Chapter Six - The Creation of Man
¡@
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN RACE
Every person is confronted with the question as to the origin of the human race. As he looks back into human history, he observes that the men now existing seem to have sprung from other men by the process of natural generation for thousands of years. In analyzing the origin of man, the biblicist is confronted with the basic issue:
Did God create man immediately or mediately?
Was man formed directly by the hand of God or did he evolve through natural processes?
The Christian must acknowledge God's involvement, but was it direct or indirect?
There are numerous theories which are trying to explain the origin of the human race:
Biblical creationists hold that man is a direct and immediate creation of God.
Classical evolutionists teach that man evolved from a lower form.
Some evolutionists suggest that the human body developed through a long evolutionary process, but that God broke into the process and directly created the soul, bringing man into being.
Others suggest that Adam was one among many contemporaries and that God conferred his image on Adam's collaterals as well as on Adam; thus Adam's federal headship extended to his contemporaries as well as to his offspring.
As can be seen, seeking to harmonize secular science with the biblical record can take several forms. The arguments for evolution need to be stated and answered, then a biblical solution can be stated.
¡@
2. SOME OPPOSITIONS TO BIBLICAL CREATIONISM
Strictly speaking, evolution has been an atheistic theory which thoroughly disregards the biblical record of creation. However, there have been a few attempts to try to unite the Genesis account with the theory of evolution.
2.1 The Theory of Evolution
The theory of evolution is defined as a brief consideration of organic evolution involves the theory that billions of years ago, lifeless matter, acted upon by natural forces, gave origin to one or more minute living forms. Since then, these small forms have evolved into all living and extinct plants and animals, including mankind.
Darwin taught that over hundreds of thousands of generations, slight variations from the preceding generation continued to multiply into the formation of new varieties of life forms (Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1859, p.141). The process was also the survival of the fittest (Herbert Spencer, 1820-1903), which meant that only those life forms who had characteristics to compete more successfully could survive in the struggle with the environment. If not, they tended to die off. Therefore, the lower and simpler life forms gradually became more advanced and complex, until finally we reach mankind, the peak at this point of biological development. He is the most able to cope with the environment of today, but no guarantee is offered that higher life forms will not develop.
There are, however, 7 basic assumptions that are often not mentioned during discussions of evolution. Many evolutionists ignore the first 6 assumptions and consider only the 7th. The 7 assumptions are:
Non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e. that spontaneous generation occurred.
Spontaneous generation occurred only once.
Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals are all inter-related.
The protozoa gave rise to the metazoa.
The various invertebrate phyla are inter-related.
The invertebrates gave rise to the vertebrates.
The vertebrates and fish gave rise to the amphibia, the amphibia to the reptiles, and the reptiles to the birds and mammals. Sometimes this is expressed in other words, i.e., that the modern amphibia and reptiles had a common ancestral stock and so on.
The 7 assumptions by their nature are not capable of experimental verification. They assume that a certain series of events has occurred in the past.
2.2 Theistic Evolution
There are evangelicals who will hold to a kind of evolution, but upon a theistic basis:
they do not believe that matter is eternal, but was created by God; and
life was initiated by God, then at certain points the personal Creator guided the mechanism of the evolutionary process.
Theistic evolution allegorizes the Genesis account as poetic truth that is to be taken in an unscientific way. Adherents to this theory explain that, though Genesis tells us that God created everything, it does not tell us how He did it; namely, through the evolutionary process. This view has the attractiveness of accepting the predominant scientific theory. But it fails to offer a good exegetical reason for saying that Genesis 1 to 11 is poetic, or allegorical, while 12 to 50 is historical, even though both sections are of the same narrative style.
2.3 Threshold Evolution
Threshold evolutionists hold that man was made out of the dust by a special, ab extra, divine act, with a body which is structurally similar to the higher Vertebrata, and soul formed after the image and likeness of God, is also a direct and immediate creation of God (Carnell, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 238).
2.4 Progressive Creationism
Progressive creationism usually interprets the "days" of Genesis 1 as ages. God intervened, directly creating certain things at the beginning of each "day-age" (threshold evolution), and allowed them to evolve from that point (micro-evolution). This theory, therefore, rejects the idea of evolution between created "kinds" (macro-evolution), or evolution from molecule to man (organic evolution). It holds an attraction for those who are impressed by the false evidence for the earth's great age (over several billion years, it is said). But the frequent occurrence of "evening and morning" in Genesis 1, implying a literal 24 hour day, presents a major interpretive problem for this theory.
2.5 Pre-Adamic Creatures (The Gap Theory)
Evolutionists point to fossil human-like beings as evidence of evolution. Some explain this fossil evidence by saying that a race of creatures existed before Adam was created. Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, the theory goes, there was a gap of time during which a great catastrophe destroyed the world. These creatures, created in 1:1, became extinct or were destroyed during the gap between 1:1 and 1:2.
This time span is usually considered to be quite large (millions of years) and is also reputed to encompass the so-called "geologic ages." Proponents of the gap theory also postulate that a cataclysmic judgment was pronounced upon the earth during this period as the result of the fall of Lucifer (Satan) and that the ensuing verses of Genesis chapter 1 describe a re-creation or reforming of the earth from a chaotic state and not an initial creative effort on the part of God.
