Man is created in the image and the
likeness of God….....
A. Biblical Teaching
In the Bible,
the core of Israel’s faith is not creation but the experience of God’s saving
action in history, God as the liberator and saviour. The experience of
salvation and liberation is the background of the creation stories, which
Yahweh as the Lord of the universe, the supreme God. The belief in creation was
an extension of the faith in Yahweh as the God of Covenant, of history and of
promises. Thus the doctrine of creation expresses the belief that God is the
origin, ground, and goal of the world and of everything in it.
1. Theology of Creation in
the Old Testament
According to Claus Westermann, the creation
texts, especially those found in Genesis, as a relatively self-contained
expression of faith that can be best understood through an analysis of their
relationship to the myths of the ancient Near East. The Genesis creation texts
were not composed to answer the scientific question of how the world came to
be. On the contrary, they proclaim the relationship of God to reality, a
relation of creator to creation. The people for whom these texts were written
did not base their views of the universe on the critical use of empirical data.
Rather their thinking was imaginative and their expressions of thought
concrete, pictorial, and poetic. Furthermore, Genesis was not intended to give
a final, single answer to the question of how God created the earth. In fact in
Genesis a number of different presentations of the matter can be found. Hence
it is said that each age of ancient Israel’s faith reflection expressed its
understanding of creation in a way intelligible to itself. This point is
illustrated in the initial chapters of Genesis, which present two different
creation narratives. Each narrative has a long prehistory. The authors of these
accounts received a tradition and shaped what they received into a new form.
Each narrative is a product of a different period in Israelite history, a
period that expressed its belief in God in a manner that reflects its own
concerns and needs. Hence each narrative addresses issues that are peculiar to
its own situation.
a) Gen 1: 1-2:4a- Priestly (P) Tradition (sixth-fifth
centuries B.C)
It is written
as vigorous protest against the then accepted notions of creation. The
historical context of the Priestly account of creation is the Babylonian exile
in the sixth century B.C. The exile was a devastating experience for Israel
politically and theologically. Those who survived the trauma reasserted their
belief in God’s power over chaos. They did this by developing their own
creation narrative. This narrative was influenced by the Babylonian epic poem Enuma Elish[1]
and possible by earlier motifs from Egyptian accounts of creation. The
Babylonian creation myth was reshaped by the authors of the Priestly account in
such a way as to portray the God of Israel establishing an orderly cosmos out
of chaos for the people of Israel. The rekindling of confidence in this God,
rather than the reporting of the history of
primordial times, seems to be the major purpose of the narrative. Thus
it can be said that the only aim of the (P) narrative is to portray the
sovereignty of God over the whole of creation. The author does this by
contrasting primordial chaos (“Tohu wa
bohu”) or formless wasteland to a well-ordered universe. What was chaotic
and dreadful, what was primeval waste has become a habitable universe by God’s
mighty word. What is presented here in the first 2 verses of Genesis then is
not “ a theory but a credo, a credo untinged by the least hint of speculation”,
that God is the skillful architect who fashioned the cosmos out of chaos by
bringing out order from the primitive disorder.
The text Genesis 1: 26-31 views humans, male and
female, as made in God’s image. Humans are the crowning species with a dual
relationship, a relationship to God and to their co-inhabitants. As creatures
who image God, humans have a special purpose within the plan of creation. They
are to act as God’s representatives are charged by God with dominion over the
other orders of animals with whom humans share the same habitat.
The fact that the order of the
universe is willed by God and that he is opposed to chaos and disorder is
itself an invitation as well as a challenge for all humans to work for the
protection and promotion of this order and harmony in the existing universe. Hence
in the very first verses of Genesis the human beings are called to participate
in and continue the creative activity of God as co-creators in so far as they
do not disturb, desecrate and destroy the harmony that exists in nature and in
all the created realities.
Now, the creation of the human race is put in the context of relationship
with God and all the creatures. The relationship of the humans with God (“in
our image, after our likeness”) is a summon to them that as vicegerents of God
they function as God and in the place of God in having a claim of sovereignty
over the creatures. The relationship of
the humans with the created realities is both a call and a challenge that as
responsible partners with God they imitate him in their way of dealing with the
creatures.
The Hebrew root “radah” for “dominion”
means “to rule, to dominate, to exercise power.” It is variously used in the context of
crushing the grapes by the wine press (Joel 4:13), of imposing punishment on
someone (Lam, 1:13), of suppression, oppression
(Lev. 25:53; Is. 14:6) etc. Besides, it serves to express in court
languages the royal ideology of ruling over one’s foes and enemies (cf. Psl.
110:2; 72:8; Is. 14:6; Ez. 34:4 etc.).
Similarly the term “subdue” (1:28), (in Hebrew “kabas”) is used to express various
ideas as “to tread down, to press, to rape” (cf. Est. 7:8; Mic. 7:19), to
reduce someone to the status of a slave (Neh. 5:5; 2 Chr. 28:10) or to bring
nations under subjugation (2 Sam, 8:11).
Although one may notice in the use of
these terms an aggressive, authoritarian and autocratic attitude towards and a
certain manipulation of the material world by the humans, yet since the humans
are expected to act on God’s behalf
and as his image and likeness, the terms “dominion”
and “subduing” (1:28) can permit “no license for the unbridled exploitation and
subjugation of nature.” It is “not a
dominion of caprice or exploitation, but on of justice and benevolence
patterned on God’s own benevolent justice.
It is an attitude patterned on the
model of ancient kings of the Orient and of the shepherd-kings of Israel whose
basic concern was the welfare of their subjects, especially the poor, the weak,
the oppressed and the marginalized (cf. Pas. 72:12-14; 99:4; 116:15 etc.). The human beings are therefore invited as
well as commissioned to reign over created realities in a manner that befits
the image-bearers of such a benevolent ruler.
They must treat the creatures in the same way as the merciful and
sympathetic God does.
When humans are given “dominion” over the creatures they are
only invited, as Vice-gerents to imitate and follow this shepherd-leader and
this shepherd-king. Nay, they are challenged for a more daring act of
commitment to the creatures, that of laying down their lives for the defence of
creatures after the model of the “shoot from Jesse” (Jer. 23:5), the Son of
David the shepherd, namely Jesus himself (Jo. 10:11-14). (R.J. Raja, Eco-Spirituality, N.B.C.L.C. Bangalore,
1997).
b) Gen. 2: 4b -3:24 Yahwistic (J) Tradition
(10th-9th centuries B.C.)
The second
creation account is the literary and theological product of a much earlier
generation. Unlike the priestly tradition, which grew out of the exile
experience of dissolution, the Yahwist tradition reveals biblical Israel’s
appropriation of a royal ideology and its development as a national entity. This
creation account is a statement that is theological and anthropological. The
author does not primarily focus on the world, while in the Priestly text of Gen
1: 1-2:4a we find a creation story that speaks of the creation of the world. In
Gen. 2: 4b -25 Yahweh is presented as a potter, architect and sculptor. His
works without effort, but also without word.
The author is
concerned with man and his environment. Only secondarily his eyes are turned to
the creation of the whole universe. It is not an account of the historical
origins of the then-known world. Yahwist creation narrative clearly indicates
that it is not concerned with providing answers to questions about cosmogony.
