Man
Man
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, ra); 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 Gospels2, 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. Pauls 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. Pauls 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 Judentums2, 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 (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 ra () and nephesh (). 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 (1Co 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 (Eph 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 (Eph 2:2; cf. 2Th 2:9), to whom is to be ascribed the power to work both physical (1Co 5:5, 2Co 12:7) and moral (1Co 7:5; cf. 2Co 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 (2Co 3:18) sprang from St. Pauls 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 (1Co 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 (Eph 6:10 f.) shares in the conflict of Christ, whose final victory (1Co 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 (1Co 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 mans 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 (Rom 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 mans 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 (Rom 7:14). Through this weakness, he has been taken captive by Sin, conceived as an external, personalized activity (Rom 7:8; Rom 7:23). Yet the , or inner man, desires to obey that spiritual Law, for there is a spiritual element (ra) in human nature (Rom 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 Platos 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 (Rom 7:11) and could be overcome by those who were led by the Spirit (Rom 8:14, Gal 5:18). For where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2Co 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 () 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. Pauls 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. Pauls 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 Rom 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 Adams sin, just as the entrance of new life is ascribed to Christs obedience (Rom 5:17). But when we read that through one mans disobedience the many were made sinners (Rom 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 (Jer 31:29) and Ezekiel (Eze 18:2)-The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the childrens 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 Hagars son (Gal 4:30), and that the Edomites were hated in Esau (Rom 9:13). Just as Achans sin brought death on his whole family, since it brought them as a group under the ban (Jos 7:24-25), so Adams 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 Adams wilful disobedience (Rom 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. Adams 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. Pauls 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. Porters 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. Pauls 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 1Co 15:22 : As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. The Church, as the body of Christ (1Co 12:12; 1Co 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 (Rom 8:11, 1Co 15:44), a body like that of the Risen Lord (Php 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 souls 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 (1Co 15:50), we may perhaps suppose that St. Paul would postulate the original mortality of human nature, with a potential immortality lost through sin (Rom 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. Pauls 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 (Joh 3:19; Joh 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, Gal 5:17) to the external conflict which gathers around the Person of Christ. The world (a characteristic Johannine term) is the realm of darkness (Joh 1:5; Joh 3:19 etc.), sin (Joh 7:7), and death (Joh 5:24, 1Jn 3:14). Christ is the Light of the world (Joh 8:12), its Saviour from sin (Joh 1:29, Joh 3:17), and its Life (Joh 3:16, Joh 6:68). His conflict with that darkness which is sin, and issues in death, is continued by His Spirit (Joh 16:8). Sin is defined in the characteristic Pauline (Hebrew) way as lawlessness (1Jn 3:4); it is a voluntary act (Joh 9:41), and reaches its culmination in the wilful rejection of life in Christ (Joh 5:40; cf. Joh 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 (Joh 8:44); the world lies in his power (1Jn 5:19), and he is its prince (Joh 12:31; Joh 14:30; Joh 16:11).
(b) The spiritual transformation of individual men from lovers of darkness (Joh 3:19) to sons of light (Joh 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 (2Co 5:17, Gal 6:15) into that of a new birth (Joh 3:3), which springs from a Divine seed (1Jn 3:9). This spiritual birth (much more than a mere metaphor) is sharply contrasted with natural birth (Joh 1:13). The new life it initiates is ascribed to the Spirit of God (Joh 3:6), and is nourished sacramentally (Joh 3:5, Joh 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. Pauls case, from the OT contrast of their respective power and weakness, as seen in their ethical consequences (1Jn 2:16). This new birth from the Spirit has its conscious side in the believers faith (Joh 1:12); that there is no contradiction between the two ideas is shown by such a passage as 1Jn 5:1 : Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God. Such belief primarily concerns the Divine mission of Christ (Joh 12:44; Joh 17:8; Joh 17:21), knowledge of which is imparted through His words (Joh 6:68), which are themselves Spirit and life (Joh 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 (Joh 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 (Joh 18:37), i.e., that there is an intrinsic affinity between truth and the Truth (Joh 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. Johns more Greek and less Jewish atmosphere. This eternal life is life like Christs (1Jn 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 (1Jn 3:14). In such life sin has no place as a fixed habit of character (1Jn 5:18); sin unto death (1Jn 2:19, 1Jn 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 (1Jn 1:9). The issue of sin is death (Joh 8:24), whereas Christ teaches that if any man keep my word he shall never see death (Joh 8:51; cf. Joh 11:25-26). Except for one passage (Joh 5:29), in which the term the resurrection of judgment may have become a conventional phrase, resurrection appears to be confined to the believer (Joh 6:40), and is intended, as with St. Paul, to restore the full personality. Eternal life is already the believers possession (1Jn 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 (1Jn 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 (Jam 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 (Heb 6:4-8; cf. Heb 12:17). The Petrine reference to the spirits in prison (1Pe 3:19-20; 1Pe 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 (Heb 4:14-16; Heb 10:19; Heb 10:22). Through Christ, according to this Epistle, the realities of the unseen world (Heb 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 (1Pe 1:15; 1Pe 2:21; 1Pe 4:1). This non-mystical Christianity finds its most extreme example in the polemic of St. James against faith without works (Jam 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, about a.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 (Rev 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 (Tyndalls 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 Man2, 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. Ldemann, Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus, 1872; J. Glol, Der heilige Geist in der Heilsverkndigung des Paulus, 1888; T. Simon, Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus, 1897; C. Clemen, Die christliche Lehre von der Snde, 1897; H. Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes2, 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.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
MAN
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, Psa 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.
See SOUL.
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, Ecc 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, Gen 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, Gal 3:1-29 : Rom 5:1-21 : Gen 3:1-24 : Eph 2:1-22 : Rom 3:1-31 : passim.
See FALL.
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, Mat 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.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
man
(Anglo-Saxon: man, a person)
Common sense philosophy defines man as a rational animal, or as a being composed of a body and a rational soul. The fact that man’s soul is rational leads us to the conclusion that it is also spiritual and by its very nature immortal. Also from the rationality of man’s soul flows his freedom of will. Nothing that science has discovered in its search during the last decades contradicts these conclusions. Philosophy adds that the soul of each individual man is produced by a creative act of God’s omnipotence, and that man’s ultimate end is the glory of God. What philosophy proves to the trained mind by reasoning, the child learns easily through faith in Divine Revelation. But Revelation also adds the fact of man’s fall, which reason only dimly suspects, of man’s redemption through the Incarnation and Death of the Second Person of the Trinity, of the institution of the Church, which is commanded to carry on the work of redemption till the end of time. Revelation also allows us a glimpse into the future. At the end of time, all the dead will rise again to receive at the universal judgment the reward or punishment for their deeds.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Man
(Anglo-Saxon man=a person, human being; supposed root man=to think; Ger., Mann, Mensch).
