Given the theological significance of human constitution and the anthropological significance of Jesus Christ, the church should take this opportunity to (re)examine the what question of human being by looking to the man himself through the teachings of orthodox Christology in the Chalcedonian tradition. The Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD) produced at the fourth ecumenical council provides the core of the church’s orthodox confession that Christ is fully human (while also being fully God). But in doing so, it also provides the key to confessing how Christ is a fully human being (and how he is fully God).
Note: You can listen to a reading of both parts of this longform essay here, and can also hear David Schrock and Stephen Wellum interview Michael Wilkinson on his essay here.
Have you ever wondered what we are as human beings? Most likely, you have assumed or been taught that we’re a soul and a body. Or maybe your understanding is a bit more nuanced. Either way, have you considered that what we are is a significant part of God’s plan to glorify his name in all creation?
Reflecting on the divine plan to have humans rule over all creation causes the psalmist to declare the majesty of God in all the earth.
When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?
Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You have given him dominion over the works of your hands . . .
O LORD, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth! (Psalm 8:3–9)
But what is the divine design of human beings that enables Christ and the rest of mankind to bear such creational significance?
Moreover, we know from church history that we must be careful when we think of Christ in relation to the rest of mankind. If we don’t, we can stumble into heretical positions quickly. It took a lot of work over a few centuries for the church to clarify that Christ is fully man, having a complete soul and body, yet that body and soul did not create a human “son” alongside the divine Son. So how do we define our human being without causing more confusion or reintroducing heresy?
Over the course of two longform articles, I want to help us address the what question of our human being by looking to Christ for the answer in a way that actually strengthens the intersection between our anthropology and Christology.
In this Part 1, we’ll consider that the answer to what we are is a crucial part of gospel logic, yet the main options for human constitution fall short and generate more heat than light. And taking a departure from the current debate, we’ll walk through the first two of five theses that summarize how the divine Son’s incarnation reveals the divine design of our human being. Specifically, we’ll consider the implications of Christ becoming the man and why it was necessary for our salvation.
Then in Part 2, we’ll finish defining human being in Christ by allowing the church’s confession that he is both fully God and fully man to govern the constitution of mere man. And we’ll highlight that doing so can reveal the depth of human dignity in connection with Christ, the wonder of divine wisdom in the incarnation of Christ, the potential for more unified ground in the church’s doctrinal confessions, and greater strength in our ability to confront the man-centered issues of our day in a Christ-centered way.
The Question
For Christians, the who question of our true identity and the how question of our daily life in this world might seem more important or relevant than the what question of our human being. Indeed, Scripture calls the people of God to be holy as he is holy, and to conform our lives to the Lord Jesus Christ as his disciples.
Even beyond the church, all humanity is made in the image of God and is thereby given a particular identity and vocation, all of which is deeply corrupted by sin but not completely destroyed. Indeed, as Psalm 8 tells us, human beings are crowned with a special glory and honor that distinguishes us from all other creatures. Compared to the heavenly beings above and the animal beings here below, God has set apart human beings to display his majesty most clearly.
Yet the what question of this article has a certain logical priority over the who and how questions. Really, it has an ontological priority.[1] That is, it seems there must be an actual, real, constitutional design that grounds the identity and enables the vocation of humanity in general and the church in particular.
So what are we that makes us ontologically capable of bearing our creational significance and divine purpose?
The Significance
Maybe the best way to consider the importance of asking what we are is by considering another question: What made it possible for Jesus Christ to atone for our sins?
In the fourth century, Gregory of Nazianzus rightly insisted that Christ has healed only what he has assumed of our human nature. We’ll discuss the ontological implications further below. But here we can acknowledge the significance of Gregory’s point: Christ must be a complete man to completely save sinful man. If Christ did not live, die, and rise again as a true and complete human being, then his redemptive work would be incomplete, and we would still be lost in our sins.
Thus, whatever constitutes us as human beings, the Son must have become that in his incarnation to redeem us as the mediator between God and man.
And in that case, becoming clear as to what we are as humans also has implications for related doctrines, like justification and sanctification. Our redemption in Christ means that we are now justified, standing in a right relationship to God. Through faith, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us, being counted as our own. And the Holy Spirit is sanctifying the people of Christ, conforming each of us to the image of Christ. Yet, again, it would seem that these glorious realities involve a certain constitution that supports them and makes them possible, both for Christ and for his people.
In short, as discussed more below, human constitution—what we are—provides part of the ontological framework for the work of Christ because all that he has accomplished for us is made possible by him being made like us in every way, except sin (see Heb. 2:6–9, 17; 4:15).
So our understanding about man (anthropology) has significant ontological implications for our understanding of the salvation and sanctification of sinful man (soteriology) through the person and work of Jesus Christ (Christology). The church should rejoice in the biblical revelation and coherence of these truths. And it should be concerned if our anthropology creates a tension or conflict with other doctrines, especially Christology and soteriology.
Moreover, the what question of human being bears upon some of the most important issues of our day. Whether it’s abortion, human trafficking, gender identity and confusion, the use and effects of artificial intelligence, or euthanasia and assisted suicide—from the beginning to the end of human life, we face questions that are fundamentally anthropological.
Simply put, then, what we are matters, and the definition of human being deserves the church’s careful attention.
The Current Debate
Despite its importance, the church does not have an orthodox definition of human being. In fact, if we count all the variations and modifications, the current debate in theological anthropology has produced no less than 130 versions.
It is true that substance dualism was the default teaching of the church for more than 1500 years. By the fifth century, Augustine had brought the soul-body composition of man into a dominant position in the West. And the church thereafter taught with near uniformity that a human being is a dual-substance being: an immaterial soul-substance that exists in and directs a material body-substance.
Yet, substance dualism was not the result of a deliberative consensus by the church. It was not produced by an ecumenical council and it never gained the authority of an orthodox formulation of human ontology that rejects others. And that provided the opportunity for challenges and alternatives.
In the seventeenth century, a shift in philosophy and metaphysics posited that a substance has only a material existence, even if it includes aspects that appear immaterial. Accordingly, all things, including humans, exist as wholly corporeal beings. An increasingly naturalistic worldview made an immaterial soul-substance ever more unnecessary and implausible.
Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.