George H. Warnock — Anthropology
b6 — Who Are You?
The Identity Question as Anthropological Programme
The title of the work is itself an anthropological programme. Warnock describes in the introduction how he received the title only when writing the final line:
“It is a challenge from heavenly places as to our identity. Let us search for our identity in the heavenly Zion. If we do not find it there, whatever we are down here will not matter that much.” — Who Are You?, Introduction
And the closing statement of the work completes this:
“Our identity with any race or culture or religious system will profit us nothing. But let us make sure we are of the number that are born in Zion, and registered in Zion, and walking in Zion, and are clothed upon with the Armor of Zion.” — ch. 7
The sons of Sceva are used as a countertype: the evil spirit says:
“‘Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?’ And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.” — ch. 7; quote Acts 19:15-16
Interpretation: The identity question “Who are you?” is answered by Warnock not through ancestry, culture, race, or religious affiliation, but solely through heavenly recognition: being known in Zion. The sons of Sceva are “religious” but unrecognized — their identity is hollow.
Imago Dei: Adam Never the Full Expression
Warnock makes a fundamental qualification of the first man’s imago Dei in chapter 5:
“Adam was made in God’s image, but never was he in the full expression of ‘the image of God’. This was reserved for the Last Adam, even Jesus.” — ch. 5
Warnock connects this to the Pauline typological structure (Rom. 5:14):
“Let us understand that perfection in the general use of that word in scripture, is not only a state of goodness and moral uprightness — it goes far beyond that. Ultimately it is that blessed state where one has been tested and tried, and has come forth an approved vessel, complete and entire… lacking nothing.” — ch. 5
“Where Adam failed to come to perfection, the Last Adam triumphed, and was made ‘perfect through sufferings’ (Heb. 2:10).” — ch. 5; cf. Heb. 2:10
Warnock further clarifies Adam’s position:
“Adam was never a heavenly being, and when he transgressed he did not fall from Heaven, as Lucifer did. Paul tells us he was ‘of the earth, earthy’ (1 Cor. 15:47). Nor did he aspire to be ‘like God’ as Lucifer did; for he was already made like God, in His image.” — ch. 5; cf. 1Cor. 15:47
Interpretation: Warnock draws a sharp distinction: the imago Dei of the first Adam was real but incomplete — he was on probation. The full imago Dei is eschatological in nature and was realized only in Christ, the Last Adam. This distinguishes Warnock’s position from views that place Adam in a state of perfect likeness.
Adam’s Deliberate Transgression vs. Eve’s Deception
Warnock emphasizes in chapter 5 the character of Adam’s sin as a deliberate choice, on the basis of 1 Tim. 2:14:
“ADAM WAS NOT DECEIVED either by the Serpent or by Eve (1 Tim. 2:14). EVE WAS DECEIVED; but in Adam’s case it was a deliberate transgression. He failed in the test of obedience.” — ch. 5
Warnock explains why Adam chose deliberately:
“Eve was the only companion he had in that beautiful Garden! Now she had fallen! He made a deliberate decision to disobey God, and to share the fate of his wife who had fallen.” — ch. 5
The typological structure of the Adam–Christ contrast:
“The first Adam was tested and tried in a simple matter of obedience, and deliberately chose the pathway of disobedience. The Last Adam was tested and tried in much suffering and rejection and humiliation — and ever and always remained faithful to the Heavenly Father.” — ch. 5
Interpretation: Adam’s fall for Warnock is not a moral tragedy explainable by deception, but a deliberately chosen transgression. This increases the moral responsibility of the first man and contrasts sharply with Christ’s obedience as the true pattern. [TENSION with b2 and b4 where the bondage of the human will is central: if Adam could deliberately choose disobedience, this implies a measure of freedom before the fall.]
Three Stages of Human Apostasy (Rom. 1)
Warnock describes in chapter 5 three phases of the fall of humanity as a whole, as an exposition of Rom. 1:21-28:
Phase 1 — Not honouring God as God:
“‘When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful’ (Rom. 1:21). This was man’s first step downward… when we refuse to give God His Lordship, and to thank Him for His goodness, and for who He is… this is the first step away from the light, and into darkness.” — ch. 5; cf. Rom. 1:21
Phase 2 — Changing the truth of God into a lie:
“Man now ‘changes the truth of God into a lie’… and worships and serves the creature, rather than the Creator (vs. 25). Unless man returns to his God this is inevitable. Truth is perverted and becomes a LIE.” — ch. 5; cf. Rom. 1:25
Phase 3 — Banishing God from the mind:
“‘They did not like to retain God in their knowledge’ (vs. 28)… God gave them over to a reprobate mind (Gr. ‘adokimos’): the mind that cannot stand the test; it becomes worthless, rejected. IT DOES NOT KNOW OR RECOGNIZE ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL.” — ch. 5; cf. Rom. 1:28
Warnock concludes:
“In Adam’s disobedience and fall, we are all from the same lump of fallen humanity — ‘for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ (Rom. 3:23).” — ch. 5; cf. Rom. 3:23
Interpretation: The three phases constitute a layered anthropological decay: from a creature that does not honour God, to a creature that deifies itself, to a creature that has wholly expelled God and lost the capacity to distinguish good from evil. Warnock connects this final stage with the current state of society. [DEEPENING of b4’s description of man as an inward stronghold of sin: b4 addresses the individual dimension; b6 adds the collective-historical dimension.]
