Christian anthropology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about Christian anthropology. For other uses, see Anthropology (disambiguation).
The Creation of Adam prior to the restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes

In the context of Christian theology, Christian anthropology refers to the study of the human ("anthropology") as it relates to God. It differs from the social science of anthropology, which primarily deals with the comparative study of the physical and social characteristics of humanity across times and places.

One aspect studies the innate nature or constitution of the human, known as the nature of humankind. It is concerned with the relationship between notions such as body, soul and spirit which together form a person, based on their descriptions in the Bible. There are three traditional views of the human constitution – trichotomism, dichotomism and monism (in the sense of anthropology).[1]

Early Christian writers[edit]

Gregory of Nyssa[edit]

The reference source for Gregory's anthropology is his treatise De opificio hominis.[2][3] His concept of man is founded on the ontological distinction between the created and uncreated. Man is a material creation, and thus limited, but infinite in that his immortal soul has an indefinite capacity to grow closer to the divine.[4] Gregory believed that the soul is created simultaneous to the creation of the body (in opposition to Origen, who believed in preexistence), and that embryos were thus persons. To Gregory, the human being is exceptional being created in the image of God.[5] Humanity is theomorphic both in having self-awareness and free will, the latter which gives each individual existential power, because to Gregory, in disregarding God one negates one's own existence.[6] In the Song of Songs, Gregory metaphorically describes human lives as paintings created by apprentices to a master: the apprentices (the human wills) imitate their master's work (the life of Christ) with beautiful colors (virtues), and thus man strives to be a reflection of Christ.[7] Gregory, in stark contrast to most thinkers of his age, saw great beauty in the Fall: from Adam's sin from two perfect humans would eventually arise myriad.[7]

Augustine of Hippo[edit]

Augustine of Hippo was one of the first Christian ancient Latin authors with very clear anthropological vision. He saw the human being as a perfect unity of two substances: soul and body.[8] He was much closer in this anthropological view to Aristotle than to Plato.[9][10] In his late treatise On Care to Be Had for the Dead sec. 5 (420 AD) he insisted that the body is essential part of the human person:

In no wise are the bodies themselves to be spurned. (...) For these pertain not to ornament or aid which is applied from without, but to the very nature of man.[11]

Augustine's favourite figure to describe body-soul unity is marriage: caro tua, coniux tua – your body is your wife.[12] Initially, the two elements were in perfect harmony. After the fall of humanity they are now experiencing dramatic combat between one another.

They are two categorically different things. The body is a three-dimensional object composed of the four elements, whereas the soul has no spatial dimensions.[13] Soul is a kind of substance, participating in reason, fit for ruling the body.[14] Augustine was not preoccupied, as Plato and Descartes were, with going too much into details in efforts to explain the metaphysics of the soul-body union. It sufficed for him to admit that they were metaphysically distinct. To be a human is to be a composite of soul and body, and that the soul is superior to the body. The latter statement is grounded in his hierarchical classification of things into those that merely exist, those that exist and live, and those that exist, live, and have intelligence or reason.[15][16]

According to N. Blasquez, Augustine's dualism of substances of the body and soul doesn't stop him from seeing the unity of body and soul as a substance itself.[10][17] Following ancient philosophers he defined man as an rational mortal animalanimal rationale mortale.[18][19]

Terms or components[edit]

Body[edit]

See also: Human body

The body (Greek σῶμα soma) is the corporeal or physical aspect of a human being. Christians have traditionally believed that the body will be resurrected at the end of the age.

Rudolf Bultmann states the following:[20]

"That soma belongs inseparably, constitutively, to human existence is most clearly evident from the fact that Paul cannot conceive even of a future human existence after death, `when that which is perfect is come' as an existence without soma – in contrast to the view of those in Corinth who deny the resurrection (1 Cor. 15, especially vv. 35ff.)."[21]
"Man does not have a soma; he is a soma"

Soul[edit]

The semantic domain of Biblical soul is based on the Hebrew word nepes, which presumably means “breath” or “breathing being”.[22] This word never means an immortal soul[23] or an incorporeal part of the human being[24] that can survive death of the body as the spirit of dead.[25] This word usually designates the person as a whole[26] or its physical life. In the Septuagint nepes is mostly translated as psyche (ψυχή) and, exceptionally, in the Book of Joshua as empneon (ἔνμπεον), that is "breathing being".[27]

The New Testament follows the terminology of the Septuagint, and thus uses the word psyche with the Hebrew semantic domain and not the Greek,[28] that is an invisible power (or ever more, for Platonists, immortal and immaterial) that gives life and motion to the body and is responsible for its attributes.

