What is the breath of life?

The above passage agrees with the account we have in Genesis of the creation of man. There we read "Jehovah Elohim formed man, dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen. 2:7. N. Tr.). Does this not teach that as to the material part of man — the body — he was formed from the dust of the ground: then, the body having been formed, God communicated life by breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. This surely is the spiritual, or immaterial, part of man which he received direct from God.

"The preacher" in speaking of death also refers to the two parts of man — the material and the spiritual — when he says, "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return to God who gave it" (Eccles. 12:7). Again Elihu refers to the material and the spiritual when speaking of God, he says, "If He set his heart upon man, if He gather to Himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall return again to dust" (Job 34:14-15). This Scripture gives us further light inasmuch as the spirit is linked with the thought of breath, suggesting that the breath of life, in Genesis 2:7, is the spirit of a man.

In the first section, we have necessarily man's first relationship, the foundation of every other — that to God; and here, God's breathing into him is characteristic of this. No beast has it; and although there is no direct statement, — the language is, as we say, phenomenal, — yet there is implied in this certainly some communication from God Himself, by which (and not by the bodily form,) is conveyed the idea of kinship. Yet the language is more phenomenal even than in the common version, which we have followed. It is literally, "God breathed into his nostrils the breathing of life," where indeed the fact that it is in the nostrils shows what is meant. Compare the full expression in Gen. 7:22 as we have given it. Neshamah is always the activity of the ruach, whether this stands for "breath" or "spirit." The effect, and the effect as seen, is alone depicted. This is in reality favorable to the deeper thought. It is not mere "breath of life" which is imparted, but the whole living activity, as expressed in this, is the result of the divine impartation. And if man thus becomes a living soul, good reason it is why his soul should not die, as the beast does. (Matt. 10:28.) In the fact of being a living soul, he does not differ from the beast, but he does in the way he becomes one.

26 - 7. N'sha-mah (breath) seems to me the act of respiration souffle; ruakh (spirit) (chap. 7:22, etc.), the existence of respiration as life, spirit or life in us. God breathed into man's nostrils a nish-math khay-yim (breath of life), it is not there ruakh. Thus we have, in the Flood, all in whom was the nish-math ruakh khay-yim (breath of the spirit of life) - this spirit of life itself - ne-phesh khay-yah, a living soul, is all that constitutes individuality - personality - what taken together constitutes I - a person without reference to the body, though in it and living in it, and hence, if used for a dead body as being the apparent person. The ru-akh is the power of life which is exercised in us in breathing, the thing that acts, and in us lives, by breath. Man became a ne-phesh khay-yah (soul of life) by God's breathing the nish-math khay-yim into the formed and organised dust, and so there was a ru-akh which was life, and in the body maintained by breathing. God did not breathe a ru-akh, nor did man become n'sha-mah, or even ru-akh, but a ne-phesh. Ru-akh being the power of life, this word ru-akh is used of Him; it is the active power of God. As to the rest, I have remarked.

As far as I see without a concordance we have only ne-phesh khay-yah (soul of life), then ru-akh khay-yim (breath of life), or nish-math ru-akh khay-yim (breath of the spirit of life) The ru-akh khay-yim (breath of life) made man a ne-phesh khay-yah (a soul of life). The ru-akh khay-yim (breath of life) was in flesh, but no being was ru-akh khay-yim (breath of life), man was (became) ne-phesh khay-yah (a soul of life). Then, moreover, arises the question, is rle-phesh khay-yah (soul of life) said of any but man? It is said, Genesis 1:20-21, of what the waters brought forth, and verse 24 of what the earth. Whatever I suppose had ru-akh khay-yim (breath of life) was ne-phesh khay-yah (a soul of life). Indeed ne-phesh is itself breath or breathing. And this form of life, animal life (I suppose animal the same derivating) man clearly has. But the difference is immense of his becoming so by Elohim's breathing into his nostrils, so that we tou gar kai genos esmen

Note. — A claim is sometimes set up for n'shamah, as being the representative of the spirit of man proper rather than ruach. It is the word used in Gen. 2:7 for "breath of life," also in Gen. 7:22 and 2 Sam. 22:16, referred to in the last note. It is really, as there implied, the ruach, in action, and may be in that way referred to ruach, in either sense of "breath" or "spirit." It is never the strict equivalent of ruach; certainly never of a higher character. The Spirit of God is never n'shamah. It is rather the "breathing," "inspiration," "blast," as in Gen. 2:7; 2 Sam. 22:16; Job 4:9; Job 32:8; Job 33:4; Job 37:10; Ps. 18:15; Isa. 30:33. As to man, it is expressive of his being a breathing creature, as in Deut. 20:16; Joshua 10:40; Joshua 11:11, 14; 1 Kings 15:29; Ps. 150:6; and should be translated similarly, and not by "souls" in a passage referred to by Mr. Constable, Isa. 57:16. It should be "breathing" or "breath" in Gen. 7:22; 1 Kings 17:17; Job 26:4; Job 27:3; Job 34:14; Isa. 2:22; Isa. 42:5; Dan. 5:23; Dan. 10:17. There is but one passage beside these in Scripture, and this seems the only undoubted reference to the action of the higher ruach, or real spirit of man: here our version translates it "spirit," yet that it is expressive of the action, rather than the being of the spirit, we may see in the passage itself, Prov. 20:27.

