The Material Part
of Man
In
Genesis 1:26 we are told
that God said, “Let us make man in our
image, in our likeness…” and in Genesis 2:7 that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living
being.” Lewis Sperry Chafer states that, “These
distinctions classify man above all other forms of life which are upon the
earth and indicate that man is a moral creature with intellect, capacity for
feeling, and a will.”[1]
It
was when man was made that he became alive; he did not become a living creature
after already being a living creature. Genesis 2:7 also teaches that the
material part of man was made of the dust of the ground and the immaterial part
made of the inbreathing of God (cf. Job 33:4; Eccl. 12:7). Chafer states that, “The sixteen elements of the soil are said
to be present in the human body: calcium, carbon, chlorine, fluorine, hydrogen,
iodine, iron, magnesium, manganese, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, potassium,
silicon, sodium, sulfur. These minerals compose nearly six percent of the body,
the remainder being water and carbon. These facts demonstrate that the biblical
disclosure of the human body as being ‘of the earth’ (1 Cor. 15:47 -49) is accurate. In the
process of normal growth a person is sustained by unceasing appropriation of
new materials which come directly or indirectly from the dust of the earth.”[2] Ecclesiastes 12:7 indicates that when man
dies his body returns to dust and his spirit goes to God (cf. Gen. 3:19).
The Immaterial Part
of Man
The immaterial part of man is not said to
have been created but rather it was breathed out by God (Gen. 2:7). The fact that the immaterial part of
man was not created seems to imply that the nature of man received something of
God’s own nature. Chafer states, “As God
Himself is immaterial and since creating man in His own image and likeness
referred to the immaterial aspect of God, the immaterial part of man seems to
have the character of transmission from God rather than immediate creation.”[3]
What does it mean though, when the Bible says that man was created “in the
image and likeness of God” (Gen. 1:26)? Well we know that it cannot refer to a
physical likeness or image since God is spirit (John 4:24 ). Wayne Grudem defines “image and likeness” as “The fact that man is in the image of God
means that man is like God and represents God.”[4]
Chafer states, “In defining what is
meant by the image of God one can affirm that is distinguishes man from animals
in that man has faculties and moral capacity which apparently animals do not
have. Man has an intellect or rationality different from that of animals in
that man can think God’s thoughts, especially in his redeemed state. Man has an
element of self-consciousness made more acute in his redemptive estate (Rom. 8:16 ). In general man can be compared
to God in that he has personality including intellect, sensibility, and will.
These characteristics are what identify man as being somewhat like God and
which make it possible for man to fellowship with God.”[5]
As for the origin of the immaterial part of
man, there are two theories that have been held by conservative theologians:
(1) The creation theory. This theory has been held by some, among them Charles Hodge. This theory teaches
that only the body is generated by the parents but that the soul and spirit of
those bodies are created directly and immediately by God. Parents propagate the
human physical body but only God can produce the immaterial part of man.
(2) The traducian theory. This
theory has been held by other conservatives, among them William G. T. Shedd.
This theory teaches that both the physical body and the immaterial part of man
are generated by the parents. According to Shedd, “Man is a species, and the idea of a species implies the propagation of
the entire individual out of it…Individuals are not propagated in parts.”[6]
The traducian theory seems to better explain the propagation of the sin
nature and our tendency to sin from the time of our birth as well as the many
similarities that are inherited from parents to children such as personality,
etc. There are a number of passages that also seem to support the traducian view
(Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12 ; Heb.
7:10 ).
Theologians
have debated for centuries whether man is two part (body and soul/spirit), the
dichotomous view, or three part (body, soul, and spirit), the trichotomous
view. I personally prefer the trichotomous view because I believe the
Scriptural evidence better supports this view for the following reasons:
(1) In 1 Thessalonians 5:23 , Paul, when referring to the
sanctification of the whole person, he seems to emphasize this three part view.
(2) The author of Hebrews in his
instruction to us about the Word of God implies that there is a distinction
between soul and spirit.
(3) As Henry Thiessen states, “A threefold organization of man’s nature may be implied in the
classification of men as ‘natural,’ ‘carnal,’ and ‘spiritual,’ in 1 Cor. 12:14 -3:4.”[7]
Enns states that “The body is seen as
world-conscious, the soul as self-conscious, and the spirit as God-conscious.
The soul is seen as a lower power consisting of man’s imagination, memory, and
understanding; the spirit is a higher power, consisting of reason, conscience,
and will.”[8]
[1] Lewis
Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes, rev.
by John F. Walvoord, (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1974), p. 166.
[2] Lewis
Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology,
Vol. 1 Abridged Edition, ed., John F. Walvoord (Wheaton: Victor, 1988), p. 332.
[3] Ibid.,
p. 338.
[4] Wayne
Grudem, Bible Doctrine, ed. Jeff
Purswell (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), p. 189.
[5] Chafer, Systematic Theology, p. 341.
[6] William
G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3
vols. (Reprint. Nashville 2:19 -94.
[7] Henry C.
Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic
Theology, revised by Vernon D. Doerksen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p.
161.
[8] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1989), p.
307.
Comments
Post a Comment