Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament 
Introduction .-The fundamental fact for apostolic anthropology is the new value assigned to human nature by Jesus Christ, both through His personal attitude and teaching, and through His life, death, and resurrection. Jesus saw every man thrown into relief against the background of the kingly Fatherhood of God-encompassed by His mercy, answerable to His judgment. For Jesus, the supreme element in human personality was its moral content, as the supreme value in the life of men was human personality itself. This conception of human nature goes back to the Hebrew Scriptures, in which we can trace five principles, summarily stated in modern terms as follows. ( a ) Human nature is conceived as a unity; there is no dualism of body and soul as in Greek thought, and consequently no asceticism. Man becomes man by the vitalization of a physical organism (for which Hebrew has no word) by a breath-soul ( nephesh, rûaḥ ); death is their divorce, and they have no separate history. ( b ) Man depends absolutely on God for his creation and continued existence; his inner life is easily accessible to spiritual influences from without, both for good and for evil. ( c ) Man is morally responsible for his conduct, because ultimately free to choose; if he chooses to rebel against the declared will of God, he will suffer for his sin. ( d ) The will of God gives a central place to the realization of social righteousness, the right relation of man to man. ( e ) In the purposes of God man has consequently a high place, as in the visible world he has a unique dignity. In the period between the OT and the NT, this conception of human nature received two important developments (cf. W. Fairweather, The Background of the Gospels 2, 1911, pp. 283-291). From the Maccabaean age onwards there is a much more pronounced individualism; along with this there is the extension of human personality into a life beyond death. Both developments are begun in the OT itself; but neither beginning is comparable in importance with the established doctrine of the time of Christ. These two developments, separately and in union, formed a most important contribution to the Christian interpretation of human nature. But its foundation was already laid in the OT, the main ideas of which Jesus liberated from the restraints of Jewish nationalism to incorporate them into a universal faith. He gave them a new religious significance by His conception of the Father. He added the purified ethical content of the prophetic teaching to the current supernaturalism of apocalyptic writers, purged of its vagaries. In His own person, He gave to man an example, a motive, and an approach to God which have made His teaching a religion as well as a philosophy. The result is seen in the Christian doctrine of man, pre-supposed by apostolic evangelism, and adumbrated in apostolic writings. Three types of this may be studied in the pages of the NT, viz. the Pauline and the Johannine (the latter in large measure a development of the former), and what may be called the non-mystical type, as inclusive of the other material (chiefly Hebrews, 1 Peter, James).
1. Pauline anthropology. -Perhaps any formal statement of St. Paul’s conception of human nature is apt to misrepresent him. The data are fragmentary and occasional; the form is, for the most part, unsystematic; the interest of the writer is experiential, and his aims are practical. It is not easy to recover the full content of his thought-world. But we probably come nearest to it when we recognize that he continues the lines of OT thought indicated above, with a deepening of ethical contrast (not to be identified with Greek dualism), and, in particular, with an emphasis on the Spirit of God in Christ as the normal basis of the Christian life. This last is characteristically Pauline, and forms St. Paul’s chief contribution to the present subject. Recognition of the outpouring of the Spirit of God belongs to early Christianity in general, and marks it off from the religious life and thought of contemporary Judaism (cf. W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums 2, 1906, p. 458). The specifically Pauline doctrine of life in the Spirit is a legitimate development of OT ideas. But it may well have been quickened by current Hellenistic ideas of a Divine πνεῦμα (on which see H. Siebeck, Geschichte der Psychologie , 1884, ii. 130-160). Similar influences may have contributed to the accentuation of the ethical contrast already indicated between the pneumatic and psychic, the inner and the outer man. But the real principle of this Pauline contrast is already implicit in the OT differentiation of rúaḥ (πνεῦμα) and nephesh (ψυχή). On this side of Pauline thought, the Greek influences seem often to have been over-emphasized ( e.g. by Holtzmann, Neutest. Theologie , 1897, ii. 13 ff.).
( a ) St. Paul conceives human life as an integral element in a vast cosmic drama . This conception receives graphic illustration when he compares the suffering apostles with those doomed to death in the arena: ‘We are made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and men’ ( 1 Corinthians 4:9). Man plays his part before an audience invisible as well as visible; nor are those whose eyes are turned upon him mere spectators. There is arrayed against the righteous man a multitude of spiritual forces: ‘our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places’ ( Ephesians 6:12). At the head of this kingdom of evil is Satan, ‘the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience’ ( Ephesians 2:2; cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:9), to whom is to be ascribed the power to work both physical ( 1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 12:7) and moral ( 1 Corinthians 7:5; cf. 2 Corinthians 11:3) evil. Similar to this was the general outlook of contemporary Judaism; the distinctive feature in the case of St. Paul was his faith that victorious energies for good were mediated through Christ. This conception of ‘the Lord the Spirit’ ( 2 Corinthians 3:18) sprang from St. Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, by which he was convinced of the continued existence, the Divine authority, and the spiritual power of Christ. Union with Christ, thus conceived ( 1 Corinthians 6:17), brought the Christian into a new realm of powers and possibilities. No longer dismayed by the spiritual host arrayed against him, hitherto so often victorious over his fleshly weakness, the Christian became conscious ‘in Christ’ that God was for him, and convinced that none could prevail against him, through the practical operation of spiritual energies within him. He must indeed be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ, but that thought could bring no terror to one who was already ‘in Christ.’ The Christian warrior ( Ephesians 6:10 f.) shares in the conflict of Christ, whose final victory ( 1 Corinthians 15:24 f.) is to be the last act of the great cosmic drama. The fact that, at its culmination, God shall be all in all ( 1 Corinthians 15:28) is significant of the whole character of this interpretation of life. There is here no Gnostic dualism; the evil of the world is moral, not physical, in its origin, and the cosmic issues are safe in the hands of the one and only God. The way in which the cosmic forces are imagined and described betrays Jewish origin; but this ought not to prejudice the great principles involved. There can be no doubt that this whole outlook gives to man’s life a meaning and a dignity which are a fit development of the high calling assigned to him in the OT.
( b ) Because this cosmic conflict is essentially moral, its peculiar battle-field is the heart of man . There the cosmic drama is repeated in miniature-or rather, there the issues of the world conflict are focused. The cardinal passage is, of course, Romans 7, and this chapter, rather than the 5th, should be the point of departure for any statement of Pauline anthropology. St. Paul is analyzing his own moral and religious experience prior and up to his deliverance by the Spirit of Christ. But he does this in general terms, implying that it is substantially true for all men, since even the Gentiles have the requirements of the Law written in their hearts ( Romans 2:15). The Jewish Law, ‘whose silent rolls, in their gaily embroidered cover, the child in the synagogue had seen from afar with awe and curiosity’ (Deissmann, Paulus , 1911, p. 64), became eloquent to St. Paul as a unique revelation of man’s duty, imperfect only in the sense that devotion to it could not generate the moral energy necessary to the fulfilment of its high demands. Without such new motive power, man is helpless, for on his physical side he belongs to the realm of fleshly weakness, the antithesis to that of the Spirit to which the Law itself belongs ( Romans 7:14). Through this weakness, he has been taken captive by Sin, conceived as an external, personalized activity ( Romans 7:8; Romans 7:23). Yet the νοῦς, or inner man, desires to obey that spiritual Law, for there is a spiritual element ( rûaḥ ) in human nature ( Romans 8:16). St. Paul does not contemplate the case of the man who in his inmost heart does not desire to obey that Law, any more than the OT sacrifices provide for deliberate, voluntary sin. He is concerned with his own experience as a zealous Pharisee, eager to find the secret of morality, and discovering instead his own captivity to sin. The body of flesh is found to be, for a reason other than that of Plato’s dualism, the prison-house of the soul. The actual deliverance from this death-bringing captivity St. Paul had found in the new spiritual energies which reinforced his captive will ‘in Christ.’ These gave him a present moral victory over his ‘psychic’ nature, and the promise of the ultimate replacement of this inadequate organism by a ‘pneumatic’ body. Sin thus lost the advantage gained by its insidious use of Law ( Romans 7:11) and could be overcome by those who were led by the Spirit ( Romans 8:14, Galatians 5:18). For where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ( 2 Corinthians 3:17).
Several points should be particularly noticed in this generalized, yet most vivid, transcript from experience. In the first place, St. Paul does not, here or elsewhere, regard the ‘flesh’ (σάρξ) as essentially evil, but as essentially weak. It is therefore accessible to the forces of evil, affording to them an obvious base of operations in their siege of the inner or ‘spiritual’ man. If it be urged that sin is not committed until the inner man yields to the attack of sin, we must remember that the Hebrew psychology (which supplies the real content of St. Paul’s Greek terms) regarded the ‘flesh’ ( basar ) as a genuine element in human personality, alive psychically as well as physically. The man did sin when the weakest part of his personality, viz. the flesh, yielded to sin. The often alleged dualism of St. Paul thus becomes the conflict between the stronger and the weaker elements in the unity of personality. Secondly, the whole of Christian character and conduct is related to the dominating conception of the Lord the Spirit. Through this conception St. Paul was able to unite two lines of OT development, viz. the experience of continuous fellowship with God which sprang from the realization of ethical ideals, and the doctrine of the intermittent and ‘occasional’ Spirit of God. One of St. Paul’s greatest services to Christian thought has been to unite these two lines, and to unite them in Christ. The Spirit of God, acting through Christ, becomes the normal principle of Christian morality, and, consequently, of permanent fellowship with God. Thirdly, St. Paul gives no indication that actual sin is anything but what the OT religion made it-the rebellion of the human will against the Divine. In Romans 7 he recognizes no ‘original sin,’ no hereditary influence even, as active in producing the captivity from which the Spirit of Christ delivers. That captivity is traced to the deceitful attack made on each successive individual by sin, the external enemy.
