Anthropology: Part 1

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s Note: Beginning with this issue this course of studies in Systematic Theology changes from Angelology to Anthropology, which general theme will be continued in at least eight succeeding issues of Bibliotheca Sacra. This entire division includes: the creation of man, his estate, his fall, and the doctrine of Sin.]

Introduction

Anthropology—the science of man—is approached from two widely different angles, namely, that of human philosophy and that of the Bible. The former is extra-Biblical and avoids every feature of Scripture revelation. The latter is intra-Biblical and confines itself to the Word of God and such corroborating human experience as may give confirming witness to the truth disclosed. The one is conceived by man and, reflecting his philosophy of human life, is offered as educational discipline in secular schools of learning. The other is a revelation from God in that sense in which all Scripture originates with Him and presents a record which proud man is loathe to accept. It is indeed suggestive as to the attitude of modern education generally toward divine revelation that no place is accorded to revelation in its philosophies. Over against this, the Anthropology of Theology, while giving due attention to that which man has asserted, embodies only such truth as God has declared in His Word. In the Bible, it will be discovered that abundant material of a positive and dependable nature is available. The Word of God presents final information on this complex theme. A still more vital distinction obtains between these widely separated anthropological disciplines. With reference to the immaterial part of man, extra-Biblical anthropology is only a penetration into the emotional and intellectual aspects of human life, or that which is psychological; while intra-Biblical anthropology enters into the deeper realms of things moral, spiritual, and eternal. Extra-Biblical anthropology assigns no place for God in matters of man’s origin, career, or destiny; while intra-Biblical anthropology, being an induction of divine revelation, asserts far-reaching truths in all these fields. As a subject in modern education, anthropology, though but recently developed, claims the same importance as the kindred sciences-Biology and Psychology. It incorporates the theories of evolution and is materialistic in character. Aside from the underlying fact that these two anthropological disciplines deal with the study of man, there is little in common between them.

The definition of anthropology as given by Encyclopaedia Britannica is: “That branch of natural history which deals with the human species... It is thus part of biology, the science of living things in general. Indeed, it was the development of biological studies during the 19th century, chiefly due to the stimulus afforded by research into the origin of species, that brought Anthropology into being in its modern form.” This “modern form” of the doctrine of man, moves along two lines: (a) what man is-his natural evolution—; and (b) what man does—his cultural history, his relation to material things, to himself, and to others.

The Standard Dictionary defines anthropology which is theological as “That branch of theological science which treats of man, both in his original and in his fallen condition. It embraces the consideration of man’s creation, primitive condition, probation and apostasy, original sin and actual transgression” (1913 Edition).

As Systematic Theology incorporates logically every other science, so anthropology incorporates all that enters into man’s being-that which is material and that which is immaterial, and, were it wise so to extend it, various disciplines which are important branches of science would be included; among these much of Biology and more of Psychology. Because of the intricacies of the latter and its likeness to the realm of spirit existence, that which enters into psychology naturally receives the greater emphasis. At this point a crucial question arises as to whether the Bible purports to teach the sciences as such. In spite of the fact that some earnest men have felt that an extended psychology can be constructed on the text of the Bible, the more conservative teachers are convinced that on the truth concerning God—His creation, and man in his relation to God—,the Bible speaks with completeness and finality; but that on related themes it is accurate so far as it may have occasion to go. This is well illustrated by the science of history. Whatever appears in the Word of God of an historical nature is a true record, but it does not profess to be an exhaustive treatise on the history of the universe or world. The study of man must incorporate some important features of truth as to what man was, what he is now, and what he may yet be. In all, a clear understanding of human realities is most essential. Concerning this field of investigation, the Bible is not wanting. In the field of nature, man occupies the central position according to the Bible.

Bearing on the claims of some men that a complete psychology can be drawn from the Bible, J. I. Marais writes: “The extravagant claims made by some writers for a fully developed system of Biblical psychology has brought the whole subject into disrepute. So much so, that Hofmann (Schriftbeweis) has boldly asserted that ‘a system of Biblical psychology has been got together without any justification for it in Scripture.’ At the outset, therefore, it must be borne in mind that the Bible does not present us with a systematized philosophy of man, but gives in popular form an account of human nature in all its various relationships. A reverent study of Scripture will undoubtedly lead to the recognition of a well-defined system of psychology, on which the whole scheme of redemption is based. Great truths regarding human nature are presupposed in and accepted by the Old Testament and the New Testament; stress is there laid on other aspects of truth, unknown to writers outside of revelation, and presented to us, not in the language of the schools, but in that of practical life. Man is there described as fallen and degraded, but intended by God to be raised, redeemed, renewed. From this point of view Biblical psychology must be studied, and our aim should be ‘to bring out the views of Scripture regarding the nature, the life and life-destinies of the soul, as they are determined in the history of salvation’ (Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych., 15).”[1]

