The Breath of Life

When we look at the creation of mankind in Genesis, an important aspect of that event discloses a very special insight. Of course, I have to talk about the Hebrew text in particular.

Let’s look at the verse in question.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Genesis 2:7

The specific phrase I am focusing on is “the breath of life.” In the Hebrew it is pronounced neesh-maat cha-im. It is a compound noun of two words. Want to guess what they are?

This phrase is not used many times, but it is actually easy to discern the meaning of its context. “The breath of life” is the special thing God imparted to mankind to bring him moral agency and self-awareness. Let’s analyze this verse before going on. A few points are in order.

Perhaps you may recall that with all other aspects of creation, it was done as “God said” and it was so. God apparently made everything outside of himself, very distinctly. The impartation of life to man was different, because it is the only instance mentioned.

The neesh-maat cha-im was something DIRECTLY imparted to man by God. It notes he breathed into man this breath of life. Not until here is such a direct, intimate connection borne between the Creator and his Creation. Scripture is very clear that up to this point, God spoke and it came to be—God’s previous operations were less direct than this.

This phrase is important, and it’s easily distinct from another phrase related to animal life in general. Animals are said to have a “breath of life,” but in Hebrew it is ruach cha-im, and ruach could also be rendered soul, spirit, wind and, in general, air, because ruach can be very broad in its usage and meaning.

But the Bible gives significance to phrases. For example, in the New Testament, Paul uses two specific phrases using the word baptize: one is “baptized into the name of Christ;” the other is “baptized into Christ.” Each has a distinct meaning and refers to different things: the first refers to water baptism; the other refers to an effective result of one’s conversion to Christ.

The same is true about these two phrases: ruach cha-im refers mostly to animal life, and man in general with them as animate life; neesh-maat cha-im refers, I believe, to the life of mankind specifically. I think the context of this can bear this out.

So, the next time this phrase comes up is in Genesis 7:21-23.

And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all that was on the dry land, died. So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air.

Now some translations read the 22nd verse as if it applies to all living things on the land. But a case can be made in the Hebrew text for it to read as a parenthesis expanding on the mention of man, something like: “and every man—all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, all who were on the dry land—died.”

Here the phrase is compounded with ruach, neesh-maat ruach cha-im.

The point here is that ruach may also apply to man, but neesh-maat (breath of) does not apply to animals. If you would look up all the other uses of this word, breath, you would see it either applies to man or to God.

So, what’s the point or insight of all this? I conclude from the nature of this phrase, and its implication of being God’s direct imparting of spiritual life to man, that that spiritual nature of man is immortal, or eternal. Not in the complete sense as equal to God’s immortality, because God is self-existent and fully eternal (without beginning or end). But mankind is, may I say?, half-eternal. That is, though people have a beginning of life, their spiritual existence will be forever.

There is no other scripture that may explicitly say so, but is there need for more? What, would you say, is the nature of God’s breath? Would it not to some extent have the same essential nature and qualities as God, not in degree but in kind?  These qualities include mind, free will, emotions, as well as immortality. Do you think God can or could or would wipe out his own existence? Can God “stop”  his breath? In the same way, I think, it would be against God’s nature or character to wipe out man’s spiritual existence. Though I would not go so far as to impinge upon God’s omnipotence.

Therefore, I don’t think there is any basis for saying that the immortality of man’s soul is only conditional, or granted on salvation, or that we will be annihilated if we are lost. We each in our conciousness have an eternity to face.

Cain’s Contradiction

And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.

So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

Genesis 4:3-7 (NKJV)

Wait a minute, something in these verses just blew my mind! I mean, something wrong has been said here. I get the feeling that God is misleading Cain, or intentionally giving him wrong information! Or is there some real contradiction going on here? I mean, a contradiction from what I have been always taught in every church and Sunday school, save a very few.

Here is Cain, with a long face, angry heart and feeing rejected, and obviously growing jealous of Abel the more he thinks about this situation. I mean Abel’s offering was accepted, and his was rejected, however the evidence for that bore out to them. That’s not the problem. Well, that’s Cain’s problem; not mine.

Mine is with what God said to Cain before the big first murder. It just doesn’t make sense! Here’s Cain, the very first person recorded that was born from Adam and Eve, right? That is the first person directly born from the first human sinners. What was supposed to have happened after the Fall, and the curse and all that? Well, everyone else after that is supposed to be born sinful, right? I mean, guilty and powerless to do good, right?

So, why is God lying to him? OK, so at least only misleading him into thinking something different! Why is God saying he can either equally do good or do bad? Do well, be accepted, get these good consequences. Do not well, be threatened to be invaded with sin—because, it’s at the door, not in the door, not inside yet, but just at the entrance (they had doors then?). 

