What does it mean to be human?
This article was first used for a talk at Above Bar Church, Southampton, on Sunday 13th May 2001, by David Couchman. It may be reproduced in print or on web sites, subject to the copyright notice below.
Gender issues, the environment, and what it means to be human. These are some of the hottest issues today, explored in recent science-fiction films such as 'Gattaca', 'A.I' and 'The Sixth Day'.
The Bible deals with these issues, particularly in Genesis chapter 1 verse 26 through to chapter 2 verse 7. I sometimes wonder how people can possibly say the Bible is not relevant. I can understand how they can say they do not believe it is true, or they do not believe it is inspired, but how can anyone say it is not relevant, when it deals with such contemporary questions?
This article looks at what the Bible says about the beginnings of people, and about what it means to be human, by focussing on three key phrases from this passage.
A Contradiction?
Skip this section
But first, we need to clear up a problem: On the face of it, there are
two contradictory accounts here in Genesis of the creation of humanity.
Chapter
1 verse 1 through to chapter 2 verse 3 gives one account, and chapter
2 verse 4 onwards gives another account, and the order of events
seems to be different.
So people say 'Aha - a contradiction. We told you that the Bible is full of mistakes and contradictions!'
But if I read a book written today - any ordinary book - and I find something on page two that seems to contradict what it says on page one, I do not immediately jump to the conclusion that
- The author was too stupid to realize that he was contradicting himself, or
- That it was written by different people at different times, and then edited together by someone who was so clumsy that he did not realize that the two sources conflicted with each other.
I am much more likely to assume that I have misunderstood what the author was saying. We should at least give the Bible writers the same benefit of the doubt. Whatever the writer meant by it, if we understand there to be a contradiction, the chances are that we are misunderstanding what they meant in some way.
Traditionally, of course, Genesis is ascribed to Moses - it is one of the five books of Moses. Jesus himself backs up this authorship, in John's Gospel chapter 5 verse 46. But whether or not you believe it was written by Moses, the writer of Genesis was not foolish - this is a carefully crafted literary work. And the writer did not see any contradiction between chapter 1 and chapter 2. (Of course, the original, of course, was not even divided into chapters. These chapter divisions in our Bibles were added much later.)
A different perspective
So this is one account. But there is a difference of perspective:
The key phrase is 'this is the account of...' (chapter 2 verse 4). This phrase comes ten times in Genesis, usually at the heading of a new section of the narrative. For example:
- Genesis chapter 6 verse 9 - 'This is the account of Noah'
- Genesis chapter 11 verse 27 - 'This is the account of Terah, and his descendant Abraham.'
- Genesis chapter 25 verse 19 - 'This is the account of Isaac'
- Genesis chapter 37 verse 2 - 'This is the account of Jacob'
So this phrase serves as a milepost going through the book. Here it marks the division between chapter 1 (which is describing how God formed and filled the world) and chapter 2 verse 4 through to chapter 6 verse 8 (which describe the beginnings of human society, especially leading to Adam and Eve's first sin - the Fall, and all its consequences.)
So, for example, in chapter 2 verse 5, when it talks about no shrub or plant yet appearing, it is probably not referring back to the creation of plant life in chapter 1 verse 11 and following. Rather it is referring forward to the 'thorns and thistles' that the land was to produce after the Fall, in Genesis chapter 3 verse 18.
When it says in chapter 2 verse 5 that God had not yet sent rain on the earth, it appears to be referring forward to the story of the flood in chapter 7 verse 4, where God uses exactly the same phrase, 'I will send rain on the earth'.
So there is no contradiction. There is a continuous narrative, looking at events from two different perspectives - the beginnings of the physical universe, and the beginnings of humanity.
So, with that out of the way, let's turn to what God intends us to learn from this passage. 'What is a human being?' There are three key phrases, each of which distinguishes humanity from the rest of creation. In each case, we shall look at what people today say, and see how it stacks up alongside what the Bible says.
(1) 'In God's image'
The contemporary view:
According to the way people often think of human nature today, we are just the product of blind chance. In the long run, human intelligence may even prove to be a dead end - an evolutionary backwater.
This picture focuses on the idea that we're just animals. Humans are really no different from hamsters. We have the same skeleton, muscles, blood, brain, nervous system, sex organs and sense organs.
And of course it is true that we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. I hope someone is looking into the other 2%, because it may be important!
This is the worldview behind television series like the BBC's Brain Story, in 2000, with professor Susan Greenfield.
