THE LIVING SOUL.
Finding no immortality for man in the breath of life which God breathed
into man’s nostrils at the commencement of his mysterious existence, it
remains to inquire if it resides in the “living soul,” which man, as the
result of that action, immediately became. “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.” Gen. 2:7.
On this point also it is proper to let the representatives of the
popular view define their position. Prof. H. Mattison, on the verse just
quoted, says:--
“That this act was the infusion of a spiritual nature into the body of
Adam, is evident from the following considerations: The phrase,
‘breath of life,’ is rendered breath of lives by all Hebrew scholars.
Not only did animal life then begin, but another and higher life which
constituted him not only a mere animal, but a ‘living soul.’ He was a
body before,--he is now more than a body, a soul and body united. If
he was a ‘soul’ before, then how could he become such by the last act
of creation? And if he was not a soul before, but now became one, then
the soul must have been superadded to his former material
nature.”--_Discussion with Storrs_, p. 14.
Dr. Clarke, 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.”
To the same end see the reasonings of Landis, Clark (D. W.), and others.
Aware of the importance to their system of maintaining this
interpretation, they very consistently rally to its support the flower
of their strength. It is the redan of their works, and they cannot be
blamed for being unwilling to surrender it without a decisive struggle.
For if there is nothing in the inspired record of the formation of man,
that record which undertakes to give us a correct view of his nature, to
show that he is endowed with immortality, their system is not only
shaken to its foundation, but even the foundation itself is swept
entirely away.
The vital point, to which they bend all their energies, is somehow to
show that a distinct entity, an intelligent part, an immortal soul, was
brought near to that body as it lay there perfect in its organization,
and thrust therein, which immediately began through the eyes of that
body to see, through its ears to hear, through its lips to speak, and
through its nerves to feel. Query: Was this soul capable of performing
all these functions before it entered the body? If it was, why thrust it
within this prison house? If it was not, will it be capable of
performing them after it leaves the body?
Heavy drafts are made on rhetoric in favor of this superadded soul.
Figures of beauty are summoned to lend to the argument their aid. An
avalanche of flowers is thrown upon it, to adorn its strength, or
perchance to hide its weakness. But when we search for the logic, we
find it a chain of sand. Right at the critical point, the argument fails
to connect; and so after all their expenditure of effort, after all
their lofty flights, and sweating toil, their conclusion comes
out--blank assumption. Why? Because they are endeavoring to reach a
result which they are dependent upon the text to establish, but which
the text directly contradicts. The record does not say that God formed a
body, and put therein a superadded soul, to use that body as an
instrument; but he formed _man_ of the dust. That which was formed of
the dust was the man himself, not simply an instrument for the man to
use when he should be put therein. Adam was just as essentially a man
before the breath of life was imparted, as after that event. This was
the difference: before, he was a dead man; afterward, a living one. The
organs were all there ready for their proper action. It only needed the
vitalizing principle of the breath of life to set them in motion. That
came, and the lungs began to expand, the heart to beat, the blood to
flow, and the limbs to move; then was exhibited all the phenomena of
physical action; then, too, the brain began to act, and there was
exhibited all the phenomena of mental action, perception, thought,
memory, will, &c.
The engine is an engine before the motive power is applied. The bolts,
bars, pistons, cranks, shafts, and wheels, are all there. The parts
designed to move are ready for action. But all is silent and still.
Apply the steam, and it springs, as it were, into a thing of life, and
gives forth all its marvelous exhibitions of celerity and power.
So with man. When the breath of life was imparted, which, as we have
seen was given in common to all the animal creation, that simply was
applied which set the machine in motion. No separate and independent
organization was added, but a change took place in the man himself. The
man _became_ something, or reached a condition which before he had not
attained. The verb “became” is defined by Webster, “to pass from one
state to another; to enter into some state or condition, by a change
from another state or condition, or by assuming or receiving new
properties or qualities, additional matter or a new character.” And Gen.
2:7, is then cited as an illustration of this definition. But it will be
seen that none of these will fit the popular idea of the superadded
soul; for that is not held to be simply a change in Adam’s condition, or
a new property or quality of his being, or an addition of matter, or a
new character; but a separate and independent entity, capable, without
the body, of a higher existence than with it. The boy becomes a man; the
acorn, an oak; the egg, an eagle; the chrysalis, a butterfly; but the
capabilities of the change all inhere in the object which experiences
it. A superadded, independent soul could not have been put into man, and
be said to have _become_ that soul. Yet it is said of Adam, that he, on
receiving the breath of life, _became_ a living soul. An engine is put
into a ship, and by its power propels it over the face of the deep; but
the ship, by receiving the engine, does not become the engine, nor the
engine the ship. No sophistry, even from the darkest depths of its
alchemy, can bring up and attach to the word “become” a definition which
will make it mean, as applied to any body, the addition of a distinct
and separate organization to that body.
To the inquiry of Prof. Mattison, “If he was ‘a soul’ before, then how
could he become such by the last act of creation,” it may be replied,
The antithesis is not based upon the word soul, but upon the word
living. This will become evident by trying to read the passage without
this word: “And the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life, and man became a soul.” That is not it. He became a _living_ soul.
He was a soul before, but not a living soul. To thus speak of a dead
soul, may provoke from some a sneer; nevertheless, the Hebrews so used
the terms. See Num. 6:6: “He shall come at no dead body,” on which
Cruden says, “in Hebrew, dead soul.”
Kitto, in his Relig. Encyclopedia, under the term Adam, says:--
“And Jehovah God formed the man (Heb., the Adam) dust from the ground,
and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a _living
animal_. Some of our readers may be surprised at our having translated
_nephesh chaiyah_ by living animal. There are good interpreters and
preachers who, confiding in the common translation, living soul, have
maintained that here is intimated a distinctive pre-eminence above the
inferior animals, as possessed of an immaterial and immortal spirit.