The gap theory is not of recent origin but can be traced back to the early 19th century when the new discipline of geology was breaking upon the scientific scene. Theologians were in no intellectual position to argue, from a scientific basis, the claims of the geologists that the processes responsible for the formation of the surface features of the earth were occurring at almost imperceptibly slow rates as they had always done in the past (the principle of uniformity). Rather than accept the accusation that the Biblical record was no longer valid in the light of "scientific" claims, they chose to accommodate the Scriptural presentation to these new geological theories. A place had to be found for the vast ages of the past, well beyond the accounts of the first man and his environment as recorded in the Bible, and the most accommodating place was between the two aforementioned verses of Genesis.
Creation as we know it began with Genesis 1:2. Though this view is not evolutionary in nature, its "gap" creates a problem with Romans 5:12 which teaches that death (and consequently extinction) entered the world with Adam, not before. Added to this are the claims of 1 Corinthians 15:21,22 that by "man came death" and "as in Adam all die." It is easily seen from these Scriptures that death on the earth did not precede Adam's sin, but resulted from it. To insist that anything died prior to the judgment passed upon Adam is to be in contradiction with these passages in Romans and Corinthians.
¡@
3. ARGUMENTS FOR THE EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS
3.1 Comparative Anatomy
There are marked similarities between the anatomy of man and that of the higher vertebrata. This, it is suggested, points to the evolution of man from animal. However, if man and animals partake of the same food, same air, and have the same environment as other creatures, should not the lungs, digestive tract, skin, eyes, and so forth, be similar? Further, similarity in anatomy suggests a common Creator (i.e. the God), not one creature springing from another. Two symphonies by one composer might be expected to have some marked similarities.
3.2 Vestigial Organs
These are organs, like the the pituitary gland, the thymus gland, the pineal gland, the tonsils, the appendix, and the coccyx, or tailbone, which, according to the evolutionist, were useful to our supposedly more primitive ancestors but now become functionally useless. Against this view, we note that with an increase in knowledge, science is beginning to learn more about and recognize the usefulness of these allegedly useless organs. After a century of medical research, we now know that all of these structures have an important function in man, and, in fact, without many of them, we cannot live. The pituitary, thymus, and pineal glands are vital to our existence. The tonsils and the appendix are now known to be, among other things, important disease-fighting organs. The tailbone serves to anchor certain pelvic muscles. You cannot sit comfortably without it, and it protects the end of the spinal column. In a scientific journal, not long ago, an evolutionist published an article in which he declared that supposed vestigial organs offer no support for evolution. Just because we do not as yet understand fully the use of these various organs, we should not question the wisdom of the Creator who put them there.
3.3 Embryology
The evolutionists argue that the human fetus develops through various stages which are parallel to the alleged evolutionary process, from a one-celled organism to an adult species. But a close study of the human fetus reveals that there are too many dissimilarities to supposed parallels in the worm, fish, tail, and hair stages. Further, developments are often the reverse of what is alleged. The earthworm has circulation, but no heart, and it is therefore advanced that circulation must have come before the heart. However, in the human fetus, the heart develops first, then the circulation. The so-called gill slits were at one time assumed to be rudimentary gills, but have more recently been found to be simply a groove between two parallel blood vessels (Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, pp. 240-254).
Furthermore, in the human embryo, the tongue develops before the teeth, the heart before the blood vessels, and the brain before the nerve cords. This is the opposite order that would be expected if the embryo were repeating the supposed evolutionary process. Just recently, an instrument has been developed called a fetoscope, which can be inserted into the mother's uterus to observe and photograph the embryo as it develops. Using this instrument, scientists discovered that at every stage of its development, the human embryo is totally human. God has programmed the embryo of each creature to start out as a single cell, and to develop into a new-born creature completely prepared to survive and thrive in the world into which it is born.
3.4 Bio-chemistry
Living organisms are all similar in their bio-chemical makeup. This is to be expected because the various life systems all depends on the same or similar acids, proteins, etc. Again, similarity in bio-chemistry suggests a common Creator (i.e. the God).
3.5 Paleontology
The study of fossils is used to defend evolution. Evidence for various kinds of life is found in the various rock strata, from the pre-cambrian period on. The evolutionist seeks to find evidence of continuity between, for example, man and beast, fish and fowl, and reptile and fish. However, in the study of fossils there is as much evidence for discontinuity as for continuity. There has been found no link between man and monkey. The Bible says that there is a flesh of man and a flesh of beast (1 Corinthians 15:39). The evolutionist cannot provide the link and the Bible does not allow for such a link.
3.6 Genetics
New forms of plants and animals have supposedly been seen to arise suddenly in nature, suggesting the emergent evolution, or sudden changes whereby new life forms have appeared. This is the study of heredity and variations among related organisms. Why are no two fingerprints the same? Does this not suggest change occurring in the human species? And is this not an argument for evolution?
We need to mention briefly the research work with the DNA count of chromosomes in cells.
In the "Impact" article 92, page 2, Dr. John W. Oller, Jr., stated that "even as early as 1963 and 1964, Hinegardner and Engelberg published arguments in Science, showing the extreme implausibility of the claim that the genetic basis of life had evolved in a step-by-step fashion. The difficulty was that the minutest sort of changes in ... the nucleic acids and the words of the protein language in the genetic code would be lethal (i.e. poisonous) to all living things. Because of the apparent universality of the code, very minute changes in the code would have devastating effects to all living organisms. This may be why F.H.C. Crick (who shared the Nobel Prize with J.D. Watson for work on the structure of DNA, the genetic code), commented ... there are far too many who are willing to offer untestable, unscientific claims about how the code came to be."