Rather, the Yahwist account is an etiology, a story rich in symbolism that attempts
to locate and give expression to the causes for the present condition of the
people. This etiology encompasses both the experience of goodness and intimate
relatedness with God, the benevolent Gardener, and the contrasting experience
of sin and estrangement from that God. Borrowing stories and themes from other
Near Eastern religions, the Yahwist author refashioned them in response to the
people ‘s concerns and in the light of Israel’s own religious faith.
Yahwist creation narrative blends two different narratives that the
author brought together into a unified whole.
The one narrative tells how God put the human into the garden, provided
this first human with plenty of nourishments, and forbade this creature to eat
the fruits of one of the trees in the garden under the penality of death. The
humans were led astray by the serpant and ate the forbidden fruit and God
punished them by driving them out from the garden.
The other narrative tells how at the beginning God formed the first human
creature (ha’-adam) from the earth
and breathed into this creature the breath of life (Gen 2: 4b-17).The creation
of humans from the earth was a widely spread notion, found in Egypt and in the
Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh epic of the creation of Enkidu. Noticing that
his creature was not yet complete, God tried to make up for what was lacking by
the creation of the animals; but they were not adequate. God then created woman
out of the human creature’s rib (Gen 2: 18-25). According to Westermann, the
creation of humankind is complete only when woman is created and the man and
the woman are together. He further says that the depiction of the creation of
humans, male and female, in Genesis 2 reflects a stage of civilization that was
aware of the great importance of the role of woman in the existence of
humankind. Genesis 2 is unique among the creation myths of the whole of the
ancient Near East in its appreciation of the meaning of woman, i.e., that human
existence is a partnership of man and woman.
As in the Priestly Narrative, so also in the Yahwistic narrative the
creation of humans is put in relationship to the creatures but in a reverse
order. We may notice here the parallelism between 1:28-30 (P) and 2:8-9 (J) in
so far as both the texts deal with the provision for sustenance of creatures by
God the Great Provider.
The
relationship of the humans to the earth is expressed by Yahwist through a play
on words “adam” = humans and “adamah”=
dust.
By the
fact that the human beings were created from the soil, the author conveys the
idea that both the humans and the earth are basically related to each other and
conjoined to each other, and that is the earth mother who gives existence and
meaning to the humans. Besides, humans have also a duty to “till the ground” so
that “soil and people are associated with each other in agricultural life in
such a way that each is determined by this mutual association.” (See R.J. Raja,
Eco-Spirituality, N.B.C.L.C.
Bangalore, 1997).
The narrative speaks then God’s solicitude and care for man
so far as “he puts the man whom he had formed” in the garden (2:8-15) with the
avowed purpose that he must “till it and keep it” (2:15; cf. Also 2:5; 3:17-23;
4:2).
Human are expected not merely to till the earth and cultivate it but guard it, watch over it, preserve it and protect it from all damage and destruction and decimation.
Human are expected not merely to till the earth and cultivate it but guard it, watch over it, preserve it and protect it from all damage and destruction and decimation.
The command “to till the earth and guard it” demands from
us a “responsibility as custodians of the world which is God’s gift. We must indeed develop the world and
we must use all the discoveries of science and technology in doing so. We
cannot, however, use the world just for our won profit and convenience. We must
“keep” the earth, and prudently conserve its riches, we must avoid exploitation
and waste which are simply a desecration of what God has placed at our
disposal.” (See R.J. Raja, Eco-Spirituality,
N.B.C.L.C. Bangalore, 1997).
Besides
the Genesis creation narratives, creation is a theme that is found in the
prophets and in the wisdom literature as well. For example, in the texts of the
classical prophets such as Amos (4: 13; 5: 8) and Jeremiah (27:5; 31: 35-37).
Deutero-Isaiah proclaims that the very earth will be recreated (Isa 40:4).
Creation is not simply an act of God in the beginning, but rather God’s
continual involvement throughout history. The prophet Isaiah links creation
with redemption. It is made explicit in the opening verse of Isaiah 43: “But
now thus says the Lord, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O
Israel: Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you
are mine.”
In the
wisdom literature (Proberbs, Job, Ecclesiastes [Qoheleth], Sirach
[Ecclesiaticus], the Wisdom of Solomon, and some of the Psalms) God is viewed
primarily as creator (Proverbs 8, Sirach 24, Wisdom of Solomon 7).
In our
survey of texts in the Old Testament makes it clear that its understandings of
creation are rich and varied. These texts are deeply affected by the questions,
concerns, and the worldview current when they were written. Hence the Biblical
perspectives on creation do not necessarily conflict with modern scientific
theories about the origins of the world and its development.
2. Theology of Creation in the New
Testament
The New Testament does
not focus extensively on creation as an isolated topic. Creation is related to
other themes, mainly to saving significance of Jesus. It is believed that one
of the earliest theological interpretations of Jesus associated him with Wisdom
was closely related to the activity of creation. Wisdom Christology provided
the early Christians with a way of speaking about Christ’s relationship with
the cosmos. Christ is the embodiment of the creative activity of God. The theme
of the reign of God (kingdom of God) reflects the Old Testament tradition of
creation. The reign of God is the goal that God “intends from the creation of
the world.” (Matt 25: 34).
In the
gospel of John we have Jesus as Sophia-God. Here we find Jesus described in
ways that Sophia has been depicted earlier: as the Word who was with God in the
beginning before the world existed (John 1:1; 17: 5; See also Wisdom of Solomon
2: 22). The claim of Sophia to exist with God from eternity is applied to
Jesus. Moreover, the creative function of Sophia is now the function of Jesus.
Jesus is the agent of creation: “Through him all things came into being, and
apart from him nothing came to be” (John 1: 1-3).
In the
letters of St Paul we find the creative activity of Christ: “For in him all
things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers- all things have been created
through him and for him” (Col. 1:16).
Again in 1Cor 8:6, Jesus is said to be the one “through whom are all
things and through whom we exist.” Elsewhere St Paul explicitly refers to
Christ as the wisdom of God (1Cor 1:24, 30).
Just as
the primary purpose of the OT accounts of creation is not to report the origin
of the universe or the world (the physical beginnings of the world) but is to
express faith in Yahweh (God), so the NT creation theology is a reflection of
the meaning of Christ. Its main purpose is to provide and interpretation of
salvation in Jesus that is closely linked with creation, and again that
salvation is looked upon as a renewal of the original creation through the
saving presence of God in Jesus Christ. (Anne M. Clifford, “Creation,” in F.
Schüssler Fiorenya and J. P. Galvin (eds), Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, Dublin: Gill and
Macmillan Ltd, 1992, pp. 193-209)
B. Creation versus Evolution
Evolution
designates that something develops by a natural process which is set in action
by agencies belonging to the nature of the thing itself. It is an irreversible
process in time, which during its course generates novelty, diversity and
higher levels of organization. It operates in all sectors of the phenomenal
universe but has been most meaningfully described and analyzed in the
biological sector. Julian Huxley succinctly puts the concept of evolution as follows:
Evolution, from cosmic star-dust to
human society, is a comprehensive and continuous process. During the process
new and more complex levels of organization are progressively attained, and new
possibilities are thus opened up to the universal world-stuff. Evolution on the
inorganic level operates over an appalling vastness of space. Finally on our
earth the world-stuff arrived at the new type of organization that we call
life. During the thousand million years of organic evolution, the degree of
organization attained by the highest forms of life increased enormously.
Finally there is, in certain types of animals, an increase in consciousness or
mind. There is thus one direction within the multifariousness of evolution
which we can legitimately call progress. (S.