Some have stated that the Bible presents what is no more than the psychology of ancient Jews, and others declare that in matters of nature the sacred writers were left to such human knowledge as men possessed in the day in which the Scriptures were written. Reasonably, the conception of inspiration must be adjusted to such views. Row in his Bampton Lecture, 1877, states: “That inspiration was not a general but a functional endowment, and consequently limited to subjects in which religion is directly involved; and that in those which stand outside it, the writers of the different books in the Bible were left to the free use of their ordinary faculties.” It would seem that some men feel that a writer is more free to exercise his faculties when uninspired. Such suggestions imply that the Bible is not inspired in all its parts. There is no occasion to revert to these problems. This work has offered previously conclusive proof of the infallibility of the Scriptures and the subject under consideration is no exception. Completeness of statement and accuracy of statement are two widely different ideas. Matthew Fontaine Maury—a scientist whom the world honors as “the pathfinder of the seas”—, stated in an address at the laying of the corner stone of the University of the South at Sewanee, Tennessee, in 1860 (as reported by Charles Lee Lewis in his biography of Maury): “I have been blamed by men of science, both in this country and in England, for quoting the Bible in confirmation of the doctrines of physical geography. The Bible, they say, was not written for scientific purposes, and is therefore of no authority in matters of science. I beg pardon! The Bible is authority for everything it touches. What could you think of the historian who should refuse to consult the historical records of the Bible, because the Bible was not written for the purposes of history? The Bible is true and science is true. The agents concerned in the physical economy of our planet are ministers of His who made both it and the Bible. The records which He has chosen to make through the agency of these ministers of His upon the crust of the earth are as true as the records which, by the hands of His prophets and servants, He has been pleased to make in the Book of Life. They are both true; and when your men of science, with vain and hasty conceit, announce the discovery of disagreement between them, rely upon it the fault is not with the Witness or His records, but with the ‘worm’ who essays to interpret evidence which he does not understand. When I, a pioneer in one department of this beautiful science, discover the truths of revelation and the truths of science reflecting light one upon the other and each sustaining the other, how can I, as a truth-loving, knowledge-seeking man, fail to point out the beauty and to rejoice in its discovery? Reticence on such an occasion would be sin, and were I to suppress the emotion with which such discoveries ought to stir the soul, the waves of the sea would lift up their voice, and the very stones of the earth cry out against me.”[2]

Over against all this, the revelation regarding man as found in the Word of God extends into many fields where a man—conceived anthropology could not enter—the true manner of creation, the original estate of man, his fall, the real cause of death in the world, the new birth, the ground of a right morality, and the resurrection of the body. Extra-Biblical anthropology will be searched in vain for any reference to these themes; yet these are realities in human life and as such become determining factors in a worthy psychology.

There is, therefore, a fine discrimination to be exercised: On the one hand, the truths taught in the Bible regarding man are not guess-work and subject to the errors of men of primitive times; nor, on the other hand, are they as to completeness a perfect supernatural science. It is true that the Biblical account of the origin of man is described in terms employed by men of ancient days and was immediately addressed to people of that age. It is also true that expansion of doctrine follows in the train of divine revelation; but a supernatural quality obtains from first to last which harmonizes all that is said in many centuries into one consistent narrative. Men of primitive times spoke their own language to people of primitive times. The truth revealed is elevated above the level of natural facts and discloses a tact which is divine. Science of each and every age has found these sublime Biblical teachings to be outside the range of their own restricted field of observations. The Biblical expressions of truth concerning the origin of man and his place on earth, though formed in the age in which they were written, have served perfectly as vehicles of thought in all human history. In each age, the science of its time has imposed its ever shifting notions as to origin upon theology, and it has been the burden of theology in each age to rid itself of the ghosts of defunct philosophical and scientific opinions of a preceding age. It is indicated clearly that the objective before the writers of the Scriptures was not science, but it was theology. The early church was soon dragged down with Platonic philosophy and with Aristotle’s doctrine of the soul. Such a situation characterized medieval centuries. It is the conceit of man which contends that the divine account of the origin of things is true only so far as it conforms to the science of his own day. If the science of today runs true to the course set for it by earlier generations—and why should it fail to do so?—, it will be discarded by the scientists themselves; yet the Word of God will abide unchanged. The future of human opinion will modify the Word of God with no more success than has the past. Literally, science may come and science may go, but the Word of God goes on forever.

In the consideration of Biblical Anthropology, five major divisions inhere, namely, (a) The Origin of Man, (b) The Time of Man’s Origin, (c) Man’s Estate at Creation, (d) The Fall, and (e) The Doctrine of Sin.