Origin of Evil: Excluding God
Warnock formulates in chapter 5 a clear principle for the origin of evil:
“It was THE EXCLUSION OF GOD that brought it about. If God is excluded, there it is. God is LOVE and LIGHT and TRUTH. If men deny God a place in their lives, and so cut Him off… there is HATRED, and DARKNESS, and ERROR.” — ch. 7
And in chapter 5 in more developed form:
“Exclude Light, and you have Darkness. Exclude Good, and you have Evil. Exclude Mercy, and you have Cruelty. Exclude Truth, and you have Deception. Exclude Love, and you have Hatred. IT IS JUST AS SIMPLE AS THAT, AND JUST AS AWESOME.” — ch. 5
Interpretation: Evil has no independent ontological status for Warnock — it is the negative result of excluding God. This has direct anthropological significance: the fallen man is not positively evil but ontologically deficient — he lacks the presence that makes him truly human. [CONSISTENT with b2 and b3’s emphasis on human nothingness and dependence on God as a structural condition.]
The Burnt Offering as Map of the Human Constitution
In chapter 7 Warnock expounds the liturgical details of the burnt offering (Lev. 1) as a systematic description of the parts of man laid bare before God:
“‘And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering’ (Lev. 1:4). We are saying in effect: I accept the judgment of God upon my HEAD. I accept the fact, O Lord, that I cannot serve you acceptably unless you deal with the thoughts of my mind, which are at enmity with your thoughts.” — ch. 7; cf. Lev. 1:4
“Our hands must be nailed to the Cross, that when I begin to serve Him from the fire of the Burnt Offering, it will no longer be my hands, but His, that I lay upon the bodies and souls of men for their healing. My feet must be fastened securely to that Tree… My side must be pierced, that blood and water might flow from my broken heart.” — ch. 7
“‘And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces… the head… and the fat, in order upon the wood’ (Lev. 1:6, 8). The pieces… the parts. All the inner thoughts and workings of the fleshly nature totally exposed and laid bare before the priest. Only God can do this.” — ch. 7; cf. Lev. 1:6, 8
Warnock connects this to Heb. 4:12:
“…cutting asunder soul and spirit, the joints and the marrow, and discerning… discovering… exposing ‘the thoughts and intents of the heart’ (Heb. 4:12).” — ch. 7; cf. Heb. 4:12
Interpretation: The burnt offering provides Warnock with a liturgical anthropology: the whole man (head/hands/feet/side) is laid bare before God and entrusted to the high priest. The “parts” are the hidden impulses of the fallen nature. Soul and spirit are distinguished (Heb. 4:12) but not formally developed as dichotomy or trichotomy.
Human Weakness as Structural Condition for God’s Power
Warnock develops in chapter 4 a radical principle: God does not bring man down a notch but to zero:
“But God hath chosen the FOOLISH things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the WEAK things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and BASE things of the world, and things which are DESPISED, hath God chosen, yea, and things which ARE NOT (Zero things), to bring to NOUGHT (to Zero) things that are… THAT NO FLESH SHOULD GLORY IN HIS PRESENCE (1 Cor. 1:28-29).” — ch. 4; cf. 1Cor. 1:28-29
“God is not out to bring us down a notch or two, but to bring us down to ZERO. Because it is only in ZERO strength that we will be able to bring the forces of evil to ZERO.” — ch. 4
And in chapter 7:
“‘For when I am weak, then am I strong’ (2 Cor. 12:10)… ‘For He was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God’ (2 Cor. 13:4). This is what Paul meant by ‘the weakness of God’. It is ‘weakness’ from the viewpoint of men who consider meekness to be weakness.” — ch. 7; cf. 2Cor. 12:10; 13:4
Interpretation: Warnock’s “zero theology” is a radical elaboration of the principle of human powerlessness already present in b1-b5. Human nature is not improved but brought to its zero point — solely to let God’s power appear as the only source. [CONSISTENT with b2’s “utter nothingness” and b4’s kenosis theme.]