Toulmin, The Return to Cosmology:
Postmodern Science and the Theology of Nature, London: University of
California Press, 1982, pp. 57-58)
In the broadest sense ‘evolution’ means the image that we have of the
total past and presumably the future of the whole universe. The evolution takes
us from the initial ‘big bang’ (it refers to the idea that the universe was
originally extremely hot and dense at some finite time in the past and has
since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state and continues to expand
today) through the appearance of the radiation, elements, and the combination
of elements to compounds, forming huge hydrogen clouds which by spinning
transform into millions of solar systems and myriads of galaxies. On the other
hand evolution of life begins with the formation of the earth, the formation of
DNA and the history of living organisms, leading to the human history, up to
the present, and continuing beyond into the future. Thus it is clear that
evolution is not only a mere biological phenomenon but our entire universe is
an effect of these evolutionary processes.
Furthermore, the term ‘evolution’ refers to describe scientifically the
generation and development of something essentially new out of some
pre-existing thing to which that the new thing is tied through a complex play
of continuity and change. For many natural scientists the theory of evolution
extends to the development of the cosmos, to the development of matter to the
level of living organisms, and to the development of human cultures.
Francis J. Ayala classifies the theory of evolution, at the level of
living organisms, into three subsets:
1) some general propositions
stating that organisms are related by common descent.
2) propositions concerning
the degree of relationship and evolutionary history of particular organisms, or
groups of organisms, and their parts.
3) propositions concerning
the processes, or “mechanisms,” by which evolutionary change occurs.
Thus the
‘Theory of Evolution’ generally means that all living organisms might have been
descended from one or a very few, original forms, which were themselves
presumed to have arisen ultimately from non-living matter.
Vatican I did not take any particular stand on evolution. It affirmed
that there cannot be any real contradiction between faith and science (ND 133-35).
It affirmed that the Triune God (Father, Son and Spirit) is the single
principle (source) of creation.
The Church, beginning in
1950 with Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis, took up a neutral
position with regard to evolution:
“For
these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in
conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology,
research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take
place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into
the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -
for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by
God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both
opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be
weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and
provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom
Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred
Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly
transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the
human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain
and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning
on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine
revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question” (Pius XII, encyclical Humani Generis, No. 36)."
®
Pope Pius XII's teaching
can be summarized as follows:
1) The question of the origin
of human body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of
inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but
they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and
they should respect the Church's right to define matters touching on
Revelation.
2) Catholics must believe,
however, that the human soul was created immediately by God. Since the soul is
a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of
matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.
3) All men have descended
from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind.
Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism," the scientific
hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there
were many Adams and Eves).
® Vatican II
The document Gaudium et Spes seems to have
acknowledged the theory of evolution as we read: “And so mankind substitutes a
dynamic and more evolutionary concept of nature for a static one, and the
result is an immense series of new problems calling for a new endeavour of
analysis and synthesis.” (GS 5, See also GS 54).
®
Pope John Paul II
In an October
22, 1996, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II
updated the Church's position to accept evolution of the human body:
"In his encyclical Humani
Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is
no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and
his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed
points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that
encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as
more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had
progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a
series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in
the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor
sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the
theory." (John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on
Evolution)
In the same
address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a
materialistic explanation for the human soul:
"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which
inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living
matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the
truth about man."
While the Pope
is open to the theory of evolution he points out that human beings and the
universe depend on God.
To conclude, the goals of empirical sciences and religion are different.
The empirical sciences attempt to understand how the universe works. Religion
attempts to understand the purpose and meaning of the universe. They try to
understand the same reality but from two different planes.
Science proposes various theories with regard to the origin of the
universe and the humans. They can be accepted provided they are verifiable
according to the principles of science and they do not contradict Christian
faith. The Biblical narratives about the origin of the universe and humans do
not refer to the mechanisms God chose to bring the universe as well as
everything in it into being. They rather refer to God’s on-going creative
relationship to the universe and everything in it. They teach us how we should
live in the world. As Pope John Paul II points out the Bible “does not wish to
teach us how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven”.
The theory of evolution need not necessarily be opposed to Christian faith.
In fact many people like Teilhard de Chardin have laboured much to reconcile
theory of evolution with Christian faith. (For details see, Henry Jose K., “Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin’s Contribution to the Renewal of Contemporary Theology,” Indian Journal of Spirituality 18
(2005), 515-536).
The issue of God’s creation of the spiritual dimension of the human being
(the immediate creation of the soul by God), has been widely discussed in
theology during the last fifty years or so. On the one hand, theologians
consistently hold that the emergence of the human species as self-conscious and
spiritual beings, and the biological and spiritual life of each human being,
occur through the action of God. On the other hand, they resist the
interpretation of this divine action as an intervention. The concept of a
particular divine intervention at the origin of the human species, or of a particular
divine intervention for each
individual person, does not seem satisfactory either scientifically or
theologically. In terms of science, requiring individual divine interventions
does not fit easily with what we know from science about evolutionary
development. But more fundamentally, in terms of theology, it seems to reduce
God to being a secondary cause alongside other secondary causes. The Creator
tends to become understood as an interventionist God, continually acting in
creation alongside other causes. This
problem has been overcome by conceiving the divine action in the creation of the
human, including all that makes up the spiritual dimension of humanity, as a
creative action that works through all
the generations of living beings, so that everyone shares in this special but
continuous action in the great work of universal evolution. Thus the creation
of each human person as a spiritual being is understood as special and unique.
Each human being is created in the divine image. But this occurs through God’s one continuous act of ongoing creation. According to Michael Schmaus (Dogma 2: God and Creation, p. 135), the
human being “is not a creature composed of two elements but is a single being
in whom matter and spirit are essentially united.” For him the spiritual
dimension of human beings emerging from within the evolution of life, and
springing form the material universe. However, the human spirit is not simply
an expression of matter and derived from matter. The emergence of
self-conscious spiritual beings is something radically new. At the level of theology it can be explained by the special
action of the Creator God, which cannot be understood in an interventionist
sense, but as part of the process of divine ongoing creation by which God
brings forth what is radically new from within the laws and constraints of
nature. In Rahner’s view What Pius XII and other have spoken of as “immediate
creation” of the human soul can be understood as God making possible a
self-transcendence of the material universe in the direction of the spiritual
human person. Hence according to the contemporary theologians, God should not
be thought of as creating individual human beings through a series of
interventions, but as creating in one divine act that embraces the whole
process. It is divine act that enables what is radically new to emerge in
creation. (Denis Edwards, The God of
Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology, New York: Paulist Press, 1999, 74-76;
see also Henry Jose , “The Evolutionary Categories in Karl Rahner’s Theology,” Indian Theological Studies 34 (1997),
pp. 327-357).
C. Creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) and Continuous creation
(creatio continua)
1. Creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo)
The Greeks held that the cosmos had always existed, that there has
always been matter out of which the world has come into its present form.
Aristotle (384-322 BC), had developed a philosophical argument for the eternity
of the world (Physics, I, 9; On the Heavens, I, 3). Philosophers of other
schools such as the Stoics and the Epicureans also agreed that the world or its
underlying reality is eternal. All these thinkers were led to this conclusion
because they observed that “nothing comes from nothing (ex nihilo nihil fit) and so there always has to be a
"something" that other things can come from, however one understands
the processes of coming into being and passing away.
Against this notion of an eternal cosmos,
the church fathers reasserted the biblical doctrine of creation, and in doing
so they emphasized not only the transcendent otherness of God but also the
astonishing immensity of God's power.