I. The Origin of Man

The answer to the problem as to the origin of man is of immeasurable importance, for upon its answer depends the whole structure of anthropology. Of necessity, man’s nature, responsibility, and destiny are determined by the fundamental fact of his essential being as created. Two systems of thought—one a pure supposition, the other a revelation—purport to answer the question of man’s origin. The supposition—the evolutionary theory—is a speculation, conjecture, and assumption which is the best solution the unregenerate or spiritually unenlightened finite mind can construct. The revelation embodies a series of truths which are harmonious and reasonable, if the Person, purpose, and power of the Creator are recognized. These two systems of thought should be weighed separately.

1. The Evolutionary Theory.

Analysis of this hypothesis has been included in the preceding part of this work under Naturalistic Theism, therefore an extended discourse on this theme may be eliminated at this point. Had they anything which they were willing to put in its place, thinking men would not tolerate a system which offers not one proof for any claim which it advances. The act of bringing man into being is an achievement of stupendous proportions. To make man to be the result of an accidental evolutionary process of springing from some supposed primordial germ—which germ itself cannot be accounted for apart from a Creator—and all this as a pure imaginative fancy without so much as a shadow of substance on which it may rest for proof, bears all the marks of mental desperation and bankruptcy of ideas. Yet these undemonstrable notions are passed over upon the world under the patronage of education and science. To the unregenerate mind, to which God is wholly lacking in reality, the problem of origin is not solved by the statement that God created man. How desperately unreal that revelation is to all such may be measured by the farcical dogma which men substitute in its place. It would be revealing to such teachers if, having aroused all the humility and sincerity that is latent in their beings, they would inquire as to why they reject God as Creator.

Evolution, considered abstractly, is presented in two different forms. It may be naturalistic, contending that by “natural selection” and the “survival of the fittest” the varied forms of animate things came to be what they are as a result of fortuitous arrangement. On the other hand, Theistic Evolution—that system which seeks to retain some recognition of God by making Him the original cause, while embracing a supposed evolutionary process as the method by which God developed man from the original cell He had created—is not only unproven and unreasonable, but is a dishonor to God. God states in the Book, in which alone all conceptions of His Being have their source, the precise method He employed in the creation of man. To disregard this revelation and substitute a groundless human fiction in its place is to accuse God of untruth and to reject a plain Scripture with the liberty granted to others to reject every other page of the Bible if their unbelief so dictates. The divine method of creation is constantly reappearing in the text of the Bible and precisely in accord with that first disclosed in Genesis (cf. Matt 19:4; Rom 5:12–19; 1 Cor 15:45–49; 1 Tim 2:13). The efforts men make to explain away the works of God seem too often to be an attempt to hinder others from any belief in God. The record God has given is worthy of Him. Those who treat the record with contempt treat God with the same contempt, despising divine counsels and rejecting divine grace. The one who embraces the theory of animal ancestry dishonors both God and himself.

Beyond its insult to God and man and beyond its unpardonable and indefensible failure to offer scientific proof for its bold assertions, is the moral effect of this anti-God hypothesis. It is not contended that evolution as a system teaches immorality directly; it is declared, however, that this pagan philosophy, being destitute of God who is the alone source of moral ideals, cannot engender any moral impulse. As certainly as God created man, so certainly man sustains an inherent moral responsibility to be like God in conduct as man is like God by creation. God has made a reasonable command to His human creatures: “Be ye holy; for I am holy” (1 Pet 1:16; cf. Matt 5:48). The human creature’s welfare is not only designed by God but is to be executed to His glory. On this ground all moral conduct is based, for there is no other basis on which it could rest. Man’s actions are right when conformed to the character of God, and wrong when not conformed to the character of God. No other basis for a distinction between good and evil exists. On the other hand, if man is the product of natural forces, then he has as much responsibility along moral lines as natural forces demand and no more. If God and His Word are eliminated, as the evolutionary hypothesis eliminates them, then men may look to tadpoles for their moral ideals, and truth is without a foundation, the holiness of angels is a fiction, and the corruption of the devil is a libel, being an advertisement of that which does not exist. It is to be expected that animalism will creep into society and into schools where this anti-God system is upheld. If society and schools retain some moral ideals in spite of their anti-God philosophy, it is no more than the fast-waning moral momentum of a preceding, God-honoring generation. Off, indeed, to a poor start would the Bible with its heaven-high conceptions of conduct be if the baseless assertions of the evolutionary hypothesis were substituted for the sublime account of creation.

Beyond the natural government of God which He exercises over material creation and over living things as parts of His orderly arrangement, there is an exercise of moral discipline which applies to rational beings, both angelic and human. These must consider the difference between good and evil. Such a difference and such a moral government are eliminated when God is eliminated.

That form of modernism which embraces human theories and rejects revelation is incapable of forming a theology and its avowed abhorrence for things doctrinal is a witness against it. Often, indeed, must one turn to the Scripture which declares, “let God be true, but every man a liar” (Rom 3:4).