As the formation of man's body links him with material creation, so the breathing into his nostrils the breath of life links him directly with God. He is thus the offspring of God. This inbreathing surely cannot mean of the mere bodily life which man has in common with the beasts. It suggests those mental and moral faculties with which he has been endowed, of knowledge, will and affection, which link him in nature with God. This is a direct, definite act. Many questions might detain us here, the answers to some of which we certainly could not give. It is not amiss, however, to ask these, if in a reverent spirit.

Verse 7 is very important, giving us man's spiritual constitution by God's original creative act. The material part of man — his body — is composed of the elements that are found in the dust of the earth, but there is also the immaterial part. He is a living soul, as were the animals whose creation is recorded in Genesis 1. It is the way in which man became a living soul that altogether distinguishes him from the animal creation. Only man became a living entity by the Lord God breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. As the result of this Divine act man became possessed of spirit as well as soul.

This great act stands good not only for Adam, the first man, but also for all his race. Hence in the book of Job we find Elihu saying, "The Spirit of God has made me and the breath of the Almighty has given me life" (Job 33:4). We all can say the same today. The possession of spirit by the inbreathing of the Almighty is man's distinguishing feature. This act also defined man's relation with his Creator. God is a Spirit and so man, possessing spirit by God's inbreathing, was fitted to represent Him, made in His image, after His likeness, as we saw in Genesis 1.

But there are other incongruities. "The word Neshamah, translated the 'breath of life,'" says Mr. Pettingell, "means the Spirit of God, and does not belong to man even, except as it is breathed into him by God Himself." But when so breathed, as into Adam, it becomes "the true normal life of the soul of man" (p. 112) and "the spirit is the breath of God; it is an immortal principle, it cannot die."

But I am told that Hebrew will tell us wonders, and I have only to make some square Chaldaic letters and immortality disappears. Let us follow the scripture use of these Hebrew words. Now I think it will be found that neshama is the act of respiration, or breathing — if from God, in the power of the life in Him — but breathing. Ruach, spirit (but used for the Spirit of God, a wind, or other spirit, the spirit of man, or even of beast, in Ecclesiastes), is that by which man or beast breathes, the life which expresses itself in breathing. Hence, in the flood, all wherein was the nishmath ruach chaiim, the breath of the spirit of life, died, man or beast, all whose present life was sustained by breathing. Nephesh chaia is the actual result in a living individual. The man or beast doing this is a nephesh chaia, a living soul, any living animal, man or beast. And nephesh so fully gives the idea of what is individual (seen and known, moving about, represented to us by bodily presence) that it is used for a dead body, because the same once living form is there. An Israelite was not to profane himself by a dead body (nephesh), rightly so translated, but there is no neshama or ruach. So we should call dead relatives by their names and shew their corpses as themselves, though we well know there is no life in them. It is called nephesh meeth, a dead body, or simply nephesh. Priests were not to profane themselves by it unless for their nearest of kin.

Man has, then, a living soul; nay, he is one. How he became so Gen. 2:7 informs us: "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." Now, upon the most cursory glance at this, it is evident that something more took place in man's creation than in the creation of the brute. It is plain that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life, and that He did not into the brute's. Roberts, indeed, contends that Ps. 104:25-30 supplies what is omitted in Genesis. He obtains this by means of the old confusion between God's Spirit and the breath of life. Nor does any one deny that "God giveth unto all life and breath and all things." The question is why was the gift given in this especial way to man alone? "No matter," says Mr. R., "if they all have it." But the point is, did God come in in this special way to give merely the same gift after all? The language is phenomenal, as Old Testament language largely is, and that makes one only the more to ask, is this breathing of God not a form of expression pointing to the communication of something from Himself, and more akin to Himself, than is implied in water or earth simply producing?

Thus the inner organs of the body seem with him to be the soul, the outer only, the soul-tabernacle or body. It would be well to attempt something in the way of proof of so startling a proposition as that the lungs and other parts not defined are not the body! "In the body," "out of the body," "absent from the body," "putting off the tabernacle," would certainly have a new significance in this way. But I think it scarcely needful to pursue this further. Man has, then, a living soul; nay, he is one. How he became so Gen. ii. 7 informs us: "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." Now, upon the most cursory glance at this, it is evident that something more took place in man's creation than in the creation of the brute. It is plain that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life, and that He did not into the brute's. Roberts, indeed, contends that Psa. civ. 25-30 supplies what is omitted in Genesis. He obtains this by means of the old confusion between God's Spirit and the breath of life. Nor does any one deny that "God giveth unto all life and breath and all things." The question is why was the gift given in this especial way to man alone? "No matter," says Mr. R., "if they all have it." But the point is, did God come in in this special way to give merely the same gift after all? The language is phenomenal, as Old Testament language largely is, and that makes one only the more to ask, is this breathing of God not a form of expression pointing to the communication of something from Himself and more akin to Himself, than is implied in water or earth simply producing? Surely it is so. For although what is communicated may not be yet fully shown - and it is quite the character of an initial revelation, that it should not be - it is plain that man has a link here with God Himself which the beast has not.

And this is not by a higher bodily organization. His body has been before perfected. It is by the way he receives life. Now, if the breath of life alone were communicated (and every beast has it as much), there is no real difference answering to this difference of communication: the phenomenal language has no corresponding meaning. But thus it is that man - only dust before - becomes a living soul. And that purports that he is now characterized; as we have seen before in the beast, by something now living within that man who was just now but dust. He is a living soul; not by the completion of his bodily organization, but by the addition of a new constituent of being. He is now not a mere body, nor a body instinct even with the breath of life: he is become a "living soul."*