I. THE NATURE OF MAN
According to the common definition of the School, Man is a rational animal. This signifies no more than that, in the system of classification and definition shown in the Arbor Porphyriana, man is a substance, corporeal, living, sentient, and rational. It is a logical definition, having reference to a metaphysical entity. It has been said that man’s animality is distinct in nature from his rationality, though they are inseparably joined, during life, in one common personality. “Animality” is an abstraction as is “rationality”. As such, neither has any substantial existence of its own. To be exact we should have to write: “Man’s animality is rational”; for his “rationality” is certainly not something superadded to his “animality”. Man is one in essence. In the Scholastic synthesis, it is a manifest illogism to hypostasize the abstract conceptions that are necessary for the intelligent apprehension of complete phenomena. A similar confusion of expression may be noticed in the statement that man is a “compound of body and soul”. This is misleading. Man is not a body plus a soul—which would make of him two individuals; but a body that is what it is (namely, a human body) by reason of its union with the soul. As a special application of the general doctrine of matter and form which is as well a theory of science as of intrinsic causality, the “soul” is envisaged as the substantial form of the matter which, so informed, is a human “body”. The union between the two is a “substantial” one. It cannot be maintained, in the Thomistic system, that the “substantial union is a relation by which two substances are so disposed that they form one”. In the general theory, neither “matter” nor “form”, but only the composite, is a substance. In the case of man, though the “soul” be proved a reality capable of separate existence, the “body” can in no sense be called a substance in its own right. It exists only as determined by a form; and if that form is not a human soul, then the “body” is not a human body. It is in this sense that the Scholastic phrase “incomplete substance”, applied to body and soul alike, is to be understood. Though strictly speaking self-contradictory, the phrase expresses in a convenient form the abiding reciprocity of relation between these two “principles of substantial being”.
Man is an individual, a single substance resultant from the determination of matter by a human form. Being capable of reasoning, he verifies the philosophical definition of a person (q. v.): “the individual substance of a rational nature”. This doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas (cf. I, Q. lxxv, a. 4) and of Aristotle is not the only one that has been advanced. In Greek and in modern philosophy, as well as during the Patristic and Scholastic periods, another celebrated theory laid claim to pre-eminence. For Plato the soul is a spirit that uses the body. It is in a non-natural state of union, and longs to be freed from its bodily prison (cf. Republic, X, 611). Plato has recourse to a theory of a triple soul to explain the union—a theory that would seem to make personality altogether impossible (see MATTER). St. Augustine, following him (except as to the triple-soul theory) makes the “body” and “soul” two substances; and man “a rational soul using a mortal and earthly body” (De Moribus, I, xxvii). But he is careful to note that by union with the body it constitutes the human being. St. Augustine’s psychological doctrine was current in the Middle Ages up to the time and during the perfecting of the Thomistic synthesis. It is expressed in the “Liber de Spiritu et Anima” of Alcher of Clairvaux (?) (twelfth century). In this work “the soul rules the body; its union with the body is a friendly union, though the latter impedes the full and free exercise of its activity; it is devoted to its prison” (cf. de Wulf, “History of Philosophy”, tr. Coffey). As further instances of Augustinian influence may be cited Alanus ab Insulis (but the soul is united by a spiritus physicus to the body); Alexander of Hales (union ad modum formæ cum materia); St. Bonaventure (the body united to a soul consisting of “form” and “spiritual matter”—forma completiva). Many of the Franciscan doctors seem, by inference if not explicitly, to lean to the Platonic Augustinian view; Scotus, who, however, by the subtlety of his “formal distinction a parte rei”, saves the unity of the individual while admitting the forma corporeitatis; his opponent John Peter Olivi’s “mode of union” of soul and body was condemned at the Council of Vienne (1311-12).
The theories of the nature of man so far noticed are purely philosophical. No one of them has been explicitly condemned by the Church. The ecclesiastical definitions have reference merely to the “union” of “body” and “soul”. With the exception of the words of the Council of Toledo, 688 (Ex libro responionis Juliani Archiep. Tolet.),in which “soul” and “body” are referred to as two “substances” (explicable in the light of subsequent definitions only in the hypothesis of abstraction, and as “incomplete” substances), other pronouncements of the Church merely reiterate the doctrine maintained in the School. Thus Lateran in 649 (against the Monothelites), canon ii, “the Word of God with the flesh assumed by Him and animated with an intellectual principle shall come . . . “; Vienne, 1311-12, “whoever shall hereafter dare to assert, maintain, or pertinaciously hold that the rational or intellectual soul is not per se and essentially the form of the human body, is to be regarded as a heretic”; Decree of Leo X, in V Lateran, Bull “Apostolici Regiminis”, 1513, “. . . with the approval of this sacred council we condemn all who assert that the intellectual soul is mortal or is the same in all men . . . for the soul is not only really and essentially the form of the human body, but is also immortal; and the number of souls has been and is to be multiplied according as the number of bodies is multiplied”; Brief “Eximiam tuam” of Pius IX to Cardinal de Geissel, 15 June, 1857, condemning the error of Günther, says: “the rational soul is per se the true and immediate form of the body”.
In the sixteenth century Descartes advanced a doctrine that again separated soul and body, and compromised the unity of consciousness and personality. To account for the interaction of the two substances—the one “thought”, the other “extension”— “Occasionalism” (Malebranche, Geulincx), “Pre-established Harmony” (Leibniz), and “Reciprocal Influx” (Locke) were imagined. The inevitable reaction from the Cartesian division is to be found in the Monism of Spinoza. Aquinas avoids the difficulties and contradictions of the “two substance” theory and, saving the personality, accounts for the observed facts of the unity of consciousness. His doctrine: disproves the possibility of metempsychosis; establishes an inferential, though not an apodictic argument, for the resurrection of the body; avoids all difficulties as to the “seat of the soul”, by asserting formal actuation; proves the immortality of the soul from the spiritual and incomplex activity observed in the individual man; it is not my soul that thinks, or my body that eats, but “I” that do both.
The particular creation of the soul is a corollary of the foregoing. This doctrine—the contradiction of Traducianism and Transmigration—follows from the consideration that the formal principle cannot be produced by way of generation, either directly (since it is proved to be simple in substance), or accidentally (since it is a subsistent form). Hence there remains only creation as the mode of its production. The complete argument may be found in the “Contra Gentiles” of St. Thomas, II, lxxxvii. See also Summa Theologica, I, Q. cxviii, aa. 1 and 2 (against Traducianism) and a. 3 (in refutation of the opinion of Pythagoras, Plato and Origen — with whom Leibniz might be grouped as professing a modified form of the same opinion—the creation of souls at the beginning of time).
II. THE ORIGIN OF MAN
This problem may be treated from the standpoints of Holy Scripture, theology, or philosophy.
A. The Sacred Writings are entirely concerned with the relations of man to God, and of God’s dealings with man, before and after the Fall. Two accounts of his origin are given in the Old Testament. On the sixth and last day of the creation “God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him” (Genesis 1:27); and “the Lord God formed man of the slime of the earth: and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Gem, ii, 7; so Ecclus., xvii, 1: “God created man of the earth, and made him after his own image”). By these texts the special creation of man is established, his high dignity and his spiritual nature. As to his material part, the Scripture declares that it is formed by God from the “slime of the earth”. This becomes a “living soul” and fashioned to the “image of God” by the inspiration of the “breath of life”, which makes man man and differentiates him from the brute.