( c ) From this point of view, we may best approach what St. Paul has to say of the racial history . For this the cardinal passage is Romans 5:12-21 -a passage difficult to interpret, not only because of its abrupt transitions, but even more because, in conventional theology, the later system of Augustinian anthropology has been welded into it. St. Paul is in these verses contrasting Adam and Christ as, in some sense, both unique in their influence on human history; the debatable point is, in what sense? The entrance of death into the world is clearly ascribed to Adam’s sin, just as the entrance of new life is ascribed to Christ’s obedience ( Romans 5:17). But when we read that ‘through one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners’ ( Romans 5:19), we must not assume with Augustine that this refers to the peccatum originale handed down by the inherent concupiscentia of the sexual act; nor must we be influenced unconsciously by the popular science of to-day, so as to imagine that there is a reference to heredity. Here, as in the well-known saying quoted by both Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 31:29) and Ezekiel ( Ezekiel 18:2)-‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’-it is not the biological succession of individuals that is in view, but the far-reaching conception of ‘corporate responsibility,’ as the protest of those two prophets makes evident enough. In their assertion of moral individualism St. Paul would have joined heartily; but his recognition of the individual relation of men to God does not prevent him from accepting the fact that the Ishmaelites were cast out in Hagar’s son ( Galatians 4:30), and that the Edomites were ‘hated’ in Esau ( Romans 9:13). Just as Achan’s sin brought death on his whole family, since it brought them as a group under the ban ( Joshua 7:24-25), so Adam’s sin brought death on the whole human race, since it constituted them ‘sinners’ as a group. As a matter of fact, St. Paul adds that all men have actually sinned, though, prior to the giving of explicit law, their sin was different in kind from Adam’s wilful disobedience ( Romans 5:12-14). But St. Paul does not connect this universality of actual sin in the race, which has justified the Divine sentence of death upon it, with the initial sin of Adam, in such a way as to make them effect and cause. Such a connexion may seem obvious to a mind prepossessed by Augustinian anthropology on the one hand, or by popular biological science on the other; but there is no proof that it was obvious to St. Paul. In fact, as we have seen, the evidence of Romans 7 is the other way. Adam’s sin was, indeed, fatal to man, since it brought the Divine penalty of death upon the race; but St. Paul recognizes to the full the individual freedom and responsibility of its individual members, who followed in the footsteps of Adam. It should be noted that contemporary Jewish theology gives no sufficient warrant for ascribing a doctrine of ‘original sin’ to St. Paul’s teachers, but only for ascribing to them the doctrine of the yezer hara , the evil impulse present in Adam and in successive individuals of his race, though not due to his sin (cf. F. C. Porter’s essay on this subject in Biblical and Semitic Studies [Yale Bicentennial Publications], 1901, pp. 93-156). Men acted like Adam because they themselves had the evil heart ( 4 Ezr. 3:26). In this way, ‘every one of us has been the Adam of his own soul’ ( Apoc. Bar. liv. 19). We may reasonably conjecture, in the light of Romans 7, that this substantially represents St. Paul’s position. But he has not definitely said this; in Romans 5 his interest lies in the relation not of Adam to the race, but of Adam to Christ, i.e. , in the antithesis of death and life, of the psychic and pneumatic orders of humanity. His point in Romans 5 is fairly summed up in 1 Corinthians 15:22 : ‘As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.’ The Church, as the body of Christ ( 1 Corinthians 12:12; 1 Corinthians 12:27) is a new organism of life within the present general environment of death. The final redemption of the Christian will consist in the quickening of this mortal body of flesh-‘the body of this death’-into a spiritual body ( Romans 8:11, 1 Corinthians 15:44), a body like that of the Risen Lord ( Philippians 3:21). Thus St. Paul looks forward to escape from the fleshly weakness of the body, not, as a Greek might have done, along the line of the soul’s inherent immortality, but, as a Hebrew of the Hebrews, in the hope of receiving a body more adequate to the needs of the soul. The resurrection of the (spiritually transformed) body will create anew the unity of personality, which physical death destroys. In view of the assertion that ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’ ( 1 Corinthians 15:50), we may perhaps suppose that St. Paul would postulate the original mortality of human nature, with a potential immortality lost through sin ( Romans 5:12).
2. Johannine anthropology. -The NT enables us to trace a further development of the Pauline anthropology in that of the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of John. ‘John,’ as Deissmann has said, ‘is the oldest and greatest interpreter of St. Paul’; his writings form ‘the most striking monument of the most genuine understanding of Pauline mysticism’ ( op. cit. pp. 4, 90). The Johannine development is towards greater affinity with Greek thought, the Logos doctrine (cf. the parallel phenomenon in Philo) being the most notable example of it. This greater adaptation to the thought and experience of a Greek world explains the greater influence of the Johannine presentation of the gospel on the earlier theology of the Church. The more Hebrew anthropology of St. Paul had, in large measure, to wait for those thinkers of the West who culminated in Augustine. St. Paul’s more subjective and individualistic outlook is, indeed, harder to realize than that broad display of great contrasts which gives to the Fourth Gospel part of its fascination for simple souls. In these contrasts we may see the emergence of the opposing realms of Jewish apocalypse (cf. Fairweather, op. cit. p. 295). The sense of a present judgment, however, constituted by the simple presence of Christ, the Light of Life in this dark world ( John 3:19; John 12:31), replaces the eschatological outlook of the Synoptics.
( a ) The opposition of the world and God is the primary Johannine emphasis. Interest is transferred from the Pauline struggle within the soul ( e.g. Romans 7, Galatians 5:17) to the external conflict which gathers around the Person of Christ. The world (a characteristic Johannine term) is the realm of darkness ( John 1:5; John 3:19 etc.), sin ( John 7:7), and death ( John 5:24, 1 John 3:14). Christ is the Light of the world ( John 8:12), its Saviour from sin ( John 1:29, John 3:17), and its Life ( John 3:16, John 6:68). His conflict with that darkness which is sin, and issues in death, is continued by His Spirit ( John 16:8). Sin is defined in the characteristic Pauline (Hebrew) way as ‘lawlessness’ ( 1 John 3:4); it is a voluntary act ( John 9:41), and reaches its culmination in the wilful rejection of life in Christ ( John 5:40; cf. John 16:9). Thus the conflict remains essentially ethical, though it is more objectively presented. The protagonist on the side of evil is the devil, who stands behind the evil-doer as his spiritual parent ( John 8:44); the world lies in his power ( 1 John 5:19), and he is its prince ( John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11).
( b ) The spiritual transformation of individual men from lovers of darkness ( John 3:19) to sons of light ( John 12:36) is conceived both biologically as a new birth , and psychologically as a product of faith ; no formal attempt is made to correlate these two ways of describing the change, or to solve the problem of the relation of Divine and human factors in conversion. John specializes the Pauline idea of a ‘new creation’ ( 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:15) into that of a new birth ( John 3:3), which springs from a Divine seed ( 1 John 3:9). This spiritual birth (much more than a mere metaphor) is sharply contrasted with natural birth ( John 1:13). The new life it initiates is ascribed to the Spirit of God ( John 3:6), and is nourished sacramentally ( John 3:5, John 6:53). The contrast of Spirit and flesh is not, however, dualistic in the Gnostic sense (cf. the rejection of docetic tendencies); it springs, as in St. Paul’s case, from the OT contrast of their respective power and weakness, as seen in their ethical consequences ( 1 John 2:16). This new birth from the Spirit has its conscious side in the believer’s faith ( John 1:12); that there is no contradiction between the two ideas is shown by such a passage as 1 John 5:1 : ‘Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God.’ Such belief primarily concerns the Divine mission of Christ ( John 12:44; John 17:8; John 17:21), knowledge of which is imparted through His ‘words’ ( John 6:68), which are themselves Spirit and life ( John 6:63). It will be seen that faith has a more intellectual content for St. John than for St. Paul, though it does not forfeit its essentially mystical character; belief in the mission of Christ marks a stage of development later than the faith of direct moral surrender to Him. The ethical emphasis is still fundamental in this Johannine conception of faith, as is shown by the recognition that ‘obedience is the organ of spiritual knowledge’ ( John 7:17; cf. F. W. Robertson, Sermons , 2nd ser., 1875, pp. 94-105). The intimate relation of character and faith is further suggested by the assertion that ‘Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice’ ( John 18:37), i.e. , that there is an intrinsic affinity between truth and the Truth ( John 14:6).
( c ) The product of this ‘faith-birth’ is eternal life , a term as central for St. John as ‘righteousness’ is for St. Paul, and one that characteristically marks St. John’s more Greek and less Jewish atmosphere. This eternal life is life like Christ’s ( 1 John 3:2), and is nourished by such a relation to Him as the allegory of the Vine (John 15) suggests. The peculiar mark of this life is that ‘love’ which St. Paul had described as the greatest amongst abiding realities: ‘We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren’ ( 1 John 3:14). In such life sin has no place as a fixed habit of character ( 1 John 5:18); sin unto death ( 1 John 2:19, 1 John 5:16), in fact, would show that there had been no genuine entrance into life. For single acts of sin confessed there is forgiveness and cleansing ( 1 John 1:9). The issue of sin is death ( John 8:24), whereas Christ teaches that ‘if any man keep my word he shall never see death’ ( John 8:51; cf. John 11:25-26). Except for one passage ( John 5:29), in which the term ‘the resurrection of judgment’ may have become a conventional phrase, resurrection appears to be confined to the believer ( John 6:40), and is intended, as with St. Paul, to restore the full personality. Eternal life is already the believer’s possession ( 1 John 5:13), and the future life is really the direct development of what is begun here. In this way, faith is the victory that hath overcome the world ( 1 John 5:4).