DNA research is one of the latest arguments demonstrating the impossibility that any new life forms could be established by chance. The laws of Mendel still govern the variations and possibilities afforded by genes and chromosomes within each life form. It bears repeating that in no way does DNA research demonstrate the possibility of going from one life form to a higher one in any sudden change.
It is readily acknowledged that mutations do take place, but they will not turn a monkey into a man. Further, some types of changes tend to make the organism less well suited for its environment, thereby threatening its very survival. As we know that some diseases are caused by mutation of genes. Finally, after generations of testing with the fruit fly, there have been no transmutations. There has not been, nor can there be, any crossing over of the "kinds" of Genesis 1. Man is a special species, he did not come from the beast.
¡@
4. BIBLICAL ARGUMENTS FOR THE IMMEDIATE CREATION OF MAN
4.1 The Literal Teaching of Scripture
Although atheistic evolutionists disbelieve the teaching of the Bible, theistic evolutionists are in danger of impugning the character of God when they endeavor to explain the story of creation symbolically. The Scriptures taken literally give a reasonable explanation for the origin of man. Even if evolution could prove its doctrine of the survival of the fittest, it cannot account for the arrival of the first. In the Bible we are told that God "created" man (Genesis 1:27; 5:1; Deuteronomy 4:32; Psalm 104:30; Isaiah 45:12; 1 Corinthians 11:9) and that he "made" and "fashioned" or "formed" him out of the dust of the ground (Genesis 1:26; 2:22; 6:6f; Psalm 100:3; 103:14; 1 Timothy 2:13). As to his body, man was made of the dust of the ground; as to his immaterial nature, he was made of the inbreathing of God. Genesis 2:7; Job 33:4; and Ecclesiastes 12:7 include both ideas in one statement. This conception of the origin of man taken literally from Scripture gives man a dignity of being and a position of responsibility that no other theory does, and lays the foundations for a sane system of ethics and redemption.
4.2 Adam and Eve Were Created Male and Female
If Adam and Eve were subhuman before God breathed his image into them, they would have already been male and female, but God made them male and female (Genesis 1:27; 2:7; Matthew 19:4).
4.3 Eve Was Made Directly by God
Eve came from the side of Adam (Genesis 2:21f; 1 Corinthians 11:8). The language of Genesis 2 will not allow any other interpretation, and if Eve was formed directly by God, it is only reasonable that Adam was formed by God as well.
4.4 Man Comes From and Goes to Dust
If the dust of Genesis 2:7 has reference to man evolving from the beast, then the returning to dust of Genesis 3:19 would mean a returning to beast. This is, of course, ludicrous.
4.5 Man Became A Living Soul
The phrase "living soul" (Genesis 2:7) is the same as that translated "living creature" (Genesis 1:21). When man was made, he became alive, not before. He was not already a living creature who became a living creature.
4.6 The Bible Distinguishes Between Animal Flesh and Human Flesh
Paul does not allow for the mixing of beast, fish, foul, or human flesh; they are to be distinguished (1 Corinthians 15:39).
¡@
5. THE CREATION OF MAN
5.1 An Explanation of Biblical Creationism
A literal interpretation of the creation account in the first chapters of Genesis leads to the conclusion that man came into existence as a direct, immediate, act of God. This biblical view is opposed to the theory of evolution.
Notice carefully what the Bible states in Genesis 1:26-27; 2:7 and 18-23:
each of the "kinds" of creatures, including man, was created as such, not as the product of mutating into the present state;
man was created distinct from the animals by being made in the "image of God";
man was formed out of inanimate and lifeless components ("dust of the ground"), and made a "living being" at the time of creation, not generated by previous forms of life; and
Adam was created as a fully developed, rational creature, with the "appearance of age," and no reference is made to any growth from infancy to childhood to adulthood (Genesis 2:8, 15-17).
5.2 The Superiority of Biblical Creationism
5.2.1 It gives a better basis for man's dignity and worth
Man is not the product of chance (materialistic evolution), but a special work of God. He is related to God by virtue of the fact that he is created in "the image of God." This provides worth and dignity to man, because man is made like God in some basic way. Further, he has a capacity to know and communicate with God; he is a creature with design and purpose.
5.2.2 It is supported and assumed by the rest of Scripture
To deny the historical reality of Adam is to undermine the credibility of the rest of Scripture. For example, in Romans 5:12-21 we read that sin entered the world through "one man" (Adam), creating the need for "one man" (Jesus Christ) to provide Salvation. It appears that the apostle Paul believed Adam to have been a historical character. If we do not believe Adam to be a literal, historical character, we render Paul's entire discussion of redemption meaningless.
Some might say that all we need to accept is the fact of sin, not the literal circumstances of its origin, and the plan of biblical redemption will remain intact. The problem is, if you allow for allegory or myth in one part of the Bible, what reason is there to assume the other portions are to be taken literally, such as the character of Jesus? His acts? His death?
