From BiblePortal Wikipedia

Holman Bible Dictionary [1]

Old Testament The Old Testament accounts of history, the poetry of Wisdom Literature, and the pronouncements of the prophets work together to provide the Old Testament picture of humans.

Stated in its most pointed form, the anthropological question asks, “What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him?” ( Psalm 8:4 RSV). The psalmist's intense wondering has no simple solution. Indeed, the biblical portrait of humans is complex and often paradoxical. On one hand, humans are depicted as the crowning center of God's creative activity, fearfully and wonderfully made (  Genesis 1:26-31;  Genesis 2:4-7;  Psalm 8:6-8 ). On the other hand, humans are “like a breath,” physically frail, spiritually weak, and unable to stand before the holiness and righteousness of God ( Psalm 90:5-6;  Psalm 103:13-16;  Psalm 144:3-4;  Psalm 146:3-4 ). In traditional theological studies, the doctrines of humanity and sin have often been examined as one. Indeed, they are different sides of the same coin. In affirming both sides of the paradox, the Bible suggests many meaningful theological truths about humans.

The scriptural picture of persons is constantly confirmed by human experience. The biblical awareness and understanding of humanity is both personal and profound because God knows human beings even better than they know themselves.  Psalm 139:1 is a poignant and frightening expression of this kind of knowledge. The conclusion of the psalmist in praise to God is “Thou knowest me right well” (  Psalm 139:14 RSV). God's deep knowledge of humanity points out both humanity's significance and insignificance, worth and unworthiness, capabilities and inadequacies. Wherever humanity is found, the condition and situation of humanity is tempered by the intimate and passionate knowledge of God. Because of that knowledge, humans need never be alone. Because of that knowledge, humans are unable to hide from God (  Psalm 139:7-12 ). Indeed, it is only God who knows humanity ( Jeremiah 17:9-10 ).

God's profound knowledge of humanity is rooted in His initial act of creation. Simply stated, the Creator knows the created. Although the Genesis account of creation intentionally and purposefully tells much about God, the account also speaks volumes about humans.  Genesis 1-2 , for example, boldly affirms God as Creator and Lord of all. At the same time, though, the passage declares just as boldly that God's creation is good, indeed humanity is very good ( Genesis 1:31 ). The passage explicitly portrays humans as the highest of God's created beings, the center of God's marvelous creation ( Genesis 1:26-30 ). Much more than a proclamation of honor or favored position, this pronouncement should be regarded as a serious statement of responsibility. (See  Luke 12:48 .) Because of the high place that humans occupy in God's creation, much is both expected and required. Creation points to God's pre-eminence, but it also points to human responsibility to be faithful stewards of God-given abilities, talents, gifts, and both human and natural resources ( Genesis 1:29-30; compare  Matthew 25:14-30 ).

Two anthropological truths become recurring themes throughout the biblical record. First, a human being is a totality of being, not a combination of various parts and impulses. According to the Old Testament understanding, a person is not a body which happens to possess a soul. Instead, a person is a living soul.  Genesis 2:7 relates God forming man “of dust from the ground” and breathing into his nostrils “the breath of life.” (See   Jeremiah 18:6 .) The man became human when God breathed the breath of life. Because of God's activity, humanity became a special and unique part of creation. Because of God's breath of life, the man became “a living being” ( Genesis 2:7 ). A person, thus, is a complete totality, made up of human flesh, spirit (best understood as “the life-force”), and nephesh (best understood as “the total self” but often translated as “soul”). Human flesh cannot exist alone. Neither can spirit or nephesh exist alone. Together, however, they comprise a complete person.

A second major anthropological truth originally proclaimed in the Genesis account of creation and echoed by later biblical writers affirms that a person is created in the image and likeness of God. The idea is explicitly stated in  Genesis 1:26-31;  Genesis 5:1-3; and  Genesis 9:1-7 . The idea is more implicit, but still present in  Psalm 8:1 . Specific New Testament references to the concept include  1 Corinthians 11:7;  Colossians 3:1; and  James 3:9 . The created bears some kind of resemblance to the Creator. “Image” and “likeness” simply intensify the same truth. The two words do not signify different or unique aspects of the human person. In some passages, “image” is employed by itself to indicate the reflection of the Creator in a person ( Genesis 1:27;  Genesis 9:6 ). In other instances, “likeness” conveys the basic idea ( Genesis 5:1;  James 3:9 ). The central biblical truth is that the human creature uniquely reflects God in some way.

That a person is created “in the image and likeness” of God has been taken to mean a variety of things in the history of biblical interpretation. At one extreme, some interpreters have claimed that “image and likeness” refer to an actual, literal, even physical, resemblance. This kind of interpretation attempts to objectify the Old Testament language about God to the extreme. (For example, “the hand of God” would come to refer to an actual, physical hand.) This position falls into the dangerous error of attempting to understand God in human terms. The Bible teaches that God and humanity are profoundly and eternally separate and distinct. At the other extreme, some interpreters claim that “image and likeness” refer to specific human capabilities or attributes such as the capacity for reason or human self-understanding. This view asserts that these specific characteristics separate humans from the rest of creation. This interpretation contains some truth; the human ability to reason and human self-awareness are indeed unique in God's created order. At the same time, however, this view devalues the idea of humans being created in “the image and likeness” of God. Surely more is involved in this great theological truth an the ability to reason. To accept this interpretation fully is to suggest that persons with higher levels of intelligence or more astute powers of reason would be able to relate to God on a higher level. Scripture knows of no such distinction. All are created in God's image.

A better understanding of the image of God stresses the truth that all human beings are equally included. The image of God is expressed by two parallel ideas. First, the image of God refers to the human capability to respond to God and to enter into relationship with God. Second, the image of God refers to the human responsibility to respond to God and to enter into relationship with God. Obviously, this understanding of the image of God is unrelated to any kind of physical similarity. At the same time, it claims that the image and likeness include the total self, not only reasoning ability or traits of personality. Seeing the image of God in this light leads to the conclusion that people occupy a high place in God's creation. In fact, people are God's representative on earth, the possessor of God-given power and dominion over creation, and the only part of creation reflecting God in this way. Clearly, the possibility of responding to God is the highest of all gifts. As the psalmist affirms, humans have been crowned “with glory and honor” ( Psalm 8:5 ). Every person is made in the image of God because every person possesses the capability and the responsibility of personal response to God.

New Testament The place of people in God's activity of creation is paralleled by their place in God's activity of redemption. The New Testament insists that people have failed to accept the responsibility given in  Genesis 1:29-30 . It is equally insistent that God's high regard for humans has not diminished. New Testament writers stress human sin throughout ( Romans 3:9-20;  Romans 6:23 ); still, the broader theme of God's love for all humanity is echoed at every turn.  John 3:16 speaks of an intense and passionate love of a mighty God for all creation. The New Testament teachings about humanity, God, and salvation are clear: despite humanity's unworthiness, God loves with an everlasting love. In fact, the worth or value claimed by Scripture for humans is because of God's initial act of creation or God's great sacrifice through Jesus Christ. Human worth and dignity, whatever that may entail, is unavoidably tied to God. As a result, a proper theological conclusion would be “God loves people; therefore a person has value and worth.” Human worth is based upon relationship with God.

