Prayer Tents Bible References - Prayer Tents

HUMANITY

The study of humanity or of human beings in the Bible has traditionally been subsumed under such theological subjects as sin/grace, fall/redemption, creation/endtime, sexuality, ecology, suffering, and evil. With the recent emergence of theological anthropology as a distinct topic, humanity has become a focus for discussion in its own right as a study of the origin, nature, and destiny of human beings in relation to God. Theological anthropology, however, is prone to the same methodological problems as were classical descriptions of biblical humanity, namely, unacknowledged social locations and apologetic or dogmatic concerns which selectively shape the outcome of the search for the human. The Bible resists any systematic or developmental picture of human beings and opposes the imposition of overarching assumptions about human beings on texts, whether these assumptions are rooted in psychology, anthropology, philosophy, metaphysics, theology, Christology, or the historical-critical method. Contemporary feminists, womanists, and liberationists challenge the racism and sexism of current and classical anthropologies; they emphasize the necessity of understanding the totality of the human being out of lived experience and awareness of different social locations and contexts as shapers of that experience. Both the lingering Enlightenment understanding of the autonomy of the human being and today’s privatized spirituality, with its psychological stress on selfishness, self-protection, and self-care, form the larger Western contemporary cultural context within which humanity in the Bible is investigated today and of which biblical anthropology can offer a critique.

Traditional OT anthropologies have focused upon the various Hebrew terms for human beings and their parts such as nepeš (“soul/person”), bāśār (“flesh/body”), rûaḥ (“spirit/breath”), lêḇ (“heart/feelings”), and kĕlāyôṯ (“kidneys/emotions”). Of all these terms, only nepeš, which occurs 755 times, is so distinct that it is addressable in the vocative sense as the totality of the person — “my nepeš” as in Ps. 42:5, 11[MT 6, 12]; 43:5; 103:1, 2, 22; 104:1, 35. The English translation “soul” invites the body/soul dualism of Greek thought, but human beings in the OT do not have a “soul”; they are a “living soul/nepeš” (Gen. 2:7). NT anthropologies have focused upon the various Greek terms dealing with the makeup of the human being, namely sṓma (“body/person”), sárx (“flesh”), pneúma (“spirit/mind”), psychḗ (“soul/life”). Of these terms, sṓma has drawn the most attention, especially in Pauline anthropology. It is interpreted as either a term for the whole person (akin to nepeš, though it is psychḗ by which the LXX most often translates nepeš), or as the evil physical body in a body/soul dualism. Both OT and NT terms have been forced into systematic pictures of the human being based on now outmoded anthropological, developmental, and psychological assumptions. Such assumptions have been challenged in the OT, but NT anthropologies have resisted such critique because they have been too deeply embedded in various systematic theologies. This has resulted in a critical examination of theology or occasionally of Christology rather than of anthropology or, at the most, of Christian rather than NT understandings of the human being.

Many traditional anthropologies focus on what Henry Wheeler Robinson described as “corporate personality” in Israel, i.e., the fluidity between the individual and the group. According to Robinson, individual consciousness and morality emerged later in Israel with the classical prophets, such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The prophets were pioneering exceptions; only with Jesus was a direct individual relationship with God achieved. Robinson’s developmentalism was undergirded by now outmoded mid-19th to early 20th-century anthropological theory which posited individualism as the transition marker from primitive (group) to modern (individualistic) thinking. It was also reinforced by the historical-critical method as formulated by Julius Wellhausen. Wellhausen declared that the prophets were the “real climax” of Israelite religion; postexilic Judaism was “a dead work.” This thinking reinforced anti-Judaic tendencies in Christian theology which are still visible today. Romantic stereotypes of early Israelite nomads as brave individualists tamed by collectivity, agriculture, and cities, stereotypes which have been rejected by contemporary anthropology, also helped shape Robinson’s evolutionary view. Unfortunately, many of these traditional anthropological arguments continue to be used uncritically today. Wolfhart Pannenberg, e.g., argues that the individual developed during the Exile, when act/consequence was expected to show itself in the life of each person; he ignores the much older wisdom tradition which espouses this view.

