The study of human beings, their nature and origins. The
Christian understanding of anthropology stems from a biblical view of
humankind’s relationship to God.
The
Origin of Humankind
According
to Genesis, the creation of humankind took place on the sixth day of
the creation week. The amount of narrative space allotted to this day
(Gen. 1:24–31) testifies to the special importance of what
happened. Human beings were made on the same day as the animals.
Human beings were not given a day of their own, showing that they
have a certain kinship with the animals, although they are far more
than highly successful and adaptive mammals. This has implications
for the care of animals and of the environment generally. The value
of human beings and their special place in the created order is clear
in passages such as Pss. 8:5–6; 104:14–15.
Created
in the image of God.
When
it came to the making of human beings, God deliberated over this
crucial step (Gen. 1:26). The plural of exhortation in “Let us
make man in our image” signals that the decision to make
humankind was the most important one that God had made so far.
Genesis 1 says that human beings are like God in some way.
Various
opinions have been canvassed as to what the “image” is.
We cannot totally exclude the physical form of humans, given God’s
humanoid form in OT appearances (theophanies; e.g., Isa. 6:1; Ezek.
1:26; Amos 9:1). The image has sometimes been interpreted as a task,
the exercising of dominion (Gen. 1:28), with humanity appointed as
creation’s king, ruling under God. But the image is better
understood as the precondition for rule rather than rule itself. The
image shows human worth (Gen. 9:6) and differentiates humans from all
other creatures. It is proper for the Bible to use anthropomorphic
language for God, for humans are remarkably like God. Both male and
female are in the image of God (“in the image of God he created
them; male and female he created them” [1:27]), so that the
divine image is not maleness, nor is sexual differentiation the
image. Commonly, the image of God is thought to be some peculiar
quality of human beings—for example, rationality, speech, moral
sense, personality, humans as relational beings.
Every
century has its own view of what is the essence of humanity. However,
nothing in the passage allows a choice among such alternatives. The
point of the passage is simply the fact of the likeness, with no
exact definition being provided. The fact of the image is the basis
of the divine prohibition of murder and of the strict penalty applied
to the transgressor (9:4–6). The fall into sin affected every
aspect of the human constitution, and the Bible does not minimize the
fact of human sinfulness (Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 3:10–18);
nevertheless, humans are still in the image of God (Gen. 5:1–3;
9:6; 1 Cor. 11:7). God’s plan of salvation is aimed at
ridding creation (and especially humanity) of the baneful effects of
sin, and this will be achieved through the work of Christ, who is the
image of God (2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15–20; Heb. 1:1–3;
2:5–18). The outcome will be the conformity of believers in
Christ to his glorious image (Rom. 8:29–30; 2 Cor. 3.18).
Place
in the created order.
God’s purpose in giving human beings the divine image is “so
they may rule” (NET [Gen. 1:26b translated as a purpose
clause]). The syntax suggests that the image is a presupposition of
dominion. It is plain that such a delegated authority makes humans
stewards. The vegetarian diet of Gen.1:29 (there was no eating of
meat at first) represents a limitation to the human right of
dominion. Adam’s naming of the animals was (in part) expressive
of his sovereignty over them (2:19). Later, Noah was charged to bring
pairs of animals into the ark to preserve them alive (6:19–20),
showing care for other creatures. The patriarchs tended flocks
(13:2–9; 26:12–14), and Joseph’s relief measures
saved the lives of people and animals (47:15–18). The wanton
destruction of the Promised Land was expressly forbidden (Deut.
20:19–20). Humanity is accountable to God for the stewardship
of the earth. The divine command “be fruitful and multiply”
(Gen. 1:28 NRSV) shows that God’s purpose is that the human
race populate the whole earth.
At
Gen. 2:7 the biblical narrative becomes thoroughly anthropocentric,
picturing the little world that God establishes around the first man,
so this account is quite different from the cosmic presentation of
Gen. 1. In Gen. 1 humankind is the apex of a pyramid, the last and
highest of a series of creatures; in Gen. 2 the man is the center of
a circle, everything else made to fit around him, and his connection
to the physical earth is emphasized. In either view, a very special
place is given to human beings in the created order. The two pictures
are complementary, not contradictory.
The
“man” (’adam) is formed from the “ground”
(’adamah), with the related Hebrew words making a pun. Man’s
name reminds him of his earthy origins. He is made from the “dust,”
which hints at his coming death. He will return to the dust (Gen.
3:19; cf. Job 10:8–9; Ps. 103:14; Isa. 29:16). The reference to
“the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7) is due to the fact that
this leaves a person at death (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29–30),
so man’s (potential) mortality is implied. Ironically, the
making of man is described using the language of death. What is
described in Gen. 2 is the making of the first man, from whom the
rest of the human race has descended, not the making of humankind,
though the word ’adam can mean that in other contexts.