The certitude which now characterizes those who embrace the evolutionary theory is well reflected in the opening paragraph of the article on man found in the fourteenth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica which reads: “The late Sir E. B. Tylor, writing on the evolutionary theory of man’s origin, made the following statement: ‘In one form or another such a theory of human descent has, in our time, become part of an accepted framework of zoology, if not as demonstrable truth, at any rate as a working hypothesis which has no effective rival.’ When Sir Edward Tylor made this statement in 1910 he was in his 78th year; his memory could carry him back to a time when it was believed that man had come into the world as a special creation some 4, 000 years before the birth of Christ and owed no kinship to other living things. He was 27 years of age when Darwin’s Origin of Species was published in 1859; in 1865, two years after Huxley had issued his renowned treatise on Man’s Place in Nature, he himself published the Early History of Mankind and the Development of Civilization. When Darwin’s Descent of Man came out in 1871, Tylor’s Primitive Culture; Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art and Custom, kept it company. By the end of the 19th century he had seen chair after chair in the universities of the world filled by men who were convinced that evolution was true; at his death in 1917, at the age of 85, he had seen another generation of enquirers grow up who, after applying Darwin’s teaching to all departments of man’s world—to his body, mind and culture—remained convinced that, as a working hypothesis, the doctrine of evolution had no rival.”[3]

Thus it is admitted by Sir E. B. Tylor that the evolutionary theory is at least a working hypothesis if it be not a demonstrable truth.

The likeness of man’s physical constitution to that of the higher form of animals is fully asserted and included in the Genesis account; but those who hold the evolutionary theory seize upon these similarities as though they belonged exclusively to that theory. This is illustrated by the first paragraph of the “summary of evidence” included in the same article quoted above: “No matter what aspect of man the student of today may select for study, the conviction that evolution (q.v.) is true is forced on him. If he investigates the development of the child in the womb he comes across a complicated series of appearances which can be explained only if Darwin’s teaching is accepted.”

In the matter of fossil forms, the most unprovable items are set forth with a prejudice in favor of the evolutionary theory which is wholly detrimental to the theory advanced. Under Palaeontology and as evidence, this same article asserts: “In recently formed strata of the earth fossil forms of man are found; those from the older strata are more apelike than those from the newer. In still older strata are found fossil fragments of great anthropoids; in still more ancient, the remains of small anthropoids; deeper still in the earth’s records no trace of anthropoid has yet been discovered. In these older strata occur fossil remains of small monkey-like primates. The geological records, so far as they are yet known, support Darwin’s theory of man’s origin; they are altogether against the belief that man appeared suddenly—by a special act of creation.”

Here the writer, above quoted, admits a complete contradiction of the Genesis account. So far as fossil forms go, none more impressive have been found than those of the so-called Pithecanthropus Erectus. Of this the same writer states: “The discovery which throws most light on the evolutionary progress of man was made in Java during 1891–92 by Prof. Eugene Dubois, then a surgeon in the colonial military service, and later professor of geology in the University of Amsterdam. In a stratum which contained the fossil bones of many extinct species of animals he obtained five fragments of a strange kind of being, one of which he regarded as a transitional form between man and ape—a real missing link. He named it Pithecanthropus erectus, and assigned it to a separate family of primates—one lying on the borderline between anthropoids and man.... The five fossil fragments found were: a skull cap which outwardly had the form which might be expected in a giant form of gibbon, a left thigh bone and three teeth. The most distant of the fragments were 20 paces apart. Later he added a sixth fragment—part of a lower jaw found in another part of the island but in a stratum of the same geological age. The skull cap is flat, low and has great eyebrow ridges; its characters are more simian than human, yet when Prof. Dubois succeeded in obtaining a cast from the interior of the skull cap, that cast bore on it the convolutionary pattern of the brain of Pithecanthropus, and that pattern proved to be altogether human. Pithecanthropus, the fossil man of Java, had a brain which was smaller, simpler and infinitely more primitive than that of the lowest living men.”

After a section enlarging on the probable size and capacity of the brain of this supposed human being, the writer concludes: “Pithecanthropus was assigned by Prof. Dubois, on reliable evidence, to a date late in the Pliocene period; others on weighing the evidence suppose that he lived early in the Pleistocene period. If we accept the duration of the Pleistocene as 250,000 years, and regard Pithecanthropus as representing the evolutionary stage reached by mankind at the beginning of this period, then we have to conclude that man’s body had become adapted to its peculiar posture and gait before the end of the Pliocene period, and that the higher development of the brain took place in the ensuing Pleistocene period.... Are we to regard Pithecanthropus as man or as ape? The answer is that he was human because of the following reasons. In point of size and conformation, his brain attained almost the lowest limit of modern or Neanthropic man; his posture and mode of progression were human; his hands and arms were freed from locomotion; his teeth fall within range of human variation. Pithecanthropus represents one of the dawn forms of humanity, and with his discovery it became possible to affirm that man’s antiquity could be carried back with certainty to the close of the Pliocene period. It is not unlikely that higher forms than Pithecanthropus were evolved before the end of the Pliocene period; the stage reached by Piltdown man early in the Pleistocene period supports such an inference. A consideration of all the evidence leads us to expect that the fossil remains of emerging primitive man have to be sought for in strata of the Pliocene period, and those of emerging Neanthropic man in deposits of the Pleistocene.”

