I. Vernacular or Contextual Theology in a Polycentric World Christian Movement
The emergence of a truly polycentric world Christianity shows that Majority World theologians are embracing self-theologizing, with vernacularization at its heart.4 Rooted in the gospel’s inherent translatability, this theological task reflects the reality of Pentecost (Acts 2) and the cosmic scope of Christ’s reign (Acts 3:17–21; Eph. 1:7–10; Col. 1:19–20; Rom. 8:19–23; Rev. 7:9–10).5 It affirms the multiethnic body of Christ (Eph. 2) and the local languages through which the gospel takes root. This approach to theology does not entail abandoning the essential theological core—or, in biblical terms, the “deposit of faith” (1 Tim. 1:4; 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14). Rather, it anticipates and participates in the fullness of God’s new creation as Asians, moving beyond rigid Western modes of knowing and the overvaluation of theological systems.6
Self-theologizing from the Philippine churches aligns with a call to develop contextual or missional systematic theology,7 where the contextual expresses itself in vernacular or local theologizing as part of the world Christian movement.8
Theological reflection in the mode of vernacular theology “includes the practices of Christian communities as well as their verbal or written statements … [It redraws] the function of theology as generalizing within, rather than across cases—as working on the whole symbolic complex of a community’s Christian life so as to distill a vocabulary in which its meaning can be described, shared, and then valued.”9 For our purposes, the “within” pertains to my setting as part of the church community in the Philippines, where the use of the vernacularization is critical to effect church and societal transformation. Utilizing the vernacular could help bridge the cultural divide, a situation where “the culture of the elite reigns thinly on top; [those] who can only write in English and for each other and cannot find the tongue to speak to the (Filipino) speaking common tao (person).”10 If lasting change is to occur within Philippine culture, the church, as an agent of transformation, must draw from and connect with the language and experiences of the local culture. Thus, change has to be initiated, mediated, and nurtured from within culture (internal) through human, even ecclesial, mediation.11
Christian Filipinos should critically reflect on their use of English as a medium, recognizing the ongoing influence of Euro-American theologizing on discourse.12 Local theological resources are scarce, and there continues a lack of critical, constructive work in developing vernacular theologies that communicate the Christian faith using local terms and idioms toward authentic mission and discipleship. Instead of uncritically accepting theologies from overseas, Philippine (and by extension, Majority World) theologians should contribute to their contextual systematics in conversation with the universal church.13
Put another way, vernacular theology is a missional stance that honors the local culture’s ability to express the gospel, assuming God’s acceptance of local languages as vehicles for his incarnational message of renewal. This underpins the broader project of contextual systematic theologies in Asia, where the process of theological reflection (activity) is as crucial as the product (content).14 This paper intends to develop this contextual systematic direction, focusing on biblical teachings on humanity and the image of God within the Southeast Asian setting, particularly the Philippines. By “systematic” I mean an “ordered” approach to biblical teaching, whose coherence is based on the biblical story and is gospel-centered15 rather than adhering to “alien philosophical ideas imposed on the concepts of Scripture; alternatively, theology confined within a confessional straitjacket.”16 I have nuanced it as the gospel-centered ordering of theological themes based on the biblical canon.17
More precisely, contextual systematic theology, or Filipino evangelical theology, is a quest for true knowledge of God undertaken by Christian Filipinos in response to God’s self-revelation in Christ, illumined by Christian history and tradition in the region. It seeks rational coherence, issues in ethical conduct, resonates with and responds to Philippine cultural forms and realities, and is concerned with God’s greater glory within and beyond Philippine shores.18 It is attentive to the local contexts and themes (root metaphors) in its organizing principles and responsive to the liturgical and missional needs of the churches and communities in the region, drawing from renewed biblical and cultural exegesis while remaining true to Christian faith and aligning with the broader Christian tradition.19 This reframes the classical notion of theology from “faith-seeking understanding” to the faith of a people seeking to understand and live out the biblical message.20 This missional systematic direction is what I intend to develop in this paper, focusing on biblical teachings about humanity and the image of God in the Philippine setting.