The
Nature of Humankind
Body,
soul, and spirit.
Arguments over whether human nature is bipartite (body and soul) or
tripartite (body, soul, spirit) are not to be decided by arbitrary
appeal to isolated verses. Verses can be found in apparent support
for both the first view (e.g., Matt. 10:28) and the second (e.g.,
1 Thess. 5:23), but certainly the first scheme is much more
prevalent in the Bible. “Soul” and “spirit”
can be used interchangeably (Eccles. 3:21; 12:7; Ezek. 18:31). Death
is marked by the parting of soul/spirit and body, but it would be a
mistake to think that human beings are made up of separate component
parts, or that the physical body is only a dispensable shell and not
essential to true humanity. The physicality of human existence in the
“body” is owned and celebrated in Scripture, part of that
being the positive attitude to sexuality when properly expressed
(Song of Songs; 1 Cor. 7) and the nonascetic nature of biblical
ethics (1 Cor. 10:31; Col. 2:23). The doctrine of the
resurrection of the body is the fullest expression of this (1 Cor.
15), in contrast to ancient Greek thought that viewed the body as
inherently evil and understood salvation as the immortality of the
liberated, disembodied soul.
The
different words used in relation to persons are only intended to
refer to and at times focus on different aspects of unified human
nature. References to the “soul” may stress individual
responsibility (e.g., Ezek. 18:4 NASB: “The soul who sins will
die”). In Ps. 103:1–2, “O my soul” expresses
emphatic self-encouragement to praise God and is in parallel with
“all my inmost being”—that is, “my whole
being” (an example of synecdoche: a part standing for the whole
[cf. Ps. 35:10]). These are ways of referring to oneself as a person
who expresses will and intention (cf. Ps. 42:5–6, 11). The
“flesh” is used to stress the weakness of mortal humanity
(e.g., Isa. 40:6 RSV: “All flesh is grass”). The “heart”
is the volitional center of a human being (Prov. 4:23; cf. Mark
7:17–23). The emotional and empathetic reactions of humans are
described by reference to the organs: “liver,” “kidneys,”
“bowels.”
Morals
and responsibility.
In Gen. 2 the complexities of the man’s moral relation to God
and his relations with the soil, with the animals, and with the woman
are explored. God deposited the man in the garden “to work it
and take care of it” (2:15). The words chosen to designate the
man’s work prior to the fall have an aura of worship about
them, for they are later used in the OT for the cultic actions of
serving and guarding within the sanctuary. The priests served by
offering sacrifices, and the Levites guarded the gates of the sacred
precinct. A theology of work as a religious vocation is presented.
The man was a kind of king-priest in the garden of God.
The
moral responsibility of humanity is signaled from the beginning.
God’s command gives permission for the man to eat from “any
tree” except one (Gen. 2:16–17) and as such indicates
man’s freedom, so that this command is no great restriction.
The wording “you are free to eat” reinforces the point
about God’s generous provision. The prohibition is embedded in
the description of God’s fatherly care for the man and gracious
act in placing him in the garden. The divine restriction is slight
and not at all overbearing, though the serpent will seek to make it
appear mean-spirited (3:1). The command and prohibition are the very
first words of God to the man, marking them out as of fundamental
importance for the relationship between them. The prohibition (“you
must not eat . . .”) is an absolute one in the
style of the Decalogue (Exod. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–21).
What is placed before the man is a test that gives him the
opportunity to express his loyalty to God. A relationship of
obedience and trust requires the possibility of choice and the
opportunity to disobey (if that is what he wants to do). The moral
nature and responsibility of individuals is not a late discovery by
the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek. 18); rather, it is the presupposition
behind the Mosaic law, for the commands of the Decalogue (“you
shall not . . .”) are phrased as commands to
individuals (as the Hebrew makes clear). On the other hand, the
concept of corporate responsibility is also present (e.g., Achan’s
punishment in Josh. 7).
Relationships.
Human beings are relational by nature, as the creation of the woman
as a helper and partner for the first man makes plain (Gen. 2:18–25).
Later in Scripture this is put in more general terms, so that
friendship and mutual cooperation are shown to be essential to life
(Eccles. 4:7–12). The body life of the church reflects the same
fact and need (1 Cor. 12). In Psalms, human needs and
vulnerability find their answer and fulfillment in God, with the
psalmist acknowledging his frailty and his creaturely dependence on
God (e.g., Ps. 90). This also shows the folly of sinful human pride,
against which the prophets so often inveighed (e.g., Isa. 2:9,
11–17, 22).