That credulity which grasps at five or six “fossil fragments” which expose no more than a skull cap, a thigh bone, and three teeth, and these scattered apart by a distance of twenty paces, or sixty feet, and which declares this to be “the discovery which throws most light on the evolutionary progress of man” can hardly be taken seriously. Educated men would not try thus to stand on the shadow of a shadow were they able by any spiritual vision to enthrone God in His place as Creator. It still remains true in spite of five or six “fossil fragments” separated in their location by sixty feet (and would not that power be welcome which wrought before Ezekiel’s vision when “bones came together, bone to his bone”?), that God created man in His own image. Some men evidently prefer the image of the ape; but there are those still who prefer the image of God.

2. Revelation.

Man is created in the “image” and “likeness” of God and God alone is equal to this stupendous task. In His Word, God does not impose puerile and absurd notions upon man’s credulity. He assigns a sufficient and reasonable Cause for all things when He declares that He is the Creator. A marvelous array of harmonious truth is compressed into the first two chapters of the Bible. Here is a record from God declaring the existing relationship between the Creator and the human creature. No other literature in the world is so replete with direct revelation which is calculated to inform the mind of man and to guide scientific research as are these first pages of the Bible. This portion of the Scriptures has drawn out an incomparable body of literature both constructive and critical; yet the text abides unchanged and is now as satisfying to the devout mind as ever it has been.

The fact that the creation of man is given in two narratives—one in each of the two opening chapters of Genesis—has caused much discussion. Again a strong emphasis is imposed by a second rehearsal and on a theme that, in the light of human unbelief, doubtless demands this pronounced amplification. Certain variations, however, are to be seen in these accounts, and, as so often in the Bible, both accounts are needed to complete the record. The first is general; the second, introducing details which, had they been incorporated into the first would have marred its majestic rhythm and symmetry. According to the first account, the man and the woman are alike the direct creation of God (1:26, 27); but in the second account, it is stated that the man was first brought into being, having been formed from the dust of the ground, and the woman is taken from the man by a special divine arrangement which resulted in the same completeness of being (2:7, 21–25). According to the first narrative, man in his creation is closely related to the animals which are of three classes—“beasts of the earth,” “cattle,” “and everything that creepeth on the earth”—; but, in the second account, no more is said of these than that they are true to their kind. However, of man it is three times stated in one verse and as a part of the first account that God created man (1:27). This tremendous emphasis follows immediately upon the solemn and formal declaration that it was God’s purpose to create man (1:26). The emphatic nature of repetition is to be seen again in the fact that man is three times said to be made in the image of God (1:26, 27). Language, as employed in the Word of God, can be no more insistent than it is when it asserts three times that God created man directly, and three times that He created man in His own image. Any human philosophy which denies these determining averments is not choosing one of two doubtful opinions as to what God has said; it cuts squarely through the most emphatic truth God has ever revealed to man and implies that God is untrue to that degree. Though such wickedness be sustained by all the pseudo-scholarship of the world, it is still false to the final degree and belongs to the bold anti-God character of the one who first contradicted God by saying “ye shall not surely die” (cf. Gen 2:17 with 3:4). The first record of man’s creation chronicles with sublime simplicity a most difficult theme, namely, that man shares the animal existence and yet in a special sense is made in the likeness of God, and it is in every instance said to be the Triune Elohim who thus creates. In the added detail which characterizes the second record, it is declared that man and woman are alike on the physical side having been made either directly—as in the case of the man—, or indirectly—as in the case of the woman—, from the dust of the ground. At this point the science of chemistry as represented in the human body is introduced. Macdonald in his Creation and Fall, p. 326, states: “It is well known that the animal body is composed, in the inscrutable manner called organization, of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, lime, iron, sulphur, and phosphorus, substances which in their various combinations form a large part of the solid ground.” It is probable, also, that this earthly origin of man’s body accounts for the fact that he is named Adam, which may be from adamah, meaning ground. A more distinguishing feature of man’s being, as recorded in connection with his creation, is the truth that God breathed into him the breath of lives (plural). Of this Delitzsch writes: “it is not merely the general life principle imparted to the world which individualizes itself in man, but that God breathes directly into the nostrils of man the fulness of His personality,...that in a manner corresponding to the personality of God, man may become a living soul.” Out of all these facts so simply stated in these two chapters almost endless doctrinal truth has been developed.

