Christian anthropology

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
This article is about Christian anthropology. For other uses, see Anthropology (disambiguation).
The Creation of Adam, as depicted by Michelangelo on the Sistine Chapel ceiling

In the context of Christian theology, Christian anthropology is the study of the human (anthropos) 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 of Christian anthropology studies is the innate nature or constitution of the human, known as the nature of humankind. It is concerned with the relationship between notions such as

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

Gregory of Nyssa

The reference source for

virtues), and thus man strives to be a reflection of Christ.[8] 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.[8]

Augustine of Hippo

Augustine 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.[9] He was much closer in this anthropological view to Aristotle than to Plato.[10][11] In his late treatise On Care to Be Had for the Dead sec. 5 (420 AD) he insists that the body pertains to the essence 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.[12]

Augustine's favourite figure to describe body-soul unity is

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 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.[16][17]

According to N. Blasquez, Augustine's dualism of substances of the body and soul does not stop him from seeing the unity of body and soul as a substance itself.[11][18] Following ancient philosophers he defined man as a rational mortal animal – animal rationale mortale.[19][20]

Terms or components

Body

Main article: Theology of the 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:[21]

"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.)."[22]
"Man does not have a soma; he is a soma"

Soul

See also: Soul § Christianity, Soul in the Bible, Nephesh, and Psyche (psychology)

The semantic domain of biblical soul is based on the Hebrew word nephesh, which presumably means "breath" or "breathing being".[23] This word never means an immortal soul[24] or an incorporeal part of the human being[25] that can survive death of the body as the spirit of dead.[26] This word usually designates the person as a whole[27] or its physical life. In the Septuagint nephesh is mostly translated as psyche (ψυχή) and, exceptionally, in the Book of Joshua as empneon (ἔνμπεον), that is "breathing being".[28] The Septuagint follows the terminology of the New Testament which uses the word psyche in a manner performatively similar to that of the Hebrew semantic domain,[29] that is, as 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

Westminster Confession
.

On the other hand, some modern

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.[31] The Seventh-day Adventist Church
has held to conditional immortality since the mid-19th century.

Spirit

See also: Spirit (animating force)

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. Bultmann states:

"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."[32]

Charles Taylor has argued in Sources of the Self: Making of Modern Identity that the attempt to reduce spirit or soul to the "self" is an anachronistic project claiming historical precedence, when in reality it is a modern, Western, secular reading of the Scriptures.

Constitution or nature of the person

Christian theologians have historically differed over the issue of how many distinct components constitute the human being.

Two parts (Dichotomism)

Main articles:
Dualism (philosophy of mind)

The most popular view is that the human being is formed of two 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)

Main article: Tripartite (theology)

Some theologians hold that human beings are made up of three distinct components: body (flesh), soul, and spirit. This is known technically as trichotomism. The biblical texts typically used to support this position are 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12.[33]

In the personhood of Jesus Christ God there are a Body, a rational Soul and the third person of the Holy Spirit whom He received in the Baptism.

One part (Monism)

See also: Monism

Modern theologians increasingly hold to the view that the human being is an indissoluble unity.

soul sleep". Monism also appears to be more consistent with certain physicalist interpretations of modern neuroscience, which has indicated that the so-called "higher functions" of the mind are dependent upon or emergent from brain structure, not the independent workings of an immaterial soul as was previously thought.[35]

An influential exponent of this view was liberal theologian Rudolf Bultmann.[36] Oscar Cullmann was influential in popularizing it.[37]

Origin of humanity

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. Genesis also teaches that human beings, male and female, were created in the image of God. The exact meaning of this has been the subject of theological debate throughout church history.

There are two opposing views about how the soul originates in each human being.

conception. 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.

