God breathed? Is this literal?

[Vance]

Genesis 2:7 states that God "breathed" life into Man. While most Christians over the ages have seen this as God infusing His Spirit into Man, it raises an interesting question for strict literalists.

Most (but not all) literalists will readily acknowledge that they don't read everything literally, but they insist that there are always clues in the text that let us know when a figurative meaning is meant. They absolutely insist that it is improper to just "pick and choose" among Scripture those we think is literal. We must be explicitly guided there by internal (not external) prompts.

Well, I am not sure how this works with Genesis 2:7. We know that God is not, and was not, a human being with lungs and "breath". God is spirit other than when He came down to earth as Jesus. So, we know that God did not use literal "breath", and did not literally "breathe". We know He did SOMETHING, and He chose to use the figurative expression of "breathing" to describe this process.

Why did He not just explain to us exactly what He did in its strictly historically and scientifically accurate detail? Why use a figurative description? Surely God could have found a way to describe it in a literal way we could all understand over all time, right? Is it "lying" to us to say He breathed when He did not breathe? No, of course not. And, sure, God is God and could have chosen to convey exactly what He did in a historically and scientifically accurate way. But He chose to tell it in a single, powerful, evocative figurative phrase. I happen to think it works pretty well. We don't need to know the details, we all get the important point. Good job, God.

But here is the odd thing for the strict literalists. There is no clue in the text that this is meant to be read figuratively. It just flows right along with all the other text which they insist must be read literally.

Is it possible that this entire section of Scripture should be read the way we all read Genesis 2:7? Could it be that God is providing us with powerful, evocative figurative language to convey the important things about what happened?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This is not just an interesting issue but an important one to grasp for a good hermeneutic. For the issue of 'Gods' breath' is an extended metaphor that is not just language based (in both Greek and Hebrew soul/spirit is a word related to wind, or breath) but extends to images such as: "Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" so crucial to an understanding of the faith.

it is an evocative metaphor, an anthropomorphism, an immediately graspable analogy. Why? because just as the ER tech bends down to listen to a shallow breath, or uses a mirror to fog, or the idea of a dead rattle, we know the essentialness of breathing. It is a substitute for life itself. Just as the blood is another image, again the EMT checking the injuried for a pulse, or the horror of a picture of a corpse in a pool of dried blood, we instinctive realize the relationship of breathing and blood to life. It is so human, so close to us, that we fail to recognize that it is figurative language, a metaphor, an anthropomorphism. And Vance is pointing out something very important is going on here, oftentimes below our consciousness. Spirit itself is an analogy or metaphor, rhuah pneuma, the wind=air in motion.

I first looked at the issue in depth during a class on Calvin's accommodation, which starts with understanding of anthropomorphism. I'd like to quote from that class:
from: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/lesson5_essay.html

The Anthropomorphites also, who dreamed of a corporeal God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet, are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted. For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children? Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness. In doing so, he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height.

Institutes I.13.1


This is one of the very often quoted parts of Calvin, on the idea of God accommodating Himself to our feebleness. It is a big deal and an important contribution to theology and Biblical hermeneutics.

from: http://capo.org/premise/95/oct/p950908.html

Calvin had a developed view of biblical accommodation whereby revelation is limited to man's ability to understand it. Accommodation is at the heart of Calvin's entire approach to theology. He did not focus on the abstract, speculative aspects of the nature of God, but rather on God's revelation to man. The problem with such revelation lies in the contrast between the infinite nature of God and the limited, sinful nature of man. For any communication to take place, man must be able to understand. Therefore, God must accommodate revelation to man's capacity. Accommodation is extremely important not just in biblical revelation, but also in all modes of God's communication to man including general revelation and the Incarnation.

In addition, it should be noted that accommodation was designed not for the well-educated elite, but for the commonpeople. This explains the use of phenomenological and anthropomorphic language in Scripture. It also helps to explain the self-authenticating nature of Scripture. If man could discover the divine nature of the Bible without the internal witness of the Holy Spirit, the educated classes would have a marked advantage. The use of reason in recognizing the external marks of Scripture, therefore, helped to confirm the faith of those who already believe.

Accommodation also contributed to an understanding of the decrees of God as well as the mystery of the sacraments. Calvