PENTECOSTAL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

THE SPIRIT OF LIFE IN HUMANITY

A RESEARCH PAPER PRESENTED TO SANG-EHIL HAN, Ph.D. IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE TS630 THEOLOGY AND PEDAGOGY OF THE SPIRIT

BY WILMER ESTRADA-CARRASQUILLO

CLEVELAND, TN MAY 11, 2012

TABLE OF CONTENT INTRODUCTION. THE FALLEN HUMANITY THE IMAGO DEI AFTER THE FALL A PENTECOSTAL POINT OF VIEW CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY. 3 3 6 10 15 17

INTRODUCTION One of the questions that I have personally struggle to answer, as a Christian is, who are we today? Even though you and I are living in a fallen state, can we consider ourselves full humanity or complete human beings. If the Spirit is our source of life in the beginning of all things, did He leave the first man and woman by themselves after the fall? These questions have been answered from many theological perspectives, but the Pneumatology vantage point has been missing in action. My proposal is to respond to the above questions and others that will come up in the discussion as I use the Holy Spirit as the main filter. First, we will take a brief look at the account of Adams disobedience and it consequences. Second, I will present what did the Church Fathers, the Reformers and contemporary theologians have said about the human state after the fall. Finally, I will present two biblical accounts to respond to what have been the historical views and present a Pentecostal view of who we are today and how this is important for us Pentecostals. I. THE FALLEN HUMANITY

It is impossible to talk about human beings and the present state of them without taking a look at the events that occurred in the Garden and became the unnatural reality of humanity. My focus in this section it is not to argue why was a tree placed in the Garden that became central in the process to our fallen state, but first, to reiterate that our present state as humans is a product of the Eden historical event and second, to overview some of the theological pronunciations that have been voiced out as a product of the study of the fall of humanity.

After God had created humanity (Gen. 1:27 & 2:7) He gave them instructions on how they should rule in the Garden. Most of the instructions that are recorded in the biblical account were permissive, but only one of them was not. Nevertheless, Adam and Eve decided to disobey God in the sole area where they were advised not to; this disobedience marred what was Gods intention for humanity and thus sin entered into the world. Out of this historical event we can find several views about the fallen state of the human being. For purposes of this paper and by way of summary I will only mention just three of these views. First, Pelagianism states that humans are innocent when they come to the world. Therefore, they can obey God and have no guilt over them. Second, Arianism states that humanity is depraved. Nevertheless, it can cooperate with God. Humans are not free of guilt; there is potentiality of guilt in humanity. Third, Calvinism calls for a total depravity of the human being. There is no capability in man to cooperate with God and the guilt is actually in humanity.1 Though this is not the main subject of the paper, I have to be clear that the Scripture is clear in stating that we all have sin, therefore Pelagianism stands far away from the Scripture. The result of the fall is the depravity of the human being.2 Therefore the relationship and all-access pass that was part of the every day activity of Adam and

Table adaptation. See Norman L. Geisler, Sin/Salvation, Reprinted ed., vol. 3 of Systematic Theology (Bloomington, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 2004), page 145. Total depravity does not means that everyone is as thoroughly depraved in his actions as he could possibly be, nor that everyone will indulge in every form of sin, nor that a person cannot appreciate and even do acts of goodness; but it does mean that the corruption of sin extends to all men and to all parts of all men so that there is nothing within the natural man that can give him merit in Gods sight. Ryrie, Charles C., and Charles C. C. Ryrie. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. New ed. Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1989, p. 111.
2

Eve in the Garden (Gen 2:8) was torn apart and thus the rest of humanity felt short of the glory of God. All people consent to Adams sin (Rom 5:12). The repercussion is a death sentence, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever3 (Gen. 3:22-23). Thus, the Lord God sent him out from the Garden. How this death does look like? If this death is for real, how will man survive this death row sentence? What will happen with the early statement of Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness4 (Gen. 1:26) and God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Gen. 1:27)? Have we lost Gods image? Have we lost Gods likeness? Is our humanity short of what it was intended to be before the fall? Who are we now? These theological questions have been central to the development of the doctrine of man and sin. Different groups as the Church Fathers, the Magisterial Reformers and contemporary theologians have tried to respond to these questions in a variety of ways. Nevertheless, as Pentecostals we can also contribute in this discussion. If creation lost something, what was it and how can we get it back? Before presenting a Pentecostal response to these questions lets look to what has been the historical responses of some of the groups already mentioned about the image of humanity. Once we have mapped out an oversight of them, then we will move toward a Pentecostal view of the present state of the image of humanity and its future.

