Personhood: The Rock of Fact on which it Stands

   The most important question to which man is seeking an answer in the latter third of the twentieth century is a theological question:

   Why is the life of man valuable?

   Under the pressure for an immediate answer that social problems such as abortion and euthanasia bring to bear, certain theological "waiters" are serving up solutions that constitute poisonous threats to the human lives they so genuinely want to enrich and preserve.

After the dinner of sexual intercourse is liberally enjoyed

and men begin to feel the sharp effects of knowing then

the deep responsibilities such acts inevitably bring,

they find the truth too hard to stomach well,

and order up the first of several after-dinner cure-alls.

So the potent liqueur of theological error

is predictably served in delicate glasses

-30-

and usually has the sweet bouquet of

satisfying "reasonableness,"

alluring temperate men to sip so slowly

those lethal spirits

which make them feel so warm and

right inside —

until the laughs subside

and tides of numbness swell their bones

so they remember truth no more.

   But the truth about man is simply taught in the sacred Scriptures.

The Image of God in Man

   The whole matter of man's value (his dignity and inviolability) rests biblically on the fact that man is divine image-bearer:

   Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." ... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them (Gen. 1:26-27).

   Whosoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image (Gen. 9:6).

   Theologians have tried for centuries to define the precise meaning of "Image of God" — in fact, in more precise terms than Scripture itself gives. I hesitate to add my own definition, knowing that it, too, will end up in the theological junkyard with other discarded definitions that have been found to be inadequate to transport the full meaning of "image of God."

   But I will (I hope not foolishly) rush in where angels fear to tread and at least offer some elementary thoughts on the meaning of the image relative to how it determines the status and nature of man.

The Image of God and Man's Status

   The fact of being created in the image of God determines man's status and nature. In his created status, which is man's position, rank, or state (relative to God in this case),

-31-

man is a "child of God." It is to say that God has graciously conferred on man by creating him in His image the rank or position of uniqueness and inviolability. Because of his privileged position relative to God, man may not be touched by the violent hand of his brother.

   The word used in common nonbiblical parlance to describe man in this state of uniqueness and inviolability is the term "person." It is to the person that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It is as though "person" were an adjective of "man," not qualifying man as to his nature (abilities) but as to his status (unique, inviolable, and possessing inalienable rights). Personhood, biblically understood, does not rest on the slush of definition; it stands on the rock of fact — the fact that man is created in the image of God and is by that fact protected from the abortionist or from any other man seeking to lower the price tag on his life.

   Another biblical term indicating the unique, inviolable status of man is "temple of the Holy Spirit." Both man and animal are divinely created "living beings." But man is distinguished from the animal in that a direct communication of God's Spirit is indicated in the case of man, but not in the case of animal. Man is directly formed by God's Spirit. The being (or Life) of God extends to man through God's Spirit. God who is Life-Source (1 Tim 6:13), who is Spirit (John 4:24), who alone has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16) chooses to breathe into, to dwell within, man; He lovingly chooses to accept a position of immanence within man as well as of transcendence over man and the rest of creation; He sovereignly chooses to make man (and man alone) in His image, after His likeness. Thus man, unlike the rest of animal and vegetable life, is not simply a living being in that he vivified or spiritized by God; he is also living being in that the Life-Giver (the Holy Spirit), by grace, has come to dwell within him, activating and forming his material substance (body, dust) so that he comes to receive the appellation: soul.

-32-

   It could, of course, be objected that all of the above is true, but it is true only for man. And then the question could be asked: Does the Scripture ever really say that what is sexually conceived by man is from the moment of its conception man?

   The answer is "no" if one is expecting Scripture to provide a scientific statement on when individual man begins. The answer, however, is "yes" if one is expecting Scripture to provide a theological understanding of man from the point of his beginning to the point of his end.

   Interestingly enough, Scripture does not make the kind of subtle philosophical distinctions people make so often today between human life and human being, man and person, life and Life. Scripture just simply talks about man. With the exception of Adam, who was created instantaneously by God from the dust of the ground and at that instant enlivened by a divine inbreathing (call it the gift of Life with a capital "L"), all other men begin as the result of the sexual union of a human male and a human female. The progeny or issue of the sexual union (if conception occurs) is referred to from the moment of its conception as man. The term "man" is not reserved for the offspring that becomes in fact born. Each individual man has his historical beginning as man at conception.

