ANTHROPOLOGY
1A.
Introduction.
1B. Definitions:
1C. Meaning of Theology:
Thiessen: "The term "theology" is today used in a narrow
and also in a broad sense. It is derived from two Greek words, theos and logos, the former meaning God and the latter word,
discourse, and doctrine. In the
narrow sense, therefore, theology may be defined as the doctrine of God. But in
the broad and more usual sense the term has come to mean all the doctrines that
deal with the relations God sustains to the universe. In this broad sense we
may, accordingly, define theology as the
science of God and His relations to the universe."[1]
2C. Meaning of Anthropology:
The word anthropology is ultimately derived from a combination of the
Greek words anthropos ("man")
and logos ("science,"
"doctrine" or "study" as used in this connection).
Therefore the etymological idea of anthropology is the science of man or man-study. There are three approaches
to studying anthropology:
1D. Cultural
Anthropology--The customs or learned patterns of life common to a given
society. The study of the races, and how they work.
2D. Physical
Anthropology--The history and the present diversification of the biological
characteristics of man.
3D. Religious
Anthropology--The study of man in his relation to God as disclosed in the
Scriptures. This restricts the study of man to his relationship with God.
However, it also expands it in the sense that God is now part of the study and
God is broad.
2B. Relation of
anthropology to biblical inerrancy.[2]
The Bible includes information about the origin, nature, history and
destiny of man. Furthermore, the whole biblical record of redemptive activity
occurs within the history of certain Near Eastern cultures as the progressively
under-go change and development. Therefore it is not surprising that while the
Bible is the sole infallible
source for theological anthropology, it also presents information concerning
cultural and physical anthropology.
1C. When the Bible does touch upon
subjects which are common to either cultural or physical anthropology, then the
Bible is viewed as inerrant
in whatever it states about these areas.
2C. The believer in biblical
inerrancy may properly view both cultural and physical anthropology as
legitimate and useful disciplines.
3C. Any of the conclusions of
anthropology which contradict the clear teaching of Scripture are to be viewed
as false.
2A.
The Origins of Man.
1B. The Importance of the
Study.
Man
has always wanted and needed to know where he ultimately came from. Cultures
and societies down through history have created mythologies and scientific
theories in order to explain the beginnings of mankind. Most mythologies are
highly fanciful, lack factual matter, and are means of supporting the religion,
beliefs and military imperialism of the society. The biblical account stands in
stark contrast to these myths in its simplicity, realism and non-sectarianism.
Modern man has spent
billions of dollars in his attempt to find the origins of the earth and man's
history. The sciences of anthropology, geology, physiology, physics,
archaeology and astronomy have all sought to contribute to man's search for his
origins. The result has been theories which have greatly contributed to our
understanding and knowledge, yet which are continually modified as new
information is gathered. However, mankind will continue to search because man
needs and wants to know how it all started.
Dr. Ryrie has stated,
"One's view of the origin of man will affect his entire
understanding of and attitude toward man. If, for instance, man is the product
of evolution, then the extent of the effects of sin and the need of a Saviour
are played down, if not eliminated. If, on the other hand, man was created by
God, then this concept carries with it the companion idea of the responsibility
of man. If God created man, then there is Someone outside of man to whom he
becomes responsible. He is not in and of himself the master of his own fate or
completely at the mercy of fate; he is neither the final authority nor the only
one to whom he must ultimately answer. A doctrine of creation implies creatures
who are responsible to that Creator. The evolutionary origin of man relieves
man of responsibility to a personal Creator outside of himself."[3]
2B. Two Ancient
Mythologies of the Origin of
1C. Enuma
"Enuma Elis was one of the most popular epics among the Babylonians and Assyrians.
It is written on seven clay tablets and contains more than one thousand
lines... The first portions of this epic were discovered between 1848 and 1876
at the great library of Ashurbanipal at Ninevah by Austen H. Layard, Jormuzd
Rassam, and George Smith... The exact
date of composition is uncertain, although the weight of evidence seems to
favor the period of the first Babylonian dynasty, especially the reign of the
great Hammurabi.
While Enuma Elis is one of the more important witnesses to Babylonian
cosmology, it is not primarily a creation epic. Its purpose is obviously to
honor Marduk as the greatest of all gods. It establishes his supremacy in part
by telling of his creative power, but a careful reading of the epic clearly
demonstrates that his creative acts are not the major emphasis of the epic...