But where does this view lead? If we are really 'just animals', then the only rational conclusion is that people have no real value or significance. If you want to send them to Auschwitz because they are of a different race, that is OK. If you want to kill off street kids in South America because they are criminals and a nuisance to society, that is OK. If you want to kill children off before they are born, because they interfere with your right to choose, that is OK. So today, the most dangerous place for a child in the UK is in her mother's womb, where she has a one in five chance of being killed before she is born. And if you want to euthanase someone because they are old and infirm and suffering from Alzheimer's disease and it costs too much to keep them, well that is OK too. Of course, euthanasia is now legal in the Netherlands, and it is probably only a matter of time before it's made legal here too.
The Bible's description:
All this is where you get to if people are just animals. But contrast this with the Bible's description. God says, 'let us make people in our image, in our likeness' (Genesis chapter 1 verse 26) - surely this is one of the most important verses in the whole Bible. Again in verse 27, 'God created man in his own image.'
There is a significant distinction even in the wording of the passage.
Everywhere else in this passage, where God makes something, he says
'Let there be....'
Chapter
1 verse 3: - Let there be light
Chapter
1 verse 6: - Let there be an expanse between the waters
Chapter
1 verse 9: - Let the water be gathered... let dry land appear
Chapter
1 verse 14: - Let there be lights in the sky...
Chapter
1 verse 20: - Let the water teem with living creatures... let birds
fill the sky
Chapter
1 verse 24: - Let the land produce living creatures...
Then suddenly at verse 26, the words change. God says 'Let us make...' - It is personal, rather than passive. It is almost as if God got more interested at this point, when he was making people.
Everywhere else, things are to reproduce 'according to their kind':
Plants, in chapter
1 verses 11-12
Sea creatures and birds in chapter
1 verse 21
Land animals in chapter
1 verses 24-25
But suddenly, here at verse 26, instead of 'according to its kind' it is 'in our image.'
What does it mean, to say people are made in God's image? We do not have to get too theological or philosophical about it. I have an image of my wife in front of my desk - a photo. I look at an image of myself every morning when I shave - my reflection in a mirror. In just the same way, God made you to reflect what he is like, to be a picture of him - to be like him, in a small way.
Now clearly, this is not talking about physical likeness, as some people believe. The Bible says that God is a pure spirit, not a physical being. What it is talking about is a personal image:
- Because God is personal, we are persons
- As a person, God has a particular character - he is not just a shapeless force, as in the Star Wars films. There are some things he likes, and others that he hates.
- As a person, the Bible says that God is love. He is a relational, communicating being. We need to be a bit careful about it, but basically, God has emotions! The idea that God does not feel anything is more of a Greek idea than a Biblical one. But also
- As a person, the Bible says that God is light. That is, he is a moral being. Perhaps the most significant thing about human beings is that we recognize right and wrong, and we make choices because things are right or wrong - we make moral choices.
- As a person, God is rational. We think, we understand truth and logic and mathematics and science. All this is part of our being made in God's image as rational beings.
- As a person, God is creative. Our aesthetic nature - the way we appreciate beauty, nature, art, music is all part of being made in God's image.
Which answer 'fits'?
So there are these two different pictures of humanity. On the one hand, human beings are just animals, and on the other hand, we are made in God's image. The question is, which of these descriptions rings true to our own experience? Which best fits the way we actually experience life? Brain Story or the Bible?
The fact is that we cannot live as if we are 'just animals' with a self-esteem problem. We cannot live as if rationality and truth do not matter. That is why we are so angry when we hear about someone denying that the Holocaust took place. When we hear about someone who has abducted and murdered a young child, we want to see that person brought to justice - because we know that things like truth and justice do matter. We cannot live as if our moral choices do not matter, because we know that they do. And the Bible matches our experience.
We know that there is something significant and valuable about us - but if we reject the Bible's account, if we think we are 'just animals', we are at a loss to explain our own significance and value.
There is one more thing we must say here, because the Bible says it. One contemporary New Age view is that we are all little fragments of God. We all have a divine spark within us. But this is not what the Bible means when it says that we are made in God's image. We are not part of God. God is utterly distinct from humans, and always will be. That is why, in Genesis chapter 2 verse 7, the Bible reminds us that as well as being made in God's image, we are also made 'from the dust of the earth.'
So what is this passage of the Bible telling us? It is saying that we are of great value and significance.
Most of us struggle with a sense of self-worth, but the greatest being there is has made you, made you to be like him, to reflect his glory, to be a picture of him. He has made you to know him, and to communicate with him, to receive and return his love. He has made you unique - there is no-one in all creation like you. What could be more valuable? What could be more important?
Well, something could. Not only has he created you, but his Son has died so that you, if you believe in him, can be restored to the relationship with God that was broken by the disobedience of our first parents. 'The Son of God loved me, and gave himself for me,' the Bible says. That is how much you matter to God.
(2) 'Male and female'
Genesis chapter 1 verse 27 says:
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
In chapter 1 verse 28 God says,
Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth....