II. Inputs from the History of Theology
This particular study is about theological anthropology—a field that investigates “the resources, the limitations, and the destiny of the human person.”21 This includes common themes such as humanity in creation, the disparity between God’s original intention in creation and humanity’s present condition, and the reversal of the consequences of the Fall in Christ. Theologians generally differ on “explaining the initial state and vocation of humanity, in estimating the damage done in the Fall, and in the resources for recovery provided in Christ.”22 Nonetheless, the role of the imago dei as biblical concept was a consistent thread in Christian thought and history in articulating Christian anthropology.23
In his historical introduction to the field, J. Patout Burns emphasizes that there was no single, monolithic view of theological anthropology but rather a tapestry of perspectives shaped by different philosophical and theological influences. Indeed, early Christian writers illustrate various approaches to theological anthropology, including those influenced by Platonism, Gnosticism, and developing Christian traditions. These engendered ascetic and Christian Platonist movements in early Christian theology. The different conceptions of humanity among early Christian writers engendered diverse understandings of key theological themes like sin, grace, salvation, and the relationship between God and humanity.24 Still, a key theologian of anthropology, such as Irenaeus (c. AD 130–c. AD 200), may be viewed as a “biblical theologian” who was not beholden to the philosophies of the day, shown in his emphasis on Scripture and redemptive history in constructing Christian anthropology. He was an apologist and theologian of the developing Catholic tradition during this early period. Indeed, he “connected the sub-apostolic church to the old Catholic church.”25
From another angle, in his exploration of the various anthropologies in history, Ray Sherman Anderson distinguishes between theological and non-theological anthropologies. A theologically grounded anthropology deals with the essence of being human (ontology) in light of God’s revelation in the Scriptures. It posits that the “knowledge of ourselves as human beings must be determined and correlated with our knowledge of God as the one who reveals himself finally and completely in Jesus Christ.”26 Non-theological anthropologies tend toward a phenomenology of human existence that begins its analysis with human existence and situation.27 The focus on the human situation “can be placed in a continuum from Myth to Science, with Philosophy located in the middle.”28 Consequently, the mythical, scientific, and philosophical non-theological anthropologies can be said to be “Cartesian, because, like Descartes, they seek to explain the mystery of the human in terms of the human subject.”29 In this, the “human person seeks to have the final word, the decisive judgment, as to the nature of humanity.”30 Theological anthropology undertaken in this manner is neither biblicist nor obscurantist. Anderson, in particular, seeks a holistic theological anthropology that is open to the insights of the behavioral and social sciences. He grounds his stance in the story of creation, where humans are to be viewed as “related to the physical world—created from the dust of the ground; related to each other [social]—bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh; and related to a transcendent spiritual reality—created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1–2).”31
This summary of the history of Christian thought, with a focus on theological anthropology, reveals the uneasy relationship between Christianity and Christian faith and philosophy. Regardless of intent, the different perspectives on theological anthropology were shaped, to varying degrees, by the dominant philosophical frameworks of the time.32 As the stance taken in this paper suggests, this influence should not be judged entirely negatively. The Christian world-and-life-view, grounded in the biblical story, is not averse to the insights of philosophy and the sciences. Such a Christian view “appropriates, critically reinterprets, and integrates” insights from the human sciences within such a (Christian) view.33 This transformational stance presupposes a certain realism in acknowledging context relatedness as well as the commitment to make sense of non-Christian insights in terms of a biblical Christian perspective centered on God as creator, redeemer, and reconciler of all things.34 Having said this, and resonating with Anderson’s evangelical convictions, the primacy of biblical revelation in theological anthropology will be an established position in this research. However, the biblical revelation being the primary norm does not eliminate valuable perspectives from philosophy and the sciences that do not conflict with the biblical testimony and the historical faith consensus of the church.35
Moreover, one’s social and historical location influences or colors one’s theological understanding, even if not conditioned or bound by them.36 In the end, while we do not have a God’s-eye view on objectivity relating to theological interpretation, what is intended is relative adequacy;37 real knowledge through interpretation in the community of God’s people,38 knowing that as we probe God’s word together, even we ourselves as particular members of Christ’s body do not have the fullness of truth. In other words, we theologize about anthropology as parts of Christ’s body; the fullness of truth ultimately lies in Jesus Christ expressed through the unity and fullness of his body, the church (Eph. 1–4).39
III. Biblical and Contextual Appropriation
The biblical survey on the theme by New Testament scholar Joel Green and the related work of Old Testament scholar Carmen Imes, Being God’s Image, provide summary perspectives that inform this study.40 I will not delve into the details of the various views on the nature of the image of God in human beings, usually categorized as substantive, relational, and functional views.41 Instead, the contextual cues and vernacular discernible through thematic cultural exegesis will lead the way in cultural theological reframing. Other helpful books provide interdisciplinary and multi-confessional reflections in their presentations and coverage of the topic.42 Note also that the cultural-theological approach in this study does not preclude the incorporation of contributions from the sciences for renewed theological anthropology. The vernacular reframing assumes this interdisciplinary openness while being normed and guided by the biblical message.
