I. What is Man?
“What is man?” or “What is humankind?” This is a penetrating and perennial question posed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and the ordinary men and women who strive to find out their identity, role, and purpose in the cosmos. The preoccupation with this question will be more acute in the face of the proliferation of AI, the mechanization of the modern society that is becoming more technocratic and utopia-oriented,2 the sexual and identity confusion and illusion of cultures, particularly Western culture, and the violent and senseless wars that have wreaked havoc in nations around the world. In other words, technology, sexuality, and violence will force modern society to grapple with the origin, identity, role, and purpose of humanity.
In their striving to answer this important question, Western theologians and philosophers have provided various answers to “What is man?” or “What is humankind?” For instance, the French philosopher and novelist Albert Camus contends that humanity is absurd. The absurd man toils to uncover meaning that does not exist in this irrational and meaningless world. In Camus’s estimation, a human is a being without a future.3 The hopeless and meaningless life of man is aptly embodied in Camus’s main French-Algerian protagonist in his novel The Stanger.4
According to Marxist ideology, man is a material being, or to be precise a Gattungswesen (species-being), which Karl Marx appropriated from Ludwig Feuerbach, who propagated that “God is not the Creator of man; man is the creator of God.”5
Sigmund Freud, on the other hand, answers the question “What is man?” using psychoanalysis, stating that man is a sexual being that needs to fulfill its neurotic and eroticized desires without any sort of inhibition. Our dissatisfaction and frustration is not because of the Fall or sinful nature; rather the source is the unmet sexual desire propelled by the libido.6
Charles Darwin almost blurs the difference between humans and animals. For Darwin, humans are animals at a higher level. In his own words, “Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.”7 Despite this minor difference, Darwin insists, both humans and apes have a common origin or ancestor. His theory has mutated in every direction and has since been applied in dehumanizing scientific research like eugenics and the social Darwinism that classifies some people as inferior beings. Here it suffices to mention the Orwellian maxim: “All men are created equal, but some are more equal than others.”8
Finally, René Descartes proposes that man is composed of mind and body. For him, the human body is a machine that cannot function without the mind. The mind which is tasked with thinking takes the highest place in Descartes’s understanding of human beings. His well-known expression “I think, therefore I am” (cogito ergo sum; “Je pense, donc je suis”) underlines that one’s (an individual’s) existence can be proved by one’s thinking. Note that man is the sum of his thoughts. This is a relativistic and individualistic expression. In other words, one’s existence does not require the approval of others, and the person who is experiencing illusions, doubt, questions, or confusion can prove his or her own existence based on their thinking and experiencing that same illusion.9
II. Man according to African Traditional Religions
Africans have also provided answers to the question “What is man?” The wider African cultures, African Traditional Religions in particular, assert that humans are created by God. Swailem Sidhom rightly observes that the diverse cultures of Africa have one thing in common, “Man was created by God and that he has his origin in Him.”10 As such, humanity originated and is sustained by God or a certain Supreme Being.11
Again Sidhom notes, “God is; hence man is.”12 However, ATRs lack the idea that humans are created in the image of God. Joe M. Kapolyo, a Zambian theologian, indicates the absence of the concept of imago dei when he writes, “This language [the image of God] is never applied to the relationships between people and God, except of course in the appropriate translations of the Word of God into the many African languages.”13 Despite the absence of the concept of the image of God in ATRs, God or a Supreme Being is identified as the source and origin of humanity. So the first answer ATRs provide to the question “What is man?” is that humanity is God’s creation, whoever this God or Supreme Being might be.