In Patristic thought, towards the end of the 2nd century psyche was understood in more a Greek than a Hebrew way, and it was contrasted with the body. In the 3rd century, with the influence of Origen, there was the establishing of the doctrine of the inherent immortality of the soul and its divine nature.[29] Origen also taught the transmigration of the souls and their preexistence, but these views were officially rejected in 553 in the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Inherent immortality of the soul was accepted among western and eastern theologians throughout the middle ages, and after the Reformation, as evidenced by the Westminster Confession.

On the other hand, a number of modern Protestant scholars have adopted views similar to conditional immortality, including Edward Fudge and Clark Pinnock; however the majority of adherents hold the traditional doctrine.[citation needed]> In the last six decades, conditional immortality, or better "immortality by grace" (κατὰ χάριν ἀθανασία, kata charin athanasia), of the soul has also been widely accepted among Eastern Orthodox theologians, by returning to the views of the late 2nd century, where immortality was still considered as a gift granted with the value of Jesus' death and resurrection.[30] The Seventh-day Adventist Church has held to conditional immortality since the mid-19th century.

Spirit[edit]

See also: Spirit

The spirit (Hebrew ruach, Greek πνεῦμα, pneuma, which can also mean "breath") is likewise an immaterial component. It is often used interchangeably with "soul", psyche, although trichotomists believe that the spirit is distinct from the soul.

"When Paul speaks of the pneuma of man he does not mean some higher principle within him or some special intellectual or spiritual faculty of his, but simply his self, and the only questions is whether the self is regarded in some particular aspect when it is called pneuma. In the first place, it apparently is regarded in the same way as when it is called psyche – viz. as the self that lives in man's attitude, in the orientation of his will."[31]

Flesh[edit]

See also: Flesh

"Flesh" (Greek σάρξ, sarx) is usually[by whom?] considered synonymous with "body"[citation needed], referring to the corporeal aspect of a human being. The apostle Paul contrasts flesh and spirit in Romans 7–8.

Constitution or nature of the person[edit]

Historically, Christian theologians have differed on how many components make up the human being.

Two parts (Dichotomism)[edit]

The traditional Christian view, still held by a large number of lay Christians and theologians, is that the human being is made up of 2 components: material (body/flesh) and spiritual (soul/spirit). The soul or spirit departs from the body at death, and will be reunited with the body at the resurrection.

Three parts (Trichotomism)[edit]

Main article: Tripartite (theology)

A minority of theologians have argued that human beings are made up of three distinct components: body/flesh, soul, and spirit. This is technically known as trichotomism. The biblical texts typically used to support this position are 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12.[32]

One part (Monism)[edit]

See also: Monism

Modern theologians increasingly hold to the view that the human being is an indissoluble unity.[32] This is known as holism or monism. The body and soul are not considered separate components of a person, but rather as two facets of a united whole.[33] It is argued that this more accurately represents Hebrew thought, whereas body-soul dualism is more characteristic of Greek philosophy and Platonic thought. Monism is the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Monism also appears to be more consistent with modern neuroscience, which has revealed that the so-called "higher functions" of the mind are emergent from the brain, rather than being based in an immaterial soul as was previously thought.[34]

An influential exponent of this view was liberal theologian Rudolf Bultmann. Oscar Cullmann was influential in popularizing it.

Origin of humanity[edit]

The Bible teaches in the book of Genesis the humans were created by God. Some Christians believe that this must have involved a miraculous creative act, while others are comfortable with the idea that God worked through the evolutionary process.

God's image in the human[edit]

Main article: Image of God

The book of Genesis also teaches that human beings, male and female, were created in the image of God. The exact meaning of this has been debated[by whom?] throughout church history (see Image of God).

Origin/transmission of the soul[edit]

There are two opposing views about how the soul originates in each human being. Creationism teaches that God creates a "fresh" soul within each human embryo at or some time shortly after conception. Note: This is not to be confused with creationism as a view of the origins of life and the universe.

Traducianism, by contrast, teaches that the soul is inherited from the individual's parents, along with his or her biological material.

Sinful nature[edit]

Main article: Original sin

Christian theology traditionally teaches the corruption of human nature. However, there have been a range of views held throughout church history. Pelagius taught that human nature is not so corrupt that we cannot overcome sin. Arminians believe that our nature is corrupt, but that free will can still operate. Saint Augustine believed that all humans are born into the sin and guilt of Adam, and are powerless to do good without grace. John Calvin developed the doctrine of total depravity.