Gen. 1–3 stands at the center of classical discussions of humanity in the Bible. The NT presumes the creation faith of the OT. Most scholars agree that these creation texts proclaim that humans are creatures of God dependent upon their Creator for life (as Pss. 104, 147, 148 also attest), and that God created human beings as part of the natural world but with a special relationship to that world, to each other, and to God, the One who gives human life meaning. The nature of those relationships has been debated, with much of the discussion focusing on the Hebrew ʾāḏām, which can mean the proper name Adam, male-specific “man,” or generic “humanity.” The wordplay between ʾāḏām and ʾăḏāmâ (“ground, soil”) in Gen. 2:7 suggests the relatedness between humanity and the created world; indeed, human sin has consequences for the entire created order (e.g., Gen. 6:11; 7:11; Isa. 24:5-6; Jer. 4; Mark 13 par.). Yet while feminists tend to see the harmonious interrelatedness of humans and nature, womanists recognize a more conflicted relationship out of which both chaos and creativity can emerge. Classical conceptions of humanity understood Adam as historically the first human being as well as the type or paradigm of human nature, i.e., normative for humankind. Adam as type is sinner; Jesus is the new Adam who redeems corrupted humanity from the consequences of the “fall”; Jesus is the sinless anti-type of Adam, in whom sin originated (Rom. 5:12). Though Adam as first man in history is not found anywhere in the OT but only in late Jewish tradition of the 2nd century c.e. (2 Esdr. 7), this patristic view of disobedience in the garden and the consequent divine punishments for a “fallen” humanity persists today. Claus Westermann challenges the idea of an “original state” of innocence; the tightly connected events in the garden are meant to be a primeval happening. Phyllis Trible argues in her rhetorical-critical study that the divine speeches in Gen. 3 are descriptions of the consequences of disobedience rather than prescriptions for punishment and behavior.

Eve has traditionally been understood as temptress, the “devil’s gateway” (Tertullian). Feminists argue that women are trapped by the unrealistic expectations created, on the one hand, by the identification of woman with Eve, self-assertion, sexuality, and sin (1 Tim. 2:9-14) and, on the other hand, by her identification with an idealized, obedient, sexless, and sinless Mary. Both models legitimate the subjugation of women in patriarchal structures. Womanists challenge the use of Christian servant language to describe humanity, noting that, for African-American women, servanthood has been unrecognized, dehumanizing servitude. Sin for them is not pride or self-assertion, but rather too much humility and self-hatred. With the emphasis upon the maleness of Jesus, and the confusion of biology with socially constructed gender roles, femaleness in many anthropologies is seen as a deviant way of being human and maleness as normative, thus legitimating social and ecclesiastical definitions of women’s place. Contemporary theological anthropologies debate whether and how gender is related to humanness and how women can image Christ. Some contemporary arguments for Jesus’ egalitarian approach to women contribute to an anti-Jewish dichotomy between the testaments.

Classical anthropologies have asserted the centrality of the divine image in humanity, imago Dei, although “image of God” is referred to only infrequently in both the OT (e.g., Gen. 1:26; 9:6; note: 1:26; 5:1 refer to the “likeness” of God) and the NT (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9); Christ becomes the embodiment of the divine image in 2 Cor. 4:4; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:15. In what way humanity bears the divine image and whether or not male and female share equally in the image of God have been the center of controversy for centuries. Contemporary scholars argue that exercising dominion over creation images God, since in the ancient Near East kings ruled as the representatives of the gods. They also reject any dualistic notion of image referring to only part of the human being, such as the reason or will, rather than to the whole person. This counters Christian Platonism (Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa), which considered the imago Dei to be “mind” or the “rational faculties of the soul,” and the human capacity for knowledge of God over and against the ascetics (Pelagius), who believed that the divine image was autonomous self-determination rooted in the capacity to choose between good and evil and earn rewards. In his 5th century controversy with the Pelagians, Augustine fused Platonic and ascetic traditions, positing a controversial distinction between nature and grace. The natural desire for God is lost because of the “fall” of Adam; this desire is a gift of Christ’s spirit, not an inalienable endowment from the Creator. Humans suffer from hereditary moral disease (original sin) and legal liability (death), from which only God’s grace (for some) can save the sinner. Further, the human being is composed of two distinct elements, soul and body. The rational soul is incorporeal and thus shares in the image of God. Sex is tied exclusively to the material corporeality of the human body. The sexual body is either vir (man) or femina (woman). Woman is the image of God in her rational soul but not in her femina; man is God’s image in both according to Augustine’s interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:7. The inferiority of woman’s femina blocks the superiority of the rational soul.