B. This doctrine is obviously to be looked for in all Catholic theology. The origin of man by creation (as opposed to emanative and evolutionistic Pantheism) is asserted in the Church’s dogmas and definitions. In the earliest symbols (see the Alexandrian: di ou ta panta egeneto, ta en ouranois kai epi ges, horata te kai aorata, and the Nicene), in the councils (see especially IV Lateran, 1215; “Creator of all things visible and invisible, spiritual and corporeal, who by this omnipotent power . . . brought forth out of nothing the spiritual and corporeal creation, that, is the angelic world and the universe, and afterwards man, forming as it were one composite out of spirit and body”), in the writings of the Fathers and theologians the same account is given. The early controversies and apologetics of St. Clement of Alexandria and Origen defend the theory of creation against Stoics and neo-Platonists. St. Augustine strenuously combats the pagan schools on this point as on that of the nature and immortality of man’s soul. A masterly synthetic exposition of the theological and philosophical doctrine as to man is given in the “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas, I, QQ. lxxv-ci. So again the “Contra Gentiles”, II (on creatures), especially from xlvi onwards, deals with the subject from a philosophical standpoint — the distinction between the theological and the philosophical treatment having been carefully drawn in chap. iv. Note especially chap. lxxxvii, which establishes Creationism.
C. Scholastic philosophy reaches a conclusion as to the origin of man similar to the teaching of revelation and theology. Man is a creature of God in a created universe. All things that are, except Himself, exist in virtue of a unique creative act. As to the mode of creation, there would seem to be two possible alternatives. Either the individual composite was created ex nihilo, or a created soul became the informing principle of matter already pre-existing in another determination. Either mode would be philosophically tenable, but the Thomistic principle of the successive and graded evolution of forms in matter is in favour of the latter view. If, as is the case with the embryo (St. Thomas, I, Q. cxviii, a. 2, ad 2um), a succession of preparatory forms preceded information by the rational soul, it nevertheless follows necessarily from the established principles of Scholasticism that this, not only in the case of the first man, but of all men, must be produced in being by a special creative act. The matter that is destined to become what we call man’s “body” is naturally prepared, by successive transformations, for the reception of the newly created soul as its determinant principle. The commonly held opinion is that this determination takes place when the organization of the brain of the foetus is sufficiently complete to allow of imaginative life; i.e. the possibility of the presence of phantasmata. But note also the opinion that the creation of, and information by, the soul takes place at the moment of conception.
III. THE END OF MAN
In common with all created nature (substance, or essence, considered as the principle of activity or passivity), that of man tends towards its natural end. The proof of this lies in the inductively ascertained principle of finality. The natural end of man may be considered from two points of view. Primarily, it is the procuring of the glory of God, which is the end of all creation. God’s intrinsic perfection is not increased by creation, but extrinsically He becomes known and praised, or glorified by the creatures He endows with intelligence. A secondary natural end of man is the attainment of his own beatitude, the complete and hierarchic perfection of his nature by the exercise of its faculties in the order which reason prescribes to the will, and this by the observance of the moral law. Since complete beatitude is not to be attained in this life (considered in its merely natural aspect, as neither yet elevated by grace, nor vitiated by sin) future existence, as proved in psychology, is postulated by ethics for its attainment. Thus the present life is to be considered as a means to a further end. Upon the relation of the rational nature of man to his last end—God—is founded the science of moral philosophy, which thus presupposes as its ground, metaphysics, cosmology, and psychology. The distinction of good and evil rests upon the consonance or discrepancy of human acts with the nature of man thus considered; and moral obligation has its root in the absolute necessity and immutability of the same relation.
With regard to the last end of man (as “man” and not as “soul”), it is not universally held by Scholastics that the resurrection of the body is proved apodictically in philosophy. Indeed some (e. g. Scotus, Occam) have even denied that the immortality of the soul is capable of such demonstration. The resurrection is an article of faith. Some recent authors, however (see Cardinal Mercier, “Psychologie”, II, 370), advance the argument that the formation of a new body is naturally necessary on account of the perfect final happiness of the soul, for which it is a condition sine qua non. A more cogent form of the proof would seem to lie in the consideration that the separated soul is not complete in ratione naturæ. It is not the human being; and it would seem that the nature of man postulates a final and permanent reunion of its two intrinsic principles.
But there is de facto another end of man. The Catholic Faith teaches that man has been raised to a supernatural state and that his destiny, as a son of God and member of the Mystical Body of which Christ is the Head, is the eternal enjoyment of the beatific vision. In virtue of God’s infallible promise, in the present dispensation the creature enters into the covenant by baptism; he becomes a subject elevated by grace to a new order, incorporated into a society by reason of which he tends and is brought to a perfection not due to his nature (see CHURCH). The means to this end are justification by the merits of Christ communicated to man, co-operation with grace, the sacraments, prayer, good works, etc. The Divine law which the Christian obeys rests on this supernatural relation and is enforced with a similar sanction. The whole pertains to a supernatural providence which belongs not to philosophical speculation but to revelation and theological dogma. In the light of the finalistic doctrine as to man, it is evident that the “purpose of life” can have a meaning only in reference to an ultimate state of perfection of the individual. The nature tending towards its end can be interpreted only in terms of that end; and the activities by which it manifests its tendency as a living being have no adequate explanation apart from it.
The theories that are sometimes put forward of the place of man in the universe, as destined to share in a development to which no limits can be assigned, rest upon the Spencerian theory that man is but “a highly-differentiated portion of the earth’s crust and gaseous envelope”, and ignore or deny the limitation imposed by the essential materiality and spirituality of human nature. If the intellectual faculties were indeed no more than the developed animal powers., there would seem to be no possibility of limiting their progress in the future. But since the soul of man is the result, not of evolution, but of creation, it is impossible to look forward to any such advance as would involve a change in man’s specific nature, or any essential difference in its relation to its material environment, in the physiological conditions under which it at present exists, or in its “relation” to its Divine Creator. The “Herrenmoralität” of Nietzsche—the “transvaluation of values” which is to revolutionize the present moral law, the new morality which man’s changing relation to the Absolute may some day bring into existence—must, therefore, be considered to be not less inconsistent with the nature of man than it is wanting in historical probability.
———————————–
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS, Opera (Parma, 1852-72); BRADLEY, Appearance and Reality (London, 1890); CATHREIN, Philosophia Moralis (Freiburg, 1895), DR WULF, Historie de la Philosophie Médiévale (Louvain, 1905), tr. COFFEY (London, 1909); DUCKWORTH in Cambridge Theologial Essays (London 1905); HAGENBACH, History of Doctrines (Edinburgh, 1846); HURTER, Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Compendium (Innsbruck, 1896); LODGE, Substance of Faith (London, 1907); LOTZE, Microkosmos (Edinburgh, 1885); MAHER, Psychology in Stonyhurst Series (London, 1890); MERCIER, Psychologie (Louvain, 1908); NIETZSCHE, Jenseits von Gut und Böse (Leipzig, 1886); NYS, Cosmologie (Louvain, 1906); RICKABY, Moral Philosophy in Stonyhurst Series ( London, 1888); RITTER AND PRELLE, Historia Philosophiæ Graecæ (Gotha, 1888); SCOTUS, Opera (Lyons, 1639); SUAREZ, Metaphysicarum Disputationum tomi duo (Mainz, 1605); WINDELBAND, tr. TUFTS, History of Philosophy (New York, 1893).