5.3 Summary
Biblical creationists call attention to several facts to argue the superiority of their view:
the earth's apparent age can be explained either by the forces of the Noahic Flood, or by the "appearance of age" theory - as Adam was created fully adult with the appearance of age, so the earth was created with the appearance of age - so that the earth is relatively young;
it is more consistent with the rest of Scripture to interpret "day" and "dust" literally;
a literal interpretation leaves the basic facts of Adam, the Fall, and the genealogies of Genesis (which imply a younger earth) intact; and
weaknesses in evolutionary theory are being gradually acknowledged by many scientists as honest attempts are made to face new finds.
¡@
6. THE UNITY OF MAN
6.1 The Teaching of Scripture
The Scripture clearly teach that the whole human race is descended from a single pair (Genesis 1:27f; 2:7, 22; 3:20; 9:19). All are children of a common parent and have a common nature. Paul takes this truth for granted in his doctrine of the unity of mankind in the first transgression and of the provision of Salvation for those in Christ (Romans 5:12, 19; 1 Corinthians 15:21f; Hebrews 2:16). This truth also constitutes the ground of man's responsibility toward his fellow man (Genesis 4:9; Acts 17:26).
In Genesis 1:26 God said, "Let Us make man," and in v. 27 we read, "Male and female He created them." Shedd says, "This implies that the idea of man is incomplete, if either the male or the female be considered by itself, in isolation from the other. The two together constitute the human species. A solitary male or female individual would not be the species man, nor include it, nor propagate it." (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II, p. 4) In harmony with this we have the statement in Genesis 2:21-23 that God did not make Eve out of the dust of the ground, but out of a bone taken out of Adam, and did not breathe into Eve's nostrils. Apparently her immaterial nature as well as her physical nature was taken out of Adam (1 Corinthians 11:8).
6.2 The Testimony of History And Science
The teaching of Scripture is proved by history and science in the following ways:
The argument from history. The history of nations and tribes in both hemispheres points to a common origin and ancestry. This is generally accepted to be somewhere in the fertile crescent region.
The argument from lanuage. Secular scholars in the science of linguistics are split over the origin of language; some favor monogenesis, others polygenesis. With increased study, the trend is toward monogenesis. There is evidence for uniformity of language with regard to phonology, grammatical structure, and vocabulary. This would mitigate against a plurality of origins, "while the case for a single beginning seems fairly strong." (Swadesh, The Origin and Diversification of Language, p. 215). Swadesh was not writing from a biblical perspective but he builds a strong case for a common origin of language in Western Asia. Roucek writes, "Scholars speculate that most languages originated in one universal parent language." (Roucek, The Study of Foreign Languages, p. 7) With this the biblical accounts of the migration of the families of the three sons of Noah (Genesis 10) and of the tower of Babel (Genesis 11) agree.
The argument from physiology. Inter-racial marriages produce offspring, blood can be transfused from one race to another, organs can be transplated, the body temperature, pulse rate, and blood pressure are within the same limits, and there is liability to the same diseases. Paul told the Athenians, "He [God] made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:39).
The argument from psychology. Man shares common mental and moral characteristics. The soul is the most important part of the constitutional nature of man, and psychology clearly reveals the fact that the souls of all men, to whatever tribes or nations they may belong, are essentially the same. They have in common the same animal appetites, instincts, and passions, the same tendencies and capacities, and above all the same higher qualities, the mental and moral characteristics that belong exclusively to man (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 189).
We have the so-called "Chaldean Genesis" with its account of creation, the traditions of the fall in Eastern countries, of longevity, of the flood, and of the tower of Babel. These are but a few of the things known by many races in different parts of the world, and they have a definite value in proving the unity of the source from which the traditions emanated. All these arguments help to confirm our conclusion as to the unity of the human race.
¡@
7. THE CONSTITUTION OF MAN
Man as created by God, is obviously composed of a body and an unseen part variously referred to as "mind," "spirit," and "soul." Genesis says that when "the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" that "man became a living being" (lit., "soul").
7.1 Man's Psychological Constitution
All theologians agreed that man has both a material and an immaterial nature. His material nature is his body; his immaterial nature is his soul and spirit. Theologians differ as to the parts of man's unseen being (i.e. the immaterial nature). The question arises, Is man a twofold or a threefold being? Are soul and spirit one and the same, or are we to distinguish between them? Those who believe that soul and spirit are one and the same are called dichotomists; those who hold that they are not the same are called trichotomists. The Western church generally held to dichotomy, while the Eastern church generally held to trichotomy. There are several major views:
Man is a twofold being (dichotomy);
Man is a threefold being (trichotomy);
Man is an absolute unity (monism); and
Man is a conditional unity.
7.1.1 Man is a twofold being (dichotomy)
The dichotomous theory holds that man is essentially two parts:
body; and
soul.
The term "spirit" is interchangeable for "soul" in Scripture, although the dichotomist admits there is a minor distinction: spirit relates man to God, and soul relates him to the animal, physical world. (For more information, please read Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 486). This theory is supported by a number of facts:
God breathed into man but one principle, the living soul (Genesis 2:7). In Job 27:3 "life" and "spirit" seem to be used interchangeably (cf. 33:18).
The terms "soul" and "spirit" seem to be used interchangeably in some references (Genesis 41:8; Psalm 42:6; Matthew 20:28; 27:50; John 12:27; 13:21; Hebrews 12:23; Revelation 6:9).