The general comparison of the two creation narratives is summed up by Dr. Laidlaw in his Doctrine of Man[4] thus: “At all events, the relation of the two accounts becomes very clear when we place them side by side. The first may be called cosmical, the second physiological. The former is the generic account of man’s creation—of man the race, the ideal; the latter is the production of the actual man, of the historic Adam. The former spoke of the creative fiat which called man into existence; this speaks of the plastic process through which the Creator formed both man and woman—him from the dust of the ground, her from the bone and flesh of man. The former spoke of them as to their type in the image of God; this, of the element in which that type was realized—a material frame, informed by a divinely—inbreathed spirit. The former spoke of mankind at the head of the creatures, ruling over the earth and them; this speaks of the home provided for him, the work committed to him, the relationships formed for him, and, finally, of the moral law under which he was placed in his relation to God. And no unbiased reader can see anything but unity in these two accounts—a real and reasonable harmony, as distinguished from literal or verbal dovetailing; nor can we doubt that the master hand which knit into that marvellous whole—the book of Genesis—various paragraphs of precious tradition, enshrining the highest spiritual truth, has placed these two accounts of the creation of man side by side for the mutual light which they shed on each other without absolute contact, and certainly without contradiction. The results of this twofold biblical account of man’s becoming are clear, definite, and intelligible. His origin is not emanation, but creation-formation out of existing materials on the one side of his nature, out of the blessed fulness of the divine life on the other. His becoming is in the line of the natural order of animated beings, but at its climax. His position among them is central and supreme, but his nature stands distinguished from them all in that it is formed after the divine image.”

According to this and all other parts of the Bible, Adam is as real a person as any that ever lived on earth, and is in no way an inferior man. Huxley stated that the oldest human skeleton could easily be the remains of a philosopher, and Dana admitted human speculation was without evidence for its foundation. Thus, also, Darwin said that the gap between the animal world and man was amazing.

The one and only “workable theory” as to the origin of man is that advanced by the Creator Himself and this event in creation need not be restricted as to its date to the time which accepted chronology has fixed. The history of man on the earth may easily be more than the supposed six thousand years and with no violence to the testimony of the Sacred Text. Whether it be at one time or another, it remains true that God created man immediately and directly. On this premise all Scripture advances and apart from it the testimony of the Creator is abjured.

II. The Time of Man’s Origin

Regarding the time of man’s origin, various groups of scientists are properly challenged—the historian with his concern for facts relative to early peoples and nations, the distinction between races and the possibility of a common origin; the philologist with his problem of the origin of language in the light of its present varied forms; the archaeologist and the geologist with the evidence they offer as to the antiquity of man. What these men assert as to the age of the human family varies to such a degree that all claims to infallibility are shattered. Disagreement among authorities has no tendency to engender belief or to establish dependable data. A general contention arises which claims that man has lived much longer on the earth than the date 4004 B.C., estimated by Usher. These imperative demands of modern scientists deserve candid consideration on the part of theologians. The question may be asked as to whether conservative theology is committed to the dates which are based on the Usher chronology. On this problem of chronology, Dr. Miley has written: “It is well known that biblical chronology remains, as it ever has been, an open question. Individuals may have been very positive respecting the exact years of the great epochal events in the world’s history, but there is no common concurrence in such a view. The profoundest students of the question find different measures of time, not varying so widely as between scientists, yet sufficiently to be of value in the adjustment of the seeming issue with facts of science. The leading views are well known and easily stated. The origin of man preceded the advent of our Lord by 4, 004 years, as reckoned by Usher on the ground of the Hebrew Scriptures; by 5, 411 years, as reckoned by Hales on the ground of the Septuagint Version. Here is a margin of 1, 407 years, which might cover many facts of science respecting the presence of man in the world, and bring them into harmony with biblical chronology. The acceptance of this reckoning requires no cunning device. While through the Vulgate Version the shorter period gained ascendancy in the Western Church, in the Eastern the longer period prevailed. With the whole Church it has been quite as common; and, while a lower estimate than that of Usher has rarely been made, a longer reckoning than that of Hales has not been rare. The uncertainty of biblical chronology is of special value in its adjustment to the reasonable claims of science respecting the time of man’s origin. That uncertainty is no recent assumption, no mere device which the exigency of an issue with science has forced upon biblical chronologists, but has long been felt and openly expressed. The many different and widely varying results of the most careful reckoning witness to the uncertainty of the data upon which that reckoning proceeds. The tables of genealogy are the chief data in the case, and their aim is to trace the lines of descent, not to mark the succession of years. Hence the line of connection is not always traced immediately from father to son, but often the transition is to a descendant several generations later-which answers just as well for the ruling purpose, however it may perplex the question of time. ‘Thus in Gen. xlvi,18, after recording the sons of Zilpa, her grandsons and her great-grandsons, the writer adds, “These are the sons of Zilpa,...and these she bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls.” The same thing recurs in the case of Bilha, verse 25, ”she bare these unto Jacob: all the souls were seven.” Compare verses 15, 22, No one can pretend that the author of this register did not use the term understandingly of decendants beyond the first generation. In like manner, according to Matt. i,11, Josias begat his grandson Jechonias, and verse 8, Joram begat his great-grandson Ozias. And in Gen. x,15–18, Canaan, the grandson of Noah, is said to have begotten several whole nations, the Jebusite, the Amorite, the Girgasite, the Hivite, etc. Nothing can be plainer, therefore, than that, in the usage, “to bear” and “to beget” are used in a wide sense to indicate descent, without restricting this to the immediate offspring’ (Green: The Pentateuch Vindicated, p. 132). It would be easy to give many other instances of a like presentation of facts. Such facts justify the prevalent uncertainty respecting biblical chronology. Indeed, the tables which furnish the chief data for its construction are purely genealogical, and in no proper sense chronological. With such uncertainty of data, no biblical chronology can have either fixed limits or doctrinal claim. It follows that the usual reckoning may be so extended as to meet any reasonable requirement of scientific facts respecting the time of man’s origin, without the perversion of any part of Scripture or the violation of any law of hermeneutics. Such are the views of theologians thoroughly orthodox in creed and most loyal to the Scriptures.”[5]