   In Genesis 4:1 it says: "now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain saying, 'I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.' " Notice: she conceived Cain and she bore Cain. The man Cain is there from conception. In Job 3:3, Job is lamenting the fact of his existence. He wishes that he had never happened on the scene of history. And he says: "Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night which said, 'A man-child is conceived' " [italics mine]. These texts are not, surely, scientific statements. But they are biblical indicators that at least in Scripture the point at which it is appropriate to begin talking about individual man is the point of his real beginning: conception.

   At the very heart of Christian thought is the teaching of

-33-

the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. God's very own Son emptied Himself of the glory He had with the Father and assumed a complete identity with man. And so Scripture reports that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. The conception of Jesus was mysteriously unique in that He somehow became fully man even while remaining fully God. Be that as it may, Jesus did become fully man at his conception. The gift of Life, or Spirit, did not have to wait until He was born. Therefore, if it is true that Jesus became like man in every way, sin excepted, then the Incarnation of Jesus is a clear theological statement of when individual man begins.

   The objection frequently has been raised at this point that even though Scripture teaches that man begins at conception, this teaching most likely has reference to the mere biological dimension of man (man as body, or as human life). Not until birth does God grant man the gift of Life by His divine inbreathing. In some mysterious way, the onset of breathing or the act of respiration becomes fundamentally important in the transition from that which has Life and thus Personhood in the spiritual or truly human sense.

   He who wishes to do justice to the theological meaning and intent of the scriptural teaching concerning man must stop here and ask a crucial question: Does Scripture ever make such a distinction between biologic (animal) man and spiritual (fully human) man? The answer is obvious: It does not. Why? Because Scripture never conceives of man in such Greek dualistic fashion. Man is not an alive piece of flesh who receives as spiritual dimension (some call it Life; some, Soul) later on at birth.

   The question sometimes has been asked by men seeking a reasonable justification for abortion: When does man become a soul? Maybe, they think, the soul isn't "put into" the body until birth or some time shortly before, in which case abortion is justified until the time of ensoulment.

   The question is not really well placed. It is of Greek

-34-

(Neo-Platonic) and not of Hebrew origin. Man does not receive a soul — he is soul and he is body. He is not body containing soul; he is not soul imprisoned within a body. Man is a unified being. As soon as there is dust being formed by Spirit, Adam is. The following three quotations are instructive:

   The formation of man from dust and the breathing of the breath of life we must not understand in a mechanical sense, as if God first of all constructed a human figure from dust [like a ginger bread man] and then, by breathing His breath of life into the clod of earth which he had shaped into the form of a man, made it into a living being ... By an act of divine omnipotence, man arose from the dust; and in the same moment in which the dust, by virtue of creative omnipotence, shaped itself into a human form, it was pervaded by the divine breath of life, and created a living being, so that we cannot say the body was earlier than the soul. ¹

   For a Hebrew, for a man saturated with Old Testament ways, a person was a body [italics mine]. The body was not something really extraneous to the soul. It was the man in action. A man was not like an angel driving a body about. It never occurred to a Hebrew to think of man as a soul who had to carry around a piece of luggage called body. A man was animated flesh [italics mine]. ²

   In your judgment, when does the fetus or embryo become a human being, or acquire a soul?

   Answering the question in reverse order, man does not acquire a soul. Man is a living soul. Unfortunately, Hellenistic thought was adopted by the early church and man was portrayed

-35-

as being of two separable parts. And that uniting of soul and body, separating of soul and body, and then reuniting of soul and body have prompted all sorts of questions and speculatory solutions for professional and lay theologians. The speculations are myriad because the supposition is false. Man is one being, whole man, image of God from beginning to end and presenting a body and soul aspect. Man begins one, is born one, lives one, dies one, and this is the glorious promise and sure hope — he is resurrected one.

   When and where does man begin? By legal fiat one can set any time or circumstance, but that remains just that — legal fiat. Or by sophistry one can argue for various times and conditions depending on one's previous definitions, but that remains what it was — sophistry. The one point in time and space beyond which one cannot go by fiat or sophistry is that of real beginning. Each man, whole man, that reads this began his individual life at one point in time and place and will proceed until he reaches that point in time and space when he dies. The place of beginning was in the mid-portion of his mother's fallopian tube when one his father's sperm and his mother's ovum for that particular month united. At that time and place a new, unique generic pattern, contained in one cell at the moment of beginning, began — a working genetic pattern that developed and controlled its own individual growth and variations (as it does all through each individual's life) with the proper available nutrient and adequate time to be the one who reads this.

