Sárospataki Füzetek 16. (2012)

2012 / 1. szám - TANULMÁNYOK - Brinkman, Martien E.: Is There a Reciprocal Relation Between Anthropology and Christology?

Brinkman, Martién e.

Final Conclusion

My main conclusion as to tEie relation Christology-anthropology is, that it is Chris- tology that gives anthropology its specific character and not the other way around. The reciprocal relation between Christology and anthropology is of a special kind in which Christology transforms the applied anthropological categories. The real meaning of these categories (suffering, sacrifice, substitution, forgiveness, righteousness, hope and love) can only be explained with the help of the history of Jesus of Nazareth as embodiment of God’s descent to us. This Christological approach of anthropology implies that humans must primarily be called christomorphic.

This, however, has to be shown. It is not just a claim or a pretension. It has to be object of a modest and careful dialogue with the other sciences in our universities, academies, etc. In that dialogue we have to bring into the dialogue no abstract ideas, but concepts derived from Jesus’ earthly life and his cross and resurrection. Systematic theology needs here the input of the New Testament scholars to articulate thorough-going insights into the meaning of Jesus’ words and deeds. Therefore, the Christian claim to be able to play a role in societal discussions is not a apriori claim. It is not a claim articulated in advance. It is by Christians just hoped for as the outcome of a serious and fair academic debate. So, it might only be a aposteriori conclusion.

Abstract

It is common sense in Christian theology to affirm that Christ’s unique human existence is also decisive for human existence in general. Christ shows us what human existence really is. To explain, however, the meaning of salvation in Christ, we need concepts derived from our human existence. We call the concepts that articulate the salvific role of Christ soteriological concepts. These soteriological concepts presume already a certain anthropology, an idea of what important is in human life. They constitute the link between our ideas about Jesus Christ and human beings. So, does explaining the meaning of Christ already presuppose an idea of what the essence of human existence is? A certain anthropology? Or does — the other way around — Christology create its own anthropological concepts?

In this article, it will be stated that Christology indeed partly creates its own anthropological ideas (substitution, forgiveness, sacrifice, hope, righteousness, love, etc.). When applied to Christ, these existing anthropological concepts are transformed. Only that fact enables us to speak about the reciprocal relation between anthropology and Christology. We shall discuss the specific character of that relation.

The interconnectedness of Christology and anthropology will be illustrated first in the Christology of the Indian theologian Raymond Panikkar and second in Barth’s Christology. The approach of Panikkar illustrates an anthropological approach of Christology and the approach of Barth illustrates a Christological approach of anthropology. Both approaches are examples of a so-called Christology ‘from above’. In my conclusion I shall give a sketch of my own position.

26 Sárospataki Füzetek 2012/1