Wait a minute! If there was ever a time to set the record straight, it was right then, with the first person to be born from these first sinners, that he was born with a sinful nature, and was guilty, and so forth, passed on to him from his parents. Why didn’t God do that? Instead he misleads Cain into thinking that he could have mastery over sin!

Why didn’t God tell him the plain truth, letting him know that 3,500 years down the road, someone named Augustine would set the record right, informing us that no one born from Adam and Eve has any chance of equally choosing between good and evil, that we can only choose to sin, unless our nature (physical or metaphysical being) gets recreated by God?

On Searching Hearts and Anthropomorphisms

An Anthropomorphism Claimed

During one Wednesday evening prayer time our pastor mentioned a comment on some statement or verse (I do not recall what exactly) that it was an anthropomorphism regarding God’s knowing or searching hearts. Was he implying by his comment is that we should not take it as faithfully as it was stated in the verse? What he was getting at I was not sure.

I didn’t say anything because I was trying to process that statement. I find myself questioning the extent of what is an anthropomorphism or how far we take the scriptural descriptions of God’s activities and self-disclosures to man as such. I think this is important because we as evangelicals aim to take the bible at face value, that is, that what the text appears to say is what it should mean, once we take the context and cultural environs into consideration.

An Anthropomorphism Identified

First of all, it is apparent that God reveals himself to man through the bible using all sorts of literary methods; he uses metaphor, simile, parable, illustration, hyperbole, and anthropomorphism, as well as others. All of these, I hope you would agree, he used to convey the reality of what he is like to those with whom he desires a relationship, in a way they can understand and be accurate and as close to reality as possible.

The Jews were a simple agricultural people, in general without a high degree of learning, so as simple a way of conveying himself to them was what he was aiming for. I don’t think that means God doesn’t reveal much or a profound degree of truth. By no means. The truth God conveyed is simple in its approach, but still chock full of inexhaustible depth. It’s kind of a paradox. But what I think this implies is that God’s method was honest, as direct as possible and candid; and meant to be grasped without a lot of double-thinking. Like, “God said this, but he really meant this.”
“Well, why didn’t he just say what he meant?”

Obvious as anthropomorphisms would be such as “the arm of the Lord,” “upon eagles wings,” and so forth. These are things explaining and describing the way God acted, needing an image that we could relate to. However, is not the image God describes nonetheless accurate to the nature of his activity?

An Anthropomorphism Analyzed?

What about such things as “I was crushed by their adulterous heart which has departed from Me,” (Ezek. 6:9) or “I am sorry that I have made them?” (Gen. 6:7) How are we to think of these and others; as direct statements honestly revealing God’s heart; or as some kind of anthropomorphic accommodation to man’s limited mind, where in reality God is not close to this reaction?

Take where God says “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,’ says the LORD. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And my thoughts than your thoughts.’” (Isa 55:8-9) I take notice God says “higher” rather than “other” or “alien.” I think God means his level of thinking and acting (of course in holiness and so forth) is way above us, but not to say it is distinctly different in process or nature. After all, as we are fond of saying, man is made in God’s image. That must mean there is a basis upon which we can relate to God and he to us.

I am thinking that any kind of anthropomorphism is not God relating to us something totally different than he is, but that any anthropomorphism is bringing the intensity of his actions and reactions down to our level. In other words, for example, God’s feelings of hurt by man’s sin is infinitely more intense than we could ever comprehend, so it is toned down when he communicates it to us, so it can then “fit” into our mind’s eye.

An Anthropomorphism Searched?

Throughout the scriptures it says of God that he “searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts.” (1 Chron. 28:9) Indeed, “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways.” (Jer. 17:10) And, “I am He who searches the minds and hearts.” (Rev 2:23) I take note it never lays emphasis that God simply knows the heart of man by some kind of intuition, but that he knows because he searches the heart of man. In fact he does so continually, as Job complained of, saying “Will you leave me alone one minute so I can swallow?” (Job 7:19) Now I could not explain in a short space any kind of philosophy as to how or why this is so, but doesn’t the scripture say so consistently? And why would we say this is only an anthropomorphism? And if it is, then what does God actually do? It is simply describing the activity of God, what he does.

The scripture is rife with statements declaring that God searches out the thoughts and mind and heart of people. If this does not reflect reality, then how should we understand it? Here’s how I make it out, and please excuse me if I go out on a limb and even sound heretical; I simply aim to be candid about this.