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ge 1:26). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. 4 All scripture references are from the New American Standard Bible.

II.

THE IMAGO DEI AFTER THE FALL

History is a witness of the many voices that have talked about the imago Dei5 in humanity after the fall. It is interesting how an expression that does not have many references in the Bible has been discussed so much in theology. Now, the lack of references does not mean that it is not important, probably this is the reason of the broad discussion. The major discussion has centered on defining what is image and what is likeness. Moreover, the central questions is, are the terms the same or not? Lets take a look at some of the views that have been presented since the Church Fathers through the Magisterial Reformers up to contemporary theologians. Church Fathers The Church Fathers provided the foundation for what is has been the long-standing interpretation of the image of God. This classical view, which still has adherents today, is understands the image of God as anthropological.6 The basic understanding of this classical view of the imago Dei is that the divine image is something that we posses, this includes the properties that make us human beings.7 For example lets look at an example of Origen. They said: In recording the first creation of man, Moses before all others says, And God said, Let us make man in our own image and likeness. Then he adds afterwards, And God made man; in the image of God made he him; male and female made he them, and he blessed them. Now the fact that he said, He made him in the image of God and was silent about the likeness point to nothing else but this, the man
5 6

Or image of God. Both terms will be use interchangeably.

Stanley J. Grenz, Theology For the Community of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 219. Stanley J. Grenz, Theology For the Community of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 219.
7

received the honor of Gods image in the first creation, whereas the perfection of Gods likeness was reserved for him at the consummation.8 First, for many of the church fathers, as Origen had stated, existed a difference between the image Dei and the likeness. Second, because the divine image is what makes us human, we retain the image even tough our fallen state. This is why the early father linked reason as the resemblance of God in us. In sum the image of God was link to our natural human powers, especially reason. On the contrary likeness was a supernatural gift; the original righteousness which was bestowed to Adam. The Reformers The Magisterial Reformers rejected completely the distinction between the image and the likeness of God. Both, Martin Luther and John Calvin, in their commentaries and lecture on the book of Genesis stood away form the Church Fathers theologically and exegetically. On one hand Luther offered a unitary view of the image of God. He argued that the image of God includes the idea of the original righteousness, which Origen and other had separated.9 For Luther the image of God consisted primarily in the original righteousness of God. Calvin who also stood in the same ground of Luther said: Only le it be decided that the image of God, which appears or sparkles in the external characters, is spiritual. There is no small controversy concerning the image and likeness among expositors who see a difference, whereas in reality there is none, between the to words; likeness being

8 9

Andrew Louth, ed., Genesis 1-11 (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2001), page 29.

Stanley J. Grenz, Theology For the Community of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 221.

only added by way of explanation.10 Now this does not means that there is a denial of the presence of God in the sinful humanity. What both Calvin and Luther believed was that the image was frightfully deformed.11 While the Church Fathers had an anthropological view of the imago Dei, the Reformers inclined to a Christological stance. Because of the depraved state of the fallen humanity, the only way of restoring the image was through Christ. In sum, the bearer and restorer of the image of God in us is Christ. Interestingly, the work of the Reformer also, brought another view. This one was eschatological centered. Based on the accounts of Genesis 9:6 they restated some ideas of the Christological view. They expound, even though the image had been lost, it could be restored through the Word and the Holy Spirit.12 But this restoration is not attained now; it will reach completion in the Last Days. In sum, for the Reformers the image of God is the goal or destiny that God intends for his creatures. Modern Theologians How has modern theology seen humanity? In what way did or did not humanity convey Gods image? Was there view of the imago Dei consonant to those who anteceded them? Lets take a look at what some modern theologians and groups have said about this.