The Old Testament truth that people exist as a totality remained firm in New Testament writings. In the New Testament scheme, four dimensions of life are designated in place of the Hebraic flesh, spirit, and nephesh . The body (Greek, soma ) is simply the shape or form of a person ( 1 Peter 2:24; although  Romans 12:1 can best be translated “selves”). The soul (Greek, psuche , related to the Old Testament nephesh ) points to the “total self.”  John 10:11 tells of Jesus “laying down his life for his sheep.” The Greek word normally translated “life” in   John 10:11 is psuche, the word for “soul.” Jesus sacrificed His total self or His whole being for His sheep. Life in the spiritual dimension is called spirit (Greek, pneuma ). Like its Old Testament counterpart, the New Testament root meaning of spirit refers to “wind,” “breath,” or “force.” Spirit, therefore, is the energizing life-force, the innermost part of human beings ( 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 ). While spirit seems to be the dimension whereby humans can cooperate with and respond to God, flesh is that dimension that represents human finitude and weakness. Similar to its Old Testament counterpart, flesh (Greek, sarx ) in the New Testament suggests physical failing and the inability to transcend the physical dimension. It would be unwise, however, to conclude that, in itself, flesh is evil. (See  John 1:14 .) Jesus, the Word made flesh, was certainly not evil.

The New Testament illustrates four specific and distinct dimensions of human existence, but the writers of the New Testament affirm with the Old Testament writers that a human being is a totality, a complete whole. Quoting  Deuteronomy 6:4 , Jesus taught that “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 ). The message is clear: true love of God is love with the total person—heart, soul, mind, and strength. In the same light, “no one can serve two masters” ( Matthew 6:24 ). Because a human being is a complete whole, a divided allegiance is impossible. This biblical idea of humans carries with it profound ethical and social implications. To understand the truth that a person is a total being is to see that ministry must focus upon every dimension of existence. True ministry is, therefore, concerned with the spiritual, the social, the physical, and the psychological. It is clear from the biblical record that human beings are not only spiritual beings any more than they are only physical beings. The Bible affirms the various dimensions of human existence as it affirms that a person is a complete whole, not separate parts joined together.

While the Old Testament seems to affirm the survival of the image of God in people even after the Fall, it is also true that the original relationship between the Creator and the created has been altered. New Testament writers, in general, note the existence of the image even in “natural man” but, more significantly, see the proper restoration of the image of God in people through redemption in Jesus Christ ( Romans 8:29;  1 Corinthians 11:7;  James 3:9 ). Proper relationship with God through Jesus Christ allows for the renewal of the true image of God. Unique to the New Testament view is the idea that ultimately the true image of God can be seen in Christ ( John 12:45;  John 14:9;  Colossians 1:15;  Hebrews 1:3 ). With this in mind, Paul developed the theologically potent distinction between “the first man Adam” and “the last Adam” ( 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 ).

The Biblical Witness Summarized Examining the biblical treatment of anthropology is challenging for two reasons: 1. Scripture presents no simple and uniform description of humans. 2. The biblical doctrine of humanity seems to relate to almost every other major biblical doctrine. To understand adequately the doctrine of humanity is to understand, at least in some measure, the doctrines of creation, the image of God, salvation, sin, death, eternal life, ethics, and many, many more. The doctrine of humanity relates closely to all of these doctrines. While this might seem to be discouraging and intimidating, it should help the serious Bible student to recognize the significance and importance of biblical anthropology. To comprehend the doctrine of humanity is to begin to grasp one's place in God's eternal plan.

The overall biblical treatment of human nature and existence is complex and diverse. Several key themes which are introduced in Old Testament writings and later enriched by the New Testament witness have been noted. These include the high place of people in God's good creation, the creation of people in the image of God, a person as a totality of being, and the inadequacy and failing of humans. Throughout the biblical record, additional insights into the nature of humans which help to develop these basic themes are offered. While the creation record of  Genesis 1-2 has traditionally been called the Age of Innocence, the biblical account of   Genesis 3:1 —Revelation 3:1— 19:1 has been called the Age of Responsibility. Entering the Age of Responsibility, humans have been increasingly characterized by a disposition to sin. This is something more than merely physical frailty. Humans as dust is a constant biblical theme. The psalmist stated clearly that God “remembers that we are dust” (  Psalm 103:14 RSV). Jeremiah likened the situation to a potter working with clay (  Jeremiah 18:6 ). Indeed, a person is helpless before God. Sin introduced a new dimension to the human situation. The obvious human weakness in the face of God's strength is compounded by human unrighteousness in the face of God's righteousness. No one is holy; no one may stand before God. Specifically in the biblical description of humanity's sinfulness is true character and nature of a holy and righteous God profoundly understood. Clearly, humans are weak and sinful ( Psalm 1:1;  Psalm 32:1-5;  Psalm 51:5;  Isaiah 6:5;  Jeremiah 17:5-6;  Romans 3:10 ,Romans 3:10, 3:23 ). See 2Samuel 24:10, 2 Samuel 24:14 .

From the standpoint of the complete biblical record, the doctrine of humanity includes at least two additional ideas. First, the doctrine of humanity is primarily based upon a concept of relationship. At its ultimate level, this relationship is portrayed as the encounter of a loving, seeking, powerful God with a weak, finite, sinful human being. Granting purpose and life to men and women, this relationship necessarily leads to relationships between human beings. The relationship of God and humanity in the Old Testament vision points directly to the relationships of human beings within Christ's church, a community of human beings called out to minister to all of God's creation.

A second idea is closely related to this. For the biblical writers, humans are at once individuals standing alone before God and members of a corporate community standing before God. The individual nature of humanity can be seen in God's call of Abraham, the psalmist's description of God's intimate knowledge, the ministry of Jesus with specific individuals in need, and Paul's understanding of humans as individual sinners. The corporate nature of humanity can be seen in the Old Testament concepts of family, tribe, nation, and kingdom, Jesus' calling out of a redemptive community of followers, and the establishment of the church as the corporate body of God's people on earth. In Pauline literature one finds two extreme emphases of individuality and corporateness: Paul's intense concern for the body of Christ and his intense displeasure with specific individuals who upset and stifle the ministry of the body. Indeed, both emphases are present throughout Scripture. On the one hand, people stand as individuals. God deals with a person individually, and individually a person must respond to God. On the other hand, people stand as part of a group. God deals with people corporately and corporately persons must respond to God. The individual nature of humanity relates to the way an individual responds to God. The corporate nature of humanity relates to the way human beings live with one another. Neither the ultimate relationship with God nor relationships with others can ever be ignored. Both are essential components of the biblical picture of humanity.

Theological Affirmations Despite the diversity and complexity of the biblical doctrine of humanity, several significant theological conclusions may be affirmed.

1. Human beings have worth. The biblical record explicitly and implicitly affirms the value and worth of humanity. This positive statement is grounded in God's creative activity, the ultimate plan of redemption that has been revealed in Jesus Christ, and the ongoing care that God provides for all creation. The worth of humanity is not based on anything inherent in people but is the result of God choosing to grant worth and dignity to people. As such, the value of humanity is a God-given value.

2. Human beings are frail and sinful. The Bible affirms both explicitly and implicitly the weaknesses and shortcomings of human beings. Manifest as both physical weakness and spiritual failing, this frailty is seen properly in contrast to the holiness and righteousness of God. The condition of humanity leads to the conclusion that all individuals are dependent upon God and that salvation truly is a matter of God's grace, not human effort or striving.

3. Human beings exist as individuals before God. God confronts, convicts, and calls out human beings as individuals. God's knowledge of people is intimate, personal, and profound. God's love is offered to human beings individually. The relationship between humanity and God is the most significant and vital part of human existence.

4. Human beings exist in community. God also confronts, convicts, and calls out communities of people. The relationship of an individual with God is necessarily tied to relationships with others. This profound theological truth leads to serious questions of group identity, corporate responsibility, and ethical consciousness. Related to this affirmation is the biblical truth that humans exist primarily for relationship. This seems to be a central focus of creation, salvation, and corporate Christian identity.

5. Human beings exist as complete, total beings. Although the biblical picture of humanity acknowledges several distinct dimensions of existence, the dimensions form one whole. In biblical terms, the physical dimension, the spiritual dimension, and the social dimension are absolutely and inseparably tied together. God created humans to be total persons. As a result, the church is called to minister and to proclaim the message of Jesus Christ to the total person. See Salvation; Sin; Ethics; Death; Eternal Life; Creation .