As to his beginning, man is the most recent of all creatures, and in spite of the fact that scientists are wont to talk in terms of vast ages when dealing with the problem of human life on the earth—especially the evolutionist whose assumption depends so completely on the whole matter of origin being buried in the oblivion of an incomprehensible past—, the reasonable extension of human history back several thousand years beyond the dates proposed by Usher—which extension does not conflict, as before stated, with the Biblical record—, allows sufficient time for all justified contentions of the historian, the geologist, the archaeologist, and the philologist.

When considering the claims of the geologist and the archaeologist, Dr. Miley quotes at length from a scientist of his day to whose findings no material facts have been added in this generation. The quotation is reproduced here in full: “The calculations of long time based on the gravels of the Somme, on the cone of the Tiniere, on the peat-bogs of France and Denmark, on certain cavern deposits, have all been shown to be more or less at fault; and possibly none of these reach further back than six or seven thousand years, which according to Dr. Andrews, have elapsed since the close of the bowlder-clay deposits in America.... Let us look at a few facts. Much use has been made of the ‘cone’ or delta of the Tiniere, on the eastern side of the Lake of Geneva, as an illustration of the duration of the modern period. This little stream has deposited at its mouth a mass of debris carried down from the hills. This being cut through by a railway, is found to contain Roman remains to a depth of four feet, bronze implements to a depth of ten feet, stone implements to a depth of nineteen feet. The deposit ceased about three hundred years ago, and, calculating 1,300 to 1, 500 years for the Roman period, we should have 7,000 to 10, 000 years as the age of the cone. But before the formation of the present cone another had been formed twelve times as large. Thus for the two cones together a duration of more than 90, 000 years is claimed. It appears, however, that this calculation has been made irrespective of two essential elements in the question. No allowance has been made for the fact that the inner layers of a cone are necessarily smaller than the outer; nor for the further fact that the older cone belongs to a distinct time (the pluvial age already referred to), when the rainfall was much larger, and the transporting power of the torrent greater in proportion. Making allowance for these conditions, the age of the newer cone, that holding human remains, falls between 4,000 and 5, 000 years. The peat-bed of Abbeville, in the north of France, has grown at the rate of one and a half or two inches in a century. Being twenty-six feet in thickness, the time occupied in its growth must have amounted to 20, 000 years; and yet it is probably newer than some of the gravels on the same river containing flint implements. But the composition of the Abbeville peat shows that it is a forest peat, and the erect stems preserved in it prove that in the first instance it must have grown at the rate of about three feet in a century, and after the destruction of the forest its rate of increase down to the present time diminished rapidly almost to nothing. Its age is thus reduced to perhaps less than 4, 000 years. In 1865 I had an opportunity to examine the now celebrated gravels of St. Acheul, on the Somme, by some supposed to go back to a very ancient period. With the papers of Prestwick and other able observers in my hand, I could conclude merely that the undisturbed gravels were older than the Roman period, but how much older only detained typographical surveys could prove; and that taking into account the probabilities of a different level of the land, a wooded condition of the country, a greater rainfall, and a glacial filling of the Somme valley with clay and stones subsequently cut out by running water, the gravels could scarcely be older than the Abbeville peat.... Taylor and Andrews have, however, I think, subsequently shown that my impressions were correct. In like manner, I fail to perceive—and I think all American geologists acquainted with the prehistoric monuments of the western continent must agree with me—any evidence of great antiquity in the caves of Belgium and England, the kitchen-middens of Denmark, the rock-shelters of France, the lake-habitations of Switzerland. At the same time, I would disclaim all attempt to resolve their dates into precise terms of years. I may merely add that the elaborate and careful observations of Dr. Andrews on the raised beaches of Lake Michigan—observations of a much more precise character than any which, in so far as I know, have been made of such deposits in Europe—enable him to calculate the time which has elapsed since North America rose out of the waters of the glacial period as between 5,500 and 7, 500 years. This fixes at least the possible duration of the human period in North America, though I believe there are other lines of evidence which would reduce the residence of man in America to a much shorter time. Longer periods have, it is true, been deduced from the delta of the Mississippi and the gorge of Niagara; but the deposits of the former have been found by Hilgard to be in great part marine, and the excavation of the latter began at a period probably long anterior to the advent of man.”[6]