God did not form the world out of a
pre-existent matter, but spoke into being ("Let there be!") that
which literally did not exist before.
This doctrine of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) is not a teaching
dependent upon particular biblical passages, though some thinkers have cited 2
Maccabees 7:28: Rom 4: 17; Heb 11: 3). Creation from nothing is a metaphysical
statement and not a scientific or historical one. At the Fourth Lateran Council
in 1215 it is made an official doctrine of the Church though it has much
earlier roots.
The words “creation out of nothing” are
found in The Shepherd of Hermas
sometimes just called “The Shepherd” is a Christian literary work of the 1st or
2nd century, considered a valuable book by many Christians. Irenaeus, Bishop of
Lyons (d. ca. 202), rejecting Greek notions about the world in his treatise Against the Heresies, declared: "God, in the exercise of his
will and pleasure, formed all things…out of what did not previously exist"
(II.x.2: Irenaeus 370). Besides Irenaeus, there are other Church Fathers such
as Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine in arguments to counter either the Greek
pantheistic idea of the coeternity of God and matter or the moral-metaphyiscal
dualism of the gnostics. The concept perhaps finds its mature form in the
writings of Augustine of Hippo (354-430), who in his Confessions declares that through his Wisdom God creates all
things, not out of himself or any other thing, but literally out of nothing
(XII, 7).
Moreover it should be noted that none of
the early theologians mentioned above interpret the Bible in the ways that are
widely accepted today. The context of 2Macc 7: 28-29 is an eschatological text
in which a mother gives her child reason for resurrection hope in the face of
execution, rather than a protological creation text per se. The connection
between creatio ex nihilo and temporal beginnings is due to the influence of
the Vulgate translation of the initial words of Gen 1:1, “ In the beginning
God created the heavens and the earth,”
although an alternate translation, “ When God began to create the heaven and
the earth,” is equally accurate. Today theologians interpret creatio ex nihilo as a symbol for the
absolute dependence of everything for its existence on God, and to search for
other areas of consonance with emphasis on continuous creation.
2. Creation is continuous (creatio continua)
Another central feature of Christian creation theology is the notion
that creation is a continuous process. God's creation exists at every moment of
time because it is upheld by his sustaining power, the work both of the Word
and of the Holy Spirit, "the Lord and Giver of life." This doctrine
lies at the heart of the covenant God established with the whole of creation in
the beginning and renewed after the Flood (Gen. 9:8-17). Thus, theologians did
not take the statement that "God finished his creation"(Gen. 2:3) to
mean that God no longer creates. There are many texts in the Bible which speak
of God’s continuous creative activity in the universe (Is 48: 6-7, Ps 104: 14,
30). Hence it would be more accurate to say, and the biblical tradition is
explicit about this, that God is at every moment creating, for the creation
would cease to exist altogether if God were to withdraw his sustaining power.
From the teaching of the Fathers of the
Church too we know that creation is a continuous reality. For example Clement
of Alexandria states that creation as continuous, creatio continua (Stromata
4: 16: 5: 16). According to Pseudo-Dionysius
God created all out of His Goodness and perfects what He has created.
(J. Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology: A Christian Vision of Human Beings, Bangalore: TPI, 2009, p.
61).
For Thomas Aquinas creation is not simply a single and independent act of
God at the beginning but a continuous engagement. God is the cause of all being
without exception, which means that God creates, in a most radical sense, out
of nothing. Creatures do not have within themselves the reason for their own
existence. They exist because of the absolute being of God. Creatures have being
as a participation in God’s absolute being.
Creation, according to Aquinas, is
the relation of creature to the
principle of its very being namely, the Creator. On this view, God is not only
understood as holding all creatures in being (conservatio), but also as a principle cooperating in all their
activities (concursus). God is
understood as the absolute or primary cause of all things. This absolute
causality of God’s being does not cut across the series of secondary causes
whereby creatures have an effect upon one another (Summa Theologiae, I, q. 22. art. 3; I. q. 23. art. 8 ). God does
not ‘go under’ in the creativity he calls into existence.
As regards continuing creation (creatio
continua) it is noteworthy to see the views of some of the twentieth
century theologians. Karl Rahner understands creation as the continuation of
God’s dynamic creative power (der
schöpferischen Dynamik Gottes). It is not something that happens at the
beginning of time, but is rather the continuing relationship of the world to
its transcendent ground. He notes that,
“When Christian thinking speaks of
the creation at the “beginning” of time, it means precisely that time, as a
characteristic of the reality (interior and exterior) directly experienced by
us, is itself created, that God from the very outset stands outside of
temporality, that his creative act, eternal in itself and identical with God
himself, establishes a world which in itself is temporal. When and to the
extent that Christian teaching speaks of the finiteness of this created time
and declares that this time is not “eternal” that is, when it not only asserts a continuing
radical dependence of the world on God but also apparently says that the
world’s duration is finite (a statement which is obscure for theologians and
which requires additional metaphysical consideration), then it is not asserting
that the first moment of this temporal series, which is ordered to finiteness,
is identical with the “big bang” which is spoken of by natural science today
and whose distance from us in time science is trying to determine. It is
certainly not necessary for theology to identify this concept with the concept
of the beginning in a theological sense. Among other things this would present
the difficulty that a temporally determinable distance between us and big bang
would put the big bang into a temporal order, while the beginning in a
theological sense posits time as timeless, and the concept of a first moment in
a temporal series so posited (even though theology does use this concept too)
causes great intellectual difficulties which cannot be further analysed here.”(Naturwissenschaft
und vernünftiger Glaube,” ST, XV, pp. 39-40 (TI, XXI, pp. 31-32).”
Accordingly,
Rahner dismisses the idendificaiton of the Big Bang with what one might imagine
to be the first moment of time. For him, the beginning of creation,
theologically understood, posits time as timeless.
In P. Schoonenberg’s view, “If God creates, then he makes everything
continually, he makes everything just as much in its continuation as in its
origin. Indeed, this is even a characteristic which distinguishes God’s
creation from our making just as much as the ‘out of nothing’ aspect does. It
is precisely because nothing outside God is answerable for creation that its dependence
upon him is total under all aspects, including its duration. [...] Creation is
all comprehending activity, which contains maintenance and government of the
world within it as aspects of itself. Maintenance in creation in so far as it
concerns the duration of the creature, government the same in so far as it
concerns its activity. But both are creation (P.
Schoonenberg, Covenant and
Creation, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969, p. 96). Schoonenberg
further emphasizes the fact that creatures are dependent on the creative
activity of God. In other words, he stresses the relation between God’s
activity and that of his creatures. According to Schoonenberg, “God shows the
newness of his creative action by realising our world as a world which is
continually renewing itself (P.
Schoonenberg, Covenant and
Creation p. 192). It is to be
noted, however, that Karl Rahner goes beyond Schoonenberg in that he relates
God’s creatio continua not just to a
world which continually ‘renews’ itself (according to the same, repetitious
patterns), but to a world which in an evolutionary process continually
surpasses the stages of its anterior developments.
The notion of continuing creation finds resonance in the writings of
Teilhard de Chardin as well as in the writings of some of the process
theologians. J. Moltmann in his God in
Creation (Gott in der Schöpfung)
states the concept of continued creation (Moltmann,
God in Creation: an Ecological Doctrine
of Creation, London: SCM Press, 1985, pp. 196-197).