Barry Stricker

Webster's Dictionary [2]

(1): (n.) The science of man; - sometimes used in a limited sense to mean the study of man as an object of natural history, or as an animal.

(2): (n.) The science of the structure and functions of the human body.

(3): (n.) That manner of expression by which the inspired writers attribute human parts and passions to God.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia [3]

an - thrō̇ - pol´o - ji  :

I. Terms Employed

II. The Nature of Man: Biblical Conception

III. Origin of Man from Scripture Account: Narratives of Creation

IV. Unity of the Race: Various Theories

V. Evolutionary Theory as to Origin of Man

1. Darwinism

2. Difficulties

3. Objections

4. The New Evolutionism

5. Evolution and Genesis

VI. Primitive and Present Conditions of Man: Antiquity of Man


Under this heading is grouped whatever the Bible has to say regarding man's origin, nature, destiny and kindred topics. No systematized doctrine concerning man is found in Scripture; but the great facts about human nature and its elements are presented in the Bible in popular language and not in that of the schools. Delitzsch has well said: "There is a clearly defined psychology essentially proper to Holy Scripture, which underlies all the Biblical writers, and intrinsically differs from that many formed psychology which lies outside the circle of revelation.... We do not need first of all to force the Biblical teaching: it is one in itself" ( Biblical Psychology , 17, 18). What is said of the psychology of Scripture may with good reason be applied to its anthropology.

I. Terms Employed

Several words are used in the Old Testament for our word "Man."

1. ‛Ādhām

אדם , 'ādhām , either as the name of the first man, (compare  Luke 3:38;  Romans 5:14;  1 Corinthians 15:45 ); or as an appellative - the man  ; or, as the generic name of the human race (Septuagint: ánthrōpos  ; Vulgate: homo ). The origin of the name is obscure. In  Genesis 2:7 Adam is connected with 'ădhāmāh , from the earthly part of man's nature (dust out of the 'ădhāmāh ), as the earth-born one. The derivation of Adam from 'ădhāmāh , however, is disputed - among others by Dillmann: "Sprachlich lasst sich die Ableitung aus Adamah nicht vertheidigen" ( Genesis , 53). Delitzsch refers to Josephus ( Ant. , I, i, 2), who maintained that Adam really meant purrhós ("red as fire"), in reference to the redness of the earth, out of which man was formed. "He means," adds Delitzsch, "the wonderfully fruitful and aromatic red earth of the Hauran chum of mountains, which is esteemed of marvelously strong and healing power, and which is believed to be self-rejuvenescent" ( N. Commentary on Gen , 118). The connection with Edom in   Genesis 25:30 may perhaps point in the same direction. A connection has also been sought with the Assyrian admu ("child"), especially the young of the bird, in the sense of making or producing (Delitzsch; Oxford Dictionary ); while Dillmann draws attention to an Ethiopic root adma , "pleasant," "agreeable," "charming" - a derivation, however, which he rejects. Suffice it to say, that no certain derivation has yet been found for the term (thus Dillmann, "ein sicheres Etymon für Adam 1st noch nicht gefunden," Gen, 53). Evidently in the word the earthly side of man's origin is indicated.

2. Son of Man

The phrase בּן־אדם , ben - 'ādhām , "son of man" ( Numbers 23:19;  Job 25:6;  Ezekiel 2:3 ) is frequently found to denote man's frailty and unworthiness in the sight of God. So in the much-disputed passage in  Genesis 6:2 , where the "sons of God" are contrasted with the degenerate "daughters of men" ( benōth hā - ādhām ). See also  Psalm 11:4;  Psalm 12:1 ,  Psalm 12:8;  Psalm 14:2 . On the other hand the dignity of man is sometimes indicated in the word Adam . Thus in  Ecclesiastes 7:28 , "One man ( 'ādhām ) among a thousand have I found: but a woman among all those have I not found."

3. ‛Ĕnōsh

אנו , 'ĕnōsh ( Psalm 8:4;  Psalm 10:18;  Psalm 90:3;  Psalm 103:15; frequently in Job and Ps), man in his impotence, frailty, mortality (like the Greek brotós ) as against 'ı̄sh , man in his strength and vigor. In  Genesis 4:26 the word becomes a proper name, applied to the son of Seth. Delitzsch derives it from a root 'ānash (related to the Arabic and Assyrian), signifying "to be or become frail." To intensify this frailty, we have the phrase in  Psalm 10:18 , " 'ĕnōsh (man) who is of the earth."

4. ‛Īsh

(אישׁ , 'ı̄sh ), Septuagint anē̇r , Vulg, vir , male as against female, even among lower animals ( Genesis 7:2 ); husband as contrasted with wife ( 'ı̆shshāh ,  Genesis 2:23 ,  Genesis 2:24 ); man in his dignity and excellence ( Jeremiah 5:1 : "seek,... if ye can find a man "); persons of standing ( Proverbs 8:4 , where 'ı̄sh is contrasted with benē 'ādhām , "Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of men") - "like the Attic ándres and anthrōpoi , wisdom turning her discourse to high and low, to persons of standing and to the proletariat" (Delitzsch on Prov ). Delitzsch maintains, that 'ı̄sh points to a root 'ōsh "to be strong," and 'ishshāh to 'ānash , as designating woman in her weakness (compare  1 Peter 3:7 : "the weaker vessel"). "Thus 'ishshāh and 'ĕnōsh come from a like verbal stem and fundamental notion" (Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Gen , 145). The term 'ı̄sh is sometimes used generally, as the Greek tis , the French on , to express "anyone," as in  Exodus 21:14;  Exodus 16:29 .

5. Gebher

גּבר , gebher , גּבּור , gı̄bbōr , man in his strength. The term is applied to men as contrasted with women and children ( Job 3:3 ), "a male child," in opposition to a female (Septuagint: ársēn ); also in contrast to non-combatants ( Exodus 10:11 ) and in New Testament, see  Matthew 8:9;  John 1:6 , where anthrōpos is used. Thus we read: "Neither shall a man ( gebher ) put on a woman's garment" ( Deuteronomy 22:5 ). Heroes and warriors are specially indicated by the term in such phrases as "mighty man of valor" ( Judges 6:12 ). Sometimes animals are denoted by the term, as in  Proverbs 30:30 ("mightiest among beasts"); sometimes it is applied to God (  Isaiah 10:21 ) and to the Messiah ( Isaiah 9:6 ). In combination with 'ı̄sh it gives intensity to the meaning, as in  1 Samuel 14:52 "any mighty man."

6. Anthropos

Of the Greek terms anthrōpos stands for man(kind) generally - a human being ( Matthew 12:12;  Mark 10:27 ); though it is sometimes used to indicate man in his imperfection and weakness ( 1 Corinthians 3:3 ,  1 Corinthians 3:4 ), in such expressions as "to speak as a man" ( Romans 3:5 the King James Version), gospel "after man" (  Galatians 1:11 ), "after the manner of men" ( 1 Corinthians 15:32 ) etc.; or as showing the contrast between the perishable and the imperishable ( 2 Corinthians 4:16 , where the "outward man" is represented as slowly dying, while the "inward man" is being renewed from day to day). Thus Paul contrasts the "natural man" ( 1 Corinthians 2:14 ), the "old man," with the "new" ( Romans 6:6;  Colossians 3:9 ,  Colossians 3:10 ).

7. Anēr

Anēr , Latin: vir - man in his vigor as contrasted with woman in her weakness (  1 Corinthians 11:3;  1 Peter 3:7 ): sometimes, however, standing for "men in general" ( Mark 6:44 : "They that ate the loaves were five thousand men" - andres ).