The Bible did not mention gender when it was talking about the animals. There is a distinction between us and the animal world. There is obviously something important about human sexuality.
However, there are two problems that we can fall into over sex. (Of course, there are more than two, but these will do to be going on with.)
(a) thinking sex is unclean
The Church has often talked as if there is something unclean about sex. This is especially true of those parts of the Church that have made a virtue out of being celibate. But this way of thinking began with the Greeks and their separation between body and spirit, not with the Bible. Genesis chapter 1 verses 27-28 tells us that human sexuality is God's idea, and it is a good idea.
We are not made to live in isolation. People are made for companionship, and made for physical love. We should not be embarrassed about this, and we do not need to be cheesy about it. One whole book of the Bible (The Song of Solomon) is a celebration of sexual love. Historically, this has been so embarrassing that the Church has tried to allegorize it away!
But this is a mistake. Human sexuality is God's idea. It is even, in an indirect way, part of what it means for us to reflect God's nature (verse 27) Notice how the Bible says 'In the image of God he created him, male and female he created them' - all in one breath.
In the New Testament, the relationship between a husband and wife is used as a picture of the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians chapter 5 verses 22-33).
So human sexuality is something God has given us to rejoice in.
But this is not the whole story. If I just left it there, and said 'this is what this passage teaches', I would be misleading you about what the Bible says about sex.
(b) Politically correct 'openness'
Current political correctness requires us to say that all relationships are equal. Same-sex relationships, casual sex, 'serial monogamy', living together without being married, single parenthood, 'blended' families - we must not condemn one kind of relationship as being worse than any another; we must not make anyone feel bad about the kind of relationship they are in.
But the Bible does take a clear moral stand over relationships. It says that sex is fine - in it's place. And the right place for sex is within marriage - one man, one woman, in a public, binding commitment, 'forsaking all others, till death separates us.'
Now it is important to see that this is not just God being restrictive - 'looking over the edge of heaven to find someone who's enjoying themselves and telling them to stop!' - as one comedian said. Rather, God created us. Because he created us, he knows what does work and what does not. And he cares about us.
There is a growing amount of proof that not all relationships are equal. For example, we have been told, in the name of political correctness, that there is no difference between people who marry and people who live together without marrying. Marriage is 'just a bit of paper'.
So the British Home Secretary Jack Straw said that we 'shouldn't get in a paddy about the decline of formal marriage' and that 'the most important thing is the quality of the relationship, not the institution itself.
We were told that marriage was a recipe for keeping women poor, uneducated, and subservient. Living together without marrying meant freedom and independence for the woman.
But the reality is that living together is a cop-out for the man who wants the benefits of a relationship without the responsibilities of being a husband and father. It is worse for the woman, and worse for the children.
A recent book 'Marriage-Lite' by Patricia Morgan, has gathered some of the sociological data on 'the rise of cohabitation and its consequences':
- Women in cohabiting relationships are more likely to be abused. In fact marital status is the strongest single predictor of abuse for women in a relationship
- People who just live together have more health problems than married people
- They are more likely to suffer from depression
- The children of cohabiting couples do less well at school
- They are more likely to suffer from mental illness
- They are at higher risk of child abuse. Step-fathers or 'live-in' and visiting boyfriends are the most powerful risk factor for child abuse
The reality is that marriage works better - especially for the women and the children involved.
There is more and more scientific evidence for health risks associated with other lifestyles too. To say this is not just to be a right-wing fascist! This is objective, scientific observation. Social science is slowly catching up with the reality that God made us to live in a particular way, and that things work best when we follow this way.
So what does God want us to learn from this? That human sexuality is something he gave us, and something good, something to rejoice in - within the framework of one man and one woman making a permanent, public commitment to each other.
If you are pursuing some other kind of relationship, however appealing and enticing it seems right now, it is not the way you were made to work, and in the long run, it will be destructive and damaging to you.
(3) 'Let them rule'
In Genesis chapter 1 verse 26, God says,
Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.
Again in verse 28,
God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
The idea of rule over creation is not mentioned when God is creating the other animals - only when it comes to humanity.
In chapter 1 verse 2, the earth is formless and empty .In chapter 1, God does his own work of forming and filling the natural world. Then he delegates this work to humanity - he says in verse 28, 'go and multiply and fill the earth', and 'subdue it - domesticate it, give it form and structure.'
This is part of God's 'creation mandate' to humanity. As to what we are: we are made in God's image, As to how we are to live: in community, As to what we are to do: to carry on God's business of forming and filling the world.
The accusation is often leveled at us today that the Bible's worldview is to blame for our current environmental problems. In 1967, in an article called 'The Historical roots of our Ecological Crisis', professor Lynn White said the Bible's view is that:
God planned all of this explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes...it is God's will that man exploit nature for his proper ends.