FRANCIS AVELING Transcribed by Douglas J. Potter Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary
The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IXCopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York
Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia
Man
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. , 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 (Luk 3:38), by Paul (Rom 5:14; 1Ti 2:13-14), and by Jude (1Ti 2:14). Paul’s use of it in 1Co 15:45 is remarkably clear: the first man Adam. It is so employed throughout the Apocrypha without exception (2Es 3:5; 2Es 3:10; 2Es 3:21; 2Es 3:26; 2Es 4:30; 2Es 6:54; 2Es 7:11; 2Es 7:46; 2Es 7:48; Tob 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: Gen 3:17, to Adam he said, and see Sept., Deu 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 Hos 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. (Gen 1:5; Gen 1:8; Gen 1:10), yet its divine origin as an appellative is recorded (comp. Hebrews, Gen 1:26; Gen 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 (1Co 11:7). Other derivations of the word have been offered, as
, 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 (Gen 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 (Gen 1:26-27; Gen 5:2; Gen 8:21; Deu 8:3; Mat 5:13; Mat 5:16; 1Co 7:26), and even without regard to age (Joh 16:21). It is applied to women only, the human persons or women (Num 31:35), Sept. . Thus means a woman (Herod. 1:60), and especially among the orators (comp. Maccabees 2:28).
(c.) It denotes man in opposition to woman (Gen 3:12; Mat 19:10), though more properly, the husband in opposition to the wife (compare 1Co 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 : One man in a thousand have I found, but a woman, etc. (Ecc 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) (Gen 6:2). We request a careful examination of the following passages with their respective contexts: Psa 11:4; Psa 12:1-2; Psa 12:8; Psa 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 (Psa 14:1), and of persons of the same class (Psa 14:1-2), the workers of iniquity, who eat up God’s people like breads and called not upon the name of the Lord (Psa 14:4). For the true view of Paul’s quotations from this psalm (Rom 3:10), see M’Knight, adiloc.; and observe the use of the word man in Luk 5:20; Mat 10:17. It is applied to the Gentiles (Mat 27:22; comp. Mar 10:33, and Mar 9:31; Luk 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 (Jer 32:20), i.e. the Egyptians. Like other men (Psa 73:5), i.e. common men, in opposition to better men (Psa 82:7); men of inferior rank, as opposed to . men of higher rank (see Hebrew, Isa 2:9; Isa 5:15 : Psa 49:3; Psa 62:10; Pro 8:4). The phrase son of man, in the Old Testament, denotes man as frail and unworthy (Num 23:19; Job 25:6; Eze 2:1; Eze 2:3); as applied to the prophet, so often, it has the force of mortal!
2. , ish, is a man in the distinguished sense, like the Latin vir and Greek . It is used in all the several senses of the Latin vir, and denotes a man as distinguished from a woman (1Sa 17:33; Mat 14:21); as a husband (Gen 3:16; Hos 2:16); and in reference to excellent mental qualities. A beautiful instance of the latter class occurs in Jer 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 (Pro 8:4; Psa 141:4, etc.), a courtier (Jer 38:7), the male of animals (Gen 7:2). Sometimes it means men in general (Exo 16:29; Mar 6:44).
3. , enosh’, mortals, , as transient, perishable, liable to sickness, etc.: Let not man [margin, mortal man’] prevail against thee (2Ch 14:11). Write with the pen of the common man (Isa 8:1), i.e. in a common, legible character (Job 15:14; Psa 8:5; Psa 9:19-20; Isa 51:7; Psa 103:15). It is applied to women (Jos 8:25).
4. , 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 (Deu 22:5), like in Mat 8:9; Joh 1:6; to men as distinguished from children (Exo 12:37); to a male child, in opposition to a female (Job 3:3; Sept. ). It is much used in poetry: Happy is the man (Psa 34:9; Psa 40:5; Psa 52:9; Psa 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. , 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 Isa 41:14, Fear not, thou worm Jacob, ye men of Israel. If this conjecture be admitted, this word would correspond to , and might be rendered mortal.
Other Heb. words occasionally rendered man in the A. V. are , bdal, a master (husband), , nephesh, an animate being, etc. The Greek words properly thus rendered are , homo, a human being, and , 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 (Act 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. , the old man, and , the new man-the former denoting unsanctified disposition of heart, the latter the new disposition created and cherished by the Gospel; the inner man; , the hidden man of the heart, as opposed to the , the external, visible man. A man of God, first applied to Moses (Deu 33:1), and always afterwards to a person acting under a divine commission (1Ki 13:1; 1Ti 6:2, etc.). Finally, angals are styled men (Act 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 (Rom 3:5; 1Co 9:8; Gal 3:15). The number of a man, i.e. an ordinary number, such as is in general use among men (Rev 13:18); so also the measure of a man, all ordinary measure, in common use (Rev 21:17).
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Man (2)
SEE MANNA.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Man
(1.) Heb. ‘Adam, used as the proper name of the first man. The name is derived from a word meaning “to be red,” and thus the first man was called Adam because he was formed from the red earth. It is also the generic name of the human race (Gen. 1:26, 27; 5:2; 8:21; Deut. 8:3). Its equivalents are the Latin homo and the Greek anthropos (Matt. 5:13, 16). It denotes also man in opposition to woman (Gen. 3:12; Matt. 19:10).
(2.) Heb. ‘ish, like the Latin vir and Greek aner, denotes properly a man in opposition to a woman (1 Sam. 17:33; Matt. 14:21); a husband (Gen. 3:16; Hos. 2:16); man with reference to excellent mental qualities.
(3.) Heb. ‘enosh, man as mortal, transient, perishable (2 Chr. 14:11; Isa. 8:1; Job 15:14; Ps. 8:4; 9:19, 20; 103:15). It is applied to women (Josh. 8:25).
(4.) Heb. geber, man with reference to his strength, as distinguished from women (Deut. 22:5) and from children (Ex. 12:37); a husband (Prov. 6:34).
(5.) Heb. methim, men as mortal (Isa. 41:14), and as opposed to women and children (Deut. 3:6; Job 11:3; Isa. 3:25).
Man was created by the immediate hand of God, and is generically different from all other creatures (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:7). His complex nature is composed of two elements, two distinct substances, viz., body and soul (Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 12:7; 2 Cor. 5:1-8).
The words translated “spirit” and “soul,” in 1 Thess. 5:23, Heb. 4:12, are habitually used interchangeably (Matt. 10:28; 16:26; 1 Pet. 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 (Col. 3:10), righteousness, and holiness (Eph. 4:24), and as having dominion over all the inferior creatures (Gen. 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)
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Man
(See ADAM; CIVILIZATION; CREATION.) Hebrew “Aadam,” 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?” (Psa 8:4; Job 15:14.) “methim,” “mortal men”; Isa 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.