II. The Nature of Man: Biblical Conception

1. Biblical Terms

The Biblical idea of man's nature may be summed up in the words of Paul, "of the earth, earthy" ( 1 Corinthians 15:47 ), as compared and contrasted with the statement in  Genesis 1:27 : "God created man in his own image." This act of creation is described as the result of special deliberation on the part of God - the Divine Being taking counsel with Himself in the matter (  Genesis 1:26 ). Man therefore is a creature, formed, fashioned, shaped out of "earth" and made after the "image of God." More than one word is employed in the Old Testament to express His idea: (1) bārā' , "create," a word of uncertain derivation, occurring five times in Gen 1, to indicate the origin of the universe (  Genesis 1:1 ), the origin of life in the waters (  Genesis 1:24 ), the origin of man (  Genesis 1:27 ), and always in connection with God's creative work, never where "second causes" are introduced. (2) yācar , "fashion," "form," "knead" ( Genesis 2:7 ), "of the dust of the ground." (3) bānāh , "build," in special reference to the creation of woman, "built out of the rib" ( Genesis 2:22 ).

By God's special interposition man becomes a nephesh ḥayyāh ("a living soul"), where evidently there is a reference to the breath of life, which man shares with the animal world ( Genesis 1:20 ,  Genesis 1:21 ,  Genesis 1:24 ); yet with this distinction, that "God Himself breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life" (literally, "breath of lives," nishmath ḥayyı̄m ). With a single exception, that of  Genesis 7:22 , the word neshāmāh , "breath," is confined to man. In Job reference is made to his creative act, where Elihu says: "There is a spirit in man, and the breath ( nishmath ) of the Almighty ( shaddai ) giveth them understanding" ( Job 32:8 ); compare also  Isaiah 42:5 : "He ... giveth breath ( neshāmāh ) unto the people." Man therefore is a being separated from the rest of creation and yet one with it.

2. Image and Likeness

This distinction becomes more clear in the declaration that man was made in the "image" ( celem , eikōn , imago), and after the likeness ( demūth , homoiōsis , similitudo ) of God. The question has been asked whether the two terms differ essentially in meaning; some maintaining that "image" refers to the physical, "likeness" to the ethical side of man's nature; others holding that "image" is that which is natural to man, was created with him, was therefore as it were stamped upon him ( concreata ), and "likeness" that which was acquired by him ( acquisita ); while others again declare that "image" is the concrete and "likeness" the abstract for the same idea. There is very little scriptural ground for these assertions. Nor can we accept the interpretation of the older Socinians and some of the Remonstrants, that God's image consisted in dominion over all creatures, a reference to which is made in  Genesis 1:28 .

3. Meaning of Terms

Turning to the narrative itself, it would appear that the two terms do not denote any real distinction. In  Genesis 1:27 celem ("image") alone is used to express all that separates man from the brute and links him to his Creator. Hence, the expression "in our image." In  Genesis 1:26 , however, the word demūth ("similitude") is introduced, and we have the phrase " after our likeness," as though to indicate that the creature bearing the impress of God's "image" truly corresponded in "likeness" to the original, the ectype resembling the archetype. Luther has translated the clause: "An image which is like unto us" - ein Bild das uns gleich sei - and in the new Dutch (Leyden) of the Old Testament by Kuenen, Hooijkaas and others, it is rendered: "as our image, like unto us" - als ons evenbeeld ons gelijkende . The two words may therefore be taken as standing to each other in the same relation in which copy or model stands to the original image. "The idea in celem ̌ - says Delitzsch - is more rigid, that of demūth more fluctuating and so to speak more spiritual: in the former the notion of the original image, in the latter that of the ideal predominates." At any rate we have scriptural warrant (see especially,  Genesis 9:6;  James 3:9 ) for the statement, that the image is the inalienable property of the race (Laidlaw), so that offense against a fellow-man is a desecration of the Divine image impressed upon man. Calvin has put it very clearly: Imago Dei est integra naturae humanae praestantia ("The image of God is the complete excellence of human nature").

4. Subsidiary Questions

Other questions have been asked by early Church Fathers and by Schoolmen of later days, which may here be left out of the discussion. Some, like Tertullian, considered the "image" to be that of the coming Christ ( Christi futuri ); others have maintained that Adam was created after the image of the Logos (the Word, the second person in the Trinity), which was impressed upon man at his creation. Of all this Scripture knows nothing. There man is represented as made after the image of "Elohim," of the Godhead and not of one person of the Trinity. Paul calls man "the image and glory ( eikō̇n kaı́ dóxa ) of God" ( 1 Corinthians 11:7 ). We may safely let the matter rest there. The strange theory, that the image of God indicates the sphere or element into which man was created, may be mentioned without further discussion (on this see Bohl, Dogmatik , 154 and Kuijper, De vleeschwording des Woords ).

5. Constituents of Image

In what then does this image or likeness consist? Certainly in what is inalienably human - a body as the temple of the Holy Ghost (the "earthly house" of   2 Corinthians 5:1 ), and the rational, inspiring, inbreathed spirit . Hence man's personably, linking into to what is above, separating him from what is beneath, constitutes him a being apart - a rational, self-conscious, self-determining creature, intended by his Creator for fellowship with Himself. "The animal feels the Cosmos and adapts himself to it. Man feels the Cosmos, but also thinks it" (G. H. Lewes, Problems of Life and Mind ). Light is thrown on the subject by the New Testament, and especially by the two classical texts:  Ephesians 4:24 and   Colossians 3:10 , where the "new man" is referred to as "after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth" and "renewed unto knowledge after the image of him that created him." Knowledge, righteousness and holiness may fully be considered elements in the character of man as originally designed by God. Likeness to God therefore is man's privilege above all created beings. What was said of the Son of God absolutely, "He is the express image (character) of God," is applied to man relatively the created son is not the only-begotten Son. The created son was "like unto God" ( homoı́ōsis  ;  1 John 3:2 ), and even in his degradation there is the promise of renewal after that image: the eternal , only-begotten Son is God's equal (  Philippians 2:6 ,  Philippians 2:7 ), though he became a servant and was made in the likeness homoiō̇mati ) of men.

This likeness of man with God is not merely a Scriptural idea. Many ancient nations seem to have grasped this thought. Man's golden age was placed by them in a far-off past, not in a distant future. Paul quotes a pagan poet in  Acts 17:28 , "We are also his offspring" (Aratus of Soli, in Cilicia, a countryman of the apostle). This statement also occurs in the beautiful hymn to Jupiter, ascribed to Cleanthes, a Stoic native of Assos in the Troad, and contemporary of Aratus. Psychologically and historically therefore, the Bible view is justified.

III. Origin of Man from Scripture Account: Narratives of Creation

The Divine origin of man is clearly taught in the early chapters of Gen, as has lust been seen.

1. Scriptural Account

Two narratives from different sources are supposed to have been combined by an unknown editor to form a not very harmonious whole. It is the purpose of criticism to determine the relationship in which they stand to each other and the dates of their composition. In both accounts man is the crowning glory of creation. The first account (Gen 1:1 through 2:3) is general, the second particular (Gen 2:4-25); in the first we have an account of man's appearance on a prepared platform - a gradual rise in the scale of organized existence from chaos upward to the climax, which is reached in man. There is recognized order in the whole procedure, represented by the writer as a process which occupied six days, or periods, measured by the appearance and dissipation of darkness. In the first period, chaotic disturbance is succeeded by the separation of light from darkness, which in its turn is followed by the separation of water from dry land, and to this a second period is assigned. Then gradually in the next four periods we have in orderly sequence the rise of vegetable life, the formation of the creatures of the deep, of the air, of the dry land. When all is prepared man is called into being by a special fiat of the Almighty. Moreover, while other creatures were produced "after their kind," man alone as a unique conception of the Divine Intelligence is made to appear upon the scene, called into existence by direct Divine interposition, after a Divine type, and in distinction of sex; for both man and wife, in a later chapter, are called by the same name: Adam ( Genesis 5:2 ). Such is the scope of the first narrative. No wonder, then, that Scripture elsewhere calls the first man "the son of God" ( Luke 3:38 ). It need not be determined here, whether the account is strictly chronological, whether the "days" are interludes between successive periods of darkness and not periods of twenty-four hours regulated by the rising and setting of the sun, or whether the whole narrative is but a prose poem of creation, not strictly accurate, or strictly scientific.