W. Pannenberg in turn emphasizes the notion of continuous creation and
the role of science in renewing the doctrine of creation. He observes the link
between creation and conservation. Conservation can be perceived as a form of
continuous creation. He says, “The world was not just placed into existence
once, at the beginning of all things, in such a way that it would have been
left on its own afterwards. Rather, every creature is in need of conservation
of its existence in every moment, and according to theological tradition such
conservation is nothing else but a continuous creation. This means that the act
of creation did not take place in the beginning; it occurs at every moment.”
According to W. Pannenberg, creation did not take place in the beginning
once and for all. For him, it occurs at every moment. Accordingly, in the
traditional theological doctrine of creation the activity of every creature is
dependent upon divine cooperation, a concursus
divinus. There is no activity and no product of creative activity in the
world without divine cooperation. For Pannenberg, “while each single event or
act in the world by itself is immediate and contingent, the divine activity
cooperates with the activity of the creatures and forms a continuity of action.
This continuity has been identified in the theological tradition with the idea
of divine governance of the world. It is due to this divine government of
creation that the sequence of contingent events and created forms take the
shape of a continuous process toward the divine goal of an ultimate completion
and glorification of all creation”(W.
Pannenberg, “The Doctrine of Creation and Modern Science,” Zygon 23,1988, pp. 3-21}.
Today theologians are not very enthusiastic in turning towards a
tentative cosmological theory in order to base the foundation for the doctrine
of creation. In the words of Anne M. Clifford, “creatio ex nihilo succinctly expresses a condemnation of dualism
and affirms the goodness of creation. Its primary purpose was to make a
metaphysical claim about the triune God and not a specific, historical one that
established that the cosmos originated as the result of a singular event in the
distant past”(A. M. Clifford,
“Postmodern Scientific Cosmology and the Christian God of Creation,” Horizons 21 (1994), p. 71.
The two activities i.e. creatio ex
nihilo
and creatio continua really
cannot be separated, but they can be distinguished logically in that creatio ex nihilo highlights the divine
transcendence, the "wholly otherness" of God from the creation, while
creatio continua expresses the divine
immanence. God's continual presence in creation, God's continual providence
over creation, God's continual governance of creation--all are conveyed by the
notion of creatio continua.
Appendix – 2 -
The Human Person in the Image of God
(Imago Dei)
One of the
most beautiful things ever said about human beings is that we are created “in
the image of God.” It is central to Christian revelation. It is considered “as
the key to the biblical understanding of human nature and to all the
affirmations of biblical anthropology both in the Old and New Testaments”
(International Theological Commission, Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons
Created in the Image of God, Rome: 2004, No. 7). In this section we make a
survey of the OT and the NT interpretations of the Imago Dei as well as the current understanding in the light of the
teaching of the Church today.
A. The Image of God (Imago
Dei) in Scripture and Tradition
1. In the Old Testament
The statement
that the human person is created in God’s image is found only in the early
chapters of Genesis (Gen 1: 26-27; Gen 5: 1-3 and Gen 9:6) and only in verses
belonging the priestly tradition (see Wis 2:33; Sir 17:3 which are clearly
based on the Genesis text).
The author uses two words when he speaks about the human person as image
of God. The word used in Hebrew for image is selem= representation.
The Old Testament understanding of human being as created in the image of
God in part reflects the ancient Near Eastern idea that the king is the image
of God on earth. Hence the setting up of the king’s statue was equivalent to
the proclamation of his dominion over the sphere (See Dan 3: 1 ff). In the
thirteenth century B.C. the Pharaoh Ramses II had his image hewn out of a rock
at the mouth of Nahr-El-Kelb, on the Mediterranean north of Beirut . This image
meant that he was the ruler of the area (See Sebastian Athappilly, Mystery and Destiny of the Human Person: A
Theological Anthropology, Bangalore: Dharmaram Publications, 2007, p. 19).
Together with the word image another word is used: ‘likeness’ in Hebrew
it is demut which means ‘to be like,
to resemble’. Likeness highlights the fact that human beings resemble God in a
way that other creatures (plants, animals etc) do not. We can notice in the
texts in Gen 1: 26 that the terms ‘image and likeness’ are used together, while
in Gen 1: 27, 5:1, 9:6 only one or the other is used. Hence the scholars are of
the opinion that both are synonymous and mean practically the same thing.
Taking ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ together
it is said that human persons are similar to and resemble God. Hence we can
conclude the following:
·
It is only human beings who are created in the image
and likeness of God.
·
The entire human being is the image of God and not one
part or aspect of the human being.
·
God created both man and woman as God’s image and
likeness. Hence both man and woman are equally ’image and likeness’ of God.
·
The ‘image of God’ gives human beings dignity and
worth that the other animals and plants do not have.
·
The command not to kill human beings because they are
in the image of God (Gen 9:1-7) is given much after the fall. This would imply
that the image of God in human beings has not been destroyed by the fall.
·
Human beings are the image of God because they have
qualities like that of God (freedom, knowledge, love), and they function like
God, having stewardship over other creatures.
·
Since they resemble God and have qualities like that
of God, they are able to relate to God.
·
The idea contained in Gen 1:26-27 is reflected on in
Psalm 8 which says the mortal human being has been raised almost to the level
of a god and entrusted with the charge of the visible world.
Thus the
image of God (imago Dei) means that a
human being is endowed with all that is necessary to enter into communion with
God and with others and to exercise responsible stewardship of the created
world. ((J. Kuttianimattathil, Theological Anthropology: A Christian Vision of Human Beings,
Bangalore: TPI, 2009, pp. 97-98).
2. In the New Testament
In
the NT the theme of imago Dei is
completed in the imago Christi. Here
we have two distinctive elements: the Christological and Trinitarian character
of the imago Dei, and the role of the
sacramental mediation in the formation of the imago Christi.
Jesus Christ himself is the perfect image of God (2Cor
4:4: Col 1: 15: Heb 1:3). Human beings are called to be conformed to him (Rom
8:29) in order to become the son of the Father through the power of the Holy
Spirit (Rom 8:23). To become the image of God requires an active participation
on the part of humans in their transformation according to the pattern of the
image of the Son (Col 3:10) who manifests his identity by the historical
movement from his incarnation to his glory. The image of God in each human
person is constituted by one’s historical passage from creation, through
conversion from sin, to salvation and consummation.
Again according to the NT, this transformation into
the image of Christ is accomplished through the sacraments (2Cor 3: 18-4:6) and
of Baptism (1Cor 12:13). Communion with Christ is a result of faith in him, and
Baptism through which one dies to the old man through Christ (Gal 3: 26-28) and
puts on the new man (Gal 3: 27; Rom 13:14). Thus through faith and baptism, the
Christian is remodeled from the image of the original Adam into that of the
second Adam (Rom 6: 4f.; 1Cor 15: 49; 2 Cor 3:18). Penance, the Eucharist, and
the other sacraments confirm and strengthen us in this radical transformation
according to the pattern of the paschal mystery. Created in the image of God
and perfected in the image of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit in the
sacraments, we are embraced in love by the Father. ((International Theological
Commission, Communion and Stewardship:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God, Rome: 2004, Nos. 11-13).
3. The Image of God (Imago Dei) in the Theological Tradition
In
the patristic and medieval theology the concept of imago dei has divergent view
points. The majority of the representatives of the tradition did not fully
embrace the biblical vision which identified the image with the totality of the
human person. For example St. Irenaeus made the distinction between image and
likeness.