3. Non-mystical anthropology. -The apostolic writings other than those of the Pauline and Johannine group hardly supply sufficient data to make a detailed statement of their distinctive conceptions of human nature practicable. There are, however, a number of incidental references of considerable interest. The psychology of temptation as given in the Epistle of James ( James 1:13-15) singles out desire as the parent of sin, and makes death the natural issue of sin, in a sequence that should be compared with the fuller Pauline analysis in Romans 1. The Epistle to the Hebrews teaches that the wilful sin of apostasy after a genuine Christian experience excludes a second repentance; the appended illustration of the fruitless land suggests that those who commit this sin are incapable of repentance ( Hebrews 6:4-8; cf. Hebrews 12:17). The Petrine reference to ‘the spirits in prison’ ( 1 Peter 3:19-20; 1 Peter 4:5) has afforded a basis for much speculation on the possibility of moral change after death. Of more importance than these isolated points is the general characteristic that distinguishes Hebrews, 1 Peter, and James from the Pauline (and Johannine) writings, viz. the absence of the idea of faith as involving mystical union with Christ. In the Ep. to the Hebrews, according to the underlying idea of the high priest in the OT, Christ rather represents man before God than brings the energies of God into the world. Faith in His work means confidence to approach God through Him ( Hebrews 4:14-16; Hebrews 10:19; Hebrews 10:22). Through Christ, according to this Epistle, the realities of the unseen world ( Hebrews 11:1) find their supreme substantiation; whereas, for St. Paul, Christ was primarily the source of new energy to achieve the ideal, a new dynamic within the believer who is mystically united to Him. The more objective conception of faith in the Ep. to the Hebrews (along a different line from that of the Johannine tendency noticed above) is further illustrated by the outlook in 1 Peter, where the example of Christ is specially emphasized ( 1 Peter 1:15; 1 Peter 2:21; 1 Peter 4:1). This non-mystical Christianity finds its most extreme example in the polemic of St. James against faith without works ( James 2:14-26). The Pauline faith as a mystical energy is here apparently misunderstood and taken to be a bare intellectual assent. The presence within the NT of this more prosaic type of Christian experience is of considerable interest. It reminds us that the non-mystical temperament has its own legitimate place and can make its own characteristic contribution; indeed, the genuine mystic will probably always belong to the minority. This non-mystical background to the Pauline-Johannine anthropology is indeed more than background; it probably represents the general type of Christian ethics in the 1st century. A notable example of this may be seen in the Didache (circa, abouta.d. 120). The first five chapters form a manual of instruction for baptismal candidates (cf. § 7, ‘Having first recited all these things’), and are concerned with the moral distinctions of right and wrong in practical life-the ‘Two Ways’-without a touch of Pauline ‘mysticism.’ This may be further illustrated from the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, at the end of the 1st century: ‘If our mind be fixed through faith towards God; if we seek out those things which are well pleasing and acceptable unto Him; if we accomplish such things as beseem His faultless will, and follow the way of truth, casting off from ourselves all unrighteousness and iniquity,’ we shall be ‘partakers of His promised gifts’ (xxxv. 5). We have only to compare such an attitude with that underlying the moral exhortations of St. Paul in his Letters to the same Church (transformation through the Lord the Spirit) to feel the externalism of the later writer and the inwardness of the earlier. We must not, of course, forget the mysticism of Ignatius, to which must now be added that of the Odes of Solomon , as implying a deeper interpretation of human nature. But the Pauline anthropology can have been little understood, and in the neglect of it lay already some of the seeds of anthropological controversy in the days of Augustine and of the Reformation. Failure to understand the Pauline experience robbed the early Church of an important part of its inheritance.
Conclusion .-An exegetical survey of the apostolic anthropology must frankly recognize the existence of various problems- e.g. the relation of human freedom to Divine control-not only unsolved by the writers, but hardly realized by them. We must not, under the guise of ‘exegesis,’ read our later dogmatic or philosophical solutions into these lacunae. But neither must we, because of their existence, under-estimate the value of the contribution made by these writers to a doctrine of human nature. Primarily, no doubt, the NT supplies data for all Christian theories rather than dogmatic solutions of the problems which Christian experience raises. But that experience, as recorded in the NT, rests on an acceptance of certain fundamental truths-on the one hand, the worth of human nature and its responsibility to God; on the other, the reality of that spiritual world which men enter through Christ. We are made most effectually to feel the far-reaching power of those truths in their simple majesty when we read the story of His life. But they are not absent from any of the pages of the NT. Indeed, its subtle fascination, its peculiar and unique atmosphere, its constant vision of a land of distances, are largely due to the presence and interaction of these truths. Even the book which reveals most clearly its debt to Jewish supernaturalism, the Apocalypse, begins with the vision of the Risen Lord amongst the golden lampstands of His Churches, and ends with the recognition of individual freedom and its momentous issues ( Revelation 22:11). These truths, like their Lord in His incarnation, may seem to have emptied themselves of their universality in taking the form natural to the first Christian generation. But, like Him, they have proved their power as the perennial basis of Christian thinking. Neither the science nor the philosophy of the present day has any quarrel with them. We are happily leaving behind us the naturalism which looked on men as ‘streaks of morning cloud,’ which soon ‘shall have melted into the infinite azure of the past’ (Tyndall’s Belfast Address to British Association , 1874). The modern interest in the psychology of religion, combined with the growing emphasis of philosophy on personality, may well become the prelude to a genuine revival of Paulinism, destined to be not less influential than that of the Reformation.
Literature.-( a ) Relevant sections of the chief works on NT Theology, e.g. those of B. Weiss (Eng. translation, 1882-83), W. Bey. schlag (Eng. translation, 1895), H. J. Holtzmann (21911), J. Bovon (21902-05), G. B. Stevens (1899). ( b ) Biblical Anthropology : J. Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man 2, 1895; E. H. van Leeuwen, Bijbelsche Anthropologie , 1906; R. S. Franks, Man, Sin, and Salvation (Century Bible Handbooks, 1908); H. Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man , 1911; M. Scott Fletcher, The Psychology of the NT , 1912. ( c ) Special discussions of the Pauline doctrine of man, as a whole or in some of its aspects : H. Lüdemann, Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus , 1872; J. Gloël, Der heilige Geist in der Heilsverkündigung des Paulus , 1888; T. Simon, Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus , 1897; C. Clemen, Die christliche Lehre von der Sünde , 1897; H. Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes 2, 1899; E. Sokolowski, Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus , 1903; F. R. Tennant, Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin , 1903; H. Wheeler Robinson, ‘Hebrew Psychology in Relation to Pauline Anthropology,’ in Mansfield College Essays , 1909; P. Volz, Der Geist Gottes , 1910; J. Moffatt, Paul and Paulinism (Modern Religious Problems, 1910); G. A. Deissmann, Paulus , 1911, Eng. translation, 1912.
H. Wheeler Robinson.
Vine's Expository Dictionary of OT Words 
'âdâm (אָדָם, Strong'S #120), “man; mankind; people; someone (indefinite); Adam (the first man).” This noun appears in Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Punic. A word with the same radicals occurs in old South Arabic meaning “serf.” In late Arabic the same radicals mean not only “mankind” but “all creation.” Akkadian 'âdmu signifies “child.” The Hebrew word appears about 562 times and in all periods of biblical Hebrew.
This noun is related to the verb 'âdom , “to be red,” and therefore probably relates to the original ruddiness of human skin. The noun connotes “man” as the creature created in God’s image, the crown of all creation. In its first appearance 'âdâm is used for mankind, or generic man: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness …” (Gen. 1:26). In Gen. 2:7 the word refers to the first “man,” Adam: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Throughout Gen. 2:5-5:5 there is a constant shifting and interrelationship between the generic and the individual uses. “Man” is distinguished from the rest of the creation insofar as he was created by a special and immediate act of God: he alone was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). He consisted of two elements, the material and the nonmaterial (Gen. 2:7). From the outset he occupied an exalted position over the rest of the earthly creation and was promised an even higher position (eternal life) if he obeyed God: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth” (Gen. 1:28; cf. 2:16- 17). In Gen. 1 “man” is depicted as the goal and crown of creation, while in Gen. 2 the world is shown to have been created as the scene of human activity. “Man” was in God’s image with reference to his soul and/or spirit. (He is essentially spiritual; he has an invisible and immortal aspect which is simple or indivisible.) Other elements of this image are his mind and will, intellectual and moral integrity (he was created with true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness), his body (this was seen as a fit organ to share immortality with man’s soul and the means by which dominion over the creation was exercised), and dominion over the rest of the creation.
The Fall greatly affected the nature of “man,” but he did not cease to be in God’s image (Gen. 9:6). Fallen “man” occupies a new and lower position before God: “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5; cf. 8:21). No longer does “man” have perfect communion with the Creator; he is now under the curse of sin and death. Original knowledge, righteousness, and holiness are destroyed. Restoration to his proper place in the creation and relationship to the Creator comes only through spiritual union with the Christ, the second Adam (Rom. 5:12-21). In some later passages of Scripture 'âdâm is difficult to distinguish from ‘ish —man as the counterpart of woman and/or as distinguished in his maleness.