2. The Two Narratives

In the second narrative (Gen 2:2-25) the order of procedure is different. Man here is not the climax, but the center. He is a creature of the dust, but with the breath of God in his nostrils ( Genesis 2:7 ), holding sway over all things, as God's vice-gerent upon earth, creation circling around him and submitting to his authority. To this is added a description of man's early home and of his home-relationships. The second narrative therefore seems on the face of it to be supplementary to the first, not contradictory of it: the agreements indeed are far greater than the differences. "The first may be called typical, the second, physiological. The former is the generic account of man's creation - of man the race, the ideal; the latter is the production of the actual man, of the historic Adam" (Laidlaw).

3. Contrasts

The differences between the two narratives have been magnified by supporters of the various documentary hypotheses. They are supposed to differ in style - the first "displaying clear marks of study and deliberation," the second being "fresh spontaneous, primitive" (Driver, Genesis ). They differ also in representation , i.e. in detail and order of events - the earth, in the second narrative not emerging from the waters as in the first, but dry and not fitted for the support of vegetation, and man appearing not last but first on the scene, followed by beasts and birds and lastly by woman. The documents are further supposed to differ in their conception of Divine interposition and a consequent choice of words, the first employing words, like "creating," "dividing," "making," "setting," which imply nothing local, or sensible in the Divine nature, the second being strongly anthropomorphic - Y ahweh represented as "moulding," "placing," "taking," "building," etc - and moreover locally determined within limits, confined apparently to a garden as His accustomed abode. Without foreclosing the critical question, it may be replied that the first narrative is as anthropomorphic as the second, for God is there represented as "speaking," "setting," ( Genesis 1:17;  Genesis 2:17 ), "delighting in" the work of His hands ( Genesis 1:31 ), "addressing" the living creatures ( Genesis 1:22 ), and "resting" at the close ( Genesis 2:2 ). As to the home of Yahweh in a limited garden, we are expressly told, not that man was admitted to the home of his Maker, but that Yahweh specially "planted a garden" for the abode of man. The order of events may be different; but certainly the scope and the aim are not.

4. Objections

More serious have been the objections raised on scientific grounds. The cosmogony of Gen has been disputed, and elaborate comparisons have been made between geological theories as to the origin of the world and the Mosaic account. The points at issue are supposed to be the following: geology knows of no "periods" corresponding to the "days" of Genesis; "vegetation" in Gen appears before animal life, geology maintains that they appear simultaneously; "fishes and birds" in Genesis preceded all land animals; in the geological record "birds" succeed "fishes" and are preceded by numerous species of land animals (so Driver, Genesis ). To this a twofold reply has been given: (1) The account in Genesis is not scientific, or intended to be so: it is a prelude to the history of human sin and of Divine redemption, and gives a sketch of the world's origin and the earth's preparation for man as his abode, with that one object in view. The starting-point of the narrative is the creation of the universe by God; the culminating point is the creation of man in the image of God. Between these two great events certain other acts of creation in orderly sequence are presented to our view, in so far as they bear upon the great theme of sin and redemption discussed in the record. The aim is practical, not speculative; theological, not scientific. The whole creation-narrative must be judged from that point of view. See Cosmogony . (2) What has struck many scientists is not so much the difference or disharmony between the Mosaic and the geological record, as the wonderful agreements in general outline apart from discrepancies in detail. Geologists like Dana and Dawson have expressed this as clearly as Haeckel. The latter, e.g., has openly given utterance to his "just and sincere admiration of the Jewish lawgiver's grand insight into nature and his simple and natural hypothesis of creation ... which contrasts favorably with the confused mythology of creation current among most of the ancient nations" ( History of Creation , I, 37, 38). He draws attention to the agreement between the Mosaic account, which accepts "the direct action of a constructive Creator," and the non-miraculous theory of development, inasmuch as "the idea of separation and differentiation of the originally simple matter and of a progressive development" is to be found in the "Jewish lawgiver's" record.

5. Babylonian Origin

Latterly it has been maintained that Israel was dependent upon Babylon for its creation-narrative; but even the most serious supporters of this view have had to concede that the first introduction of Babylonian myth into the sacred narrative "must remain a matter of conjecture," and that "it is incredible, that the monotheistic author of Gen 1, at whatever date he lived, could have borrowed any detail, however slight, from the polytheistic epic of Marduk and Tiamat" (Driver, Gen, 31). The statement of Bauer in his Hebraische Mythologie , 1802: "Es 1st heut zu Tage ausser allen Zweifel gesetzt, dass die ganze Erzahlung ein Mythus 1st" (It is beyond all doubt, that the whole narrative is a myth), can no longer be satisfactorily maintained; much less the assertion that we have here an introduction of post-exilic Babylonian or Persian myth into the Hebrew narrative (compare Van Leeuwen, Anthropologie ).

6. Later Critical Views

Whether the division of the narrative into Elohistic and Jehovistic documents will stand the test of time is a question which exercises a great many minds. Professor Eerdmans of Leyden, the present occupant of Kuenen's chair, has lately maintained that a "thorough application of the critical theories of the school of Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen leads to highly improbable results," and that "the present Old Testament criticism has to reform itself" ( HJ , July, 1909). His own theory is worked out in his Alttestamentliche Studien , to which the reader is referred.

IV. Unity of the Race: Various Theories

1. Its Solidarity

The solidarity of the race may be said to be as distinctly a doctrine of science as it is of Scripture. It is implied in the account of the Creation and of the Deluge. It is strongly affirmed by Paul in his address to the Athenians ( Acts 17:26 ), and is the foundation of the Biblical scheme of redemption ( John 3:16 ). The human race in the Old Testament is described as "sons of Adam" ( Deuteronomy 32:8 the King James Version), as derived from one pair (  Genesis 1:27;  Genesis 3:20 ), as having its origin in one individual ( Genesis 2:18; cf,  1 Corinthians 11:8 , where woman is described as derived 'from man'). Hence the term "Adam" is applied to the race as well as to the individual ( Genesis 1:26;  Genesis 2:5 ,  Genesis 2:7;  Genesis 3:22 ,  Genesis 3:24;  Genesis 5:2 ); while in the New Testament this doctrine is applied to the history of redemption - C hrist as the "second Adam" restoring what was lost in the "first Adam" ( 1 Corinthians 15:21 ,  1 Corinthians 15:22 ,  1 Corinthians 15:47-49 ).

2. Various Theories

Outside of Holy Scripture various theories have been held as to the origin, antiquity and primeval condition of the human race. That of polygenism (plurality of origin) has found special favor, partly as co-adamitism , or descent of different races from different progenitors (Paracelsus and others), partly as pre-adamitism , or descent of dark-colored races from an ancestor who lived before Adam - the progenitor of the Jews and the light-colored races (Zanini and especially de la Peyrere). But no serious attempts have yet been made to divide the human race among a number of separately originated ancestors.

3. Evolutionary View

The Biblical account, however, has been brought into discredit by modern theories of evolution. Darwinism in itself does not favor polygenism; though many interpreters of the evolutionary hypothesis have given it that application. Darwin distinctly repudiates polygenism. He says: "Those naturalists who admit the principle of evolution will feel no doubt, that all the races of man are descended from a single primitive stock" ( Descent of Man , second ed., 176); and on a previous page we read: "Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges, whether he should be classed as a single species, or race, or as two (Verey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawford), or as sixty-Three, according to Burke" (p. 174).

