Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary

MAN

Human being, whether male or female.

The biblical teaching on man begins with a right notion concerning God. The biblical perspective of anthropology (i.e., the study of man) is centrally displayed in the context of an elevated theology (i.e., the study of God). A high and reverent view of God leads to a noble and dignified view of man, whereas a poorly developed concept of God often produces a distorted perspective on man. Hence, man may be viewed more importantly than he ought, or man may be seen less important than is biblical. Either view is subbiblical. The place to begin a study of man (which in this article is used as a generic term for both male and female human beings) is with a view of God, his Creator.

Man’s Origin

Against the naturalistic, materialistic theories of origins, the biblical view starts with the assertion that the eternal God has created man, the most significant of all his created works. It is not necessary for one to subscribe to a particular chronological scenario for God’s work in the creation of man. Some Christians believe the Bible teaches a closed chronology in Genesis 1 made of six literal 24-hour days (cf. Gn 1:5, 8, 13, etc.), with the stunning, sudden appearance of man coming perhaps just some 6,000 years ago (cf. the chronologies associated with but not limited to Archbishop James Ussher, Annales, 1650–58). Some who hold this general viewpoint (sometimes called creation science) extend the creation of man to about 10,000 years ago, based on a view of some elasticity in the chronologies of Genesis 5 and 11.

Others believe the texts of Genesis 1 and 2 may be interpreted far more broadly to speak of a most remote antiquity for the creation of man (extending to millions of years). They argue that process (under God’s control and direction) may have played a significant role in God’s creative work. This viewpoint is best termed progressive creationism, and is to be contrasted with theistic evolution, in which God is usually viewed as initiating the process but having little involvement once the processes are in motion. In the former approach, the Hebrew term “day” (yom) in Genesis 1 may refer to an extended period of time (e.g., the “day-age” theory); thus, the phrasing “an evening and a morning, the xth day” may be a literary device to present successive scenes in the creative works of God through the processes of time.

Many Christians find themselves somewhere between a conservative and a broad chronology for man’s origin. Yet in spite of individual preferences, one must give assent to God’s creative work in producing man in order to think biblically about man. The essence of faith begins in the words “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.”

Man is not only God’s creation but also the pinnacle of his creative effort. Long before modern precision in such things, the ancients were aware of man’s anatomical similarities with members of the animal kingdom. Yet despite these similarities, the biblical viewpoint never places man on the same level as animals—man is distinct, the high point of God’s creative work, the apex of his handicraft. The progression of the created things in Genesis 1 is climactic; all of God’s created work culminated in his fashioning of man.

The distinct behavioral characteristics of man include language, toolmaking, and culture. Distinct experiential characteristics include reflective awareness, ethical concern, aesthetic urges, historical awareness, and metaphysical concern. These factors individually and collectively separate man from other forms of animal life. Man is far more than the “naked ape” of some modern evolutionary theories. But sociology alone does not suffice to explain the full nature of man. That is the subject of divine revelation.

While man bears a continuity with God’s creation (assumed in the words of Gn 2:7, being fashioned from the dust of the earth), man is also distinct from all that precedes him because God breathed into him the breath of life so that he became a living soul (2:7). Man was created by God as male and female (1:27), meaning that what is said generally of man must be said of both the male and the female, and that the truest picture of what it means to be human will be found in the context of man and woman together. The commands to multiply and exercise sovereignty over the earth were given to both sexes as shared responsibility. Similarly, it is man as male and female that rebelled against God and bears the consequences of that primeval sin in the postfall world, and it is man as male and female that Christ came to redeem (cf. Gal 3:28). At the same time, the words “male” and “female” denote true distinctions. Many perceived gender differences may be culturally conditioned, yet the prime sexual distinctions between male (Hebrew, zakar, “the piercer”) and female (Hebrew, neqeba, “the pierced”) are divinely intended. It takes both male and female to exhibit the full image of God (see Gn 1:27).

Indeed, the most stunning biblical assertion respecting man is that God made man in his image. Of no other creature, not even the angels, is such a statement found. The words “in God’s image” in Genesis 1:26-28 are the basis for the psalmist’s paraphrase in Psalm 8:5, “for you have made him to lack but little of God” (literal translation; “lower than the angels,” Septuagint translation). The meaning of the phrase “the image of God” (Latin, imago Dei) has been the subject of much debate. Some have thought the phrase to refer to a physical representation of God, but this is doubtful in that God is spirit (cf. Jn 4:24). Others think the phrase refers to man’s personhood, which corresponds to the personality of God (having intellect, sensibilities, and will). Such qualities of man may be found in God’s image; however, these varied aspects of personality are also shared by other members of the animal kingdom and are not unique to the human species.

The basic meaning of the word “image” (Hebrew, tselem) is “shadow,” “representation,” or “likeness.” The image of God in man reveals God’s perspective of man’s worth and dignity as a representation or a shadow of himself in the created world. Ancient kings of Assyria were known to have physical images of themselves placed in outlying districts as a reminder to those who might be prone to forget that these areas were a part of the empire. So God has placed in man a shadow of himself, a representation of his presence, in the world that he has made.

This view of God’s image in man seems to be confirmed by the immediate context in Genesis 1. Man, created in God’s image, is to have dominion over all of God’s other works (Gn 1:26; see also Ps 8:5). Further, as a representative of the Creator, man is to respond to him. Jesus’ assertion of the spirituality of God results in a response of worship in spirit and in truth (Jn 4:21-24).