Meekness as the Self-less Identity of the Meek
In chapter 7 Warnock provides an explicit definition of meekness in anthropological terms:
“The word ‘meek’ implies a total lack of self-interest… one who surrenders his own will to the will of another.” — ch. 7
“‘I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls’ (Matt. 11:29). Because He is meek, He has no need to defend Himself; and therefore He is considered to be weak in the eyes of men.” — ch. 7; cf. Matt. 11:29
“Moses was said to have been ‘very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth’ (Num. 12:3). He fled in fear from the face of Pharaoh when he was a strong and mighty prince in Egypt. But 40 years later he was back in Egypt… Pharaoh began begging for mercy and asked Moses to remember him in prayer.” — ch. 7; cf. Num. 12:3
Warnock connects meekness to inheritance:
“IT IS HIS INTENTION TO BRING FORTH THE CHARACTER OF THE LAMB IN US, THAT WE TOO MIGHT REIGN WITH HIM, IN HIS THRONE (Rev. 3:21). EVEN NOW ON THE THRONE OF GLORY HE IDENTIFIES HIMSELF WITH A SUFFERING LAMB-PEOPLE IN THE EARTH.” — ch. 7; cf. Rev. 3:21
Interpretation: Meekness for Warnock is not a character trait one can cultivate but the ontological condition of the man who has fully surrendered his will — patterned after Christ as the meek Lamb on the throne. [CONNECTION with b4’s “hyssop act” as humbling of the human will; b6 adds the royal-eschatological perspective: precisely the meek inherit.]
The Manchild: The Corporate Man (Isa. 66 / Rev. 12)
Warnock describes in chapter 7 the appearance of the manchild as the definitive restoration of humanity in corporate form:
“‘Before she travailed, she brought forth: before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child’ (Isa. 66:7)… Notice that the one who is called the man child in vs. 7, is called Zion’s ‘children’ in vs. 8. It is ONE but many… a corporate MAN… the corporate MAN that Paul speaks about in Eph. 4:13, a ‘perfect MAN’… a people walking in such union and harmony with Christ, that they are seen as ONE MAN.” — ch. 7; cf. Isa. 66:7-8; Eph. 4:13
“Creation is waiting for this, even for ‘the manifestation of the sons of God’ (Rom. 8:19). And so He has waited, and waited, and all the while He has known and experienced great LONG-SUFFERING.” — ch. 7; cf. Rom. 8:19
Interpretation: The manchild for Warnock is not an individual figure but a collective/corporate man representing the fulfilment of the creation purpose: man as bearer of God’s image in the full stature of the Last Adam. This is consistent with his broader teaching on the sons of God, but in b6 the corporate dimension is developed more explicitly via Isa. 66 and Eph. 4:13.
Marriage as Miniature Church
In chapter 2 Warnock addresses marriage in the context of spiritual warfare:
“The Christian home is a miniature ‘church,’ and the Enemy knows if he is victorious in the home, he is automatically victorious in the Church.” — ch. 2
“We have been told from different sources that witches and wizards are praying and fasting for the break-up of the Christian home.” — ch. 2
“If you insist on your innocence, and hold to the deception that ‘God led me to do it’ — this can only lead into greater deception.” — ch. 2
In chapter 4, Warnock addresses Deborah as a mother in Israel:
“Mothers in Israel! You have a very high calling. Do not glory in the fact you have gifts… But glory in the fact that God has made you a ‘weaker vessel’ that you might know… the strength and the wisdom of the mighty God of Israel.” — ch. 4; cf. 1Pet. 3:7
Interpretation: Marriage for Warnock is not primarily an institution for multiplication (creation mandate) but a spiritual unity that mirrors the Church. It is therefore a battlefield: the Enemy attacks marriage precisely because it is ecclesial in nature. The weakness of the woman as “weaker vessel” is not treated as inferiority but as a creational parallel to the meekness that characterizes the whole anthropological ideal.
Moral Responsibility and the Three Classes in the Church
Warnock describes in chapter 7 three classes of people that typify the moral structure of humanity:
“At this present time there are three classes of people in the Church: Those who are given over to Christ, those who are given over to their own ways… and those who live on the little Island of Neutrality. It is a small island, and it is getting smaller every day, but it is still crowded with people. Jesus speaks of these in His letter to the Church at Laodicea: They are not really HOT, but not really COLD.” — ch. 7
“This little Island of Neutrality is built of sinking sand; and when the storms of the Day of the LORD begin to break upon us, it is going to dissolve. The people of the world and of the Church are going to be pressured into one camp or the other.” — ch. 7
Interpretation: The anthropological three-fold division (hot/cold/neutral) for Warnock is not psychological but eschatological: the Day of the Lord makes neutrality impossible and forces every human being to a definitive identity choice. This directly relates to the central theme “Who are you?”: the identity that is now vague will then be revealed.