According to Irenaeus, ‘image’ denotes an ontological
participation and ‘likeness’ refers to a moral transformation. Irenaeus considers the whole human being to be
a composite of body, soul and spirit (pneuma).
For him the image is the rational and free nature of the human being. This was
not lost at the fall. Likeness is that special dimension in human being
(spirit) which receives the divine influences, knows the divine truth and makes
one act morally. This has been lost by the fall. This is restored through Jesus
Christ.
“And then, again, this Word was manifested when the Word of God was made
man, assimilating Himself to man, and man to Himself, so that by means of his
resemblance to the Son, man might become precious to the Father. For in times
long past, it was said that man was created after the image of God, but it was
not [actually] shown; for the Word was as yet invisible, after whose image man
was created, Wherefore also he did easily lose the similitude. When, however,
the Word of God became flesh, He confirmed both of these: for He both showed
forth the image truly, since He became Himself what was His image; and He
re-established the similitude after a sure manner, by assimilating man to the
invisible Father through means of the visible Word” (Adversus haereses. V, 16, 2).
Irenaeus goes on to make the closest connection between the redemption by
reference to the Holy Spirit. In creation, the Spirit had caused the
'co-mingling' of body and soul that is by definition a human being created in
the image of God. By this same Spirit, on account of the sacrifice of the incarnate
word but also the union of the Word and the flesh in the very act of
incarnation, the imago in the human is and will be restored and perfected:
“
Now the soul and the spirit are certainly a part of the man, but certainly not
the man; for the perfect man consists in the commingling and the union of the
soul receiving the spirit of the Father, and the admixture of that fleshly
nature which was moulded after the image of God….But when the spirit here
blended with the soul is united to [God's] handiwork, the man is rendered
spiritual and perfect because of the outpouring of the Spirit, and this is he
who was made in the image and likeness of God” (Adversus haereses. V, 6, 1).
According to Tertullian, God created man in his image and gave him the
breath of life as his likeness. While the image can never be destroyed, the
likeness can be lost by sin (Bapt. 5, 6.7). St. Augustine does not make any
distinction, but presented a more personalistic, psychological and existential
account of the imago Dei. According to him, the image of God in man has a
Trinitarian structure, reflecting either the tripartite structure of the human
soul (spirit, self-consciousness, and love) or the threefold aspects of the
psyche (memory, intelligence, and will). According to Augustine, the image of
God in man orients him to God in invocation, knowledge and love (Confessions I,
1,1).
For Augustine,
human being is to discover what is in the human being that resembles God or is
the image of God. He teaches us that the human mind with memory, understanding
and will is the image of God in the human beings. As he says: “Well then, the
mind remembers, understands and loves itself; if we discern this, we discern a
trinity, not yet indeed God, but now at last an image of God.” (De Trinitate, XIV,
8). Further he considers the image of God to be the rationality of the soul
with its capacity to understand and behold God (De Trinitate, XIV, 5). Human beings will grow in the image of God
to the extent that understanding and love find expression in their life.(J.
Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology: A Christian Vision of Human Beings, Bangalore: TPI, 2009, pp.
100-101).
In St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), the imago Dei
possesses an historical character since it passess through three stages: the imago
creationis (naturae), the imago recreationis (gratiae), and the similitudinis
(gloriae) (Summa Theologiae I, 93, 4). For Aquinas, the imago Dei is the basis
for participation in the divine life. Human beings can be said to be the image
of God in three ways:
·
In as much as they have the capacity to know God and
love God, a capacity that it natural to all human beings because of their
intellectual nature.
·
To the extent that human beings actually know and love
God, but imperfectly.
·
To the extent that human beings know and love God
perfectly.
Thus
for Thomas Aquinas, the image of God in human beings is considered as the
capacity to know and love God. Hence what is important in the image of God is
one’s capacity to relate to God (J.
Kuttianimattathil, Theological
Anthropology: A Christian Vision of Human Beings, p. 103).
B. The Image of
God (Imago Dei) in Gaudium et Spes and Current theology
There has been
a renewed interest in the recovery of the theology of the imago Dei in the
mid-twentieth century. It is because of the intense study of the Scriptures, of
the Fahters of the Church, and of the great scholastic theologians that brought
about the importance of the theme of the imago Dei. The Second Vatican Council
gave a new impetus to the theology of the imago Dei, most especially in the
Constitution on the Church in the Modern world Gaudium et Spes(GS).
In Gaudium et Spes the doctrine
of image of God is used quite dynamically. It is used to show human person’s
relation to God, to one’s social relationship with fellow human beings and also
to the material world. Thus we can note this relationship in the first three
chapters of GS. In order to develop this relationship there are three classical
words used in Gaudium et Spes especially in art 12. They are Capax Dei, Socialitas and Dominium.
The immediate and formal object of the image of God (imago Dei) includes Capax Dei (Capacity for God) and Dominium (Dominion). These two are the
backbone of the Christian anthropology. The expression Imago Dei denotes human person’s
capacity for God i.e. human person is capable of knowing God and loving Him.
This is clearly affirmed in the document as “for sacred Scripture teaches that
man was created “to the image of God,” as able to know and love his creator,
and as set by him over all earthly creatures that he might rule them, and make
use of them, while glorifying God” (GS, 12). Commenting on this expression imago Dei, Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
says, “ image of God is interpreted as capacity for God, qualification to know
and love God. Man is the image of God to the extent in which he directs himself
to God.” (J. Ratzinger, “The Dignity of Human Person,” Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, H. Vorgrimler (ed). New York: Herder &
Herder, 1996, p. 121.
GS provides the Christological basis for human person’s capacity for God.
“In reality it is only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery
of man truly becomes clear.....conformed to the image of the Son who is the
firstborn of the many brothers, the Christian man receives the “first fruits of
the spirit” (Rom 8:23) by which he is able to fulfil the new law of love” (GS,
22).Revealed by God who created man in his image, it is the Son who gives to
human beings the answers to their questions of life and death (GS 41).Further
we have the Trinitarian structure of the image: by conformity to Christ (Rom
8:29) and through the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:23), a new person is created, capable of fulfilling
the new commandment (GS 22). It is the saints who are fully transformed in the
image of Christ (2Cor 3: 18), in them, God manifests his presence and grace as
a sign of his kingdom(GS 24). On the basis of the doctrine of the image of God,
GS teaches that human activity reflects the divine creativity which is its
model (GS 34) and must be directed to justice and human fellowship in order to
foster the establishment of one family in which all are brothers and sisters
(GS 24).
Human beings are social by their nature because they are the image of
God. The document affirms that “But God did not create man a solitary being.
From the beginning ‘male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27). This
partnership of man and woman constitutes the first form of communion between
persons. For by his innermost nature man is a social being; and if he does not
enter into relations with others he can neither live nor develop his gifts.”
(GS 12).
Human person’s social nature is the basis for his interpersonal
relationship; universal brotherhood (GS 12, 14) as well as for marriage (GS 12,
48). Gaudium et Spes acknowledges that human person’s worth is not what he
possesses but what he is, i.e., the image of God. The economic, cultural and
political differences are only accidental, therefore human beings must not be
allowed to be dehumanised.