V. Evolutionary Theory as to Origin of Man

Modern science generally accepts theory of evolution. Darwin gave to the hypothesis a character it never had before; but since his day its application has been unlimited. "From the organic it is extended to the inorganic world; from our planet and the solar system to the cosmos, from nature to the creations of man's mind - arts, laws, institutions, religion. We speak in the same breath of the evolution of organic beings and of the steam engine, of the printing-press, of the newspaper, now even of the atom" (Orr, God's Image in Man , 84). And yet, in spite of this very wide and far-reaching application of theory, the factors that enter into the process, the method or methods by which the great results in this process are obtained, may still be considered as under debate. Its application to the Bible doctrine of man presents serious difficulties.

1. Darwinism

Darwin's argument may be presented in the following form. In Nature around us there is to be observed a struggle for existence , to which every organism is exposed, whereby the weaker ones are eliminated and the stronger or best-fitted ones made to survive. Those so surviving may be said metaphorically to be chosen by Nature for that purpose - hence the term "natural selection," assisted in the higher forms of life by "sexual selection," under the influence of which the best-organized males are preferred by the females, and thus as it were selected for propagation of the species. The properties or characteristics of the organisms so chosen are transmitted to their descendants, so that with indefinite variability "from a few forms or from one, into which life has been originally breathed, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, or are being evolved" ( Origin of Species , 6th ed., 429). Applying this mode of procedure to the origin of man, the strength of the argument is found to lie in the analogies between man and the brute, which may be summed up as follows: (1) morphological peculiarities in the structure of the bodily organs, in their liability to the same diseases, in their close similarity as regards tissues, blood, etc.; (2) embryological characteristics, in the development of the human being, like the brute, from an ovule, which does not differ from and passes through the same evolutionary process as that of any other animal; (3) The existence of rudimentary organs , which are considered to be either absolutely useless, in some cases harmful, often productive of disease, or in any case of very slight service to the human being, pointing back therefore - so it is maintained - to an animal ancestry, in which these organs may have been necessary; (4) mental peculiarities of the same character, but perhaps not of the same range, in the brute as in man though the differences between the two may be as great as between "a terrier and a Hegel, a Sir William Hamilton, or a Kant"; (5) paleontological agreements , to show that a comparison of fossil remains brings modern civilized man and his primeval, anthropoid ancestor into close correspondence. Latterly Friedenthal's experiments, in regard to blood-transfusion between man and the ape, have been introduced into the argument by evolutionists.

2. Difficulties

The difficulties which beset theory are so great that naturalists of repute have subjected it to very severe criticism, which cannot be disregarded. Some, like Du Bois-Reymond, have openly declared that supernaturalism has gained the day ("es scheint keine andere Ausnahme übrig zu sein, als sich dem Supranaturalismus in die Arme zu werfen" (compare Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatik , II, 548). Others, like Virchow, have to the last pronounced against Darwinism as an established hypothesis, and a simian ancestry as an accepted fact ("auf dem Wege der Speculation 1st man zu der Affen-Theorie gekommen: man hatte eben so gut zu anderen theromorphischen Theorien kommen können, z. B. zu einer Elefanten-Theorie, oder zu einer Schaf-Theorie" - i.e. one might as well speak of an elephant-theory or a sheep-theory or any other animal-theory as of an ape-theory). This was in 1892. When two years later the discovery of the so-called pithecanthropus erectus , supposed to be the "missing link" between man and the lower animals, came under discussion, Virchow held as strongly, that "neither the pithecanthropus nor any other anthropoid ape showed any of the characteristics of primeval man." This was in 1896.

The difference of opinion among scientists on this point seems to be great. While Darwin himself uncompromisingly held to the simian ancestry of man, several of his followers reject that line of descent altogether. This may be seen in the Cambridge volume, dedicated to the memory of the British naturalist. Schwalbe, while instancing Cope, Adloff, Klaatsch and others as advocating a different ancestry for man, acknowledges, though reluctantly, that "the line of descent disappears in the darkness of the ancestry of the mammals," and is inclined to admit that "man has arisen independently" ( Darwinism and Modern Science , 134). Two things therefore are clear, namely, that modern science does not endorse the favorite maxim of Darwin, Natura non facit saltum , "Nature does not make a jump," with which according to Huxley he "has unnecessarily hampered himself" ( Lay Sermons , 342), and that "man probably arose by a mutation , that is, by a discontinuous variation of considerable magnitude" (J. A. Thomson, Darwinism and Human Life , 123). Granted therefore an ascent In the scale of evolution by "leaps" or "lifts," the words of Otto ( Naturalism and Religion , 133) receive a new meaning for those who accept as historic the tradition recorded in the early chapters of Genesis: "There is nothing against the assumption, and there is much to be said in its favor, that the last step, or leap, was such an immense one, that it brought with it a freedom and richness of psychical life incomparable with anything that had gone before."

3. Objections

The objections raised against the Darwinian theory are in the main threefold: (1) its denial of teleology, for which it substitutes natural selection; (2) its assumption, that the evolutionary process is by slow and insensible gradations; (3) its assertion, that organic advance has been absolutely continuous from the lowest form to the highest (Orr, God's Image in Man , 108). This may be illustrated a little more fully:

(1) Chance Versus Creation

The denial of teleology is clear and distinct, though Professor Huxley has spoken of a "wider teleology," by which however he simply meant ( Critiques and Addresses , 305) that the teleologist can defy his opponent to prove that certain changes in structure were not intended to be produced. In Darwinism the choice seems to he between chance and creation . Mind, purpose, forethought, intention, Divine guidance and super-intendence are banished from the evolutionary process. Darwin himself, though originally inclined to call in the aid of a creator ( Origin of Species , 6th edition, 429), regretted afterward, that he "had truckled to public opinion and used the pentateuchal term, by which he really meant appearance by some wholly unknown process " ( Life and Letters , III, 18).

Admittedly, Darwin attributed too great a power to natural selection. He himself in the Descent of Man considered it "one of the greatest oversights" in his work, that "he had not sufficiently considered the existence of many structures which are neither beneficial nor injurious," and that he had "probably attributed too much to the action of natural selection on the survival of the fittest" ( Descent of Man (2nd ed.), 61). Dr. A. R. Wallace, though like Darwin acknowledging the potency of natural selection, considers its operations to be largely negative. Writing to his friend he says: "Nature does not so much select special varieties, as exterminate unfavorable ones" (Darwin's Life and Letters , III, 46). It is this very insistence on a method of advance by slow and imperceptible gradations that has met with strong opposition from the very beginning. "Natural selection" Darwin writes, "acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations; it can produce no great or sudden modifications; it can only act by short and slow steps" ( Origin of Species (6th ed.), chapter 15). The process therefore according to Darwin is wholly fortuitous. This non-teleological aspect of Darwinism is characteristic of many treatises on evolution. Weismann states with great clearness and force, that the philosophical significance of theory lies in the fact that "mechanical forces" are substituted for "directive force" to explain the origin of useful structures. Otto speaks of its radical opposition to teleology. And yet an ardent supporter of Darwinism, Professor J. A. Thomson, admits that "there is no logical proof of the doctrine of descent" ( Darwinism and Human Life , 22) - a statement which finds its counterpart in Darwin's letters: "We cannot prove that a single species has changed" ( Life and Letters , III, 25). Still more clearly, almost epigrammatically this is endorsed by Professor J. A. Thomson: "The fact of evolution forces itself upon us: the factors elude us" ( Bible of Nature , 153), and again: "Natural selection explains the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fit" (ib 162). Still more extraordinary is the view expressed by Korchinsky that struggle "prevents the establishment of new variations and in reality stands in the way of new development. It is rather an unfavorable than advantageous factor" (Otto, Nature and Religion , 182). We are in fact being slowly led back to the teleology which by Darwin was considered fatal to his theory. Scientists of some repute are fond of speaking of directive purpose. "Wherever we tap organic nature," says Professor J. A. Thomson, "it seems to flow with purpose" ( Bible of Nature , 25); and again, "If there is Logos at the end (of the long evolutionary process ending in man) we may be sure it was also at the beginning" (ib 86). Where there is purpose there must be mind working with purpose and for a definite end; where there is mind there may be creation at the beginning; where creation is granted, an overruling Providence may be accepted. If natural selection "prunes the growing tree"; if it be "a directive, not an originative factor" (J. A. Thomson, Darwinism and Human Life , 193); if it produces nothing, and the evolutionary process is dependent upon forces which work from within and not from without, then surely the Duke of Argyll was right in maintaining ( Unity of Nature , 272) that "creation and evolution, when these terms have been cleared from intellectual confusion, are not antagonistic conceptions mutually exclusive. They are harmonious and complementary." The ancient narrative, therefore, which posits God at the beginning, and ascribes the universe to His creative act, is after all not so unscientific as some evolutionists are inclined to make out.