Sometimes 'âdâm identifies a limited and particular “group of men”: “Behold, waters rise up out of the north, and shall be an overflowing flood, and shall overflow the land [of the Philistines], and all that is therein; the city, and them that dwell therein: then the men [used in the singular] shall cry, and all the inhabitants of the land shall howl” (Jer. 47:2). When used of a particular group of individual “men,” the noun appears in the phrase “sons of men”: “And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded” (Gen. 11:5). The phrase “son of man” usually connotes a particular individual: “God is not a man [ ‘ish ], that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent …” (Num. 23:19; cf. Ezek. 2:1). The one notable exception is the use of this term in Dan. 7:13-14: “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man [ ‘enos ] came with the clouds of heaven.… His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away …” Here the phrase represents a divine being.
'Âdâm is also used in reference to any given man, or to anyone male or female: “When a man [anyone] shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, a scab, or bright spot, and it be in the skin of his flesh like the plague of leprosy; then he shall be brought unto Aaron …” (Lev. 13:2).
The noun ‘odem means “ruby.” This word occurs 3 times and in Hebrew only. It refers to the red stone, the “ruby” in Exod. 28:17: “… the first row shall be a sardius [ ‘odem ], a topaz, and a carbuncle.…”
Geber ( גֶּבֶר , Strong'S #1397), “man.” This word occurs 60 times in the Hebrew Old Testament, and its frequency of usage is higher (32 times, nearly half of all the occurrences) in the poetical books. The word occurs first in Exod. 10:11: “Not so: go now ye that are men , and serve the Lord; for that ye did desire.”
The root meaning “to be strong” is no longer obvious in the usage of geber since it is a synonym of ‘ish : “Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man [ 'ı̂ysh ] childless, a man [ geber ] that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David …” (Jer. 22:30). Other synonyms are zakar , “male” (Jer. 30:6); ‘enos , “man” (Job 4:17); and ‘adam , “man” (Job 14:10). A geber denotes a “male,” as an antonym of a “woman”; cf. “The woman [ ishshah ] shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man [ geber ] put on a woman’s [ ishshah ] garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5).
In standardized expressions of curse and blessing geber also functions as a synonym for ‘'ı̂ysh , “man.” The expression may begin with “Cursed be the man” ( geber ; Jer. 17:5) or “Blessed is the man” ( geber ; Ps. 34:8), but these same expressions also occur with 'ı̂ysh (Ps. 1:1; Deut. 27:15).
The Septuagint gives the following translations: aner (“man”); anthropos (“human being; man”); and dunatos (“powerful or strong ones”).
'Îysh ( אִישׁ , Strong'S #376), “man; husband; mate; human being; human; somebody; each; every.” Cognates of this word appear in Phoenician, Punic, old Aramaic, and old South Arabic. This noun occurs about 2,183 times and in all periods of biblical Hebrew. The plural of this noun is usually ‘anashim , but 3 times it is ‘ishim (Ps. 53:3).
Basically, this word signifies “man” in correspondence to woman; a “man” is a person who is distinguished by maleness. This emphasis is in Gen. 2:24 (the first biblical occurrence): “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.…” Sometimes the phrase “man and woman” signifies anyone whatsoever, including children: “If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned …” (Exod. 21:28). This phrase can also connote an inclusive group, including children: “And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword” (Josh. 6:21). This idea is sometimes more explicitly expressed by the word series “men, women, and children”: “Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates …” (Deut. 31:12).
‘Ish is often used in marriage contexts (cf. Gen. 2:24) meaning “husband” or “mate”: “Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters …” (Jer. 29:6). A virgin is described as a lass who has not known a “man” (“husband”): “… And she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man” (Judg. 11:38-39). The sense “mate” appears in Gen. 7:2, where the word represents male animals: “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female.…”
One special nuance of 'ı̂ysh appears in passages such as Gen. 3:6, where it means “husband,” or one responsible for a wife or woman and revered by her: "[And she] gave also unto her husband with her: and he did eat.” This emphasis is in Hos. 2:16 where it is applied to God (cf. the Hebrew word ba’al ).
Sometimes this word connotes that the one so identified is a “man” par excellence . As such he is strong, influential, and knowledgeable in battle: “Be strong, and quit yourselves like men, O ye Philistines, that ye be not servants unto the Hebrews …” (1 Sam. 4:9).
In a few places ‘ish is used as a synonym of “father”: “We are all sons of one man …” (Gen. 42:11, RSV). In other passages the word is applied to a son (cf. Gen. 2:24). In the plural the word can be applied to groups of men who serve or obey a superior. Pharaoh’s men escorted Abraham: “And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away …” (Gen. 12:20). In a similar but more general sense, the word may identify people who belong to someone or something: “For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled” (Lev. 18:27).
Infrequently (and in later historical literature) this word is used as a collective noun referring to an entire group: “And his servant said, … Should I set this before a hundred men?” (2 Kings 4:43).
Many passages use 'ı̂ysh in the more general or generic sense of “man” ( ‘adam ), a human being: “He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death” (Exod. 21:12). Even if one strikes a woman or child and he or she dies, the attacker should be put to death. Again, notice Deut. 27:15: “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.…” This is the sense of the word when it is contrasted with animals: “But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast …” (Exod. 11:7). The same nuance appears when man over against God is in view: “God is not a man, that he should lie …” (Num. 23:19).
Sometimes 'ı̂ysh is indefinite, meaning “somebody” or " someone” (“they”): “And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered” (Gen. 13:16). In other passages the word suggests the meaning “each” (Gen. 40:5). Closely related to the previous nuance is the connotation “every” (Jer. 23:35).
The word ‘ishon means “little man.” This diminutive form of the noun, which appears 3 times, has a cognate in Arabic. Although it literally means “little man,” it signifies the pupil of the eye and is so translated (cf. Deut. 32:10, Nasb; Rsv and KJV, “apple of his eye”).
'Ĕnôsh ( אֱנוֹשׁ , Strong'S #582), “man.” This common Semitic word is the usual word for “man” (generic) in biblical Aramaic (This meaning is served by Hebrew ‘adam ). It occurs 25 times in biblical Aramaic and 42 times in biblical Hebrew. Hebrew uses 'ĕnôsh exclusively in poetical passages. The only apparent exception is 2 Chron. 14:11, but this is a prayer and, therefore uses poetical words.
'Ĕnôsh never appears with the definite article and at all times except once (Ps. 144:3) sets forth a collective idea, “man.” In most cases where the word occurs in Job and the Psalms it suggests the frailty, vulnerability, and finitude of “man” as contrasted to God: “As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth” (Ps. 103:15). As such “man” cannot be righteous or holy before God: “Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?” (Job 4:17). In the Psalms this word is used to indicate the enemy: “Arise, O Lord; let not man prevail: let the heathen be judged in thy sight” (Ps. 9:19). Here the parallelism shows that 'ĕnôsh is synonymous with “nations,” or the enemy. They are, therefore, presented as weak, vulnerable, and finite: “Put them in fear, O Lord: that the nations may know themselves to be but men” (Ps. 9:20).
'Ĕnôsh may connote “men” as weak but not necessarily morally weak: “Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold of it” (Isa. 56:2). In this passage the 'ĕnôsh is blessed because he has been morally strong.
In a few places the word bears no moral overtones and represents “man” in a sense parallel to Hebrew ‘adam . He is finite as contrasted to the infinite God: “I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men” (Deut. 32:26—the first biblical occurrence).
Bâchûr ( בָּחֻר , Strong'S #970), “young man.” The 44 occurrences of this word are scattered throughout every period of biblical Hebrew.
This word signifies the fully developed, vigorous, unmarried man. In its first occurrence bâchûr is contrasted to betulah , “maiden”: “The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs” (Deut. 32:25). The strength of the “young man” is contrasted with the gray hair (crown of honor) of old men (Prov. 20:29).
The period during which a “young man” is in his prime (could this be the period during which he is eligible for the draft—i.e., age 20- 50?) is represented by the two nouns, bechurim and bechurot , both of which occur only once. Bechurim is found in Num. 11:28.
Bâchar ( בָּחַר , Strong'S #977), “to examine, choose, select, choose out, elect, prefer.” This verb, which occurs 146 times in biblical Hebrew, has cognates in late Aramaic and Coptic. The poetic noun bâchar , “chosen or elect one(s),” is also derived from this verb. Not all scholars agree that these words are related to the noun bachur . They would relate it to the first sense of bhr , whose cognate in Akkadian has to do with fighting men. The word means “choose or select” in Gen. 6:2: “… and they took them wives of all which they chose.”
Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words 
is used (a) generally, of "a human being, male or female," without reference to sex or nationality, e.g., Matthew 4:4; 12:35; John 2:25; (b) in distinction from God, e.g., Matthew 19:6; John 10:33; Galatians 1:11; Colossians 3:23; (c) in distinction from animals, etc., e.g., Luke 5:10; (d) sometimes, in the plural, of "men and women," people, e.g., Matthew 5:13,16; in Mark 11:2; 1—Timothy 6:16 , lit., "no one of men;" (e) in some instances with a suggestion of human frailty and imperfection, e.g., 1—Corinthians 2:5; Acts 14:15 (2nd part); (f) in the phrase translated "after man," "after the manner of men," "as a man" (AV), lit. "according to (kata) man," is used only by the Apostle Paul, of "(1) the practices of fallen humanity, 1—Corinthians 3:3; (2) anything of human origin, Galatians 1:11; (3) the laws that govern the administration of justice among men, Romans 3:5; (4) the standard generally accepted among men, Galatians 3:15; (5) an illustration not drawn from Scripture, 1—Corinthians 9:8; (6) probably = 'to use a figurative expression' (see AV, marg.), i.e., to speak evil of men with whom he had contended at Ephesus as 'beasts' (cp. 1—Corinthians 4:6 ), 1—Corinthians 15:32; Lightfoot prefers 'from worldly motives'; but the other interpretation, No. (4), seems to make better sense. See also Romans 6:19 , where, however, the Greek is slightly different, anthropinos, 'pertaining to mankind;'" the meaning is as Nos. (5) and (6). * [* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 139.]