Another purpose of the epic may have been to exalt the city of
According to the epic a
male freshwater ocean, Apsu, and a female saltwater ocean, Tiamat, mated. The
offspring were many lesser deities, which represented a variety of aspects of
nature. Apsu became irritated with the noise of his offspring and decided to
destroy them. He failed, however, and in fact was killed by one of them, the
god of wisdom, who in turn fathered the great stone god, Marduk. This enraged
Tiamat, who mothered a host of dragons to fight Marduk. During a great banquet
Marduk was commissioned by other important gods to represent them and fight
Tiamat. After a fierce battle, Marduk killed the dragon Tiamat and split her
body in half. The upper half was made into the sky, and the lower half the
earth. Out of this chaos came order, and the stars, moon, and calendar were
created. Man was produced by mixing the blood of Kingu, Tiamat's field marshal,
with some earth. Man was created to serve all the gods and goddesses."[4]
2C. A Japanese Myth: The Nihongi. Byron Earhart writes the
following summary of the Japanese account of their beginnings:
"The opening passage of the Nihongi is a story of creation
which is not Japanese, but a borrowing from a Chinese version of creation... It
appears that the Japanese writers sought prestige for their own traditions by
prefacing them with a Chinese form of cosmology... The Chinese contribution is
the notion that the cosmos emerged out of 'a chaotic mass like an egg,' which
then separated into heaven (male) and earth (female). This preface serves as a
general explanation for the origin of the world and all the divinities. The
first two chapters of these writings, entitled 'The Age of the Gods,' gives a
patchwork picture of various traditions concerning the generations of gods and
founding of the Japanese islands. In this mythical period seven generations of
divinities or kami culminated in the marriage of Izanagi (a male kami) and
Izamami (a female kami). [A kami is a god]. They brought about the appearance
of the Japanese island by thrusting the 'jewel-spear of Heaven' from the bridge
of heaven into the briny waters below. Then they descended to the land which had
appeared, and produced other kami as well as other features of the universe.
One major theme of the
mythology is the descent of the so-called Sun Goddess Amaterasu from this
couple, because from Amaterasu comes the imperial line of
3B. Biblical Passages
Related to the Origin of
What do these verses teach concerning the origin of man's material and
immaterial aspects?
1C. Gen. 2:7. "Then the
LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the
breath of life; and man became a living being."
Gen. 3:19. "By the sweat of your face
You shall eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return."
2C. Gen 2:21-23. "(21) So
the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He
took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh at that place. (22) And the LORD
God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought
her to the man. (24) And the man said,
"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of
1 Cor. 11:8. "For man does not
originate from woman, but woman from man."
3C. 1 Cor. 15:39. All flesh is
not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts,
and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
4C. Ecc. 3:19-21. (19) For the
fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies
the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for
man over beast, for all is vanity. (20) All go to the same place. All came from
the dust and all return to the dust. (21) Who knows that the breath of man
ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth?
Ecc. 12:6-7. (6) Remember Him before the
silver cord is broken and the golden bowl is crushed, the pitcher by the well
is shattered and the wheel at the cistern is crushed; (7) then the dust will return
to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
4B. Naturalistic
Evolution.[6]
1C. Initial observations.
1D. The theory of naturalistic evolution is:
1E. Held by the majority of
scientists.
2E. It is often presented as the only
viable explanation of the
origin of life.
2D. The Christian should expect the natural man to give a natural or anti-supernatural explanation of
the origin of things. 1 Cor. 2:14
states, "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of
God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because
they are spiritually appraised."
3D. Practically everyone who believes in special creation assumes the authority of Scripture and the omnipotence of God. Christ
pointed out in Mark 12:24 that not
believing in these two doctrines leads to error. "Jesus said to them,
'Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the
Scriptures, or the power of God?'"
2C. Underlying assumptions of naturalistic evolution. It presuppose the
validity of evolutionary biology, uniformitarian geology, and radiometric
chronology (required for very large expanses of time).
3C. Basic principles of naturalistic evolution.
1D. The first forms of life originated by spontaneous generation from lifeless matter.
2D. From the earliest and very simple organism(s) more complex forms of life gradually developed. Thus, the
new is always better than the old. This principle is contrary to the law of
entropy (the second law of thermodynamics), which states that things are
breaking down into simpler forms rather than building up to more complex forms.
3D. This gradual development of more varied and increasingly complex
forms of life is generally explained by natural selection ("survival of the fittest") operating on
the basis of random mutation.
mutations + natural selection +
time = evolution.
\ /
\ /
\chance, randomness/
4D. Through this chance process of evolutionary development all living
and extinct plants and animals have originated. Man represents the apex of this
process.
4C. General support for naturalistic evolution.