"Spirit" as well as "soul" is ascribed to animal creation (Ecclesiastes 3:21; Revelation 16:3). Though the soul or spirit in beasts is irrational and mortal, in man it is rational and immortal.
"Soul" is ascribed to the Lord (Isaiah 42:1; Hebrews 10:38).
The highest place in religion is ascribed to the soul (Mark 12:30; Luke 1:46; Hebrews 6:19; James 1:21).
Body and soul (or spirit) are spoken of as constituting the whole of man (Matthew 10:28; 1 Corinthians 5:3; 3 John 2), and to lose the soul is to lose all (Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36f).
Consciousness testifies that there are two elements in man's being. We can distinguish a material part and an immaterial part, but the consciousness of no one can discriminate between soul and spirit.
7.1.2 Man is a threefold being (trichotomy)
The trichotomous view holds that man is essentially a three-part being (see 1 Thessalonians 5:23):
body;
soul; and
spirit.
The distinction between soul and spirit is much greater, they say. The body is the material part of our constitution, the soul is the principle of animal life, and the spirit is the principle of our rational life. Some add to this last statement "and immortal life." (Note: This is not the essential part of the theory.) Those who take this extreme view hold that at death the body returns to the earth, the soul ceases to exist, and the spirit alone remains to be reunited with the body at the resurrection. The trichotomous theory rests on the following considerations:
Genesis 2:7 does not absolutely declare that God made a twofold being. The Hebrew text is in the plural, "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [lives]; and man became a living being." We note, however, that it is not said that man became spirit and soul.
Paul seems to think of body, soul, and spirit as three distinct parts of man's nature (1 Thessalonians 5:23). The same thing seems to be indicated in Hebrews 4:12, where the Word is said to pierce "as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow."
A threefold organization of man's nature may be implied in the classification of men as "natural," "carnal," and "spiritual," in 1 Corinthians 2:14-3:4. Though Scripture seems to point to trichotomy, is it not possible that they merely intend to include the whole man? Jesus said to the young man, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30), but no one would build a fourfold division of human nature on this statement. Hebrews 4:12 does not speak of the separation of the soul from the spirit, but of the separation itself extending to that point. The Word pierces to the dividing of the soul itself and the spirit itself. The soul and the spirit are laid open. In reference 1 Thessalonians 5:27, Hiebert states, "Students of Scripture are not agreed as to whether the distinction between spirit and soul ... is substantial or functional. Trichotomists hold to the former, dichotomists to the latter." (Hiebert, The Thessalonian Epistles, p. 253)
The threefold nature of man is illustrated in below diagram:
7.1.3 Man is an absolute unity (monism)
The monistic view is the concept that man's material and immaterial parts cannot be separated - a reaction against the two previous views - that to be human is to have a body as well as a mind, spirit, or soul. They appeal to the fact that Hebrew has no word for "body," and that separation of the material from the immaterial parts of man is really a Greek concept, not biblical. The two are distinct but not separable; thus, man cannot live again without biblical resurrection.
7.1.4 Man is a conditional unity
The view that man is a conditional unity is similar to monism but with one notable exception: though man is made by God to be a body-soul unity and will always exist in that way normally, 2 Corinthians 5 teaches that during the intermediate state (the time between death and resurrection) his spirit or soul will separate from his body and go to be with Christ, a condition less than satisfying but better there than this world. Thus, Paul refers to be "clothed" [through rapture] and avoid a disembodied state to wait for the resurrection.
7.2 Summary
Which of these views is correct? So far as trichotomy and dichotomy are concerned, there appears to be a distinction between soul and spirit, but the very fact that they may be used interchangeably argues that they may be two aspects of the same thing. The Word of God, according to Hebrews 4:12, separates man in its penetration to the point of the division of soul from spirit, but never says the two can be separated. First Thessalonians 5:23 may merely be Paul's way of talking of the whole man, similar to Jesus' speaking of man in a fourfold way (Mark 12:30).
It is probable that we are to think of man's immaterial nature as composed of a lower and a higher power. To the soul would belong man's imagination, memory, understanding; to the spirit, his powers of reason, conscience, and free will. This variation from the traditional trichotomous view makes it possible to conserve the arguments for the dichotomous view, and yet explain how some Christians are "carnal" and others "spiritual." It also coincides with the teaching that the present body is a natural or soul body and that the resurrection body will be a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:44). In other words, man's immaterial nature is looked upon as one nature, but as composed of two parts. Sometimes the parts are sharply distinguished; at other times, by metonymy, they are used for the whole being.
So far as man's unity is concerned, the necessity of a bodily resurrection points to the fact of man's essential bodily existence as God made him, but the separation of body and spirit during the intermediate state seems to serve as an exception to unconditional unity (monism), so that the idea of conditional unity best fits the biblical data.
¡@
8. MAN'S MORAL CONSTITUTION
Man is unique among the animate creatures, because he has a moral sensibility. It is what distinguishes him from the animal kingdom. Since only man is created in God's image (Genesis 1:26), his moral sensibility must be part of the "image of God." We can look at this sensibility as the sum of two components:
conscience; and
will.
8.1 Conscience
Conscience, according to Romans 2:15, is a "witness" within each man of the same Law God carved into stone for Moses and his people. It is the "Law written in their hearts." Here, Paul is establishing individual responsibility. God's standard is not only found in the Old Testament Law, but, by virtue of conscience, all men are held accountable to that righteous standard, whether or not they've ever read a Bible. It is the inward conviction of right and wrong that lies within every human being.