Romans 7:22 Ephesians 3:16 2—Corinthians 4:16 1—Peter 3:4 Romans 6:6 Ephesians 4:22 Colossians 3:9 Ephesians 4:24 Colossians 3:10 Matthew 11:19 Matthew 13:52 Matthew 18:23 Acts 19:16 Romans 3:28 Galatians 2:16 James 1:19 2:24 3:8 Matthew 8:28 Matthew 17:14 Luke 13:19 Matthew 12:13 Mark 3:3,5 Matthew 12:45 Luke 14:30 2—Thessalonians 2:3Iniquity 2—Timothy 3:17 1—Timothy 6:11 Galatians 3:28 Ephesians 2:15 John 10:30 11:52 17:21,22,23 1—Corinthians 3:8 11:5 Galatians 3 Ephesians 2 John 17 Titus 3:4Kind Revelation 9:20
is never used of the female sex; it stands (a) in distinction from a woman, Acts 8:12; 1—Timothy 2:12; as a husband, Matthew 1:16; John 4:16; Romans 7:2; Titus 1:6; (b) as distinct from a boy or infant, 1—Corinthians 13:11; metaphorically in Ephesians 4:13; (c) in conjunction with an adjective or noun, e.g., Luke 5:8 , lit., "a man, a sinner;" Luke 24:19 , lit., "a man, a prophet;" often in terms of address, e.g., Acts 1:16; 13:15,26; 15:7,13 , lit., "men, brethren;" with gentilic or local names (virtually a title of honor), e.g., Acts 2:14; 22:3 , lit., "Judean men," "a Judean man;" Acts 3:12; 5:35 , lit., "Israelite men;" Acts 17:22 "Athenian men;" Acts 19:35 , lit., "Ephesian men;" in Acts 14:15 it is used in addressing a company of "men," without any descriptive term. In this verse, however, the distinction between aner and anthropos (2nd part) is noticeable; the use of the latter comes under No. 1 (e); (d) in general, "a man, a male person" (used like the pronoun tis, No. 3), "a man" (i.e., a certain "man"), e.g., Luke 8:41; in the plural, Acts 6:11 .
"some one, a certain one," is rendered "a man," "a certain man," e.g., in Matthew 22:24; Mark 8:4 , AV (RV, "one"); Mark 12:19; John 3:3,5; 6:50; 14:23; 15:6,13; Acts 13:41 , AV (RV, "one"); 1—Corinthians 4:2; 1—Timothy 1:8; 2—Timothy 2:5,21; James 2:14,18; 1—Peter 2:19; 1—John 4:20 .
perfect, is translated "men" in 1—Corinthians 14:20 , RV marg., "of full age," AV marg., "perfect, or, of a ripe age." See Perfect.
Charles Buck Theological Dictionary 
A being, consisting of a rational soul and organical body. By some he is defined thus: "He is the head of the animal creation; a being who feels, reflects, thinks, contrives, and acts; who has the power of changing his place upon the earth at pleasure; who possesses the faculty of communicating his thoughts by means of speech, and who has dominion over all other creatures on the face of the earth."
We shall here present the reader with a brief account of his formation, species, and different state.
1. His formation. Man was made last of all the creatures, being the chief and master-piece of the whole creation on earth. He is a compendium of the creation, and therefore is sometimes called a microcosm, a little world, the world in miniature; something of the vegetable, animal, and rational world meet in him; spirit and matter; yea, heaven and earth centre in him; he is the bond that connects them both together. The constituent and essential parts of man created by God are two; body and soul. The one was made out of the dust; the other was breathed into him. The body is formed with the greatest precision and exactness: every muscle, vein, artery, yea, the least fibre, in its proper place; all in just proportion and symmetry, in subserviency to the use of each other, and for the good of the whole, Psalms 139:14 . It is also made erect, to distinguish it from the four-footed animals, who look downward to the earth. Man was made to look upward to the heavens, to contemplate them, and the glory of God, displayed in them; to look up to God, to worship and adore him. In the Greek language, man has his name from turning and looking upwards. The soul is the other part of man, which is a substance of subsistence: it is not an accident, or quality, inherent in a subject: but capable of subsisting without the body. It is a spiritual substance, immaterial, immortal.
2. Man, different species of.
According to Linnxus and Buffon, there are six different species among mankind.
1. The first are those under the Polar regions, and comprehend the Laplanders, the Esquimaux Indians, the Samoied tartars, the inhabitants of Nova Zembla, Borandians, the Greenlanders, and the people of Kamtschatka. The visage of men in these countries is large and broad; the nose flat and short; the eyes of a yellowish brown, inclining to blackness; the cheek-bones extremely high; the mouth large; the lips thick, and turning outwards; the voice thin, and squeaking; and the skin a dark grey colour. They are short in stature, the generality being about four feet high, and the tallest not more than five. They are ignorant, stupid and superstitious.
2. The second are the Tartar race, comprehending the Chinese and the Japanese. Their countenances are broad and wrinkled, even in youth; their noses short and flat; their eyes little, cheek-bones high, teeth large, complexions olive, and the hair black.
3. The third are the southern Asiastics, or inhabitants of India. These are of a slender shape, long straight black hair, and generally Roman noses. They are slothful, submissive, cowardly, and effeminate.
4. The negroes of Africa constitute the fourth striking variety in the human species. They are of a black colour, having downy soft hair, short and black; their beards often turn grey, and sometimes white; their noses are flat and short; their lips thick, and their teeth of an ivory whiteness. These have been till of late the unhappy wretches who have been torn from their families, friends, and native lands, and consigned for life to misery, toil, and bondage; and that by the wise, polished, and the Christian inhabitants of Europe, and above all by the monsters of England!!
5. The natives of America are the fifth race of men: they are of a copper colour, with black thick straight hair, flat noses, high cheek-bones, and small eyes.
6. The Europeans may be considered as the sixth and last variety of the human kind, whose features we need not describe. The English are considered as the fairest. 3. Man, different states of.
The state of man has been divided into fourfold: his primitive state; fallen state; gracious state; and future state.
1. His state of innocence.
God, it is said, made man upright, Ecclesiastes 7:29 . without any imperfection, corruption, or principle of corruption in his body or soul; with light in his understanding, holiness in his will, and purity in his affection. This constituted his original righteousness, which was universal, both with respect to the subject of it, the whole man, and the object of it, the whole law. Being thus in a state of holiness, he was necessarily in a state of happiness. He was a very glorious creature, the favourite of heaven, the lord of the world, possessing perfect tranquillity in his own breast, and immortal. Yet he was not without law; for to the law of nature, which was impressed on his heart, God super-added a positive law, not to eat of the forbidden fruit, Genesis 2:17 . under the penalty of death natural , spiritual, and eternal. Had he obeyed this law, he might have had reason to expect that he would not only have had the continuance of his natural and spiritual life, but have been transported to the upper paradise.
2. His fall.
Man's righteousness, however, though universal, was not immutable, as the event has proved. How long he lived in a state of innocence cannot easily be ascertained, yet most suppose it was but a short time. The positive law which God gave him he broke, by eating the forbidden fruit. The consequence of this evil act was, that man lost the chief good: his nature was corrupted; his powers depraved, his body subject to corruption, his soul exposed to misery, his posterity all involved in ruin, subject to eternal condemnation, and for ever incapable to restore themselves to the favour of God, to obey his commands perfectly, and to satisfy his justice, Galatians 3:1-29 : Romans 5:1-21 : Genesis 3:1-24 : Ephesians 2:1-22 : Romans 3:1-31 : passim.
3. His recovery.
Although man has fallen by his iniquity, yet he is not left finally to perish. The divine Being, foreseeing the fall, in infinite love and mercy made provision for his relief. Jesus Christ, according to the divine purpose, came in the fulness of time to be his Saviour, and by virtue of his sufferings, all who believe are justified from the curse of the law. By the influences of the Holy Spirit he is regenerated, united to Christ by faith, and sanctified. True believers, therefore, live a life of dependence on the promises; of regularity and obedience to God's word; of holy joy and peace; and have a hope full of immortality.