The traditional support for evolution has centered around five general
arguments. A careful examination of the evidence used in these arguments will
show that it does not necessarily support the theory of evolution. Actually,
the evidence upon which evolution is based is best explained by special creation.
1D. Comparative anatomy (homology).
1E. Argument #1: The arrangement of
plants and animals by taxonomists exhibits a series of seemingly increasing
complexity.
2E. Answer #1: While the
taxonomical arrangements of plants and animals are helpful, they are still
arbitrary and artificial. Not all taxonomists agree as to the proper sequence
of arrangement. Thus, the taxonomical classifications do not necessarily
demonstrate that so-called more complex forms evolved from simpler forms.
3E. Argument #2: There are
anatomical similarities in various large groups of living creatures. For
example, the arms of man, the forelegs of the dog and frog, and the wings of
birds are all based on the same structures.
4E. Answer #2: There are also great
anatomical and functional differences between the structures of major
classifications of living forms. Instead of proving evolutionary origin, these
similarities infer a common Designer.
2D. Embryonic recapitulation (Haeckel's biogenetic law).
1E. Argument: "Ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny." This theory means that the stages in the
development of an individual organism from the ovum to the adult form summarize
the evolutionary stages in the development of the species. As applied to man,
the theory holds that the embryonic life of a human reveals various stages of
development which resemble in succession the ancestral or lower forms of life
which man evolved.[7]
2E. Answer #1: Taken alone,
similarity of appearance between two organisms is insufficient evidence to
prove either structural, or functional identity. For example, the so-called
"gill slits" of an embryo never function like fish gills.
3E. Answer #2: The expected order
of evolution is often reversed. The embryo heart develops before the
blood-vessels. Teeth were supposedly evolved before tongues, but in present
mammal embryos tongues develop before teeth. The brain capacity of a human
embryo is larger, rather than smaller in relation to body size than in adult humans.
3D. Geological record.
1E. Argument: The successive layers of rock
formations from the earlier to the later layers reveal a gradual development of
plant and animal life from the more elementary forms to a greater variety and complexity
of living forms.
2E. Answer:
1F. Fossils in rock layers do not
reveal a gradual evolution of living forms.
2F. There is a sudden appearance of
a large variety of living forms in the Cambrian period (600,000,000 years ago)
of the geological time scale.
3F. Fossils of these same forms are
almost non-existent in the pre-Cambrian rock layers. The forms that do appear probably filtered
down from the upper layers.
4F. The fossil record does not contain the many transitional forms of
life expected.
4D. Blood precipitation tests.
1E. Argument: The chemical
structure of the blood proteins of related species such as man and the ape
shows chemical resemblances.
2E. Answer: The chemical structure of the blood
proteins of related species such as man and the ape also shows differences. The
evidence of the preceding argument may point to a common Designer, rather than
to descent from a common ancestor.
5D. Vestigial organs.
1E. Argument: Humans and other
living organisms have organs which are vestigial, (i.e., apparently useless or
no longer fully developed). Such organs are thought to be inherited from
ancestors who had them and found them useful, (e.g., the appendix).
2E. Answer:
1F. Because we do not presently
understand the function of an organ in the body, that does not mean it should
be considered useless.
2F. Some organs once considered to
be vestigial have been found through further study to be helpful to the body.
3F. The problem of evolution is to
prove that living organisms gain new organs, not that they lose the old ones.
Summary Evaluation: Some evolutionists have admitted the weakness of some of the above
supporting arguments for evolution, especially, for example, the argument from
embryonic recapitulation. Modern evolutionists have generally sought to draw
upon recent discoveries in the field of molecular biology as additional support
for evolution. Check James F. Coppedge's book, (Evolution: Possible or
Impossible?
5C. Major problems with naturalistic evolution.
1D. Mathematics.
Bernard Ramm has correctly observed that "the theory of evolution
is a probability statement."[8] Just how probable (or improbable) is the
theory of evolution?
1E. It is highly improbable that
life would originate from non-living matter by chance.
2E. That such life spontaneously
developed and evolved to produce man has such high improbability that it may be
considered impossible.
Further information on this topic from evolutionists themselves may be
found in the following work: Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan eds., Mathematical
Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution.
2D. Mutations.
1E. Sudden mutations or changes can
occur in chromosomes or genes so that their posses-sors acquire characteristics
not found in their parents or ancestors.
2E. Most mutations are harmful and
helpful mutations are very rare.
3E. All mutations observed in the
history of science have caused only minor changes.