Nevertheless, as stated at the outset of this paper, African Traditional Religions are human-centered. The Creator God or Supreme Being is decentered to make room for the anthropos; “God … is … not the centre of creation.”14 John S. Mbiti, the late Kenyan NT scholar and theologian, is often quoted for his remarkable insight on this issue:
African philosophy is basically anthropocentric; man is at the very centre of existence, and African peoples see everything else in its relation to this central position of man. God is the explanation of man’s origin and sustenance; it is as if God exists for the sake of man. The spirits are ontologically in the mode between God and man; they describe or explain the destiny of man after physical life … Animals, plants, land, rain and other natural objects and phenomena, describe man’s environment, and African peoples incorporate their environment into this deeply religious perception of the universe.15
The late Congolese ethicist and theologian Bénézet Bujo has a similar description of the place of man in ATRs:
The traditional religions of Africa have their origins in the mystery of life and death. When Africans live this mystery intensively, they discover themselves, and their position in the total scheme of things. In particular, they discover their relationship with the transcendent God who, by the mediation of the ancestors, bestows meaning upon their lives. In such a religion, focussed on the mystery of life and death, humankind itself is naturally the centre of concern, although God is always present, at least implicitly. This perspective affects above all Africa’s moral philosophy, which may be called anthropocentric.16
These two extensive quotes underline the fact that African anthropology is anthropocentric theism. This means God is acknowledged as the creator of humanity but at the same time is denied the limelight, the central position above and among his own creation.
ATRs also address the question “What is man?” by answering that humans are both physical and spiritual beings by nature. The body is essential to connect with the physical world, whereas the spiritual nature is vital to connect with the spirit realm.
The African conception of man or humanity, particularly the view of African Traditional Religions, is that man has both body and spirit, but the body is insignificant without its unity with the soul or heart or spirit.17 Please note that this is not similar to the Platonic idea of man that emphasizes the spiritual and denigrates the physical. It simply means that the body is useless without its unification with the non-physical essence or element. Janheinz Jahn underscores this fact when he writes:
The origin of human being … is represented as a double process. On the one hand it is the purely biological union of shadow and body. … But at the same time something spiritual … if we may say so, unites with the body, for the production of a human being is a process of body and spirit.18
He further states, “Biological life … and spiritual life meet in the human being. In a concrete human life neither the one nor the other can be present alone. It is not the pure biological life that is embodied in man, nor is the living human person ever without a ‘shadow.’”19
The body allows the African to have an integral part in the natural world. However, this physical interaction occurs in tandem with his or her interaction with the spirit world. The spiritual composite of his nature enables him to interact with the ancestors or spirit beings. It is this spiritual essence that distinguishes man from animals.20 Animals lack the spiritual component man embodies. This is the reason why Africans prize being indwelled or possessed by a spirit, as it gives them an edge to be part of the ancestors when they transition to the other side of the spirit realm.21
To answer the question “What is man?” ATRs offer a robust answer by stating that humans are beings that are composed of body and spirit with an accent on the spirit. ATRs vehemently contend that humans are not animals. The fact that animals and humans are different is not only true for proponents/members of ATRs, but it is also a point stressed among Christians in Africa. In a very popular Ethiopian novel Love unto Crypt, Haddis Alemayehu stresses this theological fact:
The difference between humans and animals is not that humans walk on two feet. Even a chick walks on its two feet. Well, then, is it the language that makes humans different than animals? No. Animals have their own languages as well. The main difference between humans and animals is man’s ability to control himself. Humans differ because they can control their hunger, greed, adultery, and other similar feelings that they share with animals. If a man were pushed by hunger to eat whatever he wishes, to possess whatever he has seen, or to have sex with any woman he wishes, he could become an animal and not a human. Since man is created with the union of flesh and spirit, he is the battlefield where secular and spiritual feelings come alternately and incessantly.22
In addition to this, an Ethiopian evangelical singer Dereje Kebede once responded to the Marxist-Leninist regime of Ethiopia that propagated that man is a social animal who is not created by God by singing: “I am not a monkey, I am an image of God / I have been given dominion over creation.” The point here is that Africans insist—contra the Aristotelean contention that man is a human animal23—that humans are not animals because they possess spiritual elements along with their body.