While there are pioneering works on local theology, conscience, moral theology, and ethics, there is none that deals explicitly with theological anthropology, particularly with the theology of the image of God in lowland Philippines.43 As the succeeding section will show, it appears that the understanding of humans as God’s image would be best subsumed within the theme of “life” or “buhay,” with God as the Creator and giver of life.
There is also an underlying supernaturalistic worldview in indigenous thinking that assumes the existence of a supreme being (Bathala). Historically, through more than 350 years of colonization by Spain, this supreme being was referred to by the missionaries as the Christian God or Dios. This was when Roman Catholicism was introduced to the islands. This understanding of God inevitably blended with a certain dualism, where the invisible or spiritual realm is considered to be of a higher plane than the material. This parallels certain facets of popular (local) Christology, which tend to view Christ more as an angel detached from creation rather than a full-blooded human being or God in the flesh.44 Hence de Mesa and Wostyn probingly asked, “Does not Jesus’ divinity obscure his power to do so on the grounds that he did not fully share our human condition? It is already a struggle to follow the example of a saint. At most, we can only dream of imitating an angel. Is it not simply preposterous for us to dare to follow a God-man?”45 No doubt this facet also has implications in contextualizing biblical anthropology, particularly with respect to divine and human agency.46 We now propose a biblical-theological appropriation of the theme with the Philippine context in mind.
Life (Buhay) as the Overarching Theme
As was intimated above, it appears that the overarching cultural theme that directly connects with biblical anthropology is the root metaphor buhay (life, existence).47 As Mina Ramirez concluded, “BUHAY (life) is a great motivating force for Filipinos.”48 Interestingly, one’s self or personhood is viewed as the totality of one’s life with an intrinsic connection to God as Creator, the giver of life. Consequently, to be created by God is the beginning point of life. “Kinikilala nating mga Pilipino na ang buhay na ating nararanasan at tinatamasa ay kaloob ng Diyos … Para sa atin, hindi nagkataon lamang na tayo ay nabuhay sa daigdig. Niloob ito ng Diyos!49 (We recognize as Filipinos that the life we experience and enjoy is a gift from God … For us, it was not by chance that we are living on this earth. God willed it!)