10

W. L. Jenkis, Compendium of the Institutes of Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1939),

page 31. Stanley J. Grenz, Theology For the Community of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 221. Stanley J. Grenz, Theology For the Community of God (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), page 223.
12 11

For Karl Bath the God-likeness in man is not a quality in humanity per se. Barth says: There is no point in asking in which of mans peculiar attributes and attitudes it consists.13 For Barth, the very thing that makes us man and woman is that we are made in the image of God. Moreover, Barth expands, Man is the repetition of this divine form of life; its a copy and a reflection. We can conclude from Barths interpretation that image of God in man is neither anthropological, Christological or eschatological, but it totally reside in Gods Being. Because He is God we are man. Another Contemporary Theologian who has expressed his thought on the imago Dei is Bonhoeffer. In his book Creation and Fall he says the following about the imago Dei and the likeness; the analogy of the human to God is best understood in two forms far more than what analogia entis14, he explains. The first is by the analogy between our relationship with God and one another. Second, we have to understand it within the context Gods own inter-Trinitarian relationship, what he called analogia relationis.15 Bonhoeffers imago Dei is defined by the Trinitarian relationship that exists within the Godhead. In sum, our humanity is defined by the communal relationships that we have with one another. These two are only a small representation of the individual voices in modern theology that had spoke about the image of God. But it is not only about individuals who

Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics. Vol. III: The Doctrine of Creation, part 1. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Translated by J.W. Edwards, O. Bussey, and Harold Knight. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958), page 184. The relationship between God as creator and humans as creatures. It establishes the legitimacy of using analogy as a way for finite humans to able to speak of the infinite God. David F. Ford ed The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology Since 1918 (Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005), page 50.
15 14

13

have expressed themselves as Barth and Bonhoeffer, we can also talk about movements as liberation, black16 and feminist theology among others. In the book Modern Theologians, in the section dedicated to feminism, gender and theology, Rachel Muers says about the image of God, It is important to find female images and symbols of God and if so, where are these to be sought, and on what grounds can they claimed normative?17 I believe this is a powerful question and with all probability liberation and black theology are asking the same question within there own context. Does the image of God is what forms our humanity? Are only the references of Genesis chapter 1:26-27, 5:1 and 9:6 the only areas in the bible that share light to our humanity? How can Pentecostal hermeneutic and reading of the Scripture contribute to the discussion about our humanity in God? These are questions that I will have as a backdrop in the following sections. III. A PENTECOSTAL POINT OF VIEW

As we have seen in the section that have preceded, much has been said about the expression let Us make to our image and likeness. But to talk about our humanity before or after the fall it is not only about the image and likeness. As Pentecostals we can make a sound contribution and give answers to many of the questions that have been part of the

One example is the book written by Richard Wayne Willils Jr. on Martin Luther King Jr. He writes, The Image of God written by In this book Willis states that Martin Luther Kings use of the imago Dei language existed on the edge of a historical dialogue and quest for human and civil rights and must therefore be viewed from within the rich traditional context from which he spoke and acted. See, Richard Wayne Wills Sr, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Image of God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2009), page 3. Having called into question the traditional use of masculine language in theological texts both to refer to God an to refer to humanity o the grounds that it excluded women from the image of God and from full humanity, one must ask what can justify the use of any particular language in speaking of God. See, David F. Ford ed, The Modern Theologians: An Introduction to Christian Theology Since 1918 (Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005), page 446-447.
17

