Open main menu










Search

Christian anthropology
 Language
 Download PDF
 Watch
 Edit
This article is about Christian anthropology. For other uses, see  Anthropology (disambiguation).

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.

The Creation of Adam in the Sistine Chapel

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, souland spirit which together form a person, based on their descriptions in the Bible.
There are three traditional views of the human constitution
– trichotomism, dichotomismand monism (in the sense of anthropology).[1]
Early Christian writersEdit
Gregory of NyssaEdit
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 createdand 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 speculated on the
soul's 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 HippoEdit
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 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.[11]
Augustine's favourite figure to describe body-soul unity is marriage: caro tua, coniunx 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 a rational mortal animal – animal rationale mortale.[18][19]
Constitution or nature of the personEdit

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

Two parts (Dichotomism)Edit

Main articles:  Bipartite (theology) and  Dualism (philosophy of mind)

The most popular view, affirmed by a large number of lay faithful and theologians from
many Christian traditions, 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)Edit
Main article:  Tripartite (theology)
A significant minority of theologians across the denominational and theological spectrum, in
both the Eastand the West, have held that human beings are made up of three distinct
components: body or 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.[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 classical Greek Platonist and Cartesian thought. Monism is the official
position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which adheres to the doctrine of "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.[34]
An influential exponent of this view was liberal theologian Rudolf Bultmann. Oscar
Cullmann was influential in popularizing it.

Early Christian writers

Terms or componentsEdit
BodyEdit
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:[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"

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

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
Joshuaas empneon (ἔνμπεον), that is "breathing being".[27]
The New Testament follows the terminology of the Septuagint, and thus uses the
word psyche in a manner performatively similar to that of the Hebrew semantic domain,
[28] thatis, 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 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 Protestantscholars 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 χάρινἀθανασία, 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.
SpiritEdit
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.
"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]

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 personEdit

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

Two parts (Dichotomism)Edit

Main articles:  Bipartite (theology) and  Dualism (philosophy of mind)

The most popular view, affirmed by a large number of lay faithful and theologians from
many Christian traditions, 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)Edit
Main article:  Tripartite (theology)

A significant minority of theologians across the denominational and theological spectrum, in

both the Eastand the West, have held that human beings are made up of three distinct
components: body or 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.[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 classical Greek Platonist and Cartesian thought. Monism is the official
position of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which adheres to the doctrine of "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.[34]
An influential exponent of this view was liberal theologian Rudolf Bultmann. Oscar
Cullmann was influential in popularizing it.

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 humanEdit
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.
Origin/transmission of the soulEdit
See also:  Traducianism and  Creationism (soul)

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 inheritedfrom the individual's parents,
along with his or her biological material.
Human natureEdit
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.[35][36]
The debate about human nature between Augustine and Pelagius had to do with the nature of
sin and its relation to the state of the human. Pelagius believed that man's nature was
inherently good and taught that all children are born “as a fresh creation of God and therefore
good.[36]” For Pelagius freedom is a constitute part of human nature.[37] Humanity’s capacity
to choose is inherited and therefore is untainted. Human are capable of following divine laws
(such as the Ten Commandment) and live morally. The inherited ability to choose is itself a
grace of creation.[38] Augustine believed that all humans are born into sin because each has
inherited a sinful nature due to Adam’s original sin.[39] Without grace from God humanity is
incapable of choosing good and therefore of pursuing God.[40] Salvation then, becomes,
either a cooperation between human will and divine grace (see Synergism) or an act of divine
will apart from human agency (see Monergism.). Pelagius’s position was condemned at
the Council of Carthage (418) and the Council of Ephesus and the Second Council of Orange.
However the councils did soften Augustine’s position on Predestination.[41]
During the Protestant 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. Calvin and Arminius follow Augustine in the
doctrine of total depravity. However, Arminians hold that God restores humanity’s free will,
concerning the ability to choose salvation where as 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, as well many Arminian influenced Protestant Churches. Whereas Monergism has
become the position of most churches that are a part of the Reformed Tradition.
Death and afterlifeEdit
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 stateEdit
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 Testamentspeaks 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.[42]
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 that stress a monistic anthropology deny that the soul can exist
consciously apart from the body. For example, the Seventh-day Adventist Churchteaches that
the intermediate state is an unconscioussleep; this teaching is informally known as "soul
sleep".
Final stateEdit
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
ReferencesEdit
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 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"  (PDF).
ISCAST.
35. ^ Tillich, Paul, 1886-1965. (1972). A history of Christian thought : from its Judaic
and Hellenistic origins to existentialism. Braaten, Carl E., 1929-. New York. p. 122. ISBN 0-
671-21426-8. OCLC 871159.
36. ^ a b A History of Christian Doctrine. Cunliffe-Jones, Hubert., Drewery, Benjamin.,
Fisher, George Park, 1827-1909. (1st Fortress Press ed.). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
1980. p. 160. ISBN 0-8006-0626-4. OCLC 5447623.
37. ^ A History of Christian Doctrine. Cunliffe-Jones, Hubert. London. 16 March 2006.
p. 159. ISBN 978-0-567-35921-6. OCLC 882503323.
38. ^ A History of Christian Doctrine. Cunliffe-Jones, Hubert. London. 16 March 2006.
p. 159. ISBN 978-0-567-35921-6. OCLC 882503323.
39. ^ A History of Christian Doctrine. Cunliffe-Jones, Hubert. London. 16 March 2006.
p. 162. ISBN 978-0-567-35921-6. OCLC 882503323.
40. ^ A History of Christian Doctrine. Cunliffe-Jones, Hubert. London. 16 March 2006.
p. 166. ISBN 978-0-567-35921-6. OCLC 882503323.
41. ^ A History of Christian Doctrine. Cunliffe-Jones, Hubert. London. 16 March 2006.
p. 169. ISBN 978-0-567-35921-6. OCLC 882503323.
42. ^ D. K. Innes, "Sheol" in New Bible Dictionary, IVP 1996.

BibliographyEdit
 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 de 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.". Dictionnaire 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.
 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. ISBN 9780802834430.
 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.