4E. Scientists have never yet
observed the stupendous mutations required by the evolutionary theory. In
connection with this point, Frair and Davis write:
Populations of insects, bacteria, and other organisms have been changed
through mutations inside the laboratory and out, and these changes have been
noted by competent observers. It is important to realize, however, that these
are only relatively minor changes in organisms and illustrate the mechanism of
diversification. Radical changes in organisms (the changes for which
evolutionary theory must account) have never been observed to occur by
mutations in the laboratory or anywhere else. The changes of a concert of
appropriate mutations occurring together and staying together is
infinitesimally small. Transitions from one major group of animals to another
would have to be of such a nature. It is no surprise that they have not been
observed. We venture to suggest that they have not occurred.[9]
3D. Entropy (related to the
second law of thermodynamics).[10]
Natural systems or processes alone (left to themselves) tend to
deteriorate into simpler and more homogeneous forms, rather than developing
into higher and more complex forms as required by naturalistic evolution.
Evolution may turn out to
be one of the most detrimental myths ever disseminated in the human race.
Although there are aspects of it which are scientific truths, it has been used
by man as a device by which we can explain who we are and where we come from
without having to accept that we are created and responsible to the Creator.
Can evolution be adapted to
theology? Two ways have been suggested--theistic evolution and progressive
creation.
5B. Theistic Evolution.
The theory has been held by such notable theologians as James Orr and
Augustus H. Strong.
1C. Underlying assumptions of theistic evolution.
1D. The divine origin of life taught by the Bible is true.
2D. The scientific evidence for evolution is sufficient for Christians
to confidently accept it as true.
3D. The viewpoint of theistic evolution can be properly harmonized with
a metaphorical interpretation
of Gen. 1-3 and other creation passages.
2C. Basic principles of theistic evolution.
1D. Like the naturalistic evolutionist, the theistic evolutionist
believes that life began in very simple organic form(s).
2D. However, unlike the naturalistic evolutionist who believes that life
began by chance, the theistic
evolutionist affirms that life was originally created by God.
3D. From the originally created form(s) of life descent with
modification took place so that simple forms of life became more complex as a
result of divine intervention and superintendence.
4D. Through this long evolutionary process, God prepared a sub-human
creature physically like man, but lacking the
image of God.
5D. By miraculous act, God imparted His image to this creature (or these
creatures), from whom the whole human race has descended.
6D. Thus, man's body or physical nature was produced intermediately by divine
guidance of the evolutionary process.
7D. The image of God was communicated to man by an immediate act of God.
Thus, God Himself created this great creation, but He used evolution to
accomplish it. Also, man is a developed ape, with a divinely given image (or
spirit).
3C. Biblical passages which cause problems for theistic evolution.
Indicate in the space provided your thoughts on how the passage(s)
listed contradict or affirm the theistic evolutionary view.
1D. Gen. 1:26-27. Then God said, "Let Us make man in
Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the
sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (27) And God
created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and
female He created them.
2D. Gen. 2:7. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living being.
3D. Matt. 19:4. And He [Jesus] answered and said, "Have
you not read, that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND
FEMALE.” (In Mark 10:6-9 Jesus
again quotes Gen. 1:27, as well as Gen.2:24).
4D. Romans 5:14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until
Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam's offense,
who is a type of Him who was to come.
5D. 1 Cor. 15:45, 47. (45) So also it is written, "The
first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (47) The
first man is from the earth, earthly; the second man is from heaven.
6D. 1 Timothy 2:13-14. (13) For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. (14) And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into
transgression.
7D. Revelation 20:2. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent
of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.
8D. Genesis 3:19. "By the sweat of your face you shall eat
bread, till you return to the ground, ecause from it you were taken; for you
are dust, and to dust you shall return."
4C. Major problems with Theistic Evolution.
While the viewpoint of theistic evolution has gained in popularity in
recent years, even among evangelicals; there are serious problems with this
viewpoint which make it much less satisfactory than the traditional viewpoint
that the creation of man's body as well as his immaterial nature was through an
immediate act of God.
1D. It cannot be harmonized with a literal
interpretation of Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7.
1E. There is no justifiable
hermeneutical reason for not understanding Gen. 1-3 in a literal, historical
sense.
2E. Christ and His apostles
understood and used Gen. 1-3 in a literal, historical sense. See Matt. 19:4-8;
Mark 10:6-9; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 45, 47; 1 Tim. 2:13-14; James 3:9;
1 John 3:12; Rev. 20:2. James O. Buswell
concurs with this view when he states, "It seems prima facie evident that the Genesis record of the creation of man
is intended to convey the impression of a special act of creation and not from
previously existing biological forms.