Death and Afterlife[edit]

See also: afterlife

Christian anthropology has implications for beliefs about death and the afterlife. The Christian church has traditionally taught that the soul of each individual separates from the body at death, to be reunited at the resurrection. This is closely related to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. For example, the Westminster Confession (chapter XXXII) states:

"The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them"

Intermediate state[edit]

Main article: Intermediate state

The question then arises: where exactly does the disembodied soul "go" at death? Theologians refer to this subject as the intermediate state. The Old Testament speaks of a place called sheol where the spirits of the dead reside. In the New Testament, hades, the classical Greek realm of the dead, takes the place of sheol. In particular, Jesus teaches in Luke 16:19–31 (Lazarus and Dives) that hades consists of two separate "sections", one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous. His teaching is consistent with intertestamental Jewish thought on the subject.[35]

Fully developed Christian theology goes a step further; on the basis of such texts as Luke 23:43 and Philippians 1:23, it has traditionally been taught that the souls of the dead are received immediately either into heaven or hell, where they will experience a foretaste of their eternal destiny prior to the resurrection. (Roman Catholicism teaches a third possible location, Purgatory, though this is denied by Protestants and Eastern Orthodox.)

"the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day." (Westminster Confession)

Some Christian groups which stress a monistic anthropology deny that the soul can exist consciously apart from the body. For example, the Seventh-day Adventist Church teaches that the intermediate state is an unconscious sleep; this teaching is informally known as "soul sleep".

Final state[edit]

In Christian belief, both the righteous and the unrighteous will be resurrected at the last judgment. The righteous will receive incorruptible, immortal bodies (1 Corinthians 15), while the unrighteous will be sent to the "Lake of Fire" or "Gehenna". Traditionally, Christians have believed that hell will be a place of eternal physical and psychological punishment. In the last two centuries, annihilationism and universalism have become more popular.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Erickson, Millard (1998). Christian Theology (2 ed.). p. 537. ISBN 0-8010-2182-0. 
  2. ^ The Greek text: PG 44, 123–256; SCh 6, (1944) Jean-Jacques Courtiau (ed.)
  3. ^ Étienne Gilson, p. 56
  4. ^ Maspero & Mateo Seco, p. 38
  5. ^ Maspero & Mateo Seco, p. 39
  6. ^ Maspero & Mateo Seco, p. 41
  7. ^ a b Maspero & Mateo Seco, p. 42
  8. ^ Cf. A. Gianni, pp.148–149
  9. ^ Hendrics, E., p. 291.
  10. ^ a b Massuti, E., p.98.
  11. ^ De cura pro mortuis gerenda CSEL 41, 627[13–22]; PL 40, 595: Nullo modo ipsa spernenda sunt corpora. (...)Haec enim non ad ornamentum vel adiutorium, quod adhibetur extrinsecus, sed ad ipsam naturam hominis pertinent; Contra Faustum, 22.27; PL 44,418.
  12. ^ Enarrationes in psalmos, 143, 6; CCL 40, 2077 [46] – 2078 [74]); De utilitate ieiunii, 4,4–5; CCL 46, 234–235.
  13. ^ De quantitate animae 1.2; 5.9
  14. ^ De quantitate animae 13.12: Substantia quaedam rationis particeps, regendo corpori accomodata.
  15. ^ On the free will (De libero arbitrio) 2.3.7–6.13
  16. ^ cf. W.E. Mann, p.141-142
  17. ^ El concepto del substantia segun san Agustin, pp. 305–350.
  18. ^ De ordine, II, 11.31; CCL 29, 124 [18]; PL 32,1009; De quantitate animae, 25,47–49; CSEL 89, 190–194; PL 32, 1062–1063
  19. ^ Cf. Ch. Couturier SJ, p. 543
  20. ^ Bultmann, Rudolf (1953). Theologie des Neuen Testaments (in German). Tübingen: Mohr. pp. 189–249.  (English translation Theology of the New Testament 2 vols, London: SCM, 1952, 1955)
  21. ^ Bultmann, I: 192
  22. ^ Hebrew-English Lexicon, Brown, Driver & Briggs, Hendrickson Publishers.
  23. ^ Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology.
  24. ^ Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Father Xavier Leon Dufour, 1985.
  25. ^ New International Dictionary.
  26. ^ New Dictionary of Biblical Theology
  27. ^ “A careful examination of the βiblical material, particularly the words nefesh, neshama, and ruaḥ, which are often too broadly translated as “soul” and “spirit,” indicates that these must not be understood as referring to the psychical side of a psychophysical pair. A man did not possess a nefesh but rather was a nefesh, as Gen. 2:7 says: “wayehi ha-adam le-nefesh ḥayya” (“. . . and the man became a living being”). Man was, for most of the biblical writers, what has been called “a unit of vital power,” not a dual creature separable into two distinct parts of unequal importance and value. While this understanding of the nature of man dominated biblical thought, in apocalyptic literature (2nd century BCE–2nd century CE) the term nefesh began to be viewed as a separable psychical entity with existence apart from body.... The biblical view of man as an inseparable psychosomatic unit meant that death was understood to be his dissolution.”—Britannica, 2004.
  28. ^ Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
  29. ^ The early Hebrews apparently had a concept of the soul but did not separate it from the body, although later Jewish writers developed the idea of the soul further. Old Testament references to the soul are related to the concept of breath and establish no distinction between the ethereal soul and the corporeal body. Christian concepts of a body-soul dichotomy originated with the ancient Greeks andwere introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa and by St. Augustine.—Britannica, 2004
  30. ^ Immortality of the Soul, George Florovsky.
  31. ^ Bultmann, I:206
  32. ^ a b Bruce Milne. Know The Truth. IVP. pp. 120–122. 
  33. ^ "The traditional anthropology encounters major problems in the Bible and its predominantly holistic view of human beings. Genesis 2:7 is a key verse: ‘Then the {{subst:LORD}} God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being’ (NRSV). The ‘living being’ (traditionally, ‘living soul’) is an attempt to translate the Hebrew nephesh hayah, which indicates a ‘living person’ in the context. More than one interpreter has pointed out that this text does not say that the human being has a soul but rather is a soul. H. Wheeler Robinson summarized the matter in his statement that ‘The Hebrew conceived man as animated body and not as an incarnate soul.’" (Martin E. Tate, "The Comprehensive Nature of Salvation in Biblical Perspective," Evangelical review of theology, Vol. 23.)
  34. ^ AJ Gijsbers (2003). "The Dialogue between Neuroscience and Theology". ISCAST. 
  35. ^ D. K. Innes, "Sheol" in New Bible Dictionary, IVP 1996.