16

10

historical discussion of what it means to be human and what is our current state today by way of the reading of other biblical accounts. To be fair to what has been said before, I have to say that the voices that have talked about this are not wrong in all they said, but I really think that they have fell short in presenting a position that we can adopt as Pentecostal. If I had to pick one, the closest of all is what it Luther said in his lectures about Genesis. He stated that it was through the Word and the Holy Spirit that we could recuperate our image.18 Still, this position is very much centered in eschatology. Though as Pentecostal we are for the last things and the not yet. What about the all ready? What about today? These questions are where the classical, the relational and dynamic views fall short. Biblical Accounts Genesis 2:7 When we talk about our humanity we cannot overlook what the writer of the book of Genesis says in chapter 2 and verse 7. It is surprising how this verse has been unfound in the discussion of what it means to be human. The second chapter of Genesis is dedicated to the creation of man and women. Yes, there is a record of it in 1:26-27, but chapter 2 is more detailed than the former. Genesis 2:7 says, Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. Lets take a look at this verse in two parts to further the discussion. The first part of this verse makes an emphasis of the bodily creation of man. The Triune God took from the dust of the ground and formed man. Up to this point there is no

Martin Luther, Luther's Works Lectures On Genesis: Volume 2, Chapters 6-14 (Saint Louis: Concordia Pub House, 1960), page 141.

18

11

life in this man. The only thing that exists is the physical aspect of him. The mans humanity is not full yet, hence there is something missing. This calls for the second part of this verse, which says, then God breathed life into his nostrils and he became a living being. Man was not completed until the breath of life was in him. Though we do not have the same account for women, still we can say that she was not completed until breath of life was in her too. This verse has to makes us think farther than Genesis 1:26-27 does by itself. Our humanity it is not about the natural attributes that we have attained, but it is the Spirit of God who gives life. Ezekiel 37.5 Is this biblical account the hand of the Lord takes the prophet to a valley of dry bones. While being there the prophet is asked as if the bones could live again. Ezekiel response to the questions was that only You know. Following to the prophets response the Lord says to him in verse 5, Thus says the Lord God to these bones, Behold, I will cause breath to enter you that you may come to life. This account is a cross-reference to what occurred in the Genesis account above. These bones are lifeless, to a more extent; these bones did not have sinew flesh or skin. After the first time that the Ezekiel prophesied the bones were covered with sinew, flesh and skin. At this particular time the bodies are in the same state that man was in the first part of Genesis 2:7, just a body. Thereafter the Ezekiel prophesizes once again over the bodies, consequently the breath came into them, and they came to life A Pentecostal Response Who are we after the fall? Are we close to be what we were made to be? To answer these questions we have to expound the discussion. We cannot only concentrate in
12

the discussion about how the image and likeness have been marred or not and if whether they are not the same. But as Pentecostals the question for us would be, what happened to the breath of life that was breathed into man and woman? Did they loose it or not? I believe that this question is far more central in the discussion of us as human beings. In the two biblical accounts mentioned above, we see a common denominator. Where there is no breath19, there is no life. When we study what happened in the Eden account, it is far more important to know that in Adam and in Eve existed the Spirit of life, than to know what happened to the imago Dei and the likeness. As long as there is the breath of life in them, there was still an opportunity in man and in women to respond to Gods call and mercy. There is no doubt that this breath of life refers to the Third Peron of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. It is by the agency of the Sprit that human beings were infused with life. The same Spirit that was hovering over the waters is now giving life to the man and woman. Therefore the question of the Spirits activity in the life of man and woman after the fall has to become central in the discussion of our humanity. Clark Pinnock in his book, The Flame of Love says the following: it was the Spirit that made Jesus Christ, not the hypostatic union 20 What does Clark means by this? I think this statement is very powerful and consonant to what I want to establish. It was through the agency of the Holy Spirit in Marys womb that Jesus humanity was able to become real. As it happened with

19 20

Both biblical accounts use the same Hebrew, ruah.

Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: IVP Academic, 1999), page 80.