But, however true that distinction is, and supported by abundant
argument from both philosophy and the Scriptures, we should be acting
unfaithfully if we were to assume its being _contained_ or _implied_ in
this passage.”
The “abundant argument from both philosophy and the Scriptures” for
man’s immortal spirit, may be more difficult to find than many suppose.
But this admission that nothing of the kind is implied in this passage,
is a gratifying triumph of fair and candid criticism over what has been
almost universally believed and taught.
But we are not left to our own reasoning on this point; for inspiration
itself has given us a comment upon the passage in question; and
certainly it is safe to let one inspired writer explain the words of
another.
Paul, in 1 Cor. 15:44, and onward, is contrasting the first Adam with
the second, and our present state with the future. He says: “There is a
natural body and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The
first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a
quickening spirit.” Here Paul refers directly to the facts recorded in
Gen. 2:7. In verse 47, he tells us the nature of this man that was made
a living soul: “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is
the Lord from Heaven.” In verse 49, he says, “And as we have borne the
image of the earthy,” have been, like Adam, living souls, “we shall also
bear the image of the heavenly,” when our bodies are fashioned like unto
his glorious body. Phil. 3:21. In verses 50 and 53, he tells us why it
is necessary that this should be done, and how it will be accomplished:
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. For this
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality.”
Putting these declarations all together, what do we have? We have a very
explicit statement that this first man, this living soul which Adam was
made, was of the earth, earthy, did not bear the image of the heavenly
in its freedom from a decaying nature, did not possess that incorruption
without which we cannot inherit the kingdom of God, but was wholly
mortal and corruptible. Would people allow these plain and weighty words
of the apostle their true meaning upon this question, it would not only
summarily arrest all controversy over the particular text under
consideration, but leave small ground, at least from the teachings of
the Scriptures, to argue for the natural immortality of man.
But the terms “living soul” like the breath of life, are applied to all
orders of the animate creation, to beasts and reptiles, as well as to
man. The Hebrew words are _nephesh chaiyah_; and these words are in the
very first chapter of Genesis four times applied to the lower orders of
animals: Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, 30. On Gen. 1:21, Dr. A. Clarke offers this
comment:--
“_Nephesh chaiyah_; a general term to express all creatures endued with
animal life, in any of its infinitely varied gradations, from the
half-reasoning elephant down to the stupid potto, or lower still, to the
polype, which seems equally to share the vegetable and animal life.”
This is a valuable comment on the meaning of these words. He would have
greatly enhanced the utility of that information, if he had told us that
the same words are applied to man in Gen. 2:7.
Prof. Bush, in his notes on this latter text, says:--
“The phrase living soul is in the foregoing narrative repeatedly applied
to the inferior orders of animals which are not considered to be
possessed of a ‘soul’ in the sense in which that term is applied to man.
It would seem to mean the same, therefore, when spoken of man, that it
does when spoken of beasts, viz.: an animated being, a creature
possessed of life and sensation, and capable of performing all the
physical functions by which animals are distinguished, as eating,
drinking, walking, &c.... Indeed it may be remarked that the Scriptures
generally afford much less _explicit_ evidence of the existence of a
sentient immaterial principle in man, capable of living and acting
separate from the body, than is usually supposed.”
And there is nothing in the term “living” to imply that the life with
which Adam was then endowed would continue forever; for these living
souls are said to die. Rev. 16:3: “And every living soul died in the
sea.” Whether this means men navigating its surface or the animals
living in its waters, it is equally to the point as showing that that
which is designated by the terms “living soul,” whatever it is, is
subject to death.
Staggered by the fact (and unable to conceal it) that the terms “living
soul” are applied to all animals, the advocates of man’s immortality
then undertake to make the word “became” the pivot of their argument.
Man “became” a living soul, but it is not said of the beasts that they
became such; hence this must denote the addition of something to man
which the animals did not receive. And in their anxiety to make this
appear, they surreptitiously insert the idea that the animal life of man
is derived from the dust of the ground, and that something of a higher
nature was imparted to man by the breath of life which was breathed into
him, and the living soul which he became. Thus Mr. Landis, in his work,
“The Immortality of the Soul,”[A] p. 141, says: “Hence something was to
be added to the mere animal life derived from the dust of the ground.”
Now Mr. L. ought to know, and knowing, ought to have the candor to
admit, that no life at all is derived from the dust of the ground. All
the life that Adam had was imparted by the breath of life which God
breathed into his nostrils, which breath all breathing animals, no
matter how they obtained it, possessed as well as he.
Footnote A:
“The Immortality of the Soul and the Final Condition of the Wicked
Carefully Considered. By Robert W. Landis. New York: Published by
Carlton and Porter.” This is a work of 518 pages, and being issued
under the patronage of the great Methodist Book Concern, we take it to
be a representative work, and shall occasionally refer to its
positions.
No emphasis can be attached to the word “became:” for everything that is
called a living soul must by some process have become such. “Whatever
was or is first _became_ what it was or is.”
Take the case of Eve. She was formed of a rib of Adam, made of
pre-existent matter. It is not said of her that God breathed into her
nostrils the breath of life, or that she became a living soul; yet no
one claims that her nature was essentially different from that of Adam
with whom she was associated, as a fitting companion.
And it will be further seen that this word “became” can have no value in
the argument, unless the absurd principle be first set up as truth, that
whatever becomes anything must forever remain what it has become.
Defenders of the popular view, by such reasoning reduce their argument
to its last degree of attenuation; but here its assumption becomes so
transparent that it has no longer power to mislead, and needs no further
reply.