He went on to say:
... we shall continue to have a worsening ecological crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man.
Similar arguments were put forward by Ian McHarg in 'Design with Nature'. Such writers often quote Genesis chapter 1 verse 26 explicitly, or allude to it fairly directly. How should we respond to this?
(a) We should be concerned about the environment
It is right and appropriate for followers of Christ to be concerned about global warming, loss of biodiversity, the effect of genetically modified crops, and so on. At the very least, at a practical level it is worth thinking about what kind of world we are leaving to our children.
So if as a follower of Christ you are concerned about these issues, you do not need to be defensive about this with other followers of Christ - we should be concerned. Neither do you need to be defensive about being a follower of Christ with other environmentalists.
Fortunately, there are followers of Christ who have done, and are doing, good work in thinking through a response to environmental issues, e.g. the John Ray Initiative.
(b) Historically there is some truth in this accusation
Science and technology developed in the western world. The roots of science and technology lay in a worldview that saw nature as an ordered creation that was worth exploring, because God had made it, and he had made it to work in an orderly way. And because we are made in God's image, it is possible for us to 'think God's thoughts after him', as the astronomer Kepler said.
This worldview started with the Judeo-Christian tradition, and many of the pioneers of modern science were followers of Christ. So, for example, the Old Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge, where some of the key discoveries of atomic physics were made, has carved over the door the words 'Great are the works of the Lord, sought out by all who take delight in them.' - A quotation from the Bible, from Psalm 111 verse 2. These pioneers of atomic physics did not think there was any contradiction between the Bible and a systematic exploration of the sub-atomic world.
This is one reason why science and technology never took off in the Hindu world or the Buddhist world - because there, the physical world is seen as illusory, and hence unimportant. At best, it is cyclical - what goes around comes around. There can be no real progress.
So historically, there is some truth in this accusation. Technology has fed on scientific progress, and the birth of science was the child of a Biblical world view
(c) But the problem is greed, not Christianity
The real issue is greed, not Christianity. Think for example of what sparked off the foot and mouth crisis, or the massive BSE scare - people doing things they should not have been doing, so they could save money.
The reason we have violated the Earth is not because we have a Biblical worldview, but because we are sinners. And this is a problem for everyone, not just followers of Christ.
(d) We do have a mandate to rule
God has given us a mandate to rule the earth, to domesticate it - to form it and fill it. We cannot avoid this. We cannot fudge this issue just because it is politically incorrect to say so. However, in the Bible, leadership and authority is always given with the view to responsibility for, and service towards, not towards domination and exploitation.
Let me give you some examples:
The king, in the Old Testament:
The king was meant to be a shepherd to his people. He was specifically told not to build up huge armies, or acquire personal wealth, or marry loads of wives - see Deuteronomy chapter 17 verse 14-17. So the king was meant to be a servant leader.
The Lord Jesus himself:
Even though he is the Son of God, in Luke's Gospel chapter 22 verse 24-27, Jesus says, 'I am among you as one who serves.' Remember too that Jesus washed His followers' feet. In John's Gospel chapter 13 verses 13-14, he says
You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet.
So his example is one of servant leadership
Church leadership
Similarly the church leader has to be a servant of all, as Jesus says in Matthew chapter 23 verse 8-12
So in the Bible, when God gives someone authority, dominion and rule, this does not mean, 'You are free to do whatever you want with this thing or this person.' Rather it means 'You are responsible to God to look after this person or thing properly, in their own best interests.' This puts rather a different perspective on it when we think about our relationship to the natural world.
God has given us a mandate to form the earth (to subdue it) and to fill it (to populate it). But this is not a license for greed and selfishness.
Conclusion
So what does it mean to be human?
- It means being made in God's image - made to reflect what he is like, to be a picture of him, in a small way.
- It means being male and female - made for human companionship and love, so that our sexuality is God's idea, and a good idea, but is to be exercised within the framework of marriage - one man, one woman, in a public, permanent commitment.
- It means being made to rule the earth - to fill it and form it, to be responsible for caring for it as God's representatives.
All of this is how God made us to be. And Genesis chapter 1 verse 31 says that when God looked at all that he had made, it was very good. Or, as one of the new translations puts it, 'it was excellent in every way.' However much human nature has been distorted and spoiled by what has happened since, we should be able to see some of that excellence reflected in who God has made us to be, and who we will one day be restored to be, by his grace.
Copyright notice
You may use this article in print or on a web site, subject to the following limitations:
- The article is reproduced in its entirety, without variation.
- There is a link back to this site.
- There is a copyright notice crediting Focus Radio for this article, and including these conditions.