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
Man
MAN* [Note: and are used by Jesus with the ordinary classic distinctions. Generally = a human being, male or female (e.g. Mat 4:4; Mat 5:16); , a man as distinguished from a woman (Mat 7:24; Mat 7:26, Luk 14:24). In keeping with this distinction, and by a Hebrew idiom (cf. the use of ), He employs in the sense of the Gr. , Lat. quidam, to denote someone, a certain one (Mat 21:28; Mat 22:11 etc.). As the converse of this, it may be noted that not infrequently (esp. in Jn.) where occurs in the teaching of Jesus, EV renders it a man.]
1. Christs relation to men.(1) The first aspect of Jesus in His relation to men, is the relation of a Master to His disciples, and of a Brother, who is also Leader and Teacher, to His brethren. This relationship is unmistakable. Ye did not choose me, but I chose you (Joh 15:16). The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord (Mat 10:24). They were not to accept the title Rabbi; they were brethren; they had but one teacher, even Christ (Mat 23:8-10). The relationship was no external one. The disciples were not simply the servants of Jesus; they were His friends (Joh 15:14-15), and knew His thoughts and purposes. To them He was about to show the very height and greatness of His love by laying down His life. The best way for them to show that they were His friends was by keeping His commandments (Joh 15:14). They were also under His Fathers care; they were the Fathers flock, and no one should snatch them out of His hand (Luk 12:28; Luk 12:32, Joh 10:29). They were called to a vocation in some respects similar to His own: they were to be fishers of men (Mat 4:19); they, too, would know persecution and trial and death; but these, in their essence, were but temporal things, and could not really injure or destroy (Mat 10:17-18; Mat 10:28, Luk 10:19). As contrasted with others who were wise and prudent, the disciples were but babes; but it was to them that God had made the revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ (Mat 11:25-26). The disciples responded to this attachment. When they found the teaching of Jesus difficult and obscure, and were almost tempted, like many others, to go no more with Him, He asks them plainly, Will ye also go away? and the answer rises within them with all the strength of passionate loyalty and conviction: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life (Joh 6:66-68). It is significant also that one of the strongest utterances of devotion is recorded of Thomas. Other references to this disciple show him as a practical man, who lives on the earth and not in the clouds, and who withholds his faith and support until plain proof be shown (Joh 20:24-25). But when Jesus expressed His determination to go up to Bethany and wake His friend Lazarus out of his sleep, it was Thomas who first saw his Masters danger, and that death was near at hand, and who exclaimed with vehemence, Let us go up also with him, that we may die with him (Joh 11:16). Peter is called blessed when, at Caesarea Philippi, he answers Christs question and confesses, Thou art the Christ of God (Luk 9:20); and John is the disciple whom Jesus loved (Joh 19:26), the man who at the Last Supper sat next to His Master and leaned upon His breast (Joh 21:20), and the one to whom Mary the mother of Jesus was entrusted by Jesus as He hung on the cross (Joh 19:26-27). When His disciples are weary, Jesus bids them go with Him to a desert place and rest a while (Mar 6:31); and after their last meal together, He kneels down and washes their feet, thus teaching them the duty of service (Joh 13:3-5). The discourses recorded in John 14-16 are doubtless in some measure ideal; but they are true to the main lines of Christian tradition. The relationship between Jesus and His disciples was very intimate and sacred, and the disciples were filled with sorrow at the prospect of that relationship being snapped.
(2) But Jesus was also a Jew and a citizen. His mission was, first and foremost, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mat 15:24); and it was only when they repeatedly rejected Him and His doctrine that He turned and went elsewhere. Jesus found that His own people were spiritually dead. They had now no prophets, and scarcely any teacher who might quicken their interest in things beyond the present hour and day. They had made the Temple (which was to Jesus His Fathers house) a den of robbers (Mat 21:13), and they had forgotten that mercy was better than sacrifice (Mat 9:13); and Jesus, in the strength of His moral indignation, upset the tables of the money-changers, and drove those who sat there out of the Temple. His people honoured the prophets, but in their lifetime they stoned them; and now the greatest of the prophets had come, and they knew it not (Mat 23:29-39, Luk 11:29; Luk 11:32). He had come to His own, and they that were His own received Him not (Joh 1:11). There was woe to come upon Chorazin and Bethsaida. Had Tyre and Sidon seen the things which they had seen, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes (Mat 11:21). Jesus looked upon Jerusalem and its people with a citizens and a patriots love, and was moved even to tears (Mat 23:37, Luk 19:41). Let them weep for their city, themselves and their fate, and not for Him! (Luk 23:28-31). How often would He have gathered her children together as a hen gathereth her brood under her wings!
(3) It seems certain that the Jews, as a body, could never have accepted Jesus as their Messiah. It was the Pharisee who, with all his faults, had remained true in some measure to his national tradition; and it was in him that the teaching of Jesus found its strongest opponent. It was, above all, the universalism of Jesus that the Pharisee could not bear. He despised the Greek and Roman, and especially his kin and neighbour the Samaritan, as Gentile folkoutsiders. If the God of the Jews should show Himself favourable unto such, it would have to be by some special act of grace. But Jesus followed out the prophetic ideal. He submitted to be baptized by John, and He expressed in no stinted way His feeling about the Baptist and his work. In His first public utterance Jesus reminded His hearers of the nature of Israels God. He was the God of men, no matter what their race and no matter what their moral character. It was this God who despatched Elijah to Zarephath on an errand of mercy, when there were many widows in Israel. Elisha also was sent to heal Naaman the Syrian, although there were many lepers nearer home (Luk 4:25-27). It was by utterances such as these that Jesus gained at the outset the opposition of the national party. Men feltand felt rightlythat if Jesus triumphed Judaism was undone. The Pharisees were also deeply troubled by Jesus manner of life. He received sinners, and ate with them; He dined with tax-gatherers, and spoke kindly and compassionately to a woman of ill fame (Luk 5:27-39; Luk 19:1-10, Joh 8:1-11). The official classthe Sadducees and priestsalso felt that new wine like this would burst the old skins, and that a new society might arise, in which they themselves might be anywhere save at the top. And from the moment Jesus set foot in Jerusalem, the priests and Sadducees, as the ruling official party, set themselves to work, not to confute Him, but to compass His death (Mat 21:23; Mat 26:3-4, Luk 19:47-48; Luk 19:20; Luk 19:22).