Another teaching of Gaudium et Spes
regarding the image of God is human person’s relation to the universe. The
human person who is created the image of God is also given the dominion over
the world (GS 12). Hence dominion may be defined as human person’s lordship
over and stewardship of the created universe. It is one of the essential
characteristics of human being in the image of God. It should be noted that the
idea of dominion is closed associated with human person’s capacity for God (capax dei). The dominion refers to one’s
activity in the world, to culture, to science, to scio-economic aspects of
human life, to politics and peace. (John Peter Sandanam, “In His Image after
His Likeness: From the Perspective of Gaudium et Spes,” Indian Theological Studies, 40 (2003), pp. 250-254).
There is a renewed interest in the theology of the image of God in
contemporary theology. In the first place theologians are working to show how
the theology of imago Dei illumines
the connections between anthropology and Christology. Without denying the
unique grace which comes to the human race through the incarnation, theologians
want to recognise the intrinsic value of the creation of humans in God’s
image.With this renewed understanding of the link between Christology and
Anthropology comes a deeper undertanding of the dynamic character of the imago
Dei. Today theologians do acknowledge the truth that, in the light of the human
history and the evolution of human culture, the imago Dei can in a real sense
be said to be still in the process of becoming. The theology of the imago Dei
thus links anthropology with moral theology by showing that , in his very
being, human beings possess a participation in the divine law. This natural law
orients human persons to the pursuit of good in their actions. Finally, the
imago Dei has a teleological and eschatological dimensions which defines human
person as homo viator, oriented to
the parousia and to the consummation of the divine plan of the universe (Communion and Stewardship, No. 24).
Appendix-3 - Evolutionary
Worldview and Original Sin:
A Rahnerian Perspective
1.
Rahner’s Concept of Freedom
Rahner’s
doctrine of ‘original sin’ is intimately connected with his notion of freedom
which in turn has its foundation in his metaphysical anthropology. Accordingly
Rahner’s view of freedom is related to his notion of being. Being, for Rahner,
means “being-present-to-itself”(Beisichsein),
which involves a self-determining subject. Only God has being (Beisichsein) to the fullest degree
absolutely. However, all beings can be said to “have being” in so far as they
develop a Beisichsein. We can notice
that Rahner uses the same terminology when he speaks of freedom. A free act is
“a coming to oneself, a being present to oneself, with oneself.”Hence, for
Rahner, being and freedom are correlative concepts. In his later writings
Rahner goes beyond his philosophical concept of freedom and discussed it
theologically especially in the context of sin. In his article “Zum theologischen Begriff der Konkupiszenz,”we
find Rahner’s approach to freedom (both transcendental and categorical) is
specified through his distinction between ‘nature’ and ‘person.’ Human being is
a ‘person’ in so far as he/she freely
disposes of himself/herself by his/her decision, posses his/her own definitive
reality in the act of making a free
decision. Whereas by ‘nature’ Rahner means all that in human being which must
be given prior to the disposal of himself/herself, as its object and the
condition of possibility. In other words, ‘nature’ is what we are born with. It
includes such things as body, social and cultural environment, religious
background etc. Human freedom, says Rahner, as such has a theological
character, even when the human subject is not performing categorical acts of religious
devotion. Nor is the theological character of human freedom to be explained
simply by affirming that God, as the primal source of all reality, is also the
ground of human freedom. In the human person’s own constitution of her- or
himself, she or he decides freely over against God. Rahner, furthermore states,
[...] to the same degree and for the same reason,
freedom has to do primordially and unavoidably with God himself. [...] Freedom,
in its original nature, is the freedom of the yes or no to God and, therein,
the freedom of the subject with respect to itself. (Theological Investigations, Vol. VI, pp. 179-182).
The radical nature of human freedom, according to
Rahner, is revealed most clearly in the fact that human beings can deny or
reject the very horizon of their own freedom, namely, God. This freedom,
however, is freedom over against its supporting ground itself. That freedom can
deny the condition of its own possibility in an act that once again necessarily
affirms this condition, is the extreme expression of the essence of creaturely
freedom. Rahner regards freedom as the capacity to fashion definitively
ourselves and the total direction of our lives: “Freedom precisely does not
consist in a quest to achieve ever fresh changes at will. Rather it is of its
very nature the event of a real and definitive finality which cannot be
conceived of otherwise than as something that is freely achieved once and for
all.”
Rahner makes it clear that definitiveness and finality
are essential for freedom. As he states, “Freedom therefore is not the capacity
to do something which is always able to be revised, but the capacity to do
something final and definitive. It is the capacity of a subject who by this
freedom is to achieve his final and irrevocable self.”(Foundations of Christian Faith (FCF), p. 96).
Rahner insists that human freedom is “the freedom to
say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to God.” According to him, the real freedom given to the
human creature, and therefore its capacity radically to refuse God, in no way
limits the sovereignty of God, since this refusal is not something that merely
“happens” to God, but is something made possible by God’s free decision.
However, Rahner observes that “in his absolute sovereignty and without
contradiction at least from our perspective, God can establish a freedom
capable of good or evil without thereby destroying this very freedom. The fact
that as the subject of freedom is still coming to be we do not know whether or
not God has so established all freedom that it will reach a good decision, at
least finally and ultimately, is something to be accepted in obedience as a
fact we know from experience, just as we have to accept our very existence in
obedience.” Rahner explicates that the actualization of our freedom takes place
within a set of historical and even determining contours such as our talents,
intelligence, sex, culture, resources, etc., and in mutual relationship with
other persons and their determining limitations. We “co-determine” one another,
even in our sinfulness. Thus, even the actualization of human freedom is
“co-determined” by the guilt of other persons—a mutually shared history of
guilt. (FCF, pp. 100-107). In the light of Rahner’s concept of freedom we shall
see how he presents a synthesis of his theology of original sin.
2. Original Sin in an
Evolutionary World View
In his article
“Evolution and Original Sin”(Erbsünde und
Evolution) Rahner asks himself if the doctrine of evolution is compatible
with the teaching on original sin and monogenism. The question that he poses is: “does original
sin imply monogenism, does it exclude polygenism” or not? Rahner, thus,
examines the possible reconciliation of traditional teaching about original sin
with polygenism. In the words of Rahner: “the question of polygenism within Catholic
theology may with all due respect for the interpretation of Humani Generis be treated as still open.
There is certainly no dogma of monogenism. Cautious theological reflection
enables us to show today that Trent’s dogma of original sin does not exclude
polygenism. They two can coexist.”
Rahner
acknowledges that the Council of Trent (1545-1563) presupposes an “Adam who is
physically one.” But it should be noted that the Council there speaks of
original sin by simply repeating the statement of Scripture and tradition. It
did not define monogenism since this question was neither put nor intended.
Hence one can only see an implicit and strictly binding teaching of monogenism
as such in the Decree of Trent if it is strictly proved that the Council’s teaching
on original sin as such cannot be held without this presupposition of
monogenism. Thus Rahner concludes that there is no question of a formal dogma
of monogenism in Trent.
Rahner, further on asks himself if monogenism can be proved
philosophically or not. He answers by saying that as long as the philosophical
grounds for accepting monogenism are not certain and generally accepted, the
theologian cannot dispense with the question whether also polygenism is perhaps
compatible with the teaching on original sin. Such compatibility is at least
thinkable, even if polygenism were, objectively speaking false.
In the light of the current Biblical studies Rahner comes to the
conclusion that Genesis 1-3 gives us only a “theological etiology [2]
which may or may not be historical.
Following the modern scientific knowledge regarding the origin of life Rahner
is convinced of the fact that hominization has taken place in many individuals–
a “population” rather than in a single pair.
