THEOLOGY OF THE HUMAN PERSON · CREATED · FOUNDATIONAL TEACHING

What Does It Mean to Be Human?

Bishop W. F. Houston Jr., D.D. · September 23, 2026
Teaching script · Genesis 1:26–28; 2:7, 15–25 · ESV reading references

Beloved, whoever defines the human person shapes what they believe may be done to that person.

If people are merely productive units, the unproductive become expendable. If people are merely collections of desires, restraint becomes difficult to explain. If people are merely their worst actions, restoration becomes almost unimaginable. Before we diagnose conduct, we must examine the account of humanity beneath our diagnosis.

1 · Text: receive the question before supplying the answer

TEXT

Read Genesis 1:26–28 and Genesis 2:7, 15–25. These passages place humanity in relation to God, the earth, work, command, and human companionship. The first portrait is neither a résumé nor a record of achievement.

Genesis 2:7 presents the man as formed from the ground and living through God’s action. Verse 15 locates work in the garden before the disobedience of chapter 3. Verses 16–17 place that work within a moral relationship: life includes generous provision and a real boundary.

2 · Context: creation precedes fracture

TEXT → INFERENCE

The narrative introduces humanity before it narrates human rebellion. We therefore refuse to let the account of sin swallow the account of creation. Sin is consequential because the creature has a calling that can be violated; it does not make the Creator’s purpose irrelevant.

Conversely, beginning with creation does not permit us to ignore what follows. A complete Christian account must reckon with both dignity and disorder. This is why our pathway moves from Created through Fractured toward redemption and resurrection hope.

3 · Language: living persons, not theological word games

Hebrew: אָדָם (adam) can refer to a human being, humanity, or the individual Adam, according to context. נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh) has a range including life, person, and living being. In Genesis 2:7, nephesh chayyah describes the man as a living being.

Brown–Driver–Briggs documents these contextual uses. Neither entry gives permission to insert an entire modern theory of personhood into a single word. Genesis 2:7 must contribute to the discussion of body and soul; the phrase alone does not settle every Christian disagreement about their relation. Nor does the breath of life make humanity a piece of God’s substance.

BDB: adam · BDB: nephesh

4 · Doctrine: dependence is not a defect in being human

THEOLOGICAL SYNTHESIS

Acts 17:24–31 presents God as the giver of life and breath, then calls hearers to repentance. Dependence and responsibility belong together. Receiving life does not make our choices irrelevant; being responsible does not make us self-created.

Consider the practical consequence. The person who needs care is not a failed version of the person who currently provides it. Caregivers also live by gifts they did not originate. An honest theology of dependence undermines the pride that treats needing help as a loss of humanity.

First Corinthians 15:42–49 brings Adam and Christ into its account of resurrection. Christian hope includes transformed bodily life. The chapter’s contrast between a natural and a spiritual body should not be casually converted into “a real body now, no body later.” Paul is explaining resurrection, not declaring embodiment worthless.

5 · Interpretation: relationship without a hierarchy of human worth

INTERPRETATION → APPLICATION

Genesis 2:18–25 addresses the man’s aloneness and culminates in the union of man and woman. A broader claim about human relational life is a theological inference from this and other passages, not a substitute for the scene’s particular subject.

We must not use the passage to imply that an unmarried person is less human. Nor should we confuse relationship with unrestricted access. Community can include distance from someone whose conduct makes closeness unsafe. Christian fellowship needs truth, responsibility, and wise boundaries; forced exposure is not proof of love.

Different Christian traditions formulate the relation of body, soul, and spirit in different ways. This introductory teaching does not impose a new position on that debate. Its narrower claim is that the biblical account will not permit us to discard bodily life, our dependence upon God, or our responsibility toward others.

6 · Challenge: what does your ministry reward?

Beloved, examine what happens when someone can no longer contribute as before. Does the ministry continue to recognize that person, or does attention disappear with usefulness? What happens when a person disagrees? Do we answer an argument, or reduce a human being to a troublesome category?

These questions test our practices. They do not authorize us to presume the hidden motives of every leader. A fair examination names a specific action, considers its context, and permits evidence to correct the accusation.

7 · Application: a human being is not a case number

CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION

Imagine an older volunteer whose strength has declined. The work may need reassignment; truthful stewardship does not require pretending otherwise. But a change in capacity does not justify erasing the person’s voice, history, or belonging.

Ask what care is wanted, what participation remains possible, and what responsibilities require another person’s help. Preserve the volunteer’s agency. Do not announce private circumstances to demonstrate public compassion. This example applies the teaching; it is not an event reported in Genesis.

8 · Connection: explain the person before addressing the problem

Prepare a three-minute answer to the title question. Include creation, embodied life, dependence, relationship, responsibility, and hope. For each point, identify a supporting passage. Mark which claims are explicit and which require synthesis.

Then complete this sentence without flattening either half: “A human being possesses dignity, and therefore…” One faithful completion should address care; another should address accountability. Explain why both belong.

Return to the study pathway · Test your interpretation