4. His future state.
As it respects the impenitent, it is a state of separation from God, and eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46 . But the righteous shall rise to glory, honour, and everlasting joy. To the former, death will be the introduction to misery; to the latter, it will be the admission to felicity. All will be tried in the judgment-day, and sentence pronounced accordingly. The wicked will be driven away in his wickedness, and the righteous be saved with an everlasting salvation. But as these subjects are treated on elsewhere, we refer the reader to the articles, Grace, Heaven, Hell, Sin
Hartley's Observations on Man; Boston's Fourfold State; Kaimes's Sketches of the History of Man; Locke on Und. Reid on the Active and Intellectual Powers of Man; Wollaston's Religion of Nature; Harris's Philosophical Arrangements.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible 
MAN. The Bible is concerned with man only from the religious standpoint, with his relation to God. This article will deal only with the religious estimate of man, as other matters which might have been included will be found in other articles (Creation, Eschatology, Fall, Sin, Psychology). Man’s dignity, as made by special resolve and distinct act of God in God’s image and likeness (synonymous terms), with dominion over the other creatures, and for communion with God, as asserted in the double account of his Creation in Genesis 1:1-31; Genesis 2:1-25 , and man’s degradation by his own choice of evil, as presented figuratively in the story of his Fall in Genesis 3:1-24 , are the two aspects of man that are everywhere met with. The first is explicitly affirmed in Psalms 8:1-9 , an echo of Genesis 1:1-31; the second, without any explicit reference to the story in Genesis 3:1-24 , is taken for granted in the OT (see esp. Psalms 51:1-19 ), and is still more emphasized in the NT, with distinct allusion to the Fall and its consequences (see esp. Romans 5:12-21; Romans 7:7-25 ). While the OT recognizes man’s relation to the world around him, his materiality and frailty as ‘flesh’ (wh. see), and describes him as ‘dust and ashes’ in comparison with God ( Genesis 2:7; Genesis 3:19; Genesis 18:27 ), yet as made in God’s image it endows him with reason, conscience, affection, free will. Adam is capable of recognizing the qualities of, and so of naming, the living creatures ( Genesis 2:19 ), cannot find a help meet among them ( Genesis 2:20 ), is innocent ( Genesis 2:25 ), and capable of moral obedience ( Genesis 2:16-17 ) and religious communion ( Genesis 3:9-10 ). The Spirit of God is in man not only as life, but also as wisdom and understanding, counsel and might, skill and courage (see Inspiration). The Divine immanence in man as the Divine providence for man is affirmed ( Proverbs 20:27 ).
In the NT man’s dignity is represented as Divine sonship. In St. Luke’s Gospel Adam is described as ‘son of God’ ( Luke 3:38 ). St. Paul speaks of man as ‘the image and glory of God’ ( 1 Corinthians 11:7 ), approves the poet’s words, ‘we also are his offspring,’ asserts the unity of the race, and God’s guidance in its history ( Acts 17:26-28 ). In his argument in Romans regarding universal sinfulness, he assumes that even the Gentiles have the law of God written in their hearts, and thus can exercise moral judgment on themselves and others ( Romans 2:15 ). Jesus’ testimony to the Fatherhood of God, including the care and bounty in Providence as well as the grace in Redemption, has as its counterpart His estimate of the absolute worth of the human soul (see Matthew 10:30; Matthew 16:26 , Luke 10:20; Luke 10:15 ). While God’s care and bounty are unlimited, yet Jesus does seem to limit the title ‘child or son of God’ to those who have religious fellowship and seek moral kinship with God (see Matthew 5:9; Matthew 5:45; cf. John 1:12 ). St. Paul’s doctrine of man’s adoption by faith in God’s grace does not contradict the teaching of Jesus. The writer of Hebrews sees the promise of man’s dominion in Psalms 8:1-9 fulfilled only in Christ ( Hebrews 2:8-9 ). Man’s history, according to the Fourth Evangelist, is consummated in the Incarnation ( John 1:14 ).
The Bible estimate of man’s value is shown in its anticipation of his destiny not merely continued existence, but a future life of weal or woe according to the moral quality, the relation to God, of the present life (see Eschatology). The Biblical analysis of the nature of man is discussed in detail in art. Psychology.
Alfred E. Garvie.
Morrish Bible Dictionary 
Various Hebrew words are frequently translated 'man.'
1. Adam , 'man,' a generic term for man, mankind. Genesis 1:26,27 .
2. ish , ' man,' implying 'strength and vigour' of mind and body, 1 Samuel 4:2; 1 Samuel 26:15; also signifying 'husband' in contra-distinction to 'wife.' Genesis 2:23; Genesis 3:6 .
3. enosh, 'subject to corruption, mortal;' not used for man till after the fall. Genesis 6:4; Genesis 12:20; Psalm 103:15 .
4. ben, 'son,' with words conjoined, 'son of valour,' or valiant man; 'son of strength,' or strong man. 2 Kings 2:16 , etc.
5. baal, 'master, lord.' Genesis 20:3; Exodus 24:14 .
6. geber, 'mighty, war-like.' Exodus 10:11; Exodus 12:37 .
In some passages these different Hebrew words are used in contrast: as in Genesis 6:4 , "The sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,  and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men (gibbor) which were of old, men  of renown." In Psalm 8:4; "What is man,  that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man,  that thou visitest him?" "God is not a man  that he should lie." Numbers 23:19 .
Man was God's crowning work of creation (see ADAM),and He set him in dominion over the sphere in which he was placed. It is impossible that man could by evolution have arisen from any of the lower forms of created life. God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, and man is responsible to Him as his Creator; and for this reason he will be called to account, which is not the case with any of the animals. "It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement." Hebrews 9:27 . All have descended from Adam and Eve: God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord [or God]." Acts 17:26,27 .
The soul of man being immortal, he still exists after death, and it is revealed in scripture that his body will be raised, and he will either be in eternity away from God in punishment for the sins he has committed; or, by the grace of God, be in an eternity of happiness with the Lord Jesus through His atoning work on the cross.
In the N.T. the principal words are
1. ἄνθρωπος, man in the sense of 'humanity,' irrespective of sex. "Man shall not live by bread alone." Matthew 4:4 . In a few places it is used in a stricter sense in contrast to a woman: as "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife?" Matthew 19:3 .
2. ἀνήρ, man as distinguished from a woman. "The head of the woman is the man." 1 Corinthians 11:3 . It is thus the common word used for 'husband:' a woman's man is her husband. "Joseph the husband of Mary." Matthew 1:16,19 . The words τις, μηδείς, οὐδείς, are often translated 'man,' 'no man,' 'any man,' which would be more correctly translated 'one,' 'no one,' 'any one.' In 'men [and] brethren,' Acts 1:16; Acts 2:29 , etc., there are not two classes alluded to, but 'men who are brethren,' or, in our idiom, simply 'brethren.' So in Acts 7:2; Acts 22:1 , not three classes, but two: 'men who are brethren, and fathers.' See NEW MAN and OLD MAN.
King James Dictionary 
MAN, n. plu. men. Heb.species, kind, image, similitude.
1. Mankind the human race the whole species of human beings beings distinguished from all other animals by the powers of reason and speech, as well as by their shape and dignified aspect. "Os homini sublime dedit."
And God said, Let us make man in our image, , after our likeness, and let them have dominion-- Genesis 1
Man that is born of a woman, is of few days and full of trouble. Job 14
My spirit shall not always strive with man. Genesis 6
I will destroy man whom I have created. Genesis 6
There hath no temptation taken you, but such as is common to man. 1 Corinthians 10
It is written,man shall not live by bread alone. Matthew 4
There must be somewhere such a rank as man.
Respecting man, whatever wrong we call--
But vindicate the ways of God to man.
The proper study of mankind is man.
In the System of Nature, man is ranked as a distinct genus.
When opposed to woman, man sometimes denotes the male sex in general.
Woman has, in general, much stronger propensity than man to the discharge of parental duties.
2. A male individual of the human race, of adult growth or years.
The king is but a man as I am.
And the man dreams but what the boy believed.
3. A male of the human race used often in compound words, or in the nature of an adjective as a man-child men-cooks men-servants. 4. A servant, or an attendant of the male sex.
I and my man will presently go ride.
5. A word of familiar address.
We speak no treason, man.
6. It sometimes bears the sense of a male adult of some uncommon qualifications particularly,the sense of strength, vigor, bravery, virile powers, or magnanimity, as distinguished from the weakness, timidity or impotence of a boy, or from the narrow mindedness of low bred men.
I dare do all that may become a man.
Will reckons he should not have been the man he is, had he not broke windows--
So in popular language, it is said, he is no man. Play your part like a man. He has not the spirit of a man.
Thou art but a youth, and he a man of war from his youth. 1 Samuel 17
7. An individual of the human species.
In matters of equity between man and man--
Under this phraseology, females may be comprehended. So a law restraining man, or every man from a particular act, comprehends women and children, if of competent age to be the subjects of law.
8. Man is sometimes opposed to boy or child, and sometimes to beast. 9. One who is master of his mental powers, or who conducts himself with his usual judgment. When a person has lost his senses, or acts without his usual judgment, we say, he is not his own man. 10. It is sometimes used indefinitely, without reference to a particular individual any person one. This is as much as a man can desire.
A man, in an instant,may discover the assertion to be impossible.
This word however is always used in the singular number, referring to an individual. In this respect it does not answer to the French on, nor to the use of man by our Saxon ancestors. In Saxon, man ofsloh, signifies,they slew man sette ut, they set or fitted out. So in German, man sagt,may be rendered, one ways, it is said, they say, or people say. So in Danish, man siger, one says, it is said, they say.
11. In popular usage, a husband.
Every wife ought to answer for her man.
12. A movable piece at chess or draughts. 13. In feudal law, a vassal, a liege subject or tenant.
The vassal or tenant, kneeling, ungirt,uncovered and holding up his hands between those of his lord, professed that he did become his man, from that day forth, of life, limb, and earthly honor.
Man of war, a ship or war an armed ship.
Easton's Bible Dictionary 
Man was created by the immediate hand of God, and is generically different from all other creatures ( Genesis 1:26,27; 2:7 ). His complex nature is composed of two elements, two distinct substances, viz., body and soul ( Genesis 2:7; Ecclesiastes 12:7; 2 co 5:1-8 ).
