
fall of Adam in Gen.1-3. The focus was
on Adam, who was understood in a double way.
On the one hand, he was taken to be the historically first individual
human being. On the other hand, he was
taken to be the scriptural ideal type or paradigm of ‘human nature’ as such
(after all, the Hebrew word from which ‘Adam’ comes is the generic term for
mankind). The view of human nature
generated by this story has two major themes: (1) a picture of the place that
human nature has in the structure of cosmos God created, and (2) a picture of
humankind’s unique capacity for communion with God-what has traditionally been
called the imago Dei (Image of God). We
will attempt to explore these two themes in brief:
1 Structure
of human nature: The story of the
creation of Adam is part of the larger story of the creation of the world. Accordingly it is the classical formulation
of the doctrine of creation that provides the context in which human nature is
understood. As an integral part of the
cosmos fundamentally related to God, human nature has the following dimensions:
A Body and Soul: Human beings, as traditionally conceived, are constituted by two
quite different kinds of reality related to each other in a hierarchical
pattern. The creation story says God
formed man ‘of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life; and man became a living being’ (Gen.2:27). Human nature is constituted by a complex
relationship between ‘dust from the ground’ and ‘breath of life.’ Classic formulations explicated these two
notions respectively by using a traditional philosophical distinction between
body and soul. ‘Dust from the ground’
seemed to cohere with the traditional understanding of body as material, that
is, a mode of reality that is distributed over space, can be experienced by the
senses, and is subject to all manner of physical disintegration. ‘Breath of life’ seemed to cohere with the
traditional understanding of soul as spiritual, that is, a mode of reality that
is not distributed over space, cannot be sensed, and cannot disintegrate. When the biblical images ‘dust’ and ‘breath’
are interpreted using considerably more precise concepts ‘body’ and ‘soul,’ the
contrast between them is heightened.
They are hierarchically related.
In a living creature the soul animates the otherwise inanimate material
body; thus the soul rules the body.
Death is the separation of the soul, that is, the life principle, from
the body. Nothing brings out more sharply
the difference between them. In death
the body, as material, undergoes disintegration; the soul, as spiritual, cannot
undergo disintegration and so continues in existence (is immortal). The fact that human nature has two main
elements of body and spirit illustrates the greater fact that man is one in
whom natural and supernatural meet.
B Social being: Human nature has a social dimension. According to the Genesis creation story, Adam
was created a social being. He is not
complete as himself unless he has a human partner: The Lord God said, “It is not good that the
man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen.2:18). So God formed out of the ground all the wild
animals and all the birds of heaven. But
for the man himself no partner had yet been found. And so the Lord God put the man into a
trance, and while he slept, God took one of his ribs and closed the flesh over
the place. The Lord God then built up
the rib, which he had taken out of the man, into a woman. This has led classic
formulations of the doctrine to place a high stress on the social character of
human nature. Humankind is
characteristically conceived as the one family of Adam, so tightly knit that
somehow it is a single reality ‘in Adam.’
C Teleology: Human nature has a teleological dimension. That is, while it is itself an unchangeable structure,
it is essentially ordered to the completion of two purposes:
(i)
In relation to other creation: Within
the structure of cosmos, Adam was created with a role to play in relation to
the rest of creation (Gen.1:28).
Accordingly, it is part of the
structure of human nature that we have a calling, a role to play in and for
creation. The role has been variously
understood in the tradition, sometimes as ‘caring for’ and ‘tending’ a partner,
far more often (and with disastrous ecological results) as ‘mastering’ and
‘dominating’ an opponent. Either way,
human nature is understood in terms of a purpose to be realized.
(ii) In relation to God: The Genesis creation story makes it
clear that Adam was created to fill a role in relation to God. He was created to live in unending communion
with God. It was to be an immediate and
intimate relating to God, but in obedience to rather than in parity with
God. And the unendingness of the
communion depended on the obedience (Gen.2:17).
Adam is told that if he disobeys, he will die. And classic formulations add that preserving
the correct relation of body to soul and properly caring for the rest of
creation also depends on obedience.
2 Image
of God: According to Scripture the
essence of man consists in this, that he is the image of God. As such he is distinguished from all other
creatures and stands supreme as the head and crown of the entire creation. Scripture asserts that man was created in the
image and after the likeness of God (Gen.1:26-27; 9:6; Jas.3:9), and speaks of
man as being and as bearing the image of God (1 Cor.11:7; 15:49). The terms ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ have been
distinguished in various ways.
