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.

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.