The theme of life correlates well with key aspects of the creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2. The garden was teeming with life/living things, with humans at the apex of God’s creation (1:3–31; 1:26–28). The LORD breathed life into the human being, and s/he became a living creature (Gen. 2:7). Aligned with this, biblical scholar Joel Green clarifies that “within the Old Testament, ‘soul’ (nephesh) refers to life and vitality—not life in general, but instantiated in human persons and animals; not a thing to have but a way to be.”50 Furthermore, nephesh (usually translated “soul”) in 2:7 “is used only a few verses earlier with reference to ‘every beast of the earth,’ ‘every beast of the air,’ and ‘everything that creeps on the earth’—that is, to everything ‘in which there is life (nephesh) (1:30). This demonstrates that ‘soul’ is not for the Genesis story a unique characteristic of the human person. Accordingly, one might better translate Genesis 2:7 with reference to the divine gift of life: ‘the human being became fully alive.’”51
It is striking that the theme of life runs through the entirety of Scripture as part of the story of God and his people, flowing from the Old Testament to the New, from creation to the new creation. Scriptures reveal that life is a gift from God, the God who is love (1 John 4:8, 16). Hence, John’s Gospel reveals, “Life is characteristic of God and that God is the only one who can bestow life. … God is the ‘living life-giver.’”52 Indeed, one could say that the “in the beginning” of the Genesis 1 creation story is tied to the outgoing movement of God’s eternal love revealed by the Word who was “in the beginning” (John 1) together with the Spirit (Gen. 1, Eph. 1). Another way to put it is through the portrayal of Jesus in John’s Gospel: “It is in his relational unity with the Father that Jesus is able to impart life. And Jesus not only offers life; he is life in himself, because the Messiah is life.”53 The biblical witness is clear that God created human beings not out of selfish intent but out of love. It was also out of God’s great love for the world that he gave his only Son (John 3:16), and such sovereign love sustains the whole of creation (Rom. 8:18–39) until the time when “creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21).54
Human Life Is Fundamentally Relational (May Loob sa Kapwa), Consisting of Katawan (Body) and Kalooban (Inner Self)
Having clarified what soul and life means in the context of creation, one notes also that “Genesis 1–2 does not locate the singularity of humanity in the human possession of a ‘soul,’ but rather in the human capacity to relate to Yahweh as a covenant partner, and to join in companionship within the human family and in relation to the whole cosmos in ways that reflect the covenant love of God.”55 Interestingly, vernacular idioms highlight this relational character of human identity.
Along with the gift of life, God gave the human being a body (katawan) and an inner self (kalooban, lit. “inside”). Katawan is not only the physical body but also encompasses personhood (katau-han), which connects a person to his or her kapwa (kindred, fellow human) and the rest of creation (kalikasan). Interestingly, the concept of the image of God, along with the soul, is related to the whole of creation (Pss. 19:1; 104; Heb. 11:3, Rom. 1:20). The rest of creation is therefore kapwa-nilikha (fellow creature). Since the biblical truth of creation and creature is linked with kapwa (shared identity), this has profound implications for creation care in our region. John Calvin previously pointed to this broader sense of the image of God, and he supported it with specific Bible passages.56
Loob or kalooban, like katawan (body), also encompasses selfhood, but the view comes from what is inside, particularly the realm of one’s damdamin (feeling), kaisipan (mind), and kilos (action). As such, one’s true and innermost self lies in one’s loob (lit., one’s inside, the equivalent of one’s authentic self).57 As with katawan (body), loob (inner self) is also relational. Both indigenous terms point to shared humanity or kindred selves. To be a human being is inseparable from being a kapwa (kindred selves, neighbor). The literal meaning of the word kapwa is “alike” (magkakahalintulad), and thus, Filipinos view all human beings as kapwa, since they all share a common humanity. In the words of Felipe de Leon, the meaning of kapwa is this: “The other person is also yourself.”58 In contrast, the English term for other people is “the other,” which means “different from me.” Thus, the focus of kapwa is on commonality, while the notion of the Euro-American “other” is on difference(s).59
God is totally Other (holy), yet in Filipino terms, God also has kalooban (inner self), which the LORD shares with human beings (Matt. 6:10). God has kapwa-loob (shared inner self) with humans (tao), which is to say God and humans are kapwa (kindred, with a shared loob—Gen. 5). The sharing of loob presupposes an ongoing connection with God established in creation when God breathed into Adam the breath of life (ruach, also the term for spirit) and became a living being (Gen. 2:7). Self-centeredness and disobedience to God (pagsuway sa Diyos) ruptures such connection. “The rupture of relationship with God is reflected in the poisoning of human relationships. The first human act outside the Garden is Cain’s murder of Abel. The image of God in which humans were created is obscured and distorted by sin [kasalanan].”60
In the New Testament, the renewed relationship with God in Christ through repentance and faith (pagbabalik-loob sa Diyos) is confirmed by the Holy Spirit bearing witness with the human spirit (espiritu, diwa) of such relationship (Rom. 8:16). Note that part of one’s loob, the human spirit (espiritu, diwa), is the more tangible spiritual dimension of human beings (connectedness with God, pagkakaugnay sa Diyos) that is inseparable from breath and life (Gen. 2:7; 6:3; Job 33:4; Luke 8:45; 23:46).61
A Beautiful/Good Life (Ang Magandang Buhay)
It seems fitting in the local context to draw from the larger theme of buhay (life) for reframing theological anthropology for lowland Filipinos. Particularly, we are after what is ang magandang buhay (a beautiful or good life) rather than merely the nature and constitution of human beings. Buhay, as a local idiom, has the potential to render theological anthropology with cultural theological impact. Buhay, from a biblical-theological perspective, encompasses human life in an integral relationship to creation, being God’s image, creatureliness, new life in Christ, and the new creation—all grounded in creation and salvation.