It follows from this that Jesus was a lover of man, irrespective of his race or condition. He began His ministry with teaching and healing. He was often moved to compassion by the multitudes which followed Him; they were as sheep without a shepherd; they heard Him gladly, and even tarried with Him a whole day, and that in a desert place (Mar 1:41; Mar 6:30-36). On one occasion they would have made Him their king (Joh 6:1-15). And to Jesus, though He refuses their proffered sovereignty, they were as fields white unto the harvest (Joh 4:35). Many of the most striking sayings of Jesus, however, occur in utterances addressed to individuals. It was while sitting and talking with a Samaritana Samaritan womanthat He said: God is Spirit (Joh 4:24); it was in the house of Zacchaeus that men first heard that the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost (Luk 19:10); while it was in answer to a certain lawyer that Jesus related the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luk 10:25-37). Men were amazed at and charmed by Jesus power of speech; they wondered at the words of grace which proceeded out of his mouth (Luk 4:22). Police officers on one occasion were disarmed by it. He taught, says the Evangelist, as one having authority, and not as the scribes (Joh 7:45-47, Mat 7:28-29).
What was it that led Jesus to teach and to associate Himself, not simply with Jews, but with men as men? What was it that carried Him willingly and of set purpose into all classes of society, and especially among the outcast and unfavoured folk? What led Him to seek, not the righteous, but sinners, and not the whole, but the sick? To answer this question we must pass to
2. Christs teaching on man.With Jesus the doctrines of God and man are closely akin. They pass into each other, and are deeply interfused; so much so, that at times we seem but to have been looking at different sides of the same fundamental truth. Central, basal, a pole around which everything else centres and revolves, is His conception of God. To know Him is to share His life, and to seek His Kingdom and His righteousness is alike the highest duty and the highest joy of man (Joh 17:3, Mat 6:33). He is Spirit (Joh 4:24). Without Him nature would cease to be; its beauty, its order, and the creatures which have within it their home, derive all their life and sustenance and joy from Him. The hairs of a mans head are all numbered; not even a sparrow falls to the ground without His notice. The common flowers and grass owe their life to Him (Mat 6:25-34; Mat 10:29-30).
What, then, does Jesus, with this high doctrine of God, say about man? He tells us that man is distinct from the natural world and natural creatures; he is Gods child; God is his Father; he is Gods son (Mat 5:43-48; Mat 6:25-34). Such words may not define mans present condition; they look at him in the light of the ideal; they describe his duty, his highest destiny and ambition. The loftiest hope and purpose that any man may cherish is to become a son of his Father who is in heaven, and to become perfect as his heavenly Father is perfect (Mat 5:45-48). It is noteworthy that Jesus never mentions the fall of man, nor is there any very conclusive passage in which He speaks of man as a sinner. But He implies that man is such in that He makes Repent the keynote of His opening ministry (Mat 4:17). There is but one who is good, even God (Luk 18:18-19); yet men, who are evil, can render good gifts to their children (Mat 7:11). It is possible for a mans eye to be evil, and for his whole body to be filled with darkness rather than with light (Mat 6:23). Men cannot serve two masters, mammon and God (Mat 6:24). A rich man can with difficulty enter into the Kingdom of God (Mat 19:24). Ultimately, too, men are sifted out and their destiny is determined by their attitude to Himself and His brethren; some will sit down with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of God; others will be cast into the outer darkness, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mat 25:31-46).
But, generally, it is the ideal which is present with Jesus; He prefers to look at the possibilities; He does not see capacity for evil; He tries rather to discover the latent powers and potencies of good. An incident such as that recorded in Joh 8:1-11 is striking proof of this. Jesus there sees not simply the sinner, but the possibility of good in the sinner. His final word to her, therefore, is not one of condemnation: Neither do I condemn thee; go thy way; from henceforth sin no more. Man, therefore, is crowned with high dignity and solemn grandeur because he is akin to the Divine. If Jesus had not believed in the capacity for good even in the most unlikely and unexpected people, what we read recorded of Him and His work would never have happened. Of set purpose He turned from folk who were reputable, respectable, and, in the conventional sense, righteous and holy. He came not to the whole, but to the sick; not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Luk 5:31-32). He turned to those without repute, to the so-called sinners, in the faith that goodness lived within their hearts; and history tells us that He was not disappointed. He sought for the common man, unsophisticated, unconventional; and we read that He was often surprised and astonished at what the common man revealed to Him (Mat 8:5-13); Jesus may thus be said to have been the first to discover the true significance of common men and common things. They were significant because they led up to and implied more than themselves; at the base and heart of each there was God.
But to Jesus man was not one object or thing among other objects or things in the natural world. He was not simply a part of Nature. How much then is a man of more value than a sheep! (Mat 12:12). If the recovery of one sheep brought joy to the shepherd in charge of the flock, a man, by his choice and pursuit of the good, could bring joy to the heart of God (Luk 15:3-7). He was of value, as a lost coin is of value, for which a woman sweeps the house and searches diligently until she finds it (Luk 15:8-10); or as a son is of value, who, even if he has left home for a far country and there wasted his substance in riotous living, is still dear to his fathers heart (Luk 15:11-32).
To Jesus, man, as a spiritual being, made in the image of God, who is Spirit, took precedence of all material things. The death of the body was merely a temporal event; but to think and believe and act as if the material world was all, was the death of the soul (Luk 12:13-21). It was to deny God by forgetting Him, and at bottom meant the surrender of ones life as a person and the endeavour to become a thing. Such was the act of a fool. To Jesus the spiritual side was all; or, in relation to other things it was the central, controlling principle, the fons et origo of all besides. The life is more than the meat, and the body than the raiment (Mat 6:25). A mans life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth (Luk 12:15). What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? (Mat 16:26).
From a strictly moral standpoint the same truth held good of man; he alone of all natural creatures was capable of good and ill; things could not defile; they were unmoral, and knew neither good nor bad; defilement could come only from spirit, from man, and it proceeded from the thoughts and purposes of his heart (Mat 15:10-11; Mat 15:18-20). If the inner life was watched, and its waters and streams kept pure, all was well; from without there was no danger, because things had no power. It was similar in regard to the nature of the true good. It was an inward possession; moth and rust consumed material things, but they could not touch spiritual treasure, which made up the wealth of the soul; this was treasure in heaven, and as such would abide (Mat 6:20). It was the good incorporated, as it were, into the very life and spirit of man. Such also was the Kingdom of heaven. Men could not see it; it did not come by observation; it was within (Luk 17:20-21).
There is a revelation of God in Nature; there is a revelation of God in man; above all, in the moral consciousness of man. People often asked Jesus for a sign or miracle to show them that His teaching was true. But Jesus gave no sign. The teaching itself was its own sign and witness (Luk 11:29-32); its presence was also an argument; it doth both shine and give us sight to see. The rich man in the torments of hell-fire might ask that a messenger be sent to his brethrenthat some one should rise from the dead to warn them from his fate;surely at a miracle they would repent? But the appeal of Jesus ever addressed itself to the moral consciousness of man. They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead (Luk 16:19-31). In this aspect John also, in the Prologue to his Gospel, defines for us the nature of man. There was a light which lighted every man as he came into the world. The source of this light was God. Its supreme manifestation was in Jesus; in Him was life, and the life was the light of men (Joh 1:1-9).