The words translated "spirit" and "soul," in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 , Hebrews 4:12 , are habitually used interchangeably ( Matthew 10:28; 16:26; 1 Peter 1:22 ). The "spirit" (Gr. pneuma) is the soul as rational; the "soul" (Gr. psuche) is the same, considered as the animating and vital principle of the body.
Man was created in the likeness of God as to the perfection of his nature, in knowledge ( Colossians 3:10 ), righteousness, and holiness ( Ephesians 4:24 ), and as having dominion over all the inferior creatures ( Genesis 1:28 ). He had in his original state God's law written on his heart, and had power to obey it, and yet was capable of disobeying, being left to the freedom of his own will. He was created with holy dispositions, prompting him to holy actions; but he was fallible, and did fall from his integrity (3:1-6). (See Fall .)
Copyright Statement These dictionary topics are from M.G. Easton M.A., DD Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897. Public Domain.
Bibliography Information Easton, Matthew George. Entry for 'Man'. Easton's Bible Dictionary. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/ebd/m/man.html. 1897.
Webster's Dictionary 
(1): ( n.) A human being; - opposed tobeast.
(2): ( n.) The human race; mankind.
(3): ( n.) One of the piece with which certain games, as chess or draughts, are played.
(4): ( n.) Especially: An adult male person; a grown-up male person, as distinguished from a woman or a child.
(5): ( v. t.) To supply with men; to furnish with a sufficient force or complement of men, as for management, service, defense, or the like; to guard; as, to man a ship, boat, or fort.
(6): ( n.) The male portion of the human race.
(7): ( n.) One possessing in a high degree the distinctive qualities of manhood; one having manly excellence of any kind.
(8): ( n.) An adult male servant; also, a vassal; a subject.
(9): ( n.) A term of familiar address often implying on the part of the speaker some degree of authority, impatience, or haste; as, Come, man, we 've no time to lose!
(10): ( n.) A married man; a husband; - correlative to wife.
(11): ( n.) One, or any one, indefinitely; - a modified survival of the Saxon use of man, or mon, as an indefinite pronoun.
(12): ( v. t.) To wait on as a manservant.
(13): ( v. t.) To furnish with strength for action; to prepare for efficiency; to fortify.
(14): ( v. t.) To tame, as a hawk.
(15): ( v. t.) To furnish with a servants.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary 
(See Adam ; Civilization; Creation ) Hebrew " Αadam ," from a root "ruddy" or fair, a genetic term. " Iysh ," "man noble and brave". " Geber ," "a mighty man, war-like hero", from Gabar , "to be strong". " Nowsh " (from 'Aanash , "sick, diseased"), "wretched man": "what is "wretched man" ( Nowsh ) that Thou shouldest be mindful of him?" ( Psalms 8:4; Job 15:14.) " Methim ," "mortal men"; Isaiah 41:14, "fear not ... ye men (mortals few and feeble though ye be, Methey ) of Israel." In addition to the proofs given in the above articles that man's civilization came from God at the first, is the fact that no creature is so helpless as man in his infancy.
The instincts of lower animals are perfect at first, the newborn lamb turns at once from the mother's breast to the grass; but by man alone are the wants of the infant, bodily and mental, supplied until he is old enough to provide for himself. Therefore, if Adam had come into the world as a child he could not have lived in it. Not by the natural law of evolution, but by the Creator's special interposition, man came into the world, the priest of nature, to interpret her inarticulate language and offer conscious adoration before God. As Adam's incarnation was the crowning miracle of nature, so Christ's incarnation is the crowning miracle of grace; He represents man before God, as man represents nature, not by ordinary descent but by the extraordinary operation of the Holy Spirit. Not a full grown man as Adam; but, in order to identify Himself with our weakness, a helpless infant.
Wilson's Dictionary of Bible Types 
This name is used as a type of all mankind, both men and women.
It is also used as a type of GOD Himself. It is the name given to the new nature which we received at conversion. It typifies also the physical body in which the person lives. It represents the mind and thoughts of men.
Some of the places in which these types are used will be found in the following list:
Man of War Exodus 15:3
Man of the Heart1Pe3:4
Man of the Earth Psalm 10:18
Man of GOD Deuteronomy 33:1
Man of Peace Psalm 120:7.
The New Man Ephesians 2:15.
The Man John 19:5.
The Outward mns2Co4:16.
The Inner man Ephesians 3:16.
The Vain Man James 2:20
The Double-minded Man James 1:8
The Hidden mns1Pe3:4
Smith's Bible Dictionary 
Man. Four Hebrew terms are rendered "man," in the Authorized Version:
1. Adam, the name of the man created in the image of God. It appears to be derived from adam , "He Or It Was Red Or Ruddy", like Edom. This was the generic term for the human race.
2. Ish , "Man", as distinguished from woman, Husband.
3. Geber , "A Man", from gabar , "To Be Strong", generally with reference to his strength.
4. Methim , "Men", always masculine. Perhaps, it may be derived from the root muth , "He Died".
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature 
is the rendering mostly of four Hebrew and two Greek words in the English Version. They are used with as much precision as the terms of like import in other languages. Nor is the subject merely critical; it will be found connected with accurate interpretation. In our treatment of the subject we thus supplement what we have stated under the article ADAM (See Adam) .
1. אָדָם , Adam', is used in several senses.
(a.) It is the proper name of the first man, though Gesenius thinks that when so applied it has the force rather of an appellative, and that, accordingly, in a translation, it would be better to render it The Man. It seems, however, to be used by Luke as a proper name in the genealogy ( Luke 3:38), by Paul ( Romans 5:14; 1 Timothy 2:13-14), and by Jude ( 1 Timothy 2:14). Paul's use of it in 1 Corinthians 15:45 is remarkably clear: "the first man Adam." It is so employed throughout the Apocrypha without exception ( 2 Esdras 3:5; 2 Esdras 3:10; 2 Esdras 3:21; 2 Esdras 3:26; 2 Esdras 4:30; 2 Esdras 6:54; 2 Esdras 7:11; 2 Esdras 7:46; 2 Esdras 7:48; Tobit 8:6; Eccliasiasticus 33:10; 40:1; 49:16), and by Josephus (ut infra). Gesenius argues that, as applied to the first man, it has the article almost without exception. It is doubtless often thus used as an appellative, but the exceptions are decisive: Genesis 3:17, "to Adam he said," and see Sept., Deuteronomy 32:8, "the descendants of Adam;" "if I covered my transgressions as Adam" ( Job 31:33); "and unto Adam he said," etc. ( Job 28:28), which, when examined by the context, seems to refer to a primeval revelation not recorded in Genesis (see also Hosea 6:7, Heb. or margin). Gesenius further argues that the woman has an appropriate name, but that the man has none. But the name Eve was given to her by Adam, and, as it would seem, under a change of circumstances; and though the divine origin of the word Adam, as a proper name of the first man, is not recorded in the history of the creation, as is that of the day, night, heaven, earth, seas, etc. ( Genesis 1:5; Genesis 1:8; Genesis 1:10), yet its divine origin as an appellative is recorded (comp. Hebrews, Genesis 1:26; Genesis 5:1); from which state it soon became a proper name, Dr. Lee thinks from its frequent occurrence, but we would suggest, from its peculiar appropriateness to "the man," who is the more immediate image and glory of God ( 1 Corinthians 11:7). Other derivations of the word have been offered, as
אָדִם , "to be red" or "redhaired;" and hence some of the rabbins have inferred that the first mall was so. The derivation is as old as Josephus, who says that "the first man was called Adam because he was formed from the red earth," and adds, "for the true virgin earth is of this color" (Ant. 1:1, 2). The following is a simple translation of the more detailed (Jehovistic) account given by Moses ( Genesis 2:18-25) of the creation of the first human pair, omitting the paragraph concerning the garden of Eden. (See Cosmogony).
This [is the] genealogy of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day [that] Jehovah God made earth and heavens. Now no shrub of the field had yet been [grown] on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up — for Jehovah God had not [as yet] caused [it] to rain upon the earth, nor [was there any] man to till the ground; but mist ascended from the earth, and watered all the face of the ground. Then Jehovah God formed the man, dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; so the man became a living creature.
But Jehovah God said, "[It is] not good [that] the man be alone; I will make for him a help as his counterpart." Now Jehovah God had formed from the ground every living [thing] of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and he brought [each] towards the man to see what he would call it: so whatever the man called it [as] a living creature, that [was] its name; thus the man called names to every beast, and to the bird of the heavens, and to every living [thing] of the field: yet for man [there] was not found a help as his counterpart. Then Jehovah God caused a lethargy to fall upon the man, so he slept; and he took one of his ribs, but closed flesh instead of it: and Jehovah God built the rib which he took from the man for a woman, and brought her towards the man. Thereupon the man said, "This now [is] bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh; this [being] shall be called Woman [ishah, vira], because from man [ish, vir] this [person] was taken: therefore will a man leave his father and his mother, and cling to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Now they were both of them naked, the man and his wife: yet they were not mutually ashamed [of their condition].
(b.) it is the generic name of the human race as originally created, and afterwards, like the English word man, person, whether man or woman, equivalent to the Latin Homo and Greek Ἄνθρωπος ( Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 5:2; Genesis 8:21; Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 5:13; Matthew 5:16; 1 Corinthians 7:26), and even without regard to age ( John 16:21). It is applied to women only, "the Human persons or women" ( Numbers 31:35), Sept. Ψυχαὶ Ἀνθρώπων Ἀπὸ Τῶν Γυναικῶν . Thus Ἡ Ἄνθρωπος means a woman (Herod. 1:60), and especially among the orators — (comp. Maccabees 2:28).
