What Is Man?

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Nov 30, 1882

IN examining the Scripture use of the "word," soul, we have noticed that death, simply death, is the penalty of the divine law. "The wages of sin is death." "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." We have noticed that death means the absence of life; that condition where the vital functions have totally ceased. We will further examine the question: Does man, the whole man, or only a part of him, die? The question seems to be a singular one, and yet it is called forth by the oft-repeated assertion that the "better part" of man, "the man proper," is not subject to decay or death.

But, of course, if this were true, the man proper would escape the penalty of sin; the most important part of man, the part which is least responsible for wrong-doing, would alone be punished, or suffer the penalty of transgression. And further, that part, the unimportant and irresponsible part, would alone be the subject of the resurrection and of redemption. For if there is any part of man which is not subject to the penalty, death, that part needs no redemption.

We turn again to consider the first sin and the sentence pronounced upon it. When man was prohibited eating of the tree of knowledge the Lord said: "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." It is important to notice that there is no exception or exemption allowed in this declaration. All that was covered by the pronoun "thou" was included; and, if man were a dual being, if he consisted of two identities, one an irresponsible mass of matter, and the other an intelligent, reasoning being, having the power to will and to choose, then this penalty referred to the latter; for had it been addressed to the former, it would not have understood the words spoken. But consider the sentence pronounced on man: "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: . . . In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." The being or man addressed must have had intelligence to understand the prohibition and the sentence, and that intelligent man returned unto the ground, for he was made of the dust of the ground. If there was a soul-entity beside that "living soul" who was made of the dust of the ground, it seems to have had no place in the record, and to have borne no part in this transaction.

The query is often raised, What, then, becomes of the thinking, intelligent part of man, when he dies? The question is a useless one. There is no thinking, intelligent part of man after he is dead. It is the man himself who is the thinking, intelligent being, in life. His condition in life and in death is contrasted in Eccl. 9: 5, "For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything." The knowledge indicated is very simple in form and amount; it is not only learned from the Scriptures, but deduced from continuous observation. Yet simple as it is, it is beyond the capacity or power of the dead, for they know not anything.

Nor can it be said that the text refers to the body but not to the soul; for, according to the theory of those who claim that distinction, the body never knew anything—all knowledge and intelligence centered in the soul. But the text clearly teaches that there is a loss of knowledge in death. That which knows something in life, knows nothing in death. The same is taught in Ps. 146: 4. Speaking of man, the psalmist says: "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." As in Gen. 2:7 we have the process of making man, here we have the process of unmaking him—a reversal of the first process, according to the sentence pronounced upon him as a transgressor. In forming man two actions are recorded: 1. He was made of the dust of the earth. 2. Breath was given to him. The result: Man became a living soul; a breathing, intelligent, thinking being. In the process of dissolution two steps are likewise presented: 1. His breath goeth forth—it leaves him. 2. He returns to his earth; turns again to dust. And the result: His thoughts perish. The living, intelligent, thinking being, is a living, intelligent, thinking being no longer. With the loss of life, all is lost. And were it not for "Jesus and the resurrection" would be forever lost.

But one point more we can examine in this paper, which is the theory of a double creation of man. And we must express our astonishment that learned men, possessing good reasoning powers, have advocated it. This shows how greatly people may be prejudiced, and to what lengths they will go to uphold their prejudices. The theory is, that the first chapter of Genesis records the creation of one man, and the second chapter that of another man. The man of the first chapter was a spirit man, made as the record says, in God's image. And being in God's image it is inferred that it was not a material man, but an immaterial and immortal man. Afterward another man was made of the dust of the ground, and man number one was infused into man number two, and when man number two dies and returns unto the dust, number one escapes and lives on as he did before the dust-man was made. If this were true we should expect to find some clear intimation of it in the Scriptures. But we think nobody would ever have dreamed of learning such a theory from the account of creation had it not been found necessary to present something to favor the doctrine of an immortal man. And if this were true, it would follow that this first or spirit man had nothing to do with the transgression, for no sentence was pronounced upon him, and of course he has no interest in the work of redemption. And if it is true, then it is amazingly strange that the Scriptures never speak of the most interesting and important fact that sin did not work the utter ruin of man—that the better part of man, the proper, was never involved in the fall, and for this man Christ never died.

But a formidable objection to that theory is found in the absurdity which it involves. Notice the following points:—

1. The man of Gen. 1, the supposed spirit, immortal man, made in the image of God, was made male and female; but we have no idea that sex is predicated of the spirit of man.

2. This spirit male and female were told to multiply on the earth, or to propagate their species.

3. God gave this spirit man the herb of the field for food, and he, in common with the beasts of the earth, was to live upon the vegetation which sprang up from the earth.

4. God said that the life of man is in the blood; but this refers to the man made in the image of God, which the theory in question supposes was the spirit man. See Gen. 9:6. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man."

5. If the theory be true, then there were two different Adams created, one living and acting independent of the other, each male and female, each propagating his species, each subsisting on vegetation, and each possessed of flesh and blood. But only one of them sinned, and only one of them is a subject of gospel grace.

We can imagine that it would be interesting to learn somewhat more of the life and doings of this number one man, but in regard to his history the Bible is silent.

The truth is that the history of creation, the whole creation, is briefly given in the first part of Genesis, embracing the first chapter and the first four verses of the second. This is complete. Then there is another line taken, giving facts more particular in regard to the creation of man, and many additional facts concerning his location, probation, etc. The true doctrine involves no absurdity in the Bible record. But the doctrine we have just examined cannot be true.

NOTE.—There is a plausible method of treating the Hebrew (margin) of Gen. 2:16,—dying thou shalt die,—to which we have never resorted, though some scholars have countenanced it. It is this: The Hebrew recognizes two conditions; a dying or decaying condition, a tendency and gradual approach toward death. And a dead condition, as the result of the first.

We say this is a plausible and easy method of treating the text; but we never resort to it because we cannot do it conscientiously, and will not do it otherwise. A temporary easy victory over an opponent is a poor return—would be to us—for advocating the truth on doubtful grounds. But this remark does not at all apply to those who honestly have used, or honestly may use it thus.

This form of speech is Hebraic, very common in that language. See Gen. 22:17; "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed." Also Ex. 3:7; "Seeing I have seen the affliction of my people." This form of speech is simply emphatic; correctly rendered in the A. V., "I have surely seen." In Acts 7:34, "I have seen." Found also in the immediate context of the text under consideration; Gen. 2:16; "Eating thou mayest eat." Rendered, "Thou mayest freely eat." Apply to Exodus 3:7 the reasoning which is applied to Gen. 2:17, and it becomes an absurdity. Thus: The Lord gradually approached unto the condition of fully seeing. Repetition is resorted to in various forms in Hebrew to express the superlative, or to give emphasis and to imply certainty.