The third answer to the question “What is man?” that ATRs give is that the ideal humanity/man is a being in community. The idea that man is a people in community is in direct conflict with Rene Descartes’s cogito ergo sum (“I think therefore I am!”). Such expressions of individualism and selfishness are frowned upon and indicate social abnormality for Africans. Rather, Africans in general promote the philosophical worldview known as ubuntu. The idea of ubuntu can be summed up in Mbiti’s famous axiom: “I am because we are; and since we are, therefore I am.”24
The corresponding meaning of ubuntu is humaneness that is characterized by compassion, generosity, love, care, and treating others as family members.25 Ubuntu is considered to be a gift from G/god and a virtue that can be inculcated and nurtured by doing good works. Hence, the ideal man, the authentic person is the one who practices ubuntu. In other words, “Human beings are what they do.”26 Lack of ubuntu, the practice of individualism, is a sign of animalism and bruteness.
In ATRs man is a “society-based existence.”27 John V. Taylor, in his The Primal Vision: Christian Presence and African Religion observes that “the sense of the personal totality of all being, and of a humanity which embraces the living, the dead and the divinities, fills the background of the primal worldview. But the foreground in which this solidarity becomes sharply defined and directly experienced is the life of the extended family, the clan, and the tribe. This is the context in which an African learns to say I am because I participate. To him, the individual is an abstraction; Man is a family.”28
When men and women do not practice ubuntu it brings disharmony and conflict. Any offence committed or good works omitted within the community disrupts the unity and the good life and may bring about disaster upon the community—these all affect the well-being of the community. A person who does not carry out his or her responsibility of ubuntu breaks the code of the community and becomes an evil, selfish person that should be excluded from the community. In other words, sin, if we can call the offenses done sin, is committed against the community, the family, and not God. ATRs are cognizant of the distance between God or the Supreme Being and humanity. However, ATRs do not provide any kind of solution to address the problem of sin committed against God. Again, John Mbiti’s observation is valuable here when he laments: “This remains the most serious cul-de-sac in the otherwise rich thought and sensitive and religious feelings of our peoples. It is perhaps here then, that we find the greatest weakness and poverty of our traditional religions compared to world religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism.”29
Also, another vital weakness in Africans’ conception of ubuntu is that it could be limited to close family or tribal members that exclude other people from benefitting from ubuntu.30 Jerry Ireland goes further and argues that “ubuntu has proven an ineffective instrument in quelling Africa’s xenophobic conflicts.”31 Ireland offers a solution to address the weakness of ubuntu by providing koinonia as the New Testament concept that could redeem the philosophy and practice of ubuntu. Doing so will enable Christian Africans to offer the principles of ubuntu across the familial, tribal and ethnic lines.32
The goal and purpose of ubuntu is maintaining relational harmony and experiencing the good life as a result. God is not the goal of ubuntu. The horizontal aspect of ubuntu takes precedence over the vertical relationship with the divine. Therefore, ubuntu, as good as it is with so many positive qualities, has a significant theological deficiency: God is not the goal or the center of ubuntu, but humanity is.
In conclusion, ATRs’ conception of humanity is that they are created by God; they are composed of body and spirit and they are people in community who are expected to practice ubuntu to maintain social harmony and have a good life. While these answers to the question “What is man?” are commendable from a biblical-theological perspective, the absence of the centrality of God or God as the telos of humanity in ATRs make the answers somewhat inadequate. Then, how does the author of Hebrews depict the origin, identity and purpose of man in Hebrews 2:6–8? Let us now turn to Hebrews.
III. Setting Hebrews 2:6–8
Hebrews 2:6–8 is preceded by Hebrews 1:1–14, whereby the author argues that Jesus is better than the foregoing revelation, the prophets, and God’s angels because he is the divine Son of God and the second person of the Trinity, who made eternity and the heavens and the earth. The exposition on the divinity of the Son is then followed by an argumentation on the true humanity of the Son in Hebrews 2. Hebrews 2:1–4 continues the author’s argumentation of the superiority of the Son to the angels, which began at Hebrews 1:5–14. The Son has provided “such a great salvation” and neglecting this salvation will result in God’s just punishment.