Human nature

Main article: Original sin

Most Christian theology traditionally teaches that human nature originates holy but is corrupted by the Fall. Part of the development of church doctrine has historically been concerned with discerning what role the human plays in "redemption" from that fall.[38][39][40]

The debate about human nature between Augustine and

Council of Carthage (418), the Council of Ephesus, and the Second Council of Orange. However the councils did soften Augustine's position on predestination.[44]

During the Reformation, monergism had a resurgence through John Calvin's devolvement of the doctrine of total depravity. Within Protestant circles a debate happened between followers of John Calvin (Calvinists or Reformed tradition) and followers of Jacobus Arminius (Arminians) on the nature of grace in the process of salvation. Calvinists and Arminians follow Augustine in the doctrine of total depravity. However, Arminians hold that God restores humanity's free will concerning the ability to choose salvation whereas classic Calvinism holds to a strict monergism.

Synergism and its affirmation of the participation of human will in salvation is the classic Patristic position as well as the position of the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Church, and many Arminian influenced Protestant Churches. Monergism has become the position of most churches that are a part of the Reformed tradition.

Death and afterlife

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 of Faith (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

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.[45]

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 Orthodoxy.)

"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 that 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

In Christian belief, both the righteous and the unrighteous will be resurrected at 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

References

  1. 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. S2CID 231919881
    .
  5. ^ Maspero & Mateo Seco, p. 38
  6. ^ Maspero & Mateo Seco, p. 39
  7. ^ Maspero & Mateo Seco, p. 41
  8. ^ a b Maspero & Mateo Seco, p. 42
  9. ^ Cf. A. Gianni, pp.148–149
  10. ^ Hendrics, E., p. 291.
  11. ^ a b Massuti, E., p.98.
  12. ^ 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.
  13. ^ Enarrationes in psalmos, 143, 6; CCL 40, 2077 [46] – 2078 [74]); De utilitate ieiunii, 4,4–5; CCL 46, 234–235.
  14. ^ De quantitate animae 1.2; 5.9
  15. ^ De quantitate animae 13.12: Substantia quaedam rationis particeps, regendo corpori accomodata.
  16. On the free will
    (De libero arbitrio) 2.3.7–6.13
  17. ^ cf. W.E. Mann, p.141-142
  18. ^ El concepto del substantia segun san Agustin, pp. 305–350.
  19. ^ 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
  20. ^ Cf. Ch. Couturier SJ, p. 543
  21. ^ 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)
  22. ^ Bultmann, I: 192
  23. ^ Hebrew-English Lexicon, Brown, Driver & Briggs, Hendrickson Publishers.
  24. ^ Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology.
  25. ^ Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Father Xavier Leon Dufour, 1985.
  26. ^ New International Dictionary.
  27. ^ New Dictionary of Biblical Theology
  28. ^ "A careful examination of the βiblical material, particularly the words nephesh, 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 nephesh but rather was a nephesh, as Gen. 2:7 says: "wayehi ha-adam le-nephesh 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 nephesh 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.
  29. ^ Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
  30. ^ 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 and were introduced into Christian theology at an early date by St. Gregory of Nyssa and by St. Augustine.—Britannica, 2004
  31. ^ Immortality of the Soul, George Florovsky.
  32. ^ Bultmann, I:206
  33. ^ a b Bruce Milne. Know The Truth. IVP. pp. 120–122.
  34. ^ "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 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.)
  35. ^ AJ Gijsbers (2003). "The Dialogue between Neuroscience and Theology" (PDF). ISCAST. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-26. Retrieved 2010-12-27.
  36. ^ Martine C.L. Oldhoff (2018). The Soul in the Bible: Monism in Biblical Scholarship? Analysing Biblical Studies from a Systematic Point of View (PDF). p. 154. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-01-20. Retrieved 2023-01-20.
  37. ISBN 978-1-62564-998-0
    .
  38. OCLC 871159.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link
    )
  39. S2CID 231919881
    .
  40. ^
    OCLC 5447623.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link
    )
  41. ^
    OCLC 882503323.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link
    )
  42. OCLC 882503323.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link
    )
  43. OCLC 882503323.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link
    )
  44. OCLC 882503323.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: others (link
    )
  45. ^ D. K. Innes, "Sheol" in New Bible Dictionary, IVP 1996.

Bibliography
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_anthropology&oldid=1277866027"