   Interruption at any time of that one who has begun would mark the literal death of an individual, separate from all others as to individuality and distinguishing characteristics, but sharing with all other men one tremendous and awesome identity — each being image of God. Robert Ochs says of each individual human life: "Life is radically serious. It is truly historical, that is, unique, unrepeatable, of inalienable and irrevocable significance. Each man's life is

-36-

suspended between a genuine beginning and a genuine end." ³

   In chapter 3 I quoted Dr. R. F. R. Gardner, who argues (on the basis of Genesis 2:7) that the fetus does not receive its supersensous spiritual life until it breaths (at which time it supposedly becomes a living human being). In response I would simply say: Animals breathe, too. Certainly breathing is not the mark of manness or humanity. It is true that Adam's breathing was coincident with the moment of his being fully formed. But it must not be forgotten that Adam's creation was unique in that it was direct and instantaneous, not the result of conception through sexual intercourse of two parents.

   There is an interesting issue (related to the unfortunate question about when man becomes soul) that is often discussed in connection with abortion: Is the zygote-embryo-fetus a potential man as opposed to an actual man?

       (1) Potential: Possible as opposed to actual; latent as opposed to realized

       (2) Potency: Capability of developing in accordance with its essence

       (3) Actual: Existent in fact as opposed to non existent in fact

   A forty-year-old person is, at least as far as age qualifications go, a potential candidate for public state office. A four-year-old person is, at least as far as age qualifications go, not a potential candidate for public state office.

   A four-year-old cannot be elected to public office. There is no possibility of such happening. A forty-year-old person can be elected to public office. There is a possibility of such happening. However, the forty-year-old may not in fact be so elected or even nominated.

-37-

   Thus, it can be concluded that potentiality implies possibility but does not imply necessity.

   A sperm and an ovum may or may not become a man. They may or may not meet up with one another. So in the case of sperm and ovum as well, potentiality implies possibility, but not the inevitability that what is possible will be realized.

   Therefore, this question seems appropriate: If a fertilized ovum continues to develop naturally in the womb, is it not true (assuming for the purpose of argument that it is not yet a man) that it not only can become a man, but that it will become a man because there are no other possibilities?

   Is it then proper to refer to the zygote-embryo-fetus as a "potential man"? Not really. If potentially means possibility, and if possibility does not imply necessity, then it would seem that the term "potential" is not exactly appropriate as a description of the fetus.

   But neither does necessity imply actuality. To say that a fetus must become a man (that there is no other alternative) does not imply logically that it is in actuality already a man.

   So, how can it be maintained, as some pro-life people do, that the zygote-embryo-fetus is an actual man?

   This raises the issue about the meaning of actuality. A man existent in fact is an actual man.

   And what is man? He is a divinely created creature of animated flesh, made in the image of God.

   Therefore, a divinely created creature of animated flesh made in the image of God and existent in fact is an actual man.

   Scripture clearly teaches that man (so defined) is existent in fact (therefore actual) at the moment of conception. At conception man is called a zygote; at implantation, an embryo; at two months gestation, a fetus; at birth, a baby; at fifteen years, a juvenile; and at twenty-one years, an adult. Zygote, embryo, and fetus are mere descriptions of a man at different stages of his development. But throughout all of the development stages there is the basic continuity of a man.

-38-

   Man, corporately and individually, is not the end product of a process in which an entity with potential to become a human being acquires such by degrees. Humanness is a given with much potentiality for positive development, through man's heartfelt submission to God's will, but also with much potentiality for negative suppression and distortion, through man's yielding to selfish desires in conflict with God's will.

   Thus, when there is discussion about the abortion of a zygote-embryo-fetus, the talk really centers about an actual man with potency (the capability of developing in accordance with his given essence) rather than about a potential man (like an egg or sperm) with the possibility of becoming a man, but also without the inevitability of becoming such.

The Image of God and Man's Nature

   The image of God in man indicates something about man's nature as well as his status. Because man is created in God's image, he has a unique constitution that is not like the constitution of the animals or of other living beings but, rather, like God's nature. Man has certain capacities (the capacity to love, to rule, to pray, and to think) that reflect what God is like.

   Some theologians, however, thinking that "image of God" is to be defined exclusively in terms of a network of capacities in man, whether latent or expressed, have made the mistake of assuming that if a certain capacity is not ever present (such as the capacity to think as in the case of an anencephalic — one born without a cerebral cortex), then such a one is not image of God and is therefore not entitled to the full privileges of a divine image-bearer, such as the right to life under the protection of the sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not kill"). ⁴

   The problem with such thinking, which is ordinarily used to justify a "moderate" position on abortion, is that it

-39-

has limited the meaning of the image of God in man to man's nature and has excluded the dimension of man's status (his unique relationship with God through which alone dignity and inviolability are conferred upon him by pure agape love and grace).