Paul says that men are aware of this moral truth, that they sense conscience within them. Some obey its dictates and are "a law to themselves," but others "suppress" it. Thus, they are fully responsible to God for their rebellion, and cannot plead ignorance (Romans 1:18-20). Two questions are often asked concerning conscience:
Is conscience indestructible?
Is it infallible?
With regard to the first, Scripture teaches that conscience may be defiled (1 Corinthians 8:7; Titus 1:15; cf. Hebrews 9:14; 10:22) and seared (1 Timothy 4:2), but nowhere does it intimate that conscience can be destroyed. Hardened sinners are often aroused by the accusing, condemning testimony of conscience so that they experience great agonies of remorse. Further, the accusing conscience will probably be the chief torment of lost souls in hell.
With regard to the second question, conscience judges according to the standard given to it. If the moral standard accepted by the intellect is imperfect, the decisions of conscience, though relatively just, may be wholly unjust. Saul, before his conversion, was a conscientious wrongdoer (Acts 24:16). The standard by which conscience judges is the intuitive knowledge of the existence of God and moral qualities with which God has endowed man. But since this knowledge has become perverted through sin, it does not form a sound basis of judgment. Conscience also judges according to the social standards which we have accepted. The only true standard for conscience is the Word of God as interpretated by the Holy Spirit (Romans 9:1). When it judges according to other standards, its decisions are not infallible; but when it judges according to the divinely inspired Scriptures, its verdict is absolutely infallible.
8.2 Will
Will, the other component, is simply the real ability to make moral choices; it is the obedience or disobedience itself. According to Revelation 20:11-13, obedience to the inward law of God is something for which the lost will someday be examined, (though this will not amount to justification for it still falls short of faith in Christ).
Man's will is free in the sense that man can choose to do anything in keeping with his nature. Man can will to walk, but not to fly. Man's will is not free in that he is limited to his nature. This is likewise true in the moral realm. Adam could will to sin or not to sin. After the fall, man's ability to sin became inability not to sin. Man now may desire to change (Romans 7:18), but he is unable by merely willing to change his moral state. His evil course of action will be certain (Romans 3:10-18) though not necessitated.
Man remains responsible for all effects of will and voluntary acts. The Spirit of God works through the will of man to turn him to God, so that man wills to do God's will (John 7:17; Philippians 2:13). Man's will being brought into harmony with God's will is clearly expressed in John 1:12f: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
¡@
9. THE ORIGIN OF THE SOUL
For the sake of simplicity, the term "soul" in this connection denotes man's entire immaterial nature, both soul and spirit. Three distinct theories have been held with regard to the origin of the soul:
pre-existence;
creationism; and
traducianism.
9.1 The Theory of Pre-existence
According to this theory, souls have existed in a previous state and enter the human body at some point in the early development of the body. We know that Plato, Philo, and Origen held this view. Plato taught it to explain man's possession of ideas which he had not derived from sense; Philo, to account for the soul's imprisonment in the body; and Origen, to justify the disparity of conditions in which men enter the world. They suppose that it can be accounted for only on the ground of a personal act of self-determination in a previous state of being.
But the theory has no warrant in Scripture. It contradicts Paul's teaching that all sin and death are the result of Adam's sin (Romans 5:14-19). This theory holds that it is the result of sin in a previous existence, but we have no recollection of such a pre-existence. Surely, if we were personal entities in such an existence, we ought to be able to recall something about it; if we were not, it is inconceivable how we could commit sin and bring woe upon ourselves in the present existence.
9.2 The Creation Theory
According to this view, the soul is an immediate creation of God. It enters the body at an early stage of the development of the body, probably at conception. The body alone is propagated from past generations. This view preserves the spiritual nature of the soul. It retains the biblical distinction between body and soul by not having immortal soul spring from natural body. It also answers the question of how Christ did not inherit a sinful soul from his mother. Certain passages of Scripture that speak of God as the creator of the soul and the spirit (Numbers 16:22; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 57:16; Zechariah 12:1; Hebrews 12:9) are cited in support of this view. Most of the Roman Catholic and Reformed theologians have held this view. The Lutheran theologians have held the traducian theory. However, this theory has the following weaknesses:
The references that speak of God as the creator of the soul imply mediate creation. God is with equal clearness represented as also being the creator of the body (Psalm 139:13f; Jeremiah 1:5); yet we do not interpret this as meaning immediate creation, but mediate. God is present in all natural generation, but mediately rather than immediately.
Scripture speaks of Levi being "in the loins of his father" (Hebrews 7:10). This would suggest traducianism.
Men often resemble their ancestors in spirit as well as in body. The creation theory cannot account for the fact that children resemble their parents in intellectual and spiritual as well as in physical respects. Physiology properly views soul not as something added from without, but as the animating principle of the body from the beginning and as having a determining influence upon its whole development. It seems clear that the life germ carries mentality and personality. Evidence points to the conclusion that normal character qualities are inherited as well as the abnormal.
This theory does not account for the tendency of all men to sin. God must either have created each soul in a condition of sinfulness, or the very contact of the soul with the body must have corrupted it. In the first instance, God is the direct author of sin; in the second, the indirect.
