THE BREATH OF LIFE.
Gen. 1:27, states, in general terms, the form in which man was created,
as contrasted with other orders of animal life. In Gen. 2:7, the process
is described by which this creation was accomplished. Finding no proof
in the former passage that man was put in possession of immortality (see
preceding chapter) we turn to the latter text to examine the claims
based upon that. The verse reads: “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 soul.”
Here the advocates of man’s natural immortality endeavor to make a
strong stand, as it is very proper they should do; for certainly if in
that inspired record which describes the building up of man, the putting
together of the different parts or constituent elements of which he is
composed, there is no testimony that he was clothed with immortality,
and no hook furnished upon which an argument for such an attribute can
be hung, their whole system is shaken to its very foundation.
The claim based upon this passage is that man is composed of two parts:
the body formed of the dust of the ground, and an immortal soul placed
therein by God’s breathing into the nostrils of that dust-formed body
the breath of life. We will let two representative men speak on this
point, and state the popular view. Thomas Scott, D. D., on Gen. 2:7,
says:--
“The Lord not only gave man life in common with the other animals which
had bodies formed of the same materials; but immediately communicated
from himself the _rational soul_, here denoted by the _expression of
breathing into his nostrils the breath of life_.”
Adam Clarke, LL. D., on Gen. 2:7, says:--
“In the most distinct manner God shows us that man is a compound being,
having a body and soul distinctly and separately created, the body out
of the dust of the earth, _the soul immediately breathed from God
himself_.”
Critics speak of this expression in a different manner from theologians;
for whereas the latter make it confer immortality, and raise man in this
respect to the same plane with his Maker, the former speak of it as
suggestive of man’s frail nature, and his precarious tenure of life
itself. Thus Dr. Conant says:--
“In whose nostrils is breath. Only breath, so frail a principle of life,
and so easily extinguished.”
And in a note on Isa. 2:22, where the prophet says, “Cease ye from man
whose breath is in his nostrils; for wherein is he to be accounted of?”
he adds:--
“Not as in the common English version, ‘whose breath is in his
nostrils;’ for where else should it be? The objection is not to its
place in the body, which is the proper one for it, but to its _frail and
perishable nature_.”
To the same intent the psalmist speaks, Ps. 146:3, 4: “Put not your
trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. _His
breath goeth forth_, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his
thoughts perish.”
But let us examine the claim that the “breath of life” which God
breathed into man conferred upon him the attribute of immortality. There
was nothing naturally immortal, certainly, in the dust of which Adam was
composed. Whatever of immortality he had, therefore, after receiving the
breath of life, must have existed in that breath in itself considered.
Hence, it must follow that the “breath of life” confers immortality upon
any creature to which it is given. Will our friends accept this issue?
If not, they abandon the argument; for certainly it can confer no more
upon man than upon any other being. And if they do accept it, we will
introduce to them a class of immortal associates not very flattering to
their vanity nor to their argument; for Moses applies the very same
expression to all the lower orders of the animal creation.
In Gen. 7:15, we read: “And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and
two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.” It must be evident to
every one, at a glance, that the whole animal creation, including man,
is comprehended in the phrase “all flesh.” But verses 21 and 22 contain
stronger expressions still: “And all flesh died that moved upon the
earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the face of the earth, and every man. _All in
whose nostrils was the breath of life_, of all that was in the dry land,
died.”
Here the different orders of animals are named, and man is expressly
mentioned with them; and all alike are said to have had in their
nostrils the breath of life. It matters not that we are not told in the
case of the lower animals how this breath was conferred, as in the case
of man; for the immortality, if there is any in this matter, must
reside, as we have seen, in the breath itself, not in the manner of its
bestowal; and here it is affirmed that all creatures possess it; and of
the animals, it is declared, as well as of man, that it resides in their
nostrils.
It is objected that in Gen. 2:7, the “breath of life” as applied to man
is plural, “breath of lives” (see Clarke), meaning both animal life, and
that immortality which is the subject of our investigation. But, we
reply, it is the same form in Gen. 7:22, where it is applied to all
animals; and if the reader will look at the margin of this latter text
he will see that the expression is stronger still, “the breath of the
spirit of life” or of lives.
The language which Solomon uses respecting both men and beasts strongly
expresses their common mortality: “For that which befalleth the sons of
men, befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth,
so dieth the other; yea, _they have all one breath_; so that a man [in
this respect] hath no pre-eminence above a beast; for all is vanity. All
go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.”
Eccl. 3:19, 20.
Thus the advocates of natural immortality by appealing to Moses’ record
respecting the breath of life, are crushed beneath the weight of their
own arguments; for if “the breath of life” proves immortality for man,
it must prove the same for every creature to which it is given. The
Bible affirms that all orders of the animal creation that live upon the
land, possess it. Hence our opponents are bound to concede the
immortality of birds, beasts, bugs, beetles, and every creeping thing.
We are sometimes accused of bringing man down by our argument to a level
with the beast. What better is this argument of our friends which brings
beasts and reptiles up to a level with man? We deny the charge that we
are doing the one, and shall be pardoned for declining to do the other.