Hebrews 2:6–8 is located in 2:5–18 where the author contends that the divine Son is fully human. In his pericope, the Son’s degrading humiliation, substitution and death, the Incarnation of the Son and its significance and purpose is described. It is in this passage where we see the Son’s solidarity with humanity.
At Hebrews 2:5, the author offers the reason why the congregation must “pay more careful attention” to the “great salvation” they heard: It is “because it is not to the angels he [God] has subjected the world to come.” In other words, angels who are already identified as God’s “ministering spirits” (λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα) will not rule the world, but the divine Son will. Hence, the divine Son is better than the angels.33 The author then proceeds to offer proof for this claim by citing LXX Psalm 8:5–7 (ET 8:4–6).
Exegesis of Hebrews 2:6b–8c34
At 2:6a the citation is introduced by indefinite markers: “somewhere, someone testified saying.” It appears that the author does not want to mention both the location and the speaker of the Psalmic passage.35 The reason for his reticence in citing the exact location and speaker of the quotation is to highlight the fact that the Psalmic quotation is the divine testimony. In other words, the author desires to shift the attention from the human speaker to God to indicate that the testimony belongs to God.36
The Psalmic quotation reads: “What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet” (2:6b–8).
2:6b “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him?” (τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ὅτι μιμνῄσκῃ αὐτοῦ, υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν)
The Old Testament quotation poses a rhetorical question to highlight God’s care for humanity. The original context of Psalm 8 betrays David’s amazement of God’s handiwork in creation, particularly the creation of man in God’s image (cf. Gen. 1:26–28). Psalm 8 centers on God, his creating ability, and his greatness. The Psalm opens at 8:1, “O, LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens.” The centrality of God is depicted by setting God as the sole recipient of respect, glory, majesty, praise, and honor because he is the Creator, the Lord and the setter.37
God’s greatness and splendor is reflected in his act of creation, particularly the creation of humankind as his pinnacle handiwork. God made humanity in his own image (Gen. 1:26–28) so that humanity can rule “over the works of [God’s] hands” (Ps. 8:6). Grindheim rightly states: “As God’s image (Gen. 1:27), humans are called to rule the earth on God’s behalf. Their glory and honor are not innate but connected with the assignment they have been given by God: to extend his rule throughout the world.”38
The Psalm also notes that God cares for humanity despite man’s insignificance. The Psalmic quotation is an explicit gateway to the Incarnation of the Son of God in the subsequent section (Heb. 2:10–18; esp. 14–18). Scholars read the citation in two ways: anthropologically or Christologically. Those who advocate for the anthropological reading of the quotation point out that the passage is a reference to humanity collectively.
As such, they render τί ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος ὅτι μιμνῄσκῃ αὐτοῦ, υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ὅτι ἐπισκέπτῃ αὐτόν; as “What is mankind that you are mindful of them, a son of man that you care for him?” (NIV). The theological ground for the anthropological reading is Genesis 1:26–28, where God created Adam and Eve in his own image to rule over his creation. Others read the quotation Christologically. The Christological reading agrees with those who advocate for the anthropological reading that God intended humanity to rule over creation (cf. Gen. 1:26–28). However, the author of Hebrews appropriates the Psalmic passage to the Son of God, the new Adam.39
It is logical to take the citation first Christologically and then anthropologically. After all, the author has clearly given us the precedent for such an understanding. The Son, who is appointed to inherit everything has enabled those who are/will be associated with him to inherit salvation (Heb. 1:2, 4, 14). In other words, the restoration of humanity to rule over creation can only happen in the Son’s mediatorial function as God’s Prophet, Priest, and King. Consequently, the Christological reading of Psalm 8 has primacy.