9.3 The Traducian Theory
The term traducian simply means "to pass on." This theory holds that the entire human race was immediately created once for all in Adam, with respect to the soul as well as the body, and that both are propagated from him by natural generation. Tertullian seems to have originated this view. The Lutheran theologians generally have held the traducian view. The traducian theory seems best to accord with Scripture, which, teaches that man is a species, and the idea of a species implies the propagation of the entire individual out of it (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II, p. 19). This theory is supported by the Scripture in the following ways:
In Genesis 1:26, 27, the man and the woman together are denominated 'man.' In Genesis 5:2 God called the two "man," that is, he treated them as a species.
In Romans 7:1 the term "person [man]" seems to be used of both husband and wife.
Jesus was called the "son of man," although only the woman had a part in his human origin.
In Matthew 12:35 and 1 Corinthians 15:21 the term "man" likewise means both sexes.
Furthermore, the likeness to himself in which Adam begat a son (Genesis 5:3) can hardly be restricted to the body. It includes the soul.
"In sin my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51:5), can only mean that David inherited a depraved soul from his mother.
In Genesis 46:26 we read of the persons who, according to the Hebrew term, came out of Jacob's loins.
Acts 17:26 teaches that God "made from one, every nation." This most naturally means that they are descended from one pair and have one common human nature as to their whole constitution.
Genesis 2:1-3 teaches that the work of creation was completed on the sixth day. This could not be the case if God daily, hourly, and momentarily created souls.
It is evident that God made Eve entirely out of Adam, there is no evidence that He created a soul for her.
Further, this theory seems best to accord with theology. Our participation in Adam's sin is best explained by this theory. Sin came into the world by a self-determined act and is chargeable upon every individual man. This requires that the posterity of Adam and Eve should, in some way, partake of it. They could not partake of it as individuals, and hence they must partake of it as a race. To say that they partook of it in the person of their representative, Adam, raises more questions than it answers. We then ask, On what ground was Adam chosen as our representative? Why did not God choose an angel to represent us? We also ask, How can God condemn man for a sin which he committed in such an indirect way (Romans 5:18)? But if God chose Adam and Eve because they were the race, then their sin was the sin of the race. Then we sinned in Adam in the same way as Levi paid tithes in Abraham (Hebrews 7:9f). In addition, the transmission of a sinful nature is best explained by the traducian theory. Numerous Scriptures intimate that we have derived our sinful nature by natural generation (Job 14:4; 15:14; Psalm 51:5; 58:3; John 3:6; Ephesians 2:3).
9.4 Objections to Traducianism
The following objections have been raised against the theory of traducianism:
It is maintained that on the traducian theory Christ must have taken into union with himself the sinful nature of Mary. To this we reply that his human nature was perfectly sanctified in and by his conception by the Holy Spirit; or better, the human nature which he took from Mary was sanctified before he took it into union with himself (Luke 1:35; John 14:30; Romans 8:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 1:19; 2:22). It was delivered from both the condemnation and corruption of sin.
It is held that traducianism implies a division of substance, and that all division implies extended material substance. To this we reply that this is true of divisibility by man, but not by God. He can divide and distribute a primary substance that is not visible by a method wholly different from that by which man divides a material substance. We have an example of this even in the propagation of the body. In this instance we have the derivation of physical life from specific physical life, and this is division of life. The same thing is true in the transmission of the soul of animals.
It is objected that if the first sin of Adam and Eve was imputed to man because of the natural headship of our first parents, then all their sinful acts ought to be imputed to their posterity as well. However, the sinful acts of the two after the fall differed from the act in the first instance. It was only the first prohibition that was of a probationary nature; their subsequent acts were of a different nature. The first sin was not a transgression of a moral law, but the subsequent sins were such transgression. The creationist says Adam ceased to represent the race after the first sin, and the traducianist says that Adam ceased to be the race-unity after that sin.
9.5 Conclusion
The theory of traducianism is the best one to explain the origin of human soul as it is the best to accord with the Scripture and theology.
¡@
10. THE ORIGINAL CHARACTER OF MAN
Scripture represents man's original condition by the phrase, "in the image and likeness of God" (Genesis 1:26f; 5:1; 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9). There does not seem to be any signficant difference between the Hebrew words for "image" and "likeness," and we need not try to find any difference. But we do need to ask of what that image and likeness consisted.
10.1 It Was Not A Physical Likeness
God is spirit and does not have parts like a man. Some represent God as a great human, but they are wrong in their views. Psalm 17:15 says, "I will be satisfied with Thy likeness when I awake." But this does not suggest corporeity; rather, the context suggests likeness in righteousness (cf. 1 John 3:2f). The "form of the Lord" was seen by Moses (Numbers 12:8), but the Lord's face could not be seen (Exodus 33:20).
Before the fall, though man did not have a physical likeness to God since God is incorporeal, he did have a likeness insofar as Adam was perfect in health, had no inherited or disease germs in him, and was not subject to death.
God seems originally to have restricted man to a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29), but later He permitted the eating of meat (Genesis 9:3). It is interesting to note that in permitting the use of meat, He laid down no rules as to clean and unclean animals, though they were distinuguished (Genesis 7:2). That was a later law, governing the conduct of one people and that only for a time (Leviticus 11; Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15; Romans 14:1-12; Colossians 2:16).
