Sárospataki Füzetek 16. (2012)
2012 / 1. szám - TANULMÁNYOK - Brinkman, Martien E.: Is There a Reciprocal Relation Between Anthropology and Christology?
Is There a Reciprocal Relation...? order. With its emphasis on kenosis it fits smoothly into the Hindu anthropology with its emphasis on self-emptiness. His approach is an anthropological approach in which it is difficult to account for the revelatory character of Jesus’ earthly existence. His earthly existence is just an illustration—even if it may be the best one—of an already existing ontological order. So, what the Swedish Lutheran theologian Lars Thunberg was saying about the anthropology of Maximus the Confessor holds true for Panikkar as well, namely that “man’s microcosmic constitution” can be interpreted “as an anticipatory sign of God’s incarnation” so that “the created constitution of man” can be considered “as an ontological preparation for the eschatological mystery of thean- drism”.16 Therefore, one of the main conclusions that can be drawn from the above-mentioned example of Panikkar’s Christology is that also a Christology ‘from above’ often presupposes an anthropology as well. Hence, point of discussion needs not to be the relation Christology-anthropo- logy as such. That relation is usually uncontested in Christian theology. Point of discussion must be the question where the priority lies: in Christology or in anthropology? Is Christ the eye-opener to who we are as human beings? Or is what Christ can be for us, already conditioned by who we are as humans? Of course, any Christology needs anthropological concepts to explain the impact of Christ upon human life. So, out of soteriological reasons, an anthropological focus is indispensable. But the question is in how far these anthropological ‘tools’ determine already fully the content of our Christology. Is there still any space left for creative transformation because of the revealing character of God’s presence in Jesus’ life? Let us turn to Karl Barth’s anthropology. He is walking the other way around and takes his starting point for his anthropology immediately in Christology. Would that be a more adequate approach? A Christological Approach to Anthropology (Karl Barth) It is clear that in Christ it became impossible to divide his human nature from his divine nature and vice versa. The negation of a strict division does, however, according to Chalcedon not imply a confusion of natures. Therefore, we are not expected to declare the humane divine — the risk of an approach ‘from below’ — or the divine humane — the risk of an approach ‘from above’. The only solution out of this dilemma seems to be to concentrate on what kind of anthropology has to be involved when we reflect upon the salvific meaning of Jesus’ life. That will be an anthropology in which cannot be spoken about God without reference to men and in which cannot be spoken about men without reference to God. The knowledge of God cannot be separated from the knowledge of man, and vice versa like Calvin already endorsed in the first sentences of his Institutes (1.1.1): ‘Nearly all the wisdom we posses, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and ourselves. But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other, is not easy to discern.’17 16 L. Thunsberg, Man and the Cosmos, 73. 17 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian 'Religion, 1.1.1 (transi. F.L. Battles) (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960, reissued Loiusville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), Vol. I, 35. 2012/1 Sárospataki füzetek 21