Certainly nothing else than special creation can be made of the record
of the creation of Eve."[11]
2D. It is more complicated and no less miraculous than the simple
special creation view. Not only do such passages as Matthew 3:9 and Luke 3:8
state God's ability to immediately create man from the elements of the earth,
but also such passages as Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7; Matt. 19:4 and Mark 10:6 imply
that God did indeed bring man into existence at a point of time by special creation rather than
over a period of time by evolutionary
processes (cf. Ps. 33:9; 1 Cor. 15:45). Unless we refuse to interpret Scripture
in a consistently literal manner and read into Scripture what is not explicitly
stated, then "we cannot equate Adam with a remodelled ape or monkey."[12] Note especially our Lord's words: "from
the beginning of creation, God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).
3D. Theistic evolution contradicts Gen. 1:25 which states that God
created in "kinds."
4D. It also denies the statement in Gen. 2:7 that man's body was created
from the dust of the earth,
not from an animal. According
to Gen 3:9, man at death returns to dust. If "dust" in Gen. 2:7 is
simply a poetic way of saying that God took an ape, who is dust, and made man,
(the theistic evolution view), then Gen. 3:9 would mean that man would return
to "dust," (i.e., an ape), at death.
5D. The theory of the "survival of the fittest" does not fit
with a world in which there was no sin. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they lived
in the garden of Eden in which there was peace within nature and between man
and animals. The view of this theory is that only the fittest survived the
evolutionary process. This does not fit with either the Genesis account of the
Garden of Eden, or with God's character. Matt. 5:29 instructs us to turn the
other cheek, not to be the one who survives against all others.
6B. Progressive Creation.
This view has been held by Bernard Ramm.
1C. The theory of progressive creation.
God created the world in the beginning and also started certain life
forms. As things began to develop on their own through evolution, God stepped in at certain points with creative
acts. Unlike theistic evolution, there are multiple
creative acts in which God created different "kinds," along
which evolution proceeded. God also created man by a special act. In both views, evolution plays a major part in
the development of the earth. However, theistic evolution has God intervening
only at the very beginning of creation and at the creation of man when God gave
man His image (or a spirit). According to the progressive creation view, God
intervened at the very beginning and also at those points where there are
"gaps" in the evolution scheme.
2C. Problems with progressive creation.
Almost all of the problems discussed above in regard to the theistic
evolution view are also applicable to progressive creation.
7B. Special Fiat Creation.
1C. Basic principle. God created both the material and the immaterial
constitution of man by an immediate act. See Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7, 21-23; 5:1-2;
6:6-7; Deut. 4:32; Job 33:4; Ps, 8:4-6; 100:3; 103:14; Matt. 19:4; Mk. 10:6-7;
I Cor. 11:8-9; 15:45; I Tim. 2:13.
1D. The body of man
was formed of pre-existent material, but his soul was formed as a new substance
not originating from previously existing materials.
2D. The dust of the earth would most likely not refer to animal forms out of which man was evolved (Gen.
3:19-20; Eccles. 3:19-20; 1 Cor. 15:39). Why mention "the dust" if
Gen. 2:7 teaches that man originated from animals? Why didn't Moses state that
God used an animal since animals had already been created?
2C. General support.
1D. God created different "kinds" of life which reproduce
"after their kind" (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25).[13] There may be diversification within a
particular kind. This involves microevolution,
but not macroevolution. However,
there cannot be reproduction between separate kinds of life, or production of
new kinds.
2D. God created man as a unique being possessing certain absolute
differences from animals (Gen. 1:26-30; 2:7; Ps. 8:4-9). "It is not
possible to account for man's great intelligence, his conscience, his spiritual
experiences, his artistic creations, on purely naturalistic premises."[14] Apart from biblical revelation,
anthropologists have observed this qualitative distinction between man and the
highest animals, and they refer to it as the "bio-cultural gap." This refers to:
1E. Man's productive characteristics.
"Only man makes artificially. Other animals make but their products
are determined by instinct. Man's
products are highly variable."[15]
2E. Man's philosophical characteristics.
1F. Man alone is able to think
rationally, reflectively, abstractly and creatively. "Other animals do
some problem-solving in adjustment to environment but men alone think. Only men
think when it is not necessary to do so... Man thinks creatively and
spontaneously, not just in a problem situation as Dewey insists. Animals may
communicate their emotions, but only man communicates ideas."[16]
2F. Man alone operates on a
symbolic process.
3F. Only man has culture and
experiences cultural progress.
3E. Man's political characteristics. "Animals are gregarious, but
their social organizations and activities are determined by instinct. Human
society on the contrary, is constituted by man's choice among various ways of
living together. Human society alone is constitutional and political."[17]
This is only a preview of the lesson. The complete lesson is made available only for members.