10.2 It Was A Mental Likeness
God is a Spirit, the human soul is a spirit. The essential attributes of a spirit are reason, conscience and will. A spirit is a rational, moral and therefore also a free agent. In making man after His own image, therefore, God endowed him with those attributes which belong to His own nature as a spirit. Man is thereby distinguished from all other inhabitants of this world, and raised immeasurably above them. He belongs to the same order of being as God Himself, and is therefore capable of communion with his Maker. This conformity of nature between man and God is also the necessary condition of our capacity to know God, and therefore the foundation of our religious nature. If we were not like God, we could not know Him. We should be as the beasts which perish (Hodge, Systematic Theology, II, p. 96, 97).
This statement is confirmed by Scripture in the following ways:
In sanctification man is "being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him" (Colossians 3:10). Of course, this renewal begins in regeneration, but it is continued in sanctification.
Man's endowment with great intellectual faculties is implied in the command to cultivate the garden and keep it (Genesis 2:15), the command to exercise dominion over the earth and all the creatures of the earth (Genesis 1:26, 28), and in the statement that he gave names to all the animals on the earth (Genesis 2:19f).
This likeness to God is inalienable, and since it constitutes man's capacity for redemption, it gives value to the life even of the unregenerated (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9).
How different is this conception of the original condition of man from that of the evolutionist, who thinks of the first man as only a shade above the beast - not only ignorant, but with practically no mental ability whatever.
10.3 It Was A Moral Likeness
Man had a moral likeness to God is clear from the Scripture. If in regeneration the new man "in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of truth" (Ephesians 4:24), it is undoubtedly correct to infer that originally man had both righteousness and holiness. In Genesis 1:31, "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good." The "all" includes man and would not be true if man had been morally imperfect. Only on this ground was it possible for man to have communion with God, who cannot look upon wickedness (Habakkuk 1:13). Ecclesiastes 7:29 confirms this view.
What is meant by original righteousness and holiness? Holiness is more than innocence. It is not sufficient to say that man was created in a state of innocence. Man was made not only negatively innocent, but positively holy. Man's regenerate condition is a restoration of his primitive state; and his righteousness as regenerate is described as "true holiness" (Ephesians 4:24). This is positive character, and not mere innocency (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II, p. 96). This original holiness may be defined as a tendency of man's affections and will, though accompanied by the power of evil choice, in the direction of the spiritual knowledge of God and of divine things generally. It is distinguished from the perfected holiness of the saints, as instinctive affections and childlike innocence differ from the holiness which has developed and been confirmed by temptation.
10.4 It Was A Social Likeness
God's social nature is grounded in His affections. As God has a social nature, so He has endowed man with a social nature. Consequently, man seeks companionship. In the first place, man found this fellowship with God himself. Man "heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day" (Genesis 3:8). This implies that man communed with his maker. God had made man for himself, and man found supreme satisfaction in communion with his Lord.
But God also provided human fellowship. He created woman, for, He said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him" (Genesis 2:18). To make this a very intimate fellowship, he made the woman out of a bone taken from the man. Adam recognized that Eve was bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh, and so he called her "woman." And because of this intimate relation between the two, "a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).
It is evident that man was made with a social nature, even as God had a social nature. Human love and social interests spring directly from this element in man's nature.
¡@
11. MAN IS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD
What, precisely, is the "image of God"? History is filled with such answers as man's bodily form (since "image" usually means a physical representation of something which itself is partially physical throughout the Old Testament), man's spirit, man as both body and spirit, man as related to God and his fellow man, rational and moral personality, and sonship.
Not much help comes from the precise quotation in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." The words, image and likeness are virtually synonymous, but when they appear together, as they do here, Hebrew scholars believe they may mean that man is a representation of God who is like God in certain respects. The most important views of what the image of God is are as follows:
the image is an inner quality;
the image is a God-man relationship;
the image is dominion; and
the image is man the representative of God.
11.1 The Image, As An Inner Quality
This view has been held by most theologians through the centuries and may be the prevailing view of most modern evangelicals. According to it, man is like God in the sense of his psychological make-up, reason, some spiritual quality, personality, or moral awareness, or a combination of these.
11.2 The Image, As A God-Man Relationship
Man, according to this view, has the ability to relate to God, and this relationship is strongest when faith is present. Since God created man as male and female, and the image resides in both, the ability to relate includes human relationships as well.
11.3 The Image, As Dominion
After man was created (Genesis 1:27, 28), God commanded him to have dominion over the earth. This may be the definition of image, then. Man is thus like God in that he has dominion over the earth and all its creatures.
11.4 The Image, As Man the Representative of God
Man throughout Scripture is commanded to be holy and thus represent God. Jesus did this perfectly, and thus is the outstanding representative of God. Salvation is a renewal of man into God's image (Colossians 3:10).
11.5 Conclusion
The first, the view that man is the image because of one or all of the inner qualities, is probably the closest to the heart of the matter. This is because of the fact that although all of the views listed above have their merits and are true of man, all of them are actually true because man has those inner qualities which make them possible. For example, man is capable of relationships because he has personality and moral consciousness. Man has dominion because he has a mind and can thus master his environment.
¡@
12. REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDY
Lectures in Systematic Theology, Chapters XV to XVI, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1992 Edition, by Henry C. Thiessen.
¡@
¡@
¡@