13

Adam, Eve and the dry bones in the valley, in like manner, the agency of the Spirit brought Jesus into life. Why is this important to our Pentecostal Pneumatology? If our humanity is attached to being alive; and if being alive is to have the breath of God, I believe that this helps us to support our understanding of Gods prevenient grace for all human beings. The Spirit of God is active in the life process of humanity, desiring to reestablish the relationship that has been broken due to Adams disobedience. The Spirits activity in each of us, not only points to our humanity and life, but also works as the agent of Gods prevenient grace. A Spirit that was not lost in the fall of humanity, but which is still active. If Calvin said that we were so deprived and depraved, how is it possible that since the fall there is still linger in man some glimmerings of natural light? For the Reformer, there was something in us that propelled us into God. Could it be that what really defines our humanity and life, the Spirit, is what at the same time makes us react to Gods calling? Our Wesleyan-Pentecostal heritage is clear of its synergistic view. On the one hand, it is God who begins, maintains and fulfills the soteriological process in us, but also there is an invitation for all of us to be participants in the process. Now, this reaction from us does not forms in a vacuum, but the breath of life in us nurtures it. Scripture testifies about this in different accounts. For example, in Genesis 3:9-10, God is calling Adam, notice that man had fallen already, but still he had the capability to hear and to respond to God. A second example would be Abram. What caused Abram to be obedient to God? If he did not know God, what made him respond and become a participant in Gods calling? If the Spirit of God is active in us to fulfill Gods prevenient grace, then we can answer

14

the question, what caused Abram to react and respond to Gods calling. It was the Holy Spirit. As these two examples we can find many as with Saul and others. It is not my desire to reject the importance of the discussion about the image and likeness. Moreover I am not trying to undermine what Christ did at the cross. One compliments the other and vice versa. But there is no way that humanity can respond to Gods free invitation to become His sons and daughters if the Spirit of God is not acting preveniently. It is through the Spirit that we accept Christs salvific act at the cross. CONCLUSION By no means I want to say that our fullness is complete in this fallen state. In the telos f all things we will be perfected. But we cannot deny that the agency of the Spirit of God is in us since archei of all things. As I have stated in the beginning of this paper, the discussion of the current state of humanity has been broad. Unfortunately, this discussion has only been monopolized by the theme of the image and likeness of God. Also this discussion has sailed through the waters of anthropology, Christology and eschatology. Now, my intention has been to see our humanity through the lens of Pneumatology. By taking a look through this lens I have come to the following conclusions. First, that in Genesis 2:7 it was the breath of the Spirit being breathed through our nostrils that gave us our humanity. Second, that even though Adam and Even lost their established relationship with God and became depraved and deprived, they still heard His voice in their fallen state. Third, that that breath of the Spirit in each of us works as that agent that makes us respond to Gods prevenient grace. Finally, though we can our humanity is made possible by the Holy Spirit breath of life; we will have our full manifestation in the restoration of all things.
15

If we can see this activity of the Spirit in those persons who still have not come to known Christ as they savior, this Pneumatological vantage point gives us a breath of hope that something could happen if we keep sharing the Gospel to others. If the world is our pulpit and the inhabitants who are not in Christ become our focus I believe that a great harvest is awaiting us. This vantage point puts us closer to God than what historically we have thought of. What if the breath of God is waiting to be fanned for that initial experience of salvation?

16

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arrington, French L. Christian Doctrine: a Pentecostal Perspective. Cleveland, Tenn.: Pathway Press, 1992.
Barth Karl, Church Dogmatics. Vol. III: The Doctrine of Creation, part 1. Edited by G.W.Bromiley and T.F. Torrance. Translated by J.W. Edwards, O. Bussey, and Harold Knight. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998.
Geisler, Norman L. Sin/Salvation. Reprinted ed. Vol. 3 of Systematic Theology. Bloomington, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 2004 Gonzlez, Justo L. From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century. 2nd Revised ed. Vol. 3 of A History of Christian Thought. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1987. Grenz, Stanley J. Theology For the Community of God. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000. Louth, Andrew, ed. Genesis 1-11. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2001. Luther, Martin. Luther's Works Lectures On Genesis: Volume 2, Chapters 6-14. Saint Louis: Concordia Pub House, 1960. Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: an Introduction to Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004. Pinnock, Clark H. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: IVP Academic, 1999. Sr, Richard Wayne Wills. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Image of God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2009.

17