The qualifier maganda refers to something beautiful and good. The theological anthropology of magandang buhay uses the vernacular concept of ganda (beauty, good, goodness), which has been suggested as a primary cultural-theological lens through which to view theology in Filipino so that key elements of the Christian faith can be “seen, felt, and shared” with Filipinos in a meaningful way.62
Ganda signifies what is beautiful. It has two aspects: the ethical and the aesthetic. When we refer to the ethical, it means good. For example, Maganda ang ginagawa mong pagtulong sa kapwa (You’re doing good in helping your neighbor). But when we say maganda instead of mabuti (“good”), we are in fact saying that “you’re doing something beautifully good in helping your neighbor.” We are referring to the winsome and captivating manner we are doing something. Thus, when we say, “Good morning,” “good afternoon,” “good evening,” in the vernacular, what we are expressing is “May you have a charmingly good morning, afternoon, or evening.”63
Maganda connotes beauty or good, impactful (may dating), felt (ramdam), and efficacious (may talab). Magandang buhay (beautiful/good life) is not just maginhawang buhay (abundant life for individuals), but also kaginhawan ng kapwa (abundant life for co-humans as kindred selves, John 10:10).
From a sociocultural angle, Filipino sociologist Mina Ramirez envisions cultural transformation (part of magandang buhay) through movements that spell “liberating action from unbalanced social structures, from Western impositions, and from narrow perspectives of small group orientations.”64 It respects the dignity of kapwa (lit. “like others,” co-human, neighbor) and advocates for authentic relationships—“profound respect for the person and authentic relationships inspired by Christian or profoundly human values.”65 This is the vision of magandang buhay, which has its theological anchor in the good news and mission of Jesus, leading to the new creation: to proclaim and embody the world-transforming reign of God in Christ (Isa. 60, John 20:21; Luke 4:16–21; Rev. 21–22).
This reign—buhay na namamayani ang kagandahang-loob at ng Diyos—calls the church to embody pagbabalik-loob (return to one’s authentic self) and bagong buhay kay Cristo (new life in Christ), a foretaste of the new creation (bagong paglikha) (2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 8). New life (bagong buhay or magandang buhay), which is also God’s reign in Christ, ushers the new creation and could thus become a catalyst for discernment of the common good (shalom, kingdom of God), leading to social transformation. Theological anthropology in this light is not merely academic. It becomes a lived vision: To be human is to live under God’s rule (paghahari, kalooban), to walk in the way (daan) and truth (katotohanan) of Christ, and to participate in God’s mission, which also involves the transformation of culture and society through the renewing power of the Holy Spirit. The reign of God could redirect cultural understandings of renewal and transformation toward the biblical ideal for society and culture. In Filipino terms, ang magandang buhay ay ang pagbabagong-buhay under God’s reign.
Human Life as Image of God: Ang Tao bilang Kalarawan ng Diyos
Admittedly, the concept of the image of God being part of Genesis—the book of beginnings—is foundational to theological anthropology. Note that even if the exact mention of the phrase in the Bible is not that many, we should not be confined to the precise phrase in our theological reflection since one could pinpoint related phrases that echo the theme, even in Genesis.66 Aside from this, as was intimated earlier, the image of God in the Bible is not limited to humans, as it correlates with the larger theme of life (buhay).