Elaine Pagels argues that with Augustine the message of human freedom in Gen. 1–3 became one of human bondage; the fall validated secular power and church authority as essential for human salvation as the Church was making the transition from sect to official religion of the Roman Empire. Augustine’s views were transmitted in modified form by Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages, John Calvin and the Reformers, and contemporary theologians like Karl Barth. Barth’s God-creature hierarchy, e.g., analogously shapes male/female relationships; humanity in its fallenness cannot respond to God except in Christ who responds for us. The legacy of Augustine is a mind/body, spirit/flesh, man/woman hierarchic dualism damaging to women. Contemporary discussions of the imago Dei tend to center on “God-likeness” in terms of human genderedness. Phyllis Bird argues that gender relations are not addressed in connection with the image of God in Gen. 1:26-28; “male and female [he] created them” in v. 27b is linked to the fertility blessing that follows in v. 28, a blessing which humans share with the animals, rather than to the preceding image of God in vv. 26-27a.

Paul’s statements about the nature of the human being have often been taken as determinative for the anthropology of the entire NT. Scholars warn against homogenizing or spiritualizing Paul by abstracting his terms for the human being from their particular historical contexts. Krister Stendahl criticizes those who interpret Paul’s justification by faith and second use of the law in Romans from a later, Western frame of reference (via Augustine and Luther) as a guide for the frustrated introspective conscience. Rather, Paul’s basic concern as the Apostle to the Gentiles was with the relation between Jews and Gentiles in light of Jesus as the Messiah, which was not a real problem after the 1st century when Christianity’s constituency was no longer Jewish.

In the final analysis, biblical anthropology must take seriously what Walter Brueggemann calls the dialectical, tension-filled biblical process of “core” and “counter testimonies.” Core testimonies make basic claims for God that are characteristic over time; counter theologies “assault” the core testimony with fresh evidence and new questions. Thus, God is an omnipotent, transcendent ruler who guarantees order by means of reward/punishment, yet also a suffering God (Jürgen Moltmann) who shares with humans their lack of power, giving comfort and companionship. God is present as the psalm hymns attest; God is absent according to the challenge of the psalm laments. God of the saving history redeems, while the ever-present Creator God blesses. The human being in the Bible is caught between these core and counter theological testimonies and consequently relates to God in diverse ways, with stoic obedience or with protest and questioning. Humans are weak, fallen creatures prone to sin whom God the Redeemer must save, or partners in God’s image who are a little less than God (Ps. 8). A faithful biblical anthropology would take note of this dialectical tension.

Bibliography. A. Graff, ed., In the Embrace of God: Feminist Approaches to Theological Anthropology (Maryknoll, 1995); M. D. Guinan, To Be Human Before God (Collegeville, 1994); D. Hopkins, “Biblical Anthropology, Discipline of,” in Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling, ed. R. J. Hunter (Nashville, 1990), 85-88; W. Pannenberg, Anthropology in Theological Perspective (Philadelphia, 1985); U. Schnelle, The Human Condition: Anthropology in the Teachings of Jesus, Paul, and John (Minneapolis, 1996); P. Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. OBT 2 (Philadelphia, 1978); H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia, 1974).

Denise Dombkowski Hopkins