Man’s Nature

One may tend to think of man in parts, but the biblical emphasis is on man as a whole. Debates continue on the tripartite (threefold) nature of man (cf. 1 Thes 5:23)—spirit, soul, and body—as against a bipartite (twofold) nature of man, material and immaterial. Though the Bible does seem to support both positions, the most important issue respecting the nature of man is his unity rather than the number of his parts. Hence, a biblical view of man begins in the assertion that one is a person made up of physical and nonphysical properties. In the words of Karl Barth, the human person is “bodily soul, as he is also besouled body.” There is no person in body only, nor can one easily think of a bodiless spirit as a person, except in a temporary, transitional state. The Hebrew term nephesh, often translated “soul,” is best rendered “person” in most contexts. The Hebrew word ruach (“breath,” “wind,” “spirit”) and the Greek words pneuma (“spirit”) and psuche (“soul”) often speak of the immaterial part of man. This is no less real than the physical. A purely material, physical view of man is frightfully deficient. At the same time, an overemphasis on the spirit and a deemphasis on the physical is neither realistic nor balanced. One may say, “I am a person whose existence is presently very dependent upon my physical body. But I am more than body, more than flesh. When my body dies, I still live. When my flesh decays, I exist. But one day I shall live in a body again. For the notion of a disembodied spirit is not the full measure of my humanity. God’s ideal for me is to live my life in my [new] body. So in hope of the eternal state, I believe in the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.”

One cannot go far in thinking of the nature of man from the biblical vantage point without first facing the problem of the fall. Genesis 3 suggests that unfallen man was immortal, that his powers of sexual reproduction were not originally bound in the pain in childbearing, and that his work was not troubled by reversals in nature. After the fall, however, all was changed: within man himself, between the male and the female, in his interaction with nature, and in his relationship with the Creator.

As a result of the fall, man has become profoundly fallen, a fallenness extending to every part of his person. The phrase “total depravity” need not mean that one is as evil as he or she might be, but rather that the results of sin affect one’s whole being. At the time, the image of God in man continues in some way after the fall, providing the divine rationale for salvation (cf. Rom 5). It is essentially because of God’s estimation of the intrinsic worth of man that the divine justification of salvation may be maintained.

The old debate between the essential goodness and the evil disposition of man finds its quandary and resolution in the Genesis account: God made man to consciously reflect the dignity and nobility of the Creator, yet man, by his own deliberate rebellion, turned against his Creator and continues, except by God’s grace, in the ensuing sin that marks his life. This resultant sin is both a quality of being in the fallen person, as well as numerous, continuing acts of pride and selfishness. Though the image of God in man was marred by the fall, it may be stimulated anew by the effective work of the Spirit of God as one comes to newness of life in Christ. This gracious work of God brings personal renewal, restoration of relationships with others, and fellowship with God.

Man, then, who was created good by God, has become evil by his own devices, yet in God’s power he may recapture the good again. The rediscovery of what it means to be fully human is found in the life of Jesus, whose human life is the new beginning for man. Hence, Jesus is the new Adam; in his model there is a new beginning that replaces the former pattern.

Man’s Destiny

A biblical view of man must include a balanced statement respecting his divine origin, his rebellion against the grace of God, his judgment, and his prospect for redemption in the person of the Savior Jesus with the promise of eternal life. Man has a beginning and will live forever. This assertion is in stark contrast to naturalistic theories of origins and destinies. One of the most deceptive tendencies of modern thought is the concept “coming to terms with death.” People with no thought of God and no hope for eternity are encouraging each other to accept the inevitable decline and demise of their bodies as the natural end to human life. The biblical notion is that death in man is not natural at all.

Death is an acquired trait, not the natural destiny of man. Death may be said of the body but not of the spirit. The biblical teaching is that while the body dies and decays, the person lives on in hope of a renewed body. Those who have come to know Christ go to be with him when their bodies die (Phil 1:23) and anticipate the resurrection of the body for eternal life to come (1 Cor 15:35-49). Those who die apart from Christ do not cease to exist but rather are assigned an eternal existence of conscious knowledge that they are separated from God and have fallen short of their destiny to enjoy his presence forever. The biblical teaching on the destiny of the lost is quite unpalatable for modern man. Even Christians who have generally high views of biblical inspiration may find themselves blanching at the thought of eternal punishment of the wicked. Yet the biblical doctrine of the final judgment of the wicked is as well established as most teachings in the Bible.

One of the most dramatic truths in Scripture respecting the nature of man is to realize that it was for man that God initiated the salvation work that led to the incarnation of the eternal son of God. After his resurrection and ascension, the Lord Jesus Christ returned to his eternal position of glory and majesty in heaven, where he forever remains the God-man. As God, he shares all the attributes of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and as man, identifies with man. He reveals himself in a physical body, albeit the resurrection body, the firstfruits of the resurrection of all who are his. The incarnation, then, brought about an eternal change in deity. Only a very high view of the worth of man could have brought God to such a fundamental change in himself. As the writer to the Hebrews states, “Because God’s children are human beings—made of flesh and blood—Jesus also became flesh and blood by being born in human form” (Heb 2:14, NLT).

The final measure of our humanity is that man was made to worship God and to enjoy him forever. Such thoughts are not attributed to any other created being. Even the angels, who have maintained their perfect state and who worship the Father in conscious bliss, do not have quite the same relationship with God as do redeemed men (Heb 2:16).

What is man? In Christ, man is all God means him to be, in majesty and dignity, and in joy before his throne forever.