   Furthermore, it must be noted again that the image of God (relative to man's status and nature) is not the end result of a process in which a nameless entity or product of conception acquires manness or humanness by degrees, until at birth it finally has sufficient manness or humanness to merit the protective diploma stating that it is now "image of God." Man's status and nature are both givens, and are not acquired somethings.

   This is not to deny that man is in process. But what is added in the process is not more manness or humanness, but rather a progressively fuller development, expression, and extension of what in essence (by creation) is already present. The progression is not from part man (the fetus) to full man (the child after birth), but rather from full man to the full expression of man. Such progression does not end at birth but continues in one sense or another until the moment of death.

   If it should become apparent that a certain unborn child is seriously deformed (perhaps lacking a cerebral cortex), that child's life cannot legitimately be taken by abortion or by encouraging it to die after it is born. The child's deformity is a result of the presence of original sin that has affected everything and everyone in the entire creation. Within man sin has, as it were, extensively damaged the image of God. But however it is to be explained, Scripture clearly teaches that in a certain sense the image of God is partially retained in all fallen men (Adam and all his descendants, cf., Gen. 9:6; James 3:9; 1 Cor. 11:7). The anencephalic is no exception. And where there is the image of God, however minimal the remnants, there is a "child of God" and a "temple of the Holy Spirit," whose blood may not be shed.

   It would be instructive, finally, to heed the advice of two eminent theologians who have struggled productively

-40-

with the question of the meaning and significance of the image of God in man:

   It is in connection with this act of creation [of man in the image of God] that Scripture refers to man's inviolable humanity, and earnestly proclaims that no one may offend against this humanity, and shows why this may not be done (Gen. 9:6, James 3:9).... Thus anyone who attacks his fellow man, or curses him violates the mysterious essence of man, not because man is... demigod, but because he is man. In all his relations and acts, he is never man-in-himself, but always man-in-relation, in relation to this history of God's deeds in creation, to this origin of an inalienable relation to his Creator. And this man is protected and maintained in his relation to God by Him.

   ... man cannot be known with a true and reliable knowledge if he is abstracted from this relation to God. Man would then be, from a scriptural viewpoint, nothing but an abstraction, and if we seek to define man merely in terms of various qualities and abilities, we are not giving a biblical picture of man. The criticism of the definition of man as "rational animal," or in some more subtle version of such a definition, is completely correct.

   Only through God does man attain his real dignity. There is no higher dignity and there is no greater inviolability than that of a child of God.

   ... it is by no means whatsoever because of man's immanent qualities that the "infinite accent" ... falls upon him. His greatness rests solely on the fact that God in his incomprehensible goodness has bestowed his love upon

-41-

him. God does not love us because we are so valuable; we are so valuable because God loves us.

   In any case, because man — and along with him his world — acquires such alien, conferred dignity, he is inviolable. He is protected by the supreme patron. He is the apple of God's eye and dare not be touched. He was "bought with a price"; "Jesus Christ died for him" (Paul). He who touches him touches the supreme Majesty. He possesses this sacro-sanctity quite independently of his immanent qualities, and he possesses it not only in principle, by reason of his being a "human being," but also as an individual. Even if his life is "worthless" from a sociological point of view, even if he is completely "unproductive" and perhaps even represents a hampering burden who must be dragged along by the healthy, he is nevertheless the bearer of that alien dignity that delivers him from the throttling clutches of those who think only in economic terms and makes him the secret holder of an unapproachable majesty. In this sense the old hymn says, "To the weak He is kind." ⁹

Chapter 5  ||  Table of Contents

1. Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.), p.79.

2. Lewis B. Smedes, "Christ and His Body," Reformed Journal 17, no.3 (March 1966): 16.

3. Edward Y. Postma, "Abortion: Yes or No?" The Banner 106, no.23 (June 1971): 15.

4. John R.W. Stott, "Reverence for Human Life," Christianity Today, 9 June 1972.

5. G.C. Berkhouwer, Man: The Image of God (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962), p. 59.

6. Ibid., p. 93.

7. Helmut Thielicke, Nihilism: Its Origin and Nature — With a Christian Answer (New York: Harper & Row, Schocken Books, 1969), p. 108.

8. Ibid., p.110.

9. Ibid., p.112.

Chapter 5  ||  Table of Contents