In what follows, I have excerpted a significant article which was edited by Dr. Richard T. Nolan on his website. See http://www.philosophy-religion.org/nolan/index.htm   for his C.V.  Dr. Nolan has brought together some of the significant ideas in Christian anthropology in the article which follows. Please do not think that Dr. Nolan's writing constitutes a definitive understanding of the Christian point of view. More will follow in the later activities this week.  -RZ

Introduction to Biblical thought on Human Nature

HUMAN NATURE

This exploration of human nature provides a general orientation to the topic in biblical thought. We do not delve into the fascinating topics of the mind, the brain, the self, the genetic bases of human behavior, cognitive neuropsychology, artificial intelligence, biology and ethics, social construction, and the specific qualities required for "personhood.” Nonetheless, we may conclude that the biblical view of human nature is a repudiation of any ontological dualism between body and soul along with the frequent cynical response to malevolent behavior: "that's human nature.”

Humanity In The Bible(1)                                                                                                                                                                

       There are certain inherent understandings about human nature in the biblical view: (l) each person is a unique individual - (s)he has the power to act under his/her own initiative; (2) as a whole, mankind is a good creation of God, firmly tied to the finite world, but with the important qualifications of dominion and stewardship, a freedom to move within the limits of time and space, and to affect the course of history; (3) the real criteria for the exercise of that freedom is its correspondence to the will and intention of God - there are right and wrong modes of conduct. In substance, these considerations make one aspect about mankind central to biblical religion: by design, human beings are in relation. They are in relation to their environment, to God, to their neighbors, and to the larger human community. This is a natural consequence of each person's status as a personal being. Women and men enter into contact with events, objects, and characters surrounding them. Moreover, as noted by Wright, "The central fact about the place of man in creation according to the Old Testament is the dignity and honor accorded him by God."(2) Elsewhere it has been noted:

        [In the Bible] the individual is in a special relationship to the Creator. Human uniqueness lies not chiefly in our reason or in our relationship to nature. Instead, each person is a worthwhile, unique individual created by God. ...Human beings are regarded...as made "in the image of God"; that is, the Creator has endowed us with unique attributes of a free agent capable of love, characteristics analogous to God's own self-expression.(3)

(1) Dr. Cherbonnier's Hardness of Heart: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Doctrine of Sin is available in its entirety in the Cherbonnier subsite. The book is part of the "Christian Faith Series” edited by Reinhold Niebuhr. Also, a sermon by RTN on persons as unique children of God (entitled as Pentecost and Baptism”) may be found in the Reflections” subsite.

(2) G. Ernest Wright, "The Faith of Israel," The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon, 1952), I, p. 367.

(3) H. H. Titus, M. S. Smith and R. T. Nolan, Living Issues in Philosophy, 9th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 30f.

The Human Soul

       It is important to distinguish between the classical mysticism and biblical religion's contrasting value of human activity. A key premise is that mystical religion encourages an escape from (or downplay of) this world, while the biblical recognizes a vibrant involvement with it. A significant factor that supports this motif relates to the concept of the human soul.

       The image of the soul projected by perennial philosophy is of a "divine spark" trapped within the human body. In this sense, everyone carries within himself a share of ultimate reality, of the Wholly Other. Thus, one can refer to the "God within," or in the extreme, "I am God." An implication, however, is that there is no real human claim on the soul; it is strictly a trace of the Absolute, which at death automatically escapes the body and eventually returns to its point of origin. In human nature, there is a "higher self," the soul or spirit, which aspires to the perfection of Pure Spirituality; there is also the "lower" state that is associated with all physical needs and desires. (Be sure to note this definition - it will help you follow the argument later!! A religion such as Hinduism would fit the definition here given.-- RZ)  Perennialism, therefore, is consistent in its approach to human nature, because ultimately it divides individuals into two realms, one part that is a trace of the "wholly other" and another part that is finite. The primary motivation is to pull these two realms even further apart, to minimize, deny or renounce the body and the finite, so that the One can retrieve that small "portion" of itself which is trapped in the natural world.

       The biblical image of the human soul is distinctly different: it is God's gift. God has made man as inherently good, in God's own image, i.e., with the ability to act, to make decisions, and enter into relation. The logical extension of this interpretation is that the human soul, through an act of God's grace, remains uniquely human, though not necessarily mortal. According to biblical religion, "The soul is not an entity with a separate nature from the flesh and possessing or capable of a life of its own. Rather it is the life animating the flesh."(4) By way of elaboration, others have noted:

        Nephesh means primarily "breath." ... (It) is often used also with the meaning "living being," human or otherwise. In Gen. 2:7 the first man became a living nephesh when Yahweh's breath (a different word) was breathed into his nostrils. ... Frequently the best translation of the ... word is "person." ... Clearly the word "soul" in the Bible has a much broader meaning than in current use now.(5)

One might also say that a human being is a "breather."

        Man is a living soul. This sentence, which corresponds easily to Gen. 2:7, says three things: It says first of all that man became a living soul and now is a living soul. It does not say that man has a living soul. Soul is the nature of man, not his possession. ... The second thing that the sentence says is that man is a soul. Were man only flesh made from the dust he would be only body. Were man only spirit without body, he would be formless.(6)

(4) James Hastings, ed., Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Scribner's, 1963), p. 932.

(5) Millar Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956), pp. 135ff.