In creation, God gives himself to humankind and calls them into a relationship of being God’s image, to share in the richness of God’s being and glory in his kingdom. It is in and through the biblical story of God’s creation and redemption that humankind finds its identity and vocation. In Filipino Christian terms, the “drama of what one must do as well as become is played out between ang kalooban ng tao at ang kalooban ng Diyos” (the most authentic inner self of humans and that of God)67 revealed in God’s Word.
The root word of kalooban (inner self) is loob, which is unique in Filipino in the sense that it is used in a variety of figures of speech. Loob is literally “‘inside’ ‘within’, ‘interior,’ ‘inner space,’ but its meaning in Filipino covers much more than inner physical space. It reaches deep into the core of one’s being, embracing a whole range of human sentiments.”68 Interestingly, a fundamental value among Filipinos is pakikipagkapwa (shared inner self and shared identity), which can be deepened by a theology that views humankind as God’s image.
Scripture speaks of human beings as the image of God (Gen. 1:26–28). Nilikha ang tao bilang kanyang larawan or kawangis. (Humans were created as God’s image or likeness.) Exegetically, it is fundamentally a status, not a function.69 This has a universal bearing and contextual significance. May dangal tayong mga tao dahil kalarawan tayo ng Diyos. (As humans, we have inherent dignity because we are God’s image in the world.)
Note that the word karalangan or dangal is connected with pangalan (name). Hence one could say that humans have inherent dignity (dangal) not just because of birth names given by our parents but because God calls us by name, and the very name of God (Yahweh, Elohim) is what we bear as God’s people. Thus, human beings have intrinsic dignity and value because they are God’s image. This also involves relatedness to God and, thus, the image of God assumes a divine-human relationship.70
The status of being God’s image calls for aligning one’s life, living out its implications (pangangatawan, embodiment), and pananagutan (being responsible to God and people) based on God’s intention of being God’s representatives on earth. From this, maganda na sana is an attractive way of restating the Fall in Filipino idiom. In English, maganda na sana could be translated as “It would have been perfect had it not been … ” In other words, the world would have been perfect had it not been for humans who fell short or keep falling short of living up to their God-given status as his image bearers. Nahumaling sa mapanlinglang na kagandahan ang tao. (Humans became obsessed with deceitful beauty.)71 There is a consequent loss of glory and honor (not the image of God itself) when one does not live up to the name. Dinungisan nating mga tao ang larawan o wangis ng Diyos pag hindi natin sinusuklian ng utang na loob ang kaloob niyang karangalan. (The image of God is sullied when we do not reciprocate with a debt of gratitude for God’s gift of human dignity, being the crown of God’s creation.)
Divine and Human Agency (Pagkilos) in Creation
One should also recognize the function of magpadami or managana (multiply, abound) in human life, which is to populate the world with God’s representatives (Gen. 1:26–27, 12:1ff.). This is directly connected with human flourishing. Pagiging-katiwala (being stewards) and pamamahala (dominion, governance, stewarding creation) are other implications of being God’s image. This emphasizes the importance of human agency in the theology and practice of Christians in regions like the Philippines where the supernatural tends to eclipse human participation for transformation.