God is distinct from his creation. This ought to be an agreed upon declaration. Otherwise we need to say we may be pantheists, if we say the creation is part of God or some such idea. Even though the truth of God’s omnipresence is accepted, he is still different from his creation; it is outside of his existence. So, then, how can he know it? Not in the same way he knows himself, by simply looking into his own mind, by intuition, essentially. He must need to examine it as something outside  himself, much as we need to examine any object outside of ourselves, to gather information about its current characteristics and state of nature. So it does not bother me to assume that God may constantly actually be “taking readings” of all his creation over every possible millisecond.

And I don’t think that is an anthropomorphism; it simply describes God’s real activity.

[Golden] Calf Down the River!

I live by a philosophy that taking in a lot of Old Testament with the New Testament is a good thing. Years ago, at a Lamb concert, I remember one of them (Coghill or Chernoff, I can’t remember who) comparing the Bible to a cake. He said the New Testament is the icing on the cake, but you’re expected to eat the cake (i.e. the Old Testament) under the icing as well. And there’s a whole lot more cake than icing!

Anyway...

That brings me to this one passage in Deuteronomy:

And I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burnt it with fire, and stamped it, and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust: and I cast the dust thereof into the brook that descended out of the mount.
Deuteronomy 9:21

After the Israelites had sinned against the Lord with the golden calf, Moses was angry and broke the original Ten Commandments tablets in their sight. He also took direct action with the object of their sin, the golden calf. In the first account, in the book of Exodus, we read, “And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.” (Ex. 32:20 ASV)

Now, this verse taken all on its own, may sound weird or even mean. I have seen old woodcut illustrations of this scene, with Moses pouring the dust of the golden calf into a pool of water and the disobedient Israelites surrounding it and being forced to drink this now gold dust-polluted water. And that would almost be a death sentence right there, because gold dust is poisonous to the human body. Or at best, these Israelites would have gotten very sick.

Well, after all, they deserved it! They had just sinned a great sin, one that virtually broke God’s heart so much, He was thinking of destroying them all and starting the redemption process for a Messianic line all over. “Leave me alone,” He said to Moses, like a wounded lover.

However, now that I read this line in Deuteronomy there is a different angle to think through, a different reason, perhaps.

First of all, there’s this water source to consider...

Where did it come from? This verse says it flowed from the mountain, Mount Horeb, or Sinai as we know it. Was it always there? Actually, in Exodus 17, there was water provided for the people from a rock at the base of Horeb early on in their desert journey, before the giving of the Ten Commandments. The elders of Israel went with Moses all the way to the base of Horeb and struck a rock there and the water flowed out from there to the camp of the people. This first camp for Israel must have been within sight of Horeb, so it wasn’t a far journey to get there.

So, anyway, the water that flowed from Sinai was from some kind of spring or stream. It was not standing water. Now what happens when something as “small as dust” lands in water running downstream—and the downstream speed needn’t even be very fast? You’re right! That stuff will flow out of sight within seconds. By the time the Israelites got down to lap up water from the stream, they would only be drinking fresh water flowing from the mouth of the rock, the source of the stream. In my mind, no dust from that Calf would have been left swirling at that spot.

An Object Lesson

So what was Moses’ reason for casting the dust of the Golden Calf into the water, and then making the Israelites drink from the stream? After all, if it was just to give them a time of refreshment, they could’ve gotten a drink at any time.

I believe Moses (or God via Moses) was trying to teach the people something very important: and that was a very big part of the whole idea of forgiveness. This event was a teaching opportunity, or object lesson, to show the Israelites that they needed to receive God’s provision for their forgiveness.

You see, their “sin,” as Moses called the Golden Calf, he ground down to powder, so that there would be no visible remembrance of that thing left for them. Are we keeping any “remnants” of our old sins around to give nostalgia or “take us back” to those events or practices? God is saying, here in His Word, to get rid of that. Another way to put this: Is our repentance complete? Have we renounced all known sin? Have we left anything around in our hearts in reserve, just in case this thing with Jesus doesn’t pan out, or just to keep a “little something” for ourselves? Is there something in our lives we know God is not happy seeing still hanging around?

Then Moses threw that dust into the stream so that it would flow away from the Israelite camp forever. You see, we need that kind of spiritual water that will wash our sins downstream, never to return! And what do you think that “water” is?

Here are a few possibilities:

But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
John 4:14

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
John 7:38

That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
Ephesian 5:26

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
I Corinthians 10:4

Love is the Key

God, whose primary disposition is love, aims more at reconciling us to himself than to see that we suffer for our sin and rebellion. But our part is to acknowledge our sin with true repentance, and come to his source of forgiveness, which is through his Son, Jesus Christ. His invitation is true and sure:

And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.