A. Distinction between ‘image of God’ and
‘likeness of God’: A text of
central importance to a Christian understanding of human nature is Gen.1:27
which speaks of humanity being made in God’s image and likeness-an idea which
is often expressed with reference to the Latin phrase imago Dei. What does this affirmation mean? Especially during the early patristic period,
a distinction was drawn between the two phrases ‘image of God’ and ‘likeness of
God.’ Some were of the opinion that
‘image’ had reference to the body, and ‘likeness’ to the soul. Augustine held that the former referred to
the intellectual, and the latter, to the moral faculties of the soul. Bellarmin regarded ‘image’ as a designation
of the natural gifts of man, and ‘likeness’ as a description of that which was
supernaturally added to man. Still
others asserted that ‘image’ denoted the inborn, and ‘likeness,’ the acquired
conformity to God.
For
Tertullian, humanity retained the image of God after sinning; it could only be
restored to the likeness of God through the renewing activity of the Holy
Spirit. Origen adopted a related approach, arguing that the term ‘image of God’
referred to humanity after the fall, whereas the term ‘likeness of God’
referred to human nature after his perfection at the final consummation:
‘And
God said, “Let us make man in our image and likeness” (Gen.1:26). He then adds: “In the image of God he made him” (Gen.1:27),
and is silent about the likeness. This
indicates that in his first creation man received the dignity of the image of
God, but the fulfillment of the likeness is reserved for the final consummation…The
possibility of perfection given to him at the beginning by the dignity of the
image, and then in the end, through
the fulfillment of his works, should
bring to perfect consummation the
likeness of God.’
B. Image of God in terms of human reason: Another approach found during the
patristic period interpreted the ‘image of God’ in terms of human reason. The ‘image of God’ is understood to be the
human rational faculty, which here mirrors the wisdom of God. Augustine argues that it is this faculty
which distinguishes humanity from the animal kingdom. Augustine’s point is that the central
distinctive element of human nature is its God-given ability to relate to
God. Although human reason has been
corrupted by the Fall, it may be renewed by grace: “For after original sin,
humanity is renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of its
creator.”
C. Image of God establishing uprightness
and dignity: The fact that humanity
is created in the image of God is widely regarded as establishing the original
uprightness and dignity of human nature.
This idea was developed in a political direction by Lactantius. In his Divine Institutions (c.304-11)
Lactantius argued that being created in the image of God established the common
identity and dignity of all human beings, leading directly to a series of
political doctrines concerning human rights and responsibilities.
D. Image of God seen in relation to
redemption: The doctrine of God in the
‘image of God’ was also seen as being directly related to the doctrine of
redemption. Redemption involved bringing
the ‘image of God’ to its fulfillment, in a perfect relation with God,
culminating in immortality. Tertullian
and Origen saw an important link in this.
The Greek patristic writer, Athanasius also taught that God created
human beings in his image, thus endowing humanity with a capacity which was
granted to no other creature-that of being able to relate to and partake in the
life of God. This fellowship with the
Logos is seen at its most perfect in Eden, when Adam enjoyed a perfect relation
with God. However, things went
wrong. Athanasius stresses that Adam and
Eve could enjoy a perfect relationship with God as long as they were not
distracted by the material world.
E. Image of God free from weakness and
disabilities: For the Cappadocians, the
fact that Adam was created in the ‘image of God’ meant that he was free from
all normal weaknesses and disabilities which subsequently afflicted human
nature-such as death. Cyril of Jerusalem
emphasized that Adam and Eve were fallen from this state of grace as a result
of their decision to turn away from God to the material world. As a result, the image of God in human nature
has been defaced and disfigured. In that
all of humanity traces its origins to Adam and Eve, he argued, it follows that
all humanity shares in this defacement of the image of God.
However,
it should be noted that the Greek patristic writers do not express the fall in
terms of a doctrine of original sin.
Most Greek writers insisted that sin arises from an abuse of the human
free will. Gregory of Nazianzus and
Gregory of Nyssa taught that infants are born without sin. This idea stands in contrast with Augustine’s
doctrine of the universal sinfulness of fallen humanity. Chrysostom, basing on Paul’s teaching
(Rom.5:19) asserts that all are made liable to punishment and death. The idea of transmitted guilt is totally
absent from the Greek patristic writers whereas it is a central feature of Augustine’s
doctrine of original sin.
Conclusion: In short, from the biological point of
view, man is an animal with powers of reason, speech, imagination, etc. From the religious point of view, he is one
who can have fellowship with God. His
roots may be in a lowly past, but he reaches out to eternity. He is one being, but he has links with what
is below and what is above. There is
kinship between body and spirit. They
are neither alien nor antagonistic to one another. The spirit is expressed through the
body. Failure to commune with God in
obedience brings with it a radical deformity of oneself. This radical deformity is what the early
church theologians called ‘fallenness.’ The idea expressed by two terms, ‘image
of God’ and ‘likeness of God’, is that of the very image of God. The doctrine of the image of God in man is of
the great importance in theology, for that image is the expression of that
which is most distinctive in man and in his relation to God.
No comments:
Post a Comment