Man, then, as spiritual, takes precedence of everything else that is. He is not a means or a thing; he is an end in himself. In the time of Jesus, however, as has also happened in other periods of history, the customs and institutions which man had made had become his master, were obscuring his vision and keeping him from his true good. One of these institutions was that of the Sabbath. A man might not heal another man on the Sabbath; yet if a sheep had fallen into a well he might get it out, or if his ox or his ass were thirsty he might lead them to the pool. Jesus enforces the true order; the Sabbath was made for man; it was a means for his good; it was a custom, an institution, a thing, and, as compared with spirit, occupied a strictly subordinate place. It was similar with every custom and institution man had made (Mat 12:1-21, Mar 2:23-28).
In saying this, Jesus stood emphatically for progress; He practically said also that there was something in the life of man which neither institutions nor the social order nor civic legislation could ever fully express; man bore the infinite within him; deep and ineradicable, within his life, there was the life of God. Man was therefore immortal. If we admit the premises, no other conclusion is possible. The fact, said Jesus in effect, that we can stand in relation to God, that we can speak with Him and commune with Him, is itself the promise and pledge of immortality. Because He lives, we live also (Joh 14:19). God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him (Luk 20:38). And thus the chief end of man was to know God and Jesus Christ whom He had sent (Joh 17:3); his true vocation was to seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Mat 6:33). Because he was made in Gods image, and was able, in some measure, to represent Him and reveal Him, man was endowed with a peculiar dignity. But here again Jesus spoke in the language of the ideal. Immortality was a possibility for man; it was in some sense an achievement; it was also something that could be lost. But it was something of which every man was capable.
In conclusion, the strongest argument for the dignity and worth of man is to be found in Jesus Himself. He called Himself the Son of Man; whatever touched man and his well-being was His concern. His teaching and His life were such that men find it impossible to regard Him from the ordinary human standpoint. They have conceived of Him as Divine; they say that His entry into human life to share the common pain and toil and death was a purely voluntary act. Such is not only a view held by theologians, but one which is entertained to-day by men of science. Sir Oliver Lodge speaks of Jesus as being willing to share the life of a peasant, and as being the best race-asset that men possess (Hibbert Journal, Oct. 1904). From whatever standpoint, however, He is viewed, the presence of Jesus in humanity can only add incalculably to its worth and dignity. In set doctrine Jesus taught very little as to the nature of man. To really see what He thought about man and the value He set on him, we must look at Jesus life. He came to do the will of His Father and to accomplish His work (Joh 6:38; Joh 9:4); He came to give life, and to give it abundantly (Joh 10:10); He came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many (Mat 20:28). That He loved men is a commonplace. He, beyond all other teachers and leaders whom we know, stood stoutly for the human, and made the cause of manthe true well-being of mantake precedence of every other thing and cause. It was not that men were better in His than in any other age; it was that He ever saw men in the light of the ideal, and ever found at the root of mans life the life of God. To say this is to say also that among all the benefactors of humanity, Jesus of Nazareth is, par excellence, the Friend of Man. He thought that the common wealman and mans true cause and goodwas worth living for with absolute devotion; should things so require, it was also worth dying for. And, as Jesus Himself has said, greater love hath no man than this (Joh 15:13).
Psychologically, man, in the thought of Jesus, is made up of two parts, soul and body, or spirit and flesh. But He speaks, as a moral teacher, of man in his broad general aspect, and is not concerned with minute psychological distinctions (cf. Mat 10:28-29; Mat 16:26; Mat 26:41, Mar 8:36, Luk 16:22).
Literature.Grimm-Thayer, Lex. s.vv. , ; Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , art. Man; A. B. Bruce, The Kingdom of God, and other works; John Caird, Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion; A. M. Fairbairn, Studies in the Life of Christ; Laidlaw, Bibl. Doct. of Man; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus; N. T. Theol. of Weiss, Beyschlag, etc.; H. E. Manning, Sermons (1844), p. 47; H. Bushnell, The New Life (1860), p. 16; J. Martineau, Hours of Thought (1879), ii. p. 286; F. Paget, Faculties and Difficulties2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] (1889), p. 132; W. Gladden, Burning Questions (1890), p. 67; J. B. Lightfoot, Cambridge Sermons (1800), p. 229; R. W. Dale, Christian Doctrine (1894), p. 170; H. van Dyke, Manhood, Faith and Courage (1906), p. 1.
E. Wheeler.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Man
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). Mans dignity, as made by special resolve and distinct act of God in Gods 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 Gen 1:1-31; Gen 2:1-25, and mans degradation by his own choice of evil, as presented figuratively in the story of his Fall in Gen 3:1-24, are the two aspects of man that are everywhere met with. The first is explicitly affirmed in Psa 8:1-9, an echo of Gen 1:1-31; the second, without any explicit reference to the story in Gen 3:1-24, is taken for granted in the OT (see esp. Psa 51:1-19), and is still more emphasized in the NT, with distinct allusion to the Fall and its consequences (see esp. Rom 5:12-21; Rom 7:7-25). While the OT recognizes mans 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 (Gen 2:7; Gen 3:19; Gen 18:27), yet as made in Gods 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 (Gen 2:19), cannot find a help meet among them (Gen 2:20), is innocent (Gen 2:25), and capable of moral obedience (Gen 2:16-17) and religious communion (Gen 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 (Pro 20:27).
In the NT mans dignity is represented as Divine sonship. In St. Lukes Gospel Adam is described as son of God (Luk 3:38). St. Paul speaks of man as the image and glory of God (1Co 11:7), approves the poets words, we also are his offspring, asserts the unity of the race, and Gods guidance in its history (Act 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 (Rom 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 Mat 10:30; Mat 16:26, Luk 10:20; Luk 10:15). While Gods 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 Mat 5:9; Mat 5:45; cf. Joh 1:12). St. Pauls doctrine of mans adoption by faith in Gods grace does not contradict the teaching of Jesus. The writer of Hebrews sees the promise of mans dominion in Psa 8:1-9 fulfilled only in Christ (Heb 2:8-9). Mans history, according to the Fourth Evangelist, is consummated in the Incarnation (Joh 1:14).
The Bible estimate of mans value is shown in its anticipation of his destinynot 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.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Man
See ANTHROPOLOGY.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Man
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.’
1.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 (Luk 3:38); by St. Paul (Rom 5:14; 1Ti 2:13-14); and by Jude (Jud 1:14). St Paul’s use of it in 1Co 15:45 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?
2.It is the generic name of the human race as originally created, and afterwards, like the English word man, person, whether man or woman (Gen 1:26-27; Gen 5:2; Gen 8:21; Deu 8:3; Mat 5:13; Mat 5:16; 1Co 7:26), and even without regard to age (Joh 16:21). It is applied to women only, ‘the human persons of women’ (Num 31:35).
3.It denotes man in opposition to woman (Gen 3:12; Mat 19:10), though, more properly, the husband in opposition to the wife (comp. 1Co 7:1).
4.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. (Ecc 7:28). Perhaps the word here glances at the original uprightness of man.
5.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’ (Gen 6:2).
6.The word is used to denote other men, in opposition to those already named as, ‘both upon Israel and other men’ (Jer 32:20), i.e. the Egyptians. ‘Like other men’ (Psa 73:5), i.e. common men, in opposition to better men (Psa 82:7): men of inferior rank, as opposed to men of higher rank (see Hebrew, Isa 2:9; Isa 5:15; Psa 49:3; Psa 62:10; Pro 8:4).
