Sárospataki Füzetek 16. (2012)
2012 / 1. szám - TANULMÁNYOK - Brinkman, Martien E.: Is There a Reciprocal Relation Between Anthropology and Christology?
Brinkman, Martién E. This connectedness is already given in the fact that humans are created in the image of God. We are theomorphic. In that fact our inviolability — and that means simultaneously: our equality — is founded like God promised after the Flood: ‘He that sheds the blood of a man, for that man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God has God made man’ (Gen. 9: 6). Therefore, our humanity (inviolability and equality) has a transcendent basis. Another convincing basis for these fundamental human rights (inviolability and equality) is not presented so far.18 Hence, the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor could—dealing with the sources of our ‘Self—speak about ‘the given ontology of the human’.19 So, our Self has already a creational basis as image of God. But what it fully means to be created in the image of God is only revealed in Christology. That implies that not only all our anthropological but also all our Christological talk has a drcular character as to the relation God-man. The reciprocal conditioning of the concepts of God and human nature is indeed the methodological premise of every sound Christology. Therefore, this virtuous circle is not defective, but sound. It concerns here a real mutual understanding.20 Karl Barth’s Christology and anthropology can here be an excellent case in point. Karl Barth articulates in his doctrine of creation the following circular statement about human persons as image of God: ‘He would not be man if he were not the image of God. He is the image of God in the fact that he is man.’21 God and man are here so closely related because of the ontological consequences of the reconciliation in Christ. Barth argues, later on in his doctrine of reconciliation, that ontologically speaking, it is impossible to call even the ‘fallen’, sinful human person a person without God, because it is impossible to speak of God as God without human beings.22 The German Lutheran theologian Eberhard Jüngel dedicated two thought provoking articles to the elaboration of the impact of these words of Karl Barth. Their tides are a good indication of their content: ‘Humanity in correspondence to God. Remarks on the image of God as basic concept in theological anthropology’ and ‘No God without man. Barth’s theology in-between theism and atheism’23. Jüngel’s 18 See for an anthropological elaboration of the idea of the ‘image of God’, M.E. Brinkman, The Tragedy of Human Freedom. The Failure and Promise of the Christian Concept of Freedom in Western Culture (Currents of Encounter 20) (Amsterdam-New York, 2003), 28 and 35 (27-36 (‘Humankind as the Counterpart of God1). Cf. also A. Lacocque, ‘Cracks in the Wall’ in: A. LaCocque and P. Ricoeur, Thinking Biblically: Exegetical and Hermeneutical Studies Chicago — London: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), 9: ‘So, if God is antliropomorphic, man is theomorphic’ (3-29). 19 Ch. Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of Modem identity (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 5. 20 W. Pannenberg, Systematische Theoogie, Bd. II (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1991), 329 (316- 336: “Die Methode der Christologie”). Engl, transi. Systematic Theology, Vol. II (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 290 (278-297: “The Method of Christology”). 21 K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1958), 184. 22 K. Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), 534. 23 E. Jüngel, ‘Humanity in correspondence to God. Remarks on the image of God as basic concept in theological anthropology’ in: E. Jüngel, Theological Essays, Vol.I (Edinburgh: Clark 1989), 124-153 (in German: ‘Der Gott entsprechende Mensch. Bemerkungen zur Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen als Grundfigur theologischer Anthropologie’, in: E. Jüngel, Entsprechungen: Gott — Wahrheit — Mensch (München: Kaiser Verlag 1980), 290-317) and E. Jüngel, ‘...keine Menschenlosigkeit Gottes...Zur Theologie Karl Barths zwischen Theismus und Atheismus’ in: E. Jüngel, Barth-Studien 22 SÁROSPATAKI FÜZETEK 2012/1