Bibliography[edit]

  • Agaësse, Paul SJ (2004). L'anthropologie chrétienne selon saint Augustin : image, liberté, péché et grâce. Paris: Médiasèvres. p. 197. ISBN 2-900388-68-6. 
  • Blasquez, N, El concepto del substantia segun san Agustin, ""Augustinus" 14 (1969), pp. 305–350; 15 (1970), pp. 369–383; 16 (1971), pp. 69–79.
  • Bainvel, J. "Ame. Doctrine des trois premiers siècles; Développement de la doctrine du IVe au XIIIe s.". Dictionaire de Théologie Catholique 1. pp. 977–1006. 
  • Bultmann, Rudolf (1953). Theologie des Neuen Testaments (in German). Tübingen: Mohr. pp. 189–249.  (English translation Theology of the New Testament 2 vols, London: SCM, 1952, 1955). The leading scholarly reference supporting a holistic anthropology (similar to soul sleep)
  • Cullmann, Oscar. Immortality of the soul or resurrection of the dead?: the witness of the New Testament. Archived from the original on 2009-10-26. 
  • Gianni, A., Il problema antropologico, Roma 1965.
  • Gilson, Étienne, Gregory of Nyssa, Anthropology, in: History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, (1980 reprinted 1985), London: Sheed & Ward, pp. 56–59, ISBN 0-7220-4114-4.
  • Couturier Charles SJ, La structure métaphysique de l'homme d'après saint Augustin, in: Augustinus Magister. Congrès International Augustinien. Communications, (1954), Paris, vol. 1, pp. 543–550
  • Hendrics, E. Platonisches und Biblisches Denken bei Augustinus, in: 'Augustinus Magister. Congrès International Augustinien. Communications, (1954), Paris , vol. 1.
  • Jewitt, R. (1971). Paul's Anthropological Terms. Leiden: Brill. 
  • Kümmel, W. G. (1948). Das Bild des Menschen im Neuen Testament (in German). Zürich: Zwingli.  (English translation Man in the NT. London: Epworth, 1963)
  • Ladd, George Eldon (1974). A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. pp. 457–78. 
  • Karpp, Heinrich (1950). Probleme altchristlicher Anthropologie. Biblische Anthropologie und philosophische Psychologie bei den Kirchen-vatern des dritten Jahrhunderts. Gütersloh: G. Bertelsmann Verlag. 
  • Mann, W.E., Inner-Life Ethics, in:Matthews, G. B., ed. (1999). The Augustinian Tradition. Philosophical Traditions. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press. pp. 138–152. ISBN 0-520-20999-0. 
  • Masutti, Egidio, Il problema del corpo in San Agostino, Roma: Borla, 1989, p. 230, ISBN 88-263-0701-6
  • Rondeau, Marie Josèphe (1962). "Remarques sur l'anthropologie de saint Hilaire". Studia Patristica (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag). 6 (Papers presented to the Third International Conference on Patristic Studies held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1959, Part IV Theologica, Augustiniana, ed. F. L. Cross): 197–210. 
  • Steenberg M.C. (2009). Of God and man : theology as anthropology from Irenaeus to Athanasius. London: T & T Clark. 

External links[edit]