Rahner observes that the natural science regards the advent of the human
kind as an event within the biosphere and its enfolding in history. It does
not, however, consider the personal and spiritual (das Personal-Geistige)
aspect of human beings. Therefore it has no reason to consider hominization as
happening once only in a single case, since biological events happen elsewhere
in a number of cases of specifically the same kind. Accordingly the theologian,
in Rahner’s view is not obliged to provide the positive and a posteriori
reasons which scientists have found in favour of polygenism. The theologian can only state the fact that
today’s scientific anthropology propounds a type of polygenism. Consequently
the real problem for the theologian is whether the doctrine of original sin
excludes polygenism or not. Rahner’s
thesis is this: “In the present state of theology and natural science it cannot
be proved with certainty that polygenism conflicts with orthodox teaching on
original sin. Therefore, it is better and cautious if the magisterium refrained
from censuring polygenism.” According to
Rahner, if evolutionary hominization is acceptable, we have to accept that
“Eve” came about in the same way as “Adam”. In the light of the doctrine of Humani Generis – which states that the
human body develops from pre-existing living matter and the soul is immediately
created by God , Rahner argues that we cannot think of “Adam” in terms of
evolution and deny this for “Eve”. Hence
Polygenism can no longer be rejected in the case of one couple.
Rahner argues that, despite its polygenetic origin, the first human group
constitutes a biological-historical unity (eine leibhaftig-geschichtliche
Einheit). This primordial human group
constitutes an integral whole because of several factors such as: 1) the real
unity of its physical and biotope habitat (the area in which the main
environmental conditions come to play) 2) the unity of its ancestral animal
population from which humankind descended, 3) through the concrete
human-personal intercommunication which is a constitutive moment (ein konstitutives Moment) of humankind’s
biological-historical unity, and 4) the radical unity of the real destiny (die
reale Bestimmung) towards a supernatural goal and towards Christ.
According to Rahner, polygenism permits us to imagine a hominization area
where those beings that originated humankind formed a genuine biological and
historical unit, achieved through a genuinely possible personal communication
process. The first sin (peccatum originans)
can thus be viewed as perpetuated by a unified original group made up of a few
(sexually diversified) members or a wider (sexually diversified) group seen as
a totality.
In his later writings especially in Foundations
of Christian Faith (FCF), Rahner gives a very succinct and synthetic view
of the doctrine of original sin. According to him, original sin is not due to
an inherited, punitive guilt due to some original, personal, free, and sinful
act which has been biologically transmitted to the subsequent generations as
its moral quality. The notion that a personal deed of “Adam” (humanitas
originans) or of some first group of people is juridically imputed to us in
such a way that it has been transmitted on to us biologically, has nothing to
do with a proper understanding of original sin.
For Rahner, the doctrine of original sin can be understood by a
religious-existential interpretation (eine religiös-existentiale
Interpretation) of our own sinful situation which means that we can exercise
our freedom only within a situation that from the beginning of human history is
co-determined by the objectifications of others’ guilt (Schuld). Rahner gives the example of buying a banana.
In the case of buying a banana one is caught up in a web of evil such as the
misery of the pickers which is co-determined by social injustice, exploitation,
the corruption of the market place and so on. The buyer, thus, participates in
this situation of guilt to his or her own advantage. The question is where does
responsibility begin and end?. So we can
say to be in the world is to be in an- interconnected- sinful situation. (FCF,
pp. 110-111).
Rahner repeatedly emphasises that the word “sin” is used to denote both a
personal, evil decision and a sinful situation which derives from the evil
decisions of others. Hence it is being used only in an analogous and not in a
univocal sense. In other words, the
guilt incurred through the intercourse with others is something universal,
permanent and hence it is also original. The analogous sense of sin points to
our own situation of guilt determined by our collective use and abuse of
freedom. Rahner makes it clear that “Since there is such a loss for the human
race as the “descendants of Adam” in the situation of its freedom, we can and
must speak of an original sin, although merely in an analogous sense of course,
even though we are dealing with an element in the situation of freedom and not
in the freedom of an individual as such.” (FCF, p. 113)
It should be noted that Rahner shows his reluctance regarding the use of
the term “original sin.” He, however,
points out that the reality intended is legitimately called a condition of
sinfulness (wird mit Recht ein Zustand der Sündigkeit genannt). Rahner was aware that this word can be easily
misunderstood in the church’s theology and preaching. So he says: “We would
have to answer, first of all, that what is permanent and valid about the dogma
of original sin, and its existentiell
meaning could be expressed without this word.”
Nevertheless, he says, “we have to take account of the fact that there
is and has to be a certain amount of standardization in the terminology of
theology and preaching and this word is there and cannot be abolished privately
and arbitrarily by some individual.”
Hence Rahner is of the opinion that in catechesis one should not
straight away begin with this term. It is better to start with experience and a
description of the existentiell human condition; it is better to talk about the
reality itself without using the term. (FCF, p. 112).
In the light of God’s self-communication, Rahner points out that
“original sin” means the loss of the
self-communication of the absolutely holy God, a self-communication
which designates a quality sanctifying human being prior to his/her free and
good decision. The loss is not merely a diminishing of the possibilities of
freedom but takes on the character of something which should not be (Nichtseinsollenden).
Rahner’s understanding of what
‘original sin’ is, is based on two factors. “First of all, it is based on the
universality of the determination by guilt of every person’s situation, and
this factor includes the original nature of this determination by guilt in the
history of the human race, this origin being implied in the very notion of
universality. Secondly, it is based on the reflexive insight deepening with the
history of revelation and salvation, into the nature of the relationship
between God and man. This factor includes the specific nature of the conditions
of possibility for this relationship which are implied in the relationship, and
also the special depths of guilt if and when there is guilt, and, if there is
guilt, what kind of guilt is implied by a rejection of the sanctifying offer of
himself which God makes to man.”
In Rahner’s view, two things are specific to the doctrine of original
sin. First, human history is from the beginning a universal history of sin and
guilt which determines every generation’s situation. Second, the depth of this
determination by guilt, determines the realm of freedom, and not freedom as
such immediately, and it must be measured by the essence of sin in which this
co-determination of the human situation by guilt has its origins. (FCF,
112-113).
For Rahner, now, the essence of sin consists in a rejection of God’s
absolute offer of himself in an absolute self-communication of his divine life.
It is a rejection of that which is most radical and deepest in the constitution
and the existential situation of human freedom.
Grace is prior to freedom as the condition of the possibility of freedom’s
concrete unfolding. Rejection and loss of God’s sanctifying self-communication
is, therefore, something that simply ought not be. It is not merely
diminishment of freedom’s possibilities, though that too is entailed. It is a
flight from the inner core of freedom itself.
From the history of salvation we know that human guilt was from the
start encompassed and surpassed by God’s absolute will to self-communication in
Christ. Nonetheless, our collective situation of sinfulness is there as a fact.
As such, the “sin of the world” is antecedent to the decision of freedom and
internally formative of our freedom. Personal choice ratifies this sinful
situation or moves away from it in grace.
All this notwithstanding for Rahner, God’s offer of self-communication
to human being remains in force because of Christ and in relation to him,
despite humankind’s descend from Adam. This saving will of God is a permanent
existential, a factor in every person’s situation in regard to salvation. (Sacramentum Mundi, Vol. IV, p. 333).
Precious Blood Missionaries
No comments:
Post a Comment