(c.) It denotes man in opposition to woman ( Genesis 3:12; Matthew 19:10), though more properly, the husband in opposition to the wife (compare 1 Corinthians 7:1).
(d.) It is used, though very rarely, for those who maintain the dignity of human nature, a Man, as we say, meaning one that deserves the name, like the Latin Vir and Greek Ἀνήρ : "One man in a thousand have I found, but a woman," etc. ( Ecclesiastes 7:28). Perhaps the word here glances at the original uprightness of man.
(e.) It is frequently used to denote the more degenerate and wicked portion of mankind: an instance of which occurs very early, "The sons (or worshippers) of God married the daughters of men (or the irreligious)" ( Genesis 6:2). We request a careful examination of the following passages with their respective contexts: Psalms 11:4; Psalms 12:1-2; Psalms 12:8; Psalms 14:2, etc. The latter passage is often adduced to prove the total depravity of the whole human race, whereas it applies only to the more abandoned Jews, or possibly to the more wicked Gentile adversaries of Israel. It is a description of "the fool," or wicked man ( Psalms 14:1), and of persons of the same class ( Psalms 14:1-2), "the workers of iniquity, who eat up God's people like breads and called not upon the name of the Lord" ( Psalms 14:4). For the true view of Paul's quotations from this psalm ( Romans 3:10), see M'Knight, adiloc.; and observe the use of the word "man" in Luke 5:20; Matthew 10:17. It is applied to the Gentiles ( Matthew 27:22; comp. Mark 10:33, and Mark 9:31; Luke 18:32; see Mountenev, Ad Demosth. Philippians 1:221). ( J: ) The word is used to denote other men, in opposition to those already named, as "both upon Israel and other men" ( Jeremiah 32:20), i.e. the Egyptians. "Like other men" ( Psalms 73:5), i.e. common men, in opposition to better men ( Psalms 82:7); men of inferior rank, as opposed to אַישׁ . men of higher rank (see Hebrew, Isaiah 2:9; Isaiah 5:15 : Psalms 49:3; Psalms 62:10; Proverbs 8:4). The phrase "son of man," in the Old Testament, denotes man as frail and unworthy ( Numbers 23:19; Job 25:6; Ezekiel 2:1; Ezekiel 2:3); as applied to the prophet, so often, it has the force of "mortal!"
2. אַישׁ , Ish, is a man in the distinguished sense, like the Latin Vir and Greek Ἀνήρ . It is used in all the several senses of the Latin Vir, and denotes a man as distinguished from a woman ( 1 Samuel 17:33; Matthew 14:21); as a husband ( Genesis 3:16; Hosea 2:16); and in reference to excellent mental qualities. A beautiful instance of the latter class occurs in Jeremiah 5:1 : "Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find A Man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it." This reminds the reader of the philosopher who went through the streets of Athens with a lighted lamp in his hand, and being asked what he sought, said, "I am seeking to find a man" (see Herodot. 2:120; Homer, II. 5. 529). It is also used to designate the superior classes ( Proverbs 8:4; Psalms 141:4, etc.), a courtier ( Jeremiah 38:7), the male of animals ( Genesis 7:2). Sometimes it means men in general ( Exodus 16:29; Mark 6:44).
3. אנֵוּשׁ , Enosh', mortals, Βροτοί , as transient, perishable, liable to sickness, etc.: "Let not man [margin, ‘ mortal man'] prevail against thee" ( 2 Chronicles 14:11). "Write with the pen of the common man" ( Isaiah 8:1), i.e. in a common, legible character ( Job 15:14; Psalms 8:5; Psalms 9:19-20; Isaiah 51:7; Psalms 103:15). It is applied to women ( Joshua 8:25).
4. גֶּבֶר , Ge'Ber, Vir, man, in regard to strength, etc. All etymologists concur in deriving the English word "man" from the superior powers and faculties with which rman is endowed above all earthly creatures; so the Latin Vir, from Vis, Vires; and such is the idea conveyed by the present Hebrew word. It is applied to man as distinguished from woman: "A man shall not put on a woman's garment" ( Deuteronomy 22:5), like Ἀνθρωπος in Matthew 8:9; John 1:6; to men as distinguished from children ( Exodus 12:37); to a male child, in opposition to a female ( Job 3:3; Sept. Ἄρσεν ) . It is much used in poetry: "Happy is the man" ( Psalms 34:9; Psalms 40:5; Psalms 52:9; Psalms 94:12). Sometimes it denotes the species at large ( Job 4:17; Job 14:10; Job 14:14). For a complete exemplification of these words, see the lexicons of Gesenius and Schleusner, etc.
5. מְתַים , Methim', "men," always masculine. The singular is to be traced in the antediluvian proper names Methusael and Methuselah. Perhaps it may be derived from the root Mith, "he died," in which case its use would be very appropriate in Isaiah 41:14, "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, ye men of Israel." If this conjecture be admitted, this word would correspond to Βροτός , and might be rendered "mortal."
Other Heb. words occasionally rendered man in the A. V. are בֵּעִל , Bdal, a master (husband), נֶפֶשׁ , Nephesh, an animate being, etc. The Greek words properly thus rendered are Ἄνθρωπος , homo, a human being, and Ἀνήρ , Vir, a man as distinguished from a woman.
Some peculiar uses of the word in the New Testament remain to be noticed. "The Son of Man," applied to our Lord only by himself and St. Stephen ( Acts 7:56), is the Messiah in human form. Schleusner thinks that the word in this expression always means woman, and denotes that he was the promised Messiah, born of a virgin, who had taken upon him our nature to fulfill the great decree of Goci, that mankind should be saved by one in their own form. ῾Ο Παλαιός , "the old man," and Ὁ Καινός , " the new man"-the former denoting unsanctified disposition of heart, the latter the new disposition created and cherished by the Gospel; Ὁ Ἔσω Ἄνθρωπος "the inner man;" Ὁ Κρυπτὸς Τῆς Καρδίας Ἄνθρωπος , "the hidden man of the heart," as opposed to the Ὁ Ἔξω Ἄνθρωπος , ‘ "the external, visible man." "A man of God," first applied to Moses ( Deuteronomy 33:1), and always afterwards to a person acting under a divine commission ( 1 Kings 13:1; 1 Timothy 6:2, etc.). Finally, angals are styled men ( Acts 1:10). "To speak after the manner of men," i.e. in accordance with human views, to illustrate by human examples or institutions, to use a popular mode of speaking ( Romans 3:5; 1 Corinthians 9:8; Galatians 3:15). "The number of a man," i.e. an ordinary number, such as is in general use among men ( Revelation 13:18); so also "the measure of a man," all ordinary measure, in common use ( Revelation 21:17).
Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature 
The derivation of the word is probably from dam, likeness, because man was made in the likeness of God. Others have, however, sought to derive it from a term signifying to be 'red' or 'red-haired.'
Adam is the proper name of the first man, though Gesenius thinks that when so applied it has the force rather of an appellative, and that, accordingly, in a translation, it would be better to render it the man. It seems, however, to be used by St. Luke as a proper name in the genealogy by St. Paul ; and by Jude . St Paul's use of it in is remarkably clear. This derivation is as old as Josephus, who says that 'the first man was called Adam, because he was formed from the red earth,' and adds, 'for the true virgin earth is of this color' (Antiq. i. 1, § 2). But is this true? and when man is turned again to his earth, is that red?
It is the generic name of the human race as originally created, and afterwards, like the English word man, person, whether man or woman (;;;;;; ), and even without regard to age . It is applied to women only, 'the human persons of women' .
It denotes man in opposition to woman , though, more properly, the husband in opposition to the wife (comp. ).
It is used, though very rarely, for those who maintain the dignity of human nature, a man, as we say, meaning one that deserves the name: 'One man in a thousand have I found, but a woman,' etc. . Perhaps the word here glances at the original uprightness of man.
It is frequently used to denote the more degenerate and wicked portion of mankind: an instance of which occurs very early, 'The sons, or worshippers, of God married the daughters of men, or the irreligious' .
The word is used to denote other men, in opposition to those already named as, 'both upon Israel and other men' , i.e. the Egyptians. 'Like other men' , i.e. common men, in opposition to better men : men of inferior rank, as opposed to men of higher rank (see Hebrew,;;;; ).
The phrase 'son of man,' in the Old Testament, denotes man as frail and unworthy ; as applied to the prophet, so often, it has the force of 'oh mortal!' There are three other Hebrew words thus translated in our version, and which in the original are used with much precision: one denoting a man as distinguished from a woman; another, 'mortals,' as transient, perishable, liable to sickness; and a third, man in regard to the superior powers and faculties with which he is endowed above all earthly creatures.
- ↑ Man from Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
- ↑ Man from Vine's Expository Dictionary of OT Words
- ↑ Man from Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words
- ↑ Man from Charles Buck Theological Dictionary
- ↑ Man from Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
- ↑ Man from Morrish Bible Dictionary
- ↑ Man from King James Dictionary
- ↑ Man from Easton's Bible Dictionary
- ↑ Man from Webster's Dictionary
- ↑ Man from Fausset's Bible Dictionary
- ↑ Man from Wilson's Dictionary of Bible Types
- ↑ Man from Smith's Bible Dictionary
- ↑ Man from Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
- ↑ Man from Kitto's Popular Cyclopedia of Biblial Literature