Prof. W. H. Green, D.D, in his book The Pentateuch Vindicated, page 128, says: “It must not be forgotten that there is an element of uncertainty in a computation of time which rests upon genealogies as the sacred chronology so largely does. Who is to certify us that the antediluvian and ante-Abrahamic genealogies have not been condensed in the same manner as the post-Abrahamic. If Matthew omitted names from the ancestry of our Lord in order to equalize the three great periods over which he passes, may not Moses have done the same in order to bring out seven generations from Adam to Enoch, and ten from Adam to Noah? Our current chronology is based upon the prima facie impression of these genealogies. This we shall adhere to until we shall see good reason for giving it up. But if these recently discovered indications of the antiquity of man, over which scientific circles are now so excited, shall, when carefully inspected and thoroughly weighed, demonstrate all that any have imagined they might demonstrate, what then? They will simply show that the popular chronology is based upon a wrong interpretation, and that a select and partial register of ante-Abrahamic names has been mistaken for a complete one.”

The philologist, beginning with the supposition that man originated his own language, contends that vast ages are required to accomplish this end and adds to this even more ages for the development of language into its present varied forms. This theory ignores the Biblical account. There is the best reason for believing that man was created with the ability to speak and to understand speech. Adam was created as mature in mind as he was in body. That he employed language from the beginning of his consciousness is indicated in the Genesis account. The Genesis account also records that, after a period in which man had but one language on the earth, God directly and purposely confounded all language with its attending results to this day (Gen 11:5–9). If these records are accepted, the claims of the philologist are unimportant.

Similarly, the argument of the historian concerning the extended time required for the development from one original stock of peoples and nations of widely different physical features fails to consider the divine record. The variation in nations led Agassiz to contend that each division of the race was separately created. This theory held by Agassiz, though without a basis, does aim at the solution of a problem which science has never solved. The Biblical record asserts that, whatever may have been the drift of human characteristics before the flood, the race was reduced to one family and from that limited stock the present population of the earth sprang. The testimony of Genesis 10:32, which reads, “These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood,” is exceedingly clear as to the origin of nations. God caused heads of nations to be born of Noah’s line. To what extent this may have gone, no information is given. It is enough to know that, according to the Word of God, the problem of different nations emerging from a common stock is accounted for in this passage. That God could found races from individual men is proven in the more recent case of Abraham and the Hebrew people. Originally Abraham was of the common stock of the citizens of Ur; yet from him God caused the most identified race of the earth to come forth, to say nothing of Ishmael and the distinctive people he engendered.

In addition to such racial features as it has pleased God to establish by direct control, is the truth that human types and characteristics are ever changing under the force of various influences; but above all this, the human family is unchangeable. It retains its unity and physical structure exhibiting the same capacities, the same moral and religious nature. Parts of the race may sink into heathenism, or go the way of the highest revelation, yet the facts and forms of human reality cannot change. There are no hybrid restrictions between the most distant races. This alone asserts the unity of the human family. Neither polygenism—which contends that there have been separate creations for each of the distinct species—, nor pre-adamitism—which asserts that humanity existed before Adam and that he was the head only of a specific stock—has any support in the Scriptures.

When men reject the Bible and seek to find their way through the problems of human life, their gropings are of little value though they may be sincere. The Bible discloses that which God would have man know. “Through faith we understand” (Heb 11:3).

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, pp. 2494, 2495.
2. Pp. 98, 99.
3. Vol. 14, p. 758.
4. Cunningham Lectures, pp. 35-37.
5. Systematic Theology, Vol. I, pp. 359-361.
6. Dawson: Story of the Earth and Man, pp. 292-296.