The phrase ‘son of man,’ in the Old Testament, denotes man as frail and unworthy (Num 23:19; Job 25:6; Eze 2:1; Eze 2:3); 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.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Man
Various Hebrew words are frequently translated ‘man.’
1. Adam , ‘man,’ a generic term for man, mankind. Gen 1:26-27.
2. ish , ‘ man,’ implying ‘strength and vigour’ of mind and body, 1Sa 4:2; 1Sa 26:15; also signifying ‘husband’ in contra-distinction to ‘wife.’ Gen 2:23; Gen 3:6.
3. enosh, ‘subject to corruption, mortal;’ not used for man till after the fall. Gen 6:4; Gen 12:20; Psa 103:15.
4. ben, ‘son,’ with words conjoined, ‘son of valour,’ or valiant man; ‘son of strength,’ or strong man. 2Ki 2:16, etc.
5. baal, ‘master, lord.’ Gen 20:3; Exo 24:14.
6. geber, ‘mighty, war-like.’ Exo 10:11; Exo 12:37.
In some passages these different Hebrew words are used in contrast: as in Gen 6:4, “The sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, [1] and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men (gibbor) which were of old, men [3] of renown.” In Psa 8:4; “What is man, [3] that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, [1] that thou visitest him?” “God is not a man [2] that he should lie.” Num 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.” Heb 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].” Act 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. , man in the sense of ‘humanity,’ irrespective of sex. “Man shall not live by bread alone.” Mat 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?” Mat 19:3.
2. , man as distinguished from a woman. “The head of the woman is the man.” 1Co 11:3. It is thus the common word used for ‘husband:’ a woman’s man is her husband. “Joseph the husband of Mary.” Mat 1:16; Mat 1:19. The words , , , are often translated ‘man,’ ‘no man,’ ‘any man,’ which would be more correctly translated ‘one,’ ‘no one,’ ‘any one.’ In ‘men [and] brethren,’ Act 1:16; Act 2:29, etc., there are not two classes alluded to, but ‘men who are brethren,’ or, in our idiom, simply ‘brethren.’ So in Act 7:2; Act 22:1, not three classes, but two: ‘men who are brethren, and fathers.’ See NEW MAN and OLD MAN.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Man
Created
Gen 1:26-27; Gen 2:7; Gen 5:1-2; Deu 4:32; Job 4:17; Job 10:2-3; Job 10:8-9; Job 31:15; Job 33:4; Job 34:19; Job 35:10; Psa 8:5; Psa 100:3; Psa 119:73; Psa 138:8; Psa 139:14; Ecc 7:29; Isa 17:7; Isa 42:5; Isa 43:7; Isa 45:12; Isa 64:8; Jer 27:5; Zec 12:1; Mal 2:10; Mar 10:6; Heb 2:7
Created in the image of God
Gen 1:26-27; Gen 9:6; Ecc 7:29; 1Co 11:7; 1Co 15:48-49; Jas 3:9
Design of the creation of
Psa 8:6-8; Pro 16:4; Isa 43:7
Dominion of
Gen 1:26; Gen 1:28; Gen 2:19-20; Gen 9:2-3; Jer 27:6; Jer 28:14; Dan 2:38; Heb 2:7-8
Duty of man
Duty; Neighbor
Equality of man
– General references
Job 31:13-15; Psa 33:13-15; Pro 22:2; Mat 20:25-28; Mat 23:8; Mat 23:11; Mar 10:42-44; Act 10:28; Act 17:26; Gal 3:28 Race, 1. Human, Unity of
Ignorance of man
Ignorance
Immortal
Immortality
Insignificance of
Job 4:18-19; Job 15:14; Job 22:2-5; Job 25:4-6; Job 35:2-8; Job 38:4; Job 38:12-13; Psa 8:3-4; Psa 144:3-4
Little lower than the angels
Job 4:18-21; Psa 8:5; Heb 2:7-8
Mortal
– General references
Job 4:17; Ecc 2:14-15; Ecc 3:20; 1Co 15:21-22; Heb 9:27 Death
Spirit
Job 4:19; Job 32:8; Psa 31:5; Pro 20:27; Ecc 1:8; Ecc 3:21; Ecc 12:7; Isa 26:9; Zec 12:1; Mat 4:4; Mat 10:28; Mat 26:41; Mar 14:38; Luk 22:40; Luk 23:46; Luk 24:39; Joh 3:3-8; Joh 4:24; Act 7:59; Rom 1:9; Rom 2:29; Rom 7:14-25; 1Co 2:11; 1Co 6:20; 1Co 7:34; 1Co 14:14; 2Co 4:6-7; 2Co 4:16; 2Co 5:1-9; Eph 3:16; Eph 4:4; 1Th 5:23; Heb 4:12; Jas 2:26
State of, after the fall
Depravity
State of, before the fall
Man, Created in the Image of God
Young men
Young Men
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Man
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”.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
MAN
(A) APPARENT INSIGNIFICANCE OF
A tenant in a house of clay
Job 4:19; Job 7:17
A worm
Job 25:6
An atom in the natural universe
Psa 8:4
A grasshopper when compared to God
Isa 40:22
Yet under the watchful care of the Almighty
Isa 41:14
–SEE Frailty, TRANSIENT
Man as Grass, MORTALITY
(B) EQUALITY OF
Pro 22:2; Mat 23:8; Act 10:28; Rom 10:12; Gal 3:28; Jam 2:5
–SEE Partiality Forbidden, INJUSTICE
Impartiality, JUSTICE
& JUSTICE
(C) MADE IN THE DIVINE IMAGE
Gen 1:26; Gen 1:27; Gen 5:1; Gen 9:6; 1Co 11:7; Jam 3:9
(D) PRE-EMINENCE OF, over other creatures
Gen 1:28; Psa 8:6; Psa 82:6; Mat 6:26; Mat 12:12
(E) DOMINION OF, over the natural world
Gen 1:26; Gen 9:2; Psa 8:6; Heb 2:8; Jam 3:7
(F) A SPIRITUAL BEING
Job 32:8; Pro 20:27; Ecc 3:21; Ecc 12:7; Act 7:59; 1Co 2:11; 1Co 6:20
2Co 4:16; 1Th 5:23; Jam 2:26
–SEE Souls, IMMORTALITY
(G) INFINITE VALUE OF, seen in the price paid for his redemption
Joh 3:16; 1Co 6:20; 1Pe 1:18-19; Rev 1:5
–SEE Soul, LIFE
Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible
Man
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 Exo 15:3
Man of the Heart 1Pe 3:4
Man of the Earth Psa 10:18
Man of GOD Deu 33:1
Man of Peace Psa 120:7.
The New Man Eph 2:15.
The Man Joh 19:5.
The Outward Man 2Co 4:16.
The Inner man Eph 3:16.
The Vain Man Jam 2:20
The Double-minded Man Jam 1:8
The Hidden Man 1Pe 3:4