(2) Variability Indefinite

Indefinite variability, assumed by theory, is not supported by fact. Development there doubtless is, but always within carefully defined limits: at every stage the animal or plant is a complete and symmetrical organism, without any indication of an everlasting progression from the less to the more complex. Reversion to type seems ever to have a development proceeding indefinitely, and the sterility of hybrids seems to be Nature's protest against raising variability into a law of progression. It has been repeatedly pointed out, that variations as they arise in any organ are not of advantage to its possessor: "A very slight enlarged sebaceous follicle, a minute pimple on the nose of a fish, a microscopic point of ossification or consolidation amongst the muscles of any animal could (hardly) give its possessor any superiority over its fellows" (Elam, Winds of Doctrine , 128).

(3) Existing Gaps

Nor can it be denied that no theory of evolution has been able to bridge the chasms which seem to exist between the various kingdoms in Nature. A gradual transition from the inorganic to the organic, from the vegetable to the animal kingdom, from one species of plant or animal to another species, from the animal to man, is not found in Nature. This is acknowledged by scientists of repute. Du Bois-Reymond has maintained that there are seven great enigmas, indicating a sevenfold limit to investigation, namely, ( a ) The existence of matter and force; ( b ) The origin of motion; ( c ) The origin of life; ( d ) The appearance of design in Nature; ( e ) The existence of consciousness; ( f ) intelligent thought and the origin of speech; ( g ) The question of freewill. Others have found equally serious difficulties in a theory of descent which ignores the existence of such gaps. Thus, Dr. A. R. Wallace - a strong upholder of theory of natural selection - allows that "there are at least three stages in the development of the organic world, when some new cause or power must necessarily have come into action," namely, at the introduction of life, at the introduction of sensation and consciousness and at the introduction of man" ( Darwinism , 474-75).

(4) Applied to Man

When theory is applied to the human species the difficulties are enormously increased. Psychically, man is akin to, yet vastly different from, the brute. Consciousness, thought, language (called by Max Müller "the Rubicon" between the human and the animal world), morality, religion cannot easily be explained under any theory of evolution. The recognition of moral obligations, the freedom of choice between moral alternatives, the categorical imperative of conscience, the feeling of responsibility and the pain of remorse are unaccounted for by the doctrine of descent. Man stands apart, forming psychologically a kingdom by himself, "infinitely divergent from the simian stirps" (Huxley, Man's Place in Nature , 103) - the riddle of the universe, apart from the Biblical narrative. In the very nature of things the conscious and the unconscious he far apart. "The assertion of the difference between them does not rest on our ignorance, but on our knowledge of the perceived distinction between material particles in motion and internal consciousness related to a self" (Orr, Homiletic Review , August, 1907). There can be no transition from the one to the other. The "gulf" remains in spite of all attempts to bridge it. Strong supporters of Darwinism have acknowledged this. Thus Dr. A. R. Wallace, though vigorously maintaining the "essential identity of man's bodily structure with that of the higher mammals and his descent from some ancestral form common to man and the anthropoid apes," discards theory that "man's entire nature and all his faculties, moral, intellectual, spiritual, have been derived from their rudiments in lower animals" - a theory which he considers unsupported by adequate evidence and directly opposed to many well-ascertained facts ( Darwinism , 461; Natural Selection , 322ff).

(5) Transitional Forms Absent

The absence of transitional forms is another difficulty which strikes at the very root of Darwinism. Zittel, a paleontologist of repute, endorsed the general opinion, when in 1895 at Zurich he declared, that the extinct transitional links are slowly not forthcoming, except in "a small and ever-diminishing number." The derivation of the modern horse from the "Eohippus," on which great stress is sometimes laid, can hardly be accepted as proved, when it is maintained by scientists of equal repute, that no "Eohippus," but Palaeotherium was the progenitor of the animal whose ancestry is in dispute. And as for man, the discovery by Dr. E. Du Bois, in the island of Java, of the top of a skull, the head of a leg bone, few teeth of an animal supposed to be a man-like mammal, does not convey the absolute proof demanded. From the very first, opinion was strangely divided among naturalists. Virchow doubted whether the parts belonged to the same individual, and considered Du Bois' drawings of the curves of a skull-outline to prove the gradual transition from the skull of a monkey to that of a man as imaginary. Of twenty-four scientists, who examined the remains when originally presented, ten thought they belonged to an ape, seven to a man, seven to some intermediate form (Otto, Naturalism and Religion , 110). At the Anthropological Congress held at Lindau in September, 1899, "Dr. Bumiller read a paper in which he declared that the supposed 'pithecanthropus erectus' is nothing but a gibbon, as Virchow surmised from the first" (Orr, in The Expositor , July, 1910).

4. The New Evolutionism

Evolutionism apparently is undergoing a great change. Among others Fleischmann, and Dennert in Germany have submitted Darwinism to a keen and searching criticism. The latter especially, as a scientist, raises a strong protest against the acceptance of the Darwinian theory, He closes his researches with the remarkable words: "The theory of descent is accepted by nearly all naturalists. But in spite of assertions to the contrary, theory has not yet been fully ( ganz unzweifelhaft ) proved.... Darwinism on the other hand, i.e. the doctrine of natural selection through struggle for existence, has been forced back all along the line" ( vom Sterbelager des Darwinismus , 120). With equal vigor Professor Hugo de Vries, of Amsterdam, has recently taught a "theory of mutation," a term applied by him to "express the process of origination of a new species, or of a new specific character, when this takes place by the discontinuous method at a single step" (Lock, Recent Progress in the Study of Variation , 113). New species, according to De Vries, may arise from old ones by leaps, and this not in long-past geological times, but in the course of a human life and under our very eyes. This theory of "halmatogenesis," or evolution by leaps and not by insensible gradations, was not unknown to scientists. Lyell, who was a slow convert to Darwinism, in his Antiquity of Man , admitted the possibility of "occasional strides, breaks in an otherwise continuous series of psychical changes, mankind clearing at one bound the space which separated the highest stage of the unprogressive intelligence of inferior animals from the first and lowest form of improvable reason of man." Even Professor Huxley, one of the staunchest supporters of Darwinism, acknowledged that "Nature does make jumps now and then," and that "a recognition of the fact is of no small importance in disposing of many minor objections to the doctrine of transmutation" (Orr, God's Image in Man , 116). Less conciliatory than either De Vries or Huxley is Eimer, who, while repudiating the "chance" theory of Darwinism, sets against it "definitely directed evolution," and holds that "natural selection is insufficient in the formation of species" (Otto, Naturalism and Religion , 174). Evidently the evolution theory is undergoing modifications, which may have important bearing on the interpretation of the Mosaic narrative of creation and especially on the descent of man. Man may therefore, from a purely scientific point of view, be an entirely new being, not brought about by slow and gradual ascent from a simian ancestry. He may have been introduced at a bound, not as a semi-animal with brute impulses, but as a rational and moral being, "internally harmonious, with possibilities of sinless development, which only his free act annulled." If the new theory of "mutational" evolution be accepted, the scriptural view of man's origin will certainly not be discredited.

