In the modern age, humanity has increasingly prioritized biological life above all else, often at the expense of deeper social, political, and existential concerns—most notably, human freedom. Walter Benjamin refers to this phenomenon as “mere life,” Hannah Arendt characterizes it through the figure of “animal laborans”, and Giorgio Agamben theorizes it as “bare life” —a condition in which the mere biological fact of life is privileged over the way life is lived[1]. Ironically, when mere survival becomes the highest good, freedom itself is diminished, reducing human existence to nothing more than a passive state of biological preservation. This challenge has become even more urgent in the age of artificial intelligence, where rapid technological advancements blur the boundaries between human and machine. In response to this crisis, this study engages with the theology of Bonhoeffer. Though his life was cut short, Bonhoeffer articulated a relatively mature theological anthropology that remains highly relevant today. In his posthumously edited Ethics,[2] he critiques the reduction of humanity in the modern age and seeks to recover a vision of human existence deeply rooted in its social and historical context.
Scholars broadly agree that Bonhoeffer’s anthropology is fundamentally rooted in his Christology. However, recent studies diverge on whether his thought is best understood within an ecumenical framework or primarily through a Lutheran lens. The ecumenical approach[3] situates Bonhoeffer’s Christology and anthropology within the broader Christian tradition, highlighting Christ’s humanity as both normative for all people and concretely historical. However, studies emphasizing Luther as Bonhoeffer’s primary theological foundation reveal the limitations of the ecumenical approach. On the one hand, scholars argue that it is precisely Bonhoeffer’s Lutheran heritage—often underemphasized in ecumenical readings—that leads him to a participatory Christological ontology.[4]
On the other hand, these Lutheran-oriented studies further illuminate the distinctive character of Bonhoeffer’s Christology and its implications for anthropology.[5] In summary, the Lutheran-oriented approach offers three key insights. First, it demonstrates how the Reformers’ deep awareness of sin’s pervasive effects informs Bonhoeffer’s anthropology through his Christology. Second, it highlights the significance of the Lutheran emphasis on single-person Christology—beginning with the union of God and human nature—in shaping Bonhoeffer’s distinctive understanding of humanity and the world. Third, it underscores that Bonhoeffer’s theology extends beyond reconciliation to emphasize God’s ongoing work of preservation. Therefore, this study consciously aligns with this perspective, focusing specifically on the theme of preservation to further illuminate Bonhoeffer’s theological anthropology.
Building on previous studies, this paper examines key texts that are crucial to understanding Bonhoeffer’s Christology and anthropology: Creation and Fall,[6] the Christology lectures from the summer semester of 1933,[7] Discipleship,[8] and Ethics[9]. This study follows a chronological approach, tracing the development of Bonhoeffer’s theological anthropology while revealing a deeper continuity in his Christology.
Based on these texts, the study is structured into three main parts. Part I examines Bonhoeffer’s theological critique of human existence and modernity. It first explores Creation and Fall, emphasizing his identification of self-deification as the fundamental issue of the fallen human condition. It then turns to the fragment “Heritage and Decay” in Ethics, showing that Bonhoeffer offers a theological perspective on the modern phenomenon of bare life. Finally, this section considers the concept of divine preservation by tracing Bonhoeffer’s reflections from Creation and Fall to Ethics, highlighting the key characters and developments. Part II delves into Bonhoeffer’s treatment of God’s condescension in Christ, engaging his Christology lectures of 1933, Discipleship, and Ethics. This section highlights his distinctive approach of both radically uniting and radically distinguishing Christology and theological anthropology, arguing that this approach ultimately leads to a new theological foundation for God’s preservation of fallen creation. Part III focuses on Ethics and examines Bonhoeffer’s vision of preserved life through Christ. It demonstrates that God preserves human life within the fallen world through a communicative commandment—the divine act of placing human beings within concrete, preserved forms where God’s command reaches them in daily life, calling them to responsible action. This section also highlights Bonhoeffer’s emphasis on the acceptance of fallen humanity’s relative freedom within God’s preserving work. The conclusion will engage with Hannah Arendt’s The Human Condition,[10] providing a critical assessment of Bonhoeffer’s theological anthropology in light of contemporary philosophical discourse.
[1] See Ian Buchanan, A Dictionary of Critical Theory, Second edition, Oxford Quick Reference (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2018).
[2] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, ed. Clifford J. Green, trans. Reinhard Krauss et al., vol. 6, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005) (hereafter abbreviated as DBWE 6 and the series here after DBWE).
[3] Such as John W De Gruchy, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer as Christian Humanist,” in Being Human, Becoming Human: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Social Thought, ed. Jens Zimmermann and Brian Gregor, Princeton Theological Monograph Series 146 (Eugene, Ore: Pickwick Publications, 2010), 3–24; Rowan Williams, Christ the Heart of Creation (London Oxford New York New Delhi Sydney: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2018); Jens Zimmermann, Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Christian Humanism, First edition (Oxford, United Kingdom ; New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019).
[4] What de Gruchy identifies as a Chalcedonian tradition and Zimmermann frames as Christian humanism, Nissen attributes to Bonhoeffer’s deep Lutheran roots. Ulrik Nissen, The Polity of Christ: Studies on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Chalcedonian Christology and Ethics (T&T Clark, 2020).
[5] H. Gaylon Barker, in The Cross of Reality, explores Bonhoeffer’s engagement with Luther’s theologia crucis and persuasively argues that this framework profoundly shapes Bonhoeffer’s Christology. Similarly, Michael P. DeJonge, in Bonhoeffer’s Reception of Luther, demonstrates how Bonhoeffer closely follows Luther’s understanding of God’s presence in Christ and appropriates Luther’s two-kingdoms theology. Building on this foundation, Koert Verhagen, in his new book Being and Action Coram Deo, argues that Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith serves as the central motif of Bonhoeffer’s anthropology. Verhagen elaborates on this motif through a threefold narration of the coram Deo relationship—creation, preservation, and reconciliation—arguing that Bonhoeffer integrates this structure into his ontological framework.
[6] DBWE 3.
[7] DBWE 12.
[8] DBWE 4
[9] DBWE 6
[10] Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, 2nd ed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).
This study examines Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theological anthropology in response to the modern prioritization of biological life over human freedom, a phenomenon Giorgio Agamben describes as “bare life.” It argues that Bonhoeffer, through his contemplation of God’s condescension in Christ, uncovers a new foundation for divine preservation, offering a renewed vision of humanity. The study is structured into three parts. Part I explores Bonhoeffer’s critique of human existence through a Christological interpretation of creation and fall, tracing his reflections on divine preservation from Creation and Fall to Ethics. Part II examines how Bonhoeffer connects God and fallen humanity through the motif of God’s condescension in Christ, forming the basis for preservation. Part III analyzes his vision of preserved humanity in Ethics, emphasizing natural life, divine mandates, and the flow of life. The study concludes with a critical engagement with Hannah Arendt, reflecting on Bonhoeffer’s insights in light of her political thought.