(6) L. Kohler, Old Testament Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957), p. 142.

The third implication, according to Kohler, is that man has a body, for "Form is essential to the soul."(7)

        The famous verse in Genesis (2:7) does not say, as is often supposed, that man consists of body and soul; it says that Yahweh shaped man, earth from the ground, and then proceeded to animate the inert figure with living breath blown into his nostrils, so that man became a living being, which is all that nephesh here means. ... the important thing here is the conception of man as body, not as soul or spirit. The Hebrew idea of human personality is an animated body, not an incarnated soul.(8)

       The soul, therefore, is a functioning, integrated aspect of human nature and of behavior. It represents that part of human consciousness which moves toward fellowship with God. This is not, however, a union of like parts, of the fragment returning to the whole, but rather two individual identities joining together in positive relation, in communion. The soul can then be spoken of as being active, not as the prisoner of the body, but as its animating conscience. It enters into human activity, directing that action by offering up possibilities which correspond to the will of God.

       Another scholar has written:

        ... for many theological anthropologists, it is axiomatic that the original Christian vision of humanity followed the Jewish tradition in affirming human life as a 'psychosomatic unity', distinguishing, but never separating the soul and the body as different dimensions of human existence. What is distinctive about the Christian vision of humanity, therefore, is not that it posits the existence of an additional entity, the soul, not recognized by other anthropologies, but that it posits the existence of an additional relation - a relation to God, as creator and redeemer - which encompasses all other relations which define us as individuals. The insistence that the human being is an 'embodied soul' or an 'ensouled body', and not a soul somehow occupying a body, is now not just the conclusion of arguments in theological anthropology but also the premise of arguments in some other theological disciplines, and this is one measure of success of the campaign against dualism in the second half of the 20th century.(9)

 (7) Ibid.

(8) H. W. Robinson, "The Psychology and Metaphysics of 'Thus Saith Yahweh'," Zeitschrift fur die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft XLI (1923), p. 2 of a mimeographed edition provided in a 1957 class by Theodor M. Mauch, Th.D.

(9) Colin Crowder, Humanity,” The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, ed. Adrian Hastings, et al (New York: Oxford, 2000), p. 313.

Human Freedom and Grace

       An essential feature of human nature is freedom. It is the ability to form judgments and then to act accordingly. As Cherbonnier states:

        .... all human endeavor presupposes freedom, including the enterprise of philosophy itself. For the philosopher depends upon the distinction of true from false, that is, on the freedom to distinguish true from false. Take away freedom and you thereby preclude all thinking.(10)

Acting from this position of freedom puts humans either with or against God's intentions. Human choices are to be made. That God's Holy Spirit totally controls anyone's behavior and the flow of events (as believed by some fatalists) is utterly absent from biblical thought. Uninformed disciples of particular "spiritualties” - ironically, often devoted to the Bible - may be heard repeatedly transferring their own responsibilities to "The Lord” - whom they seem to believe will take care of all their problems. Contrary to that fantasy, in the Bible human initiative (and responsibility) - often inspired by the Spirit - is central.

       Obviously, the biblical interpretation seems much less certain than the perennial. It appears that the idea of a divine spark makes an individual's union with God much more likely. Two points of clarification follow: first, union is not dependent on any condition of human nature; at death, the divine spark inevitably returns to Pure Spirituality (in some versions, after a series of reincarnations), like a drop of water merging into an ocean. Second, the method by which that union is achieved is a type of spiritual suicide; the mystic, recognizing the duality of human nature, represses the natural tendencies of the body to enter into relation with the finite. Thereby the divine within his own being can leave him and return to Oneness; that divinity, however, is unconscious by definition--it has nothing to do with a personal, human nature. Ultimately, no part of the human being ever comes into relation, communion, with Oneness, because Pure Spirituality cannot be related to anything external to itself; it is Wholly Other. As noted elsewhere about this biblical motif:

        In Judaism and Christianity we have the capacity to act under our own initiative; we have the freedom to move within the limits of time and space. We can alter the paths of history, but not God's ultimate sovereignty or the final outcome of the historical process. ...because we have the freedom to make choices, we can choose to disobey and rebel against the Creator; a choice of false gods is one cause of an individual's separation from the true God.(11)

       The Bible does not address the limitations on some individuals' freedom to choose - due to psychological conditioning, chemically caused inhibitions, and physiological constructions (e.g., the "wiring" of their brains). Degrees of freedom to choose is a discovery remaining imprecise, but significant. It may be fair to assume that each person is free to make significant choices, unless compelling evidence to the contrary is provided. However, though undeveloped as a doctrine in the Bible, the New Testament especially recognizes that, for whatever reasons, individuals need God's grace to live in harmony with the Creator's purposes. In Cherbonnier's words, which do not include "grace,"

        The gift of a transformed heart frees men at last to come into their own; to inherit the high destiny originally prepared for them; to exult with a joyous company in the glorious liberty of the sons of God.(12)

..............

(10) Cherbonnier, "Jerusalem and Athens," p. 265.

(11) Titus, Smith, and Nolan, op. cit., p. 31.

(12) Cherbonnier, Hardness of Heart, p. 188.

Edited by Richard T. Nolan, Ph.D.

Retrieved from http://www.philosophy-religion.org/thought/humannature-biblical-religion.htm

 

Modifié le: lundi 13 août 2018, 11:42