The similar verbiage between Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 8 and the two passages’ appearance alongside each other in places in the New Testament (1 Cor. 15:25–27; Eph. 1:20–22) also lends support in reading Psalm 8 Christologically. It is possible that the expression “Son of man” alludes to Daniel’s “one like a Son of man” (Dan. 7:13) who rules over “all peoples, nations and languages” (Dan. 7:14).
“What is Man?” The Hebrew term ‘enosh (ἄνθρωπος) or ben Adam (υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου) in Psalm 8:4 is employed here to indicate the mortality, weakness and frailty of humanity.40 God’s greatness and otherness is incomparable to humanity’s weakness and mortality.41 The Psalmist himself answers the question “What is man?” later in Psalm 144:3–4: “LORD, what is man that you regard him or the son of man that you think of him? Man is like a breath; his days are like a passing shadow.” In other words, humanity or the Son of Adam is ephemeral and finite. Although he nowhere cites Psalm 8 or 144 or Hebrews 2:6–8, Kelly M. Kapic’s recent book’s title captures the idea of ephemerality and finitude perfectly: You’re Only Human,42 or, in the words of Carmen Joy Imes, “On our own, we are not enough.”43
However, humanity is not insignificant in the eyes of God. In reality, God is “mindful” (ἐπισκέπτῃ) of humanity because he sent his Son to be the incarnate God so that he can execute the task of the purification of sins in order to restore everything lost through the first Adam. This fact is ascertained in the author’s utilization of the Christological title “Son of man” (υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου).44 The purification and the restoration of humanity’s dignity, dominion over creation and relationship with the divine could only be a reality through the Incarnation. Sin necessitated the Incarnation, the divine Son becoming the Son of Man. The offense is not merely committed against humanity, the umuntu; here and in the rest of the epistle we see that sin is an offense against God that requires divine intervention. The intervention necessitates suffering, death, the offering of blood, intercession, mediation, and sanctification (Heb. 1:3; 2:9–11, 14–18, 7:25, etc.).
The divine Son becoming man with blood and flesh is the only definitive solution to the problem of sin. The vertical reconciliation with the divine through the sacrificial-victorious works of Jesus enables a horizontal reconciliation by bringing many to become siblings in Christ. This work of Christ brings unity, peace, harmony, and filial relationships under the roof of God’s household. In other words, the Second Adam is able to redeem the lost dignity, status, innocence, unity, peace, and harmony because of the first Adam.45 God’s remembrance and care for humanity is expressed in sending the perfect Son to be the mediator par excellence. The Son identifies with humans by becoming one.
The terms μιμνῄσκομαι (“to be concerned about”) and ἐπισκέπτομαι (“to look after”) underline the significance of humanity before God. God cares for and actively looks after his creatures in his own image. This is particularly evident in the Son’s act of offering the purification for sins on the cross. Hughes rightly states: “The incarnation of the Son of God is the great and ultimate proof of the importance of man. It is not, however, in egocentric self-approval that the worth of man finds his expression, but in his status as God’s creature and his constitution in the divine image.”46 The Amharic translation of the term ἐπισκέπτομαι rightly captures the term’s intended meaning: ትጎበኘው (tigobegnew, “to visit”). BDAG also renders the term as to “make an appearance to help.”47 God appeared in the flesh to help humanity so that he could deliver his creation from its slavery.
Prominent Ethiopian singer Tesfaye Gabiso links the descent of God from heaven and proffering help to those who are in bondage of transgression:
When God assists, descending from the heavens,
When He wipes out all offences by His Justice,
Haven’t you seen the trap broken,
The captive freed and telling about His redemption?48
2:7a “You made him for a little while lower than the angels” (ἠλάττωσας αὐτὸν βραχύ τι παρ᾿ ἀγγέλους)
The Son of Man was made lower (ἠλάττωσας) for a brief moment. The expression βραχύ τι in the Hebrew text of Psalm 8:6 (מְעַט) denotes the degree of the humiliation of man. Hence it is rendered as “a little” rather than “for a brief moment.” Some scholars argue that the MT meaning—that is degree, not time—should be maintained in Hebrews.49 Nonetheless, the humiliation of the Son of Man for a brief moment makes more sense. Man was made lower than the angels for a short time.50 As Kistemaker rightly notes, this does not mean that the administration of God’s creation is given to the angels because they are superior to humanity.51 At Hebrews 2:5, the author has already made a point that the angels will not govern “the world to come.”
The temporary humiliation is a reference to nothing other than Christ’s Incarnation, his sufferings on earth, and ultimate humiliation and sacrifice on the cross. Christ’s humiliation began when he took the form of a slave and the nature of man. But the pinnacle of him being lowered is evident in his obedient death on the humiliating cross (cf. Phil. 2:6–8). The Andemta tradition comments that Jesus became lower than the angels because God gave him suffering and death so that we can benefit from his passion.
2:7b–8a “You have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet” (δόξῃ καὶ τιμῇ ἐστεφάνωσας αὐτόν, πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ)
The humiliation was momentary. The Son of Man’s utter suffering, humiliation, and sacrifice was followed by honor, exaltation, and crown. God crowned the Son of Man, Jesus, “with glory and honor.” According to BDAG, στεφανόω means “to recognize distinguished service or performance with an award, honor, reward, crown.”52 The Son’s humiliation from birth to crucifixion did not go unnoticed. The Father recognized the Son’s accomplishment, obedient suffering, and lowliness. Consequently, he exalted him. The Son’s exaltation is already stated in the exordium (Heb. 1:3–4). His sacrificial activity culminated in the Son’s enthronement at the Father’s right hand. Philippians 2:9–11 conveys a similar notion. Christ obediently, vicariously suffered and was humiliated utterly. As a result, God rewarded him by exalting him. The crown followed the degrading cross. According to Andemta, God honored Jesus for his humiliation by giving him resurrection and ascension and by “appointing him over all the works of your [God’s] hands.” The expression πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ alludes to Psalm LXX 109:1 (Ps 110:1), particularly the verbiage ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου. (109:1) and τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ (Heb 2:8a). A similar combination of Psalm 8 and Psalm 110:1 is reflected in 1 Corinthians 15:25–27 and 1 Peter 3:22.
Here a realized eschatology is in purview. The finished works of Christ on earth have culminated in Christ’s present enthronement, rule, and kingship. Everything is under his sovereign rule and dominion. The Son of Man has recaptured the lost dominion of humanity’s rule over creation, and he sustains and bears it to the end. By implication, those who associate and identify with the Son will rule creation as co-heirs with the Son (cf. Heb. 1:14; 2:5).
The motif of subjection is presented in the already-but-not-yet framework. The term ὑποτάσσω appears four times between 2:5 and 2:8. In one sense, Christ, the Son of Man, has achieved the subjection of everything under his rule. In another sense, however, the subjection is to be realized in the eschaton.
2:8b “Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control” (ἐν τῷ γὰρ ὑποτάξαι [αὐτῷ] τὰ πάντα οὐδὲν ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ ἀνυπότακτον)
The author formulated his rhetorical question using a question from LXX Psalm 8:5–7 in Hebrews 2:5–8a. But in Hebrews 2:8b–9, he provides the answer to the question posed.53 God has subjected everything (Heb. 1:3) under the feet of the Son of Man, Jesus Christ. In so doing, the new Adam recapitulated what the first Adam failed to do: to rule and have dominion over God’s creation (cf. Gen. 1:26–28). This commentary on the quotation is introduced by the coordinate conjunction γὰρ (“for”). The explanation particularly highlights the fact that God has subjected everything in the universe under the rulership of the Son of Man. The conjunction also reiterates the fact that “the world to come” is not subjected to the angels but to the Son of God and those who identify with the Son (Heb. 2:5). The subjection is comprehensive and all-inclusive. The adjective τὰ πάντα along with οὐδὲν … ἀνυπότακτον punctuate that everything is under the dominion of the Son of Man.
IV. A Nuanced Critique of ATRs’ Conception of Humanity
African cultures, African Traditional Religions in particular, are correct to denote that humanity is created by God, composed of body and spirit who should be in community and seek unity, harmony, and a good life. However, as I pointed out earlier, there is some theological deficiency in ATRs’ understanding of the nature of humanity.
First, in the practice of ubuntu, the goal and purpose of humanity is ultimately human centered. In the words of Mbiti, “It is as if God exists for the sake of man.”54 Nonetheless, we have seen in Hebrews and Psalms that God cares for humanity, but God does not exist for humanity. Richard Gehman is on point when he describes the tendency of ATRs: “The focus of ATR is indeed on man himself. African Traditional Religions centers on man. The whole emphasis is upon man gaining the power needed to live a good life. Life revolves around man and his interests and needs.”55 On the other hand, Hebrews 2:6–8 echoes the ancient tradition that creation is God’s handiwork and exists for God’s splendor and praise. As such, Hebrews 2:6–8 provides a correction to the anthropocentric thought of African Traditional Religions by offering God the center position. God is and should be the goal and focus of Africans. The author of Hebrews is explicit when it comes to who it is who exists for who: “For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering” (Heb. 2:10).
In order to have the centrality of God in the African context, it is important to bridge the chasm between God and humanity, a problem for which ATRs are unable to provide a solution. When relationships between humanity take precedence, God takes the back seat, and the vertical relationship becomes relatively unimportant. In other words, ATRs are weak when it comes to the doctrine of sin or total depravity and the solution to the problem of sin.
As stated above, in African Traditional Religions, sin is committed against the community, not necessarily against God. Although there is a grain of truth that sin affects our relationships with others, Christian theology and the biblical evidence stress the fact that sin first and foremost affects our relationship with the divine. Hebrews 2:6–8 and the literary context of this pericope indicate that God became man, the divine became incarnate in order to provide purification, sanctification, and the forgiveness of sins so that the broken divine-human relationships could be fixed. The lack of the doctrine of total depravity and the corruption of the imago dei is a key weakness of ATRs’ anthropology. Here again Hebrews chapter 2 provides a vital corrective to ATRs’ conception of humanity’s sin by highlighting that the offense is primarily committed against God. But there is a God-ordained solution to the problem of sin: the God Incarnate, the New Adam.
Hebrews 2:6–8 and its wider context also offer a slight correction to the idea of people in community. Indeed all are created in God’s image, and the desire for unity and having a good life in community is commendable. However, the reality of sin affects the desired peace, harmony, and unity. In contrast, because of the Son of Man, the New Adam’s sacrificial-victorious mediatorial work on behalf of humanity helps to create a new community, the new people of God. Hebrews 2:10 exclaims that God brings many sons and daughters to himself through his divine Son. Indeed, ATRs consider humanity as a family. Hebrews 2 nuances that by stating men and women in Christ are the new family, the new community that are sanctified by the sanctifier, Jesus. The point here is that genuine humanity, umuntu, true people in community with a lasting harmony is only possible if people are associated with the Son of Man, the divine Son, and are sanctified, purified, and brought closer to God. This ideal umuntu, this ideal humanity, ATRs are unable to offer to Africans.
In conclusion, ATRs’ anthropocentric theism fails to provide a correct conception of humanity because they decenter God and focus on the centrality of humanity. This anthropocentric thought of ATRs in turn soft-pedals the problem of sin and considers the human-to-human relationship as more significant than the divine-to-human relationship. Hebrews 2, verses 6–8 in particular, offers a corrective to ATRs’ conception of humanity by centering God as the origin, goal, purpose, and focus of humanity.