5. Evolution and Genesis

This much may fairly be granted, that within certain limits Scripture accepts an evolutionary process. In regard to the lower animals the creating (  Genesis 1:21 ), or making ( Genesis 1:28 ), is not described as an immediate act of Almighty Power, but as a creative impulse given to water and earth, which does not exclude, but rather calls into operation the powers that are in the sea and dry land ( Genesis 1:11 ,  Genesis 1:20 ,  Genesis 1:24 the King James Version): "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass ... Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature." It is only in the creation of man that God works immediately: "And God said, Let us make man in our image ... And God created man" (  Genesis 1:26 ,  Genesis 1:27 ). The stride or jump of Lyell and Huxley, the "halmatogenesis" of De Vries are names which in the simple narrative disappear before the pregnant sentence: "And God said." Theologians of repute have given a theistic coloring to the evolution theory (compare Flint, Theism , 195ff), inasmuch as development cannot be purposeless or causeless, and because "Nature is but effect whose cause is God." The deathblow which, according to Professor Huxley, the teleological argument has received from Darwin, may after all not be so serious. At any rate Lord Kelvin (Sir William Thomson) in 1871 before the British Association openly pleaded for "the solid and irrefragable argument so well put forward by Paley ... teaching us, that all living things depended upon an everacting Creator and Ruler." See Evolution .

VI. Primitive and Present Conditions of Man: Antiquity of Man

1. The Time-Distance of Man's Origin

The newer anthropology has carried the human race back to a remote antiquity. Ordinary estimates range between 100,000 and 500,000 years. Extraordinary computations go far beyond these numbers. Haeckel, e.g. speaks of "Sirius distances" for the whole evolutionary process; and what this means may easily be conjectured. The sun is 92,700,000 miles away from the earth, and Sirius is a million times as far from us as we are from the sun, so that the time-distance of man from the very lowest organisms, from the first germ or seed or ovule, is according to Haeckel almost incalculable. The human race is thus carried back by evolutionists into an immeasurable distance from the present inhabitants of the earth. Several primeval races are by some declared to have existed, and fossil remains of man are supposed to have been found, bringing him into touch with extinct animals. The time-computations of evolutionists, however, are not shared by scientists in general. "These millionaires in time have received a rude blow, when another Darwin, Sir G. H. Darwin of Cambridge, demonstrated that the physical conditions were such that geology must limit itself to a period of time inside of 100,000 years" (Orr, God's Image , etc., 176). Professor Tait of Edinburgh limited the range to no more than 10,000,000 years and he strongly advised geologists to "hurry up their calculations." "I dare say," he says, "many of you are acquainted with the speculations of Lyell and others, especially of Darwin, who tells us, that even for a comparatively brief portion of recent geological history, three hundred millions of years will not suffice! We say, so much the worse for geology as at present understood by its chief authorities" ( Recent Advances in Physical Science , 168). Recently, however, attention has been drawn to new sources of energy in the universe as the result of radio-activity. Duncan, in The New Knowledge , contrasts the old conception, according to which God made the universe and started it at a definite time to run its course, with the need, which though it does not distinctly teach, at least is inclined to maintain, that the universe is immortal or eternal, both in the future and the past (p. 245). If this view be correct the Darwinian "eons" of time may be considered restored to the evolutionist. On the other hand it appears that Lord Kelvin seriously doubted the validity of these speculations. Professor Orr writes: "In a personal communication Lord Kelvin states to me that he thinks it 'almost infinitely improbable' that radium had any appreciable effects on the heat and light of the earth or sun, and suggests it as 'more probable that the energy of radium may have come originally in connection with the excessively high temperatures' produced by gravitational action" ( Homiletic Review , August, 1906).

2. Antiquity of Primeval Man

In regard to primeval man there is no agreement among scientists. Some, like Delaunay, de Mortillet, Quatrefages, believed that man existed in the Tertiary; while others, such as Virchow, Zittel, Prestwich, Dawson, maintain that man appeared on the scene only in the Quaternary. As the limits between these periods are not well defined a decision is by no means easy. Even if man be found to have been a contemporary of extinct animals, such as the mammoth, the inference from this fact would be equally just, not that man is as old as the extinct animal, but that the animal is as young as man and that the period assigned to these fossil remains must be brought considerably nearer to present-day life.

3. Various Calculations

Calculations based on the gravels of the Somme, on the cone of the Tinière, on the peat-bogs of France and Denmark, on fossil bones discovered in caves of Germany and France, on delta-formations of great rivers like the Nile and the Mississippi, on the "kitchen middings" of Denmark, and the lake-dwellings of Switzerland, must be carefully scrutinized. Sir J. W. Dawson, a geologist of great repute, has made the deliberate statement, that "possibly none of these reach farther

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature [4]

( Ἀνθρωπολογία , a Discourse On Man ) is that part of scientific theology which treats of man, his nature, relations, etc., as distinguished from theology proper (the doctrine of God) and Christology (the doctrine of Christ). Theological anthropology distinguishes itself from physiological anthropology by viewing man not as a natural being, but in his relation To God. It may be divided into two chief parts: the doctrine of the original condition of man before the fall, and the doctrine of the fall and of sin which through the fall came into the human race, propagated itself, and took effect in every individual.

It must be admitted that a scientific anthropology is not possible in theology without physiological arthropology, that is, without a knowledge of the natural organism of man. But physiological anthropology is only the basis of the theological, and the completest knowledge of man in an anatomical, physiological, and even psychological point of view is unable to disclose the religious nature of man. All that we may learn of the latter in a psychological way is a view of man in his individualism, as a sample of the race; but only the history of mankind in connection with the revelations of God can open to us a full look upon his religious nature. It is therefore safe to assert that, as theology must be anthropological, thus anthropology must be theological; and Harless (preface to his manual of Ethical Theology) is right in recommending to theologians not to neglect the physiological researches on the nature of man. The question of body and soul (or, according to the Trichotomists, body, soul, and spirit), as well as the question on the origin of the soul (pre-existence, traducianism, and creatianism), belong to theological anthropology,only in so far as they may contribute to an understanding of man's religious nature. History knows as little of the original condition of man (state of innocence) as natural history knows of paradise. The true procedure of the dogmatic theologian will be to comprehend in his own mind the few but grand hints of the Scriptures on the subject (image of God), and then by exegetical, historical, and philosophical means, so to elaborate them as to show, behind the figurative expressions, the higher idea of humanity; for upon the correct comprehension of this idea depends the correct conception of sin, whether it is to be viewed as a mere negation, a natural deficiency, or both as a privation and deprivation, or depravation of human nature. In Genesis we find the biblical narrative of the origin of sin, and this narrative is reproduced daily in the experience of mankind. Even when the full Augustinian idea of original sin may not be adhered to, the consciousness of an aggregate guilt of the race, in which the individual man has his part, is the true deeply religious view, confirmed both by Scripture and experience. Psychological observations, and the study of the Scriptures, complete and illustrate each other nowhere so fully as in the doctrine of sin. Paul, Augustine, and Luther spoke from their personal experience as well as from the depths of human nature. The abstract intellect may always lean toward Pelagianism, but religious experience attests that the intellect alone cannot comprehend the depth of sin (Hundeshagen, Weg zu Christo, 1, 136 sq.). Hagenbach, Encyklopadie, 7th ed., p. 308 sq. (See Theology).

The Nuttall Encyclopedia [5]

The science of man as he exists or has existed under different physical and social conditions.