Within this frame, the universal theme of grace (or more precisely, common grace) is present in the creation accounts pre- and post-Fall. In many ways, the theme of blessing encapsulates this well (Gen. 1:24, 28).72 Along this vein, dialogue and participation with one’s kapwa (kindred selves, neighbors) toward the common good are therefore part of God’s will and reign (“cultural mandate”), as part of the ministry of the whole people of God.73 Interestingly, there seems to be a tendency in theology to separate the motif of blessing from the theme of human life and the image of God. Alternatively, one could place this theme of common grace or blessing alongside election and relate the theme of “being light to the nations,” which can be further deepened in relation to cultural engagement. Moreover, the theme of Adam (humankind) being anak ng Diyos (offspring of God—Gen. 1:27; 5:1–3; Luke 3:38; Eph. 4:6) seems to be necessary for schooling Christians in human (not just spiritual) formation.74 The connection between humanness and the priesthood of Jesus Christ is also a thread that has the potential to link the humanity of Christ with creation (Heb. 2:14–18; 4:15; 5:7). For “he [Jesus] as man is the eternal bridge between heaven and earth.”75
Jesus Christ as Bukal ng Buhay at Ginhawa, Tunay na Larawan, at Mukha ng Diyos (Fountain of Life and Well-Being, the True Image of God, and Human Face of God)—the Way (ang Daan) to being Fully Human (Pagpapakatao)
What is the role of the person and work of Christ within this local rendering of theological anthropology? God is triune—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—based on the biblical message. As the Son of God, Jesus Christ is fully human and fully God according to the Bible and the faith of the early church. The story of Jesus Christ, as told in the Bible, encompasses the Incarnation, his teachings and ministry, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. Drawing from these truths “for Christian faith and theology, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus will constitute the decisive norm of both true divinity and true humanity.”76 For Jesus Christ is the “fullest expression of what God intends humanity to be [tunay na larawan at mukha ng Diyos]. This human being is the ‘image of God’ (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15) and our human destiny in him is to be conformed to the image of God. Hence the form of human life that we meet in Jesus Christ will surely be the decisive factor in any Christian statement of what it means to be genuinely human.”77 More precisely, in Pauline terms (cf. Rom. 7:7–8:4), Christ is the criterion (pamantayan) for authentic humanity as God intended it to be. “Christ was in fact what Adam was destined to be. The ‘life’ that Adam lost is once again represented in the world, and in it the divine intention for humanity becomes manifest” through the power of the Spirit of Christ.78
While affirming the fullness of the person of Christ as attested by the Scriptures and the Christian faith, a meaningful local rendering of the reality of Jesus Christ in relation to creational renewal, shalom, and wholeness would be Jesus as bukal ng buhay at ginhawa (source or fountain of life, wholeness or well-being—John 1:3–4; 5:26; 10:10).79 Jesus is able to do this because he is the only mediator (tagapamagitan, 1 Tim. 2:15) between God and humankind, reconciling the world back to God (2 Cor. 5). We can see this in the way John frames his Gospel with literary allusions to the creation accounts of Genesis 1–2 (e.g., word of God, life, breath of life, garden, the gardener, finished work), particularly in its beginning (John 1) and concluding sections (John 19–20). By way of an example:
The verb tetelestai (“it is finished”: from the teleo, also in 19:28) corresponds to language from Genesis 2 that highlights God’s completion of the work of creation and the divine blessing of the seventh day as sabbath because the work was finished. … John could be intimating that God’s creative, life-giving work, begun in Genesis, finds its ultimate completion at the death of Jesus the Messiah. … “Jesus alone is life; but he is life for the world because, and only because he dies.”80
Moreover, as the true image of God (tunay na larawan ng Diyos, 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15), Jesus is the way (daan, John 14:6) to full humanity (pagpapakatao) since he is the way to fullness of life (buhay na ganap at masagana, John 10:10) or the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45) bringing the new creation. He is also ang taong tunay na may magandang kalooban (the human being with a genuine, good, and beautiful inner self). Finally, we come to know who God truly is through Christ who is the human face of God (mukha ng Diyos) being the “exact representation of the God’s being” (Heb. 1:3).81
IV. Conclusion
This paper has proposed a reframing of theological anthropology for the lowland Philippine setting. It highlights the task of vernacularizing theology, particularly the doctrine of humanity and the concept of the image of God, in the local context. Informed by the witness of Scriptures on the theme and the historical faith consensus of Christians, as well as drawing from the Philippine sociocultural realities, Filipino cultural theological categories were brought to the fore to reframe Christian anthropology. This opened up the theme ang tunay na magandang buhay (authentic beautiful/good life) with its integral connection to creation, being God’s image, creatureliness, new life in Christ, and the new creation as crucial to the retelling.
It is through the vernacular lens of a good and beautiful life (magandang buhay) that theological anthropology may be most fruitfully expressed—rooted in Scripture, resonant with Filipino life, and radiant with the good news of Christ (magandang balita). May this exploration lead to deeper discipleship and theological maturity among Filipino believers and bring in “new treasures into the life of the Church,” that Christianity would grow and change “until it becomes more credible as a foretaste” of the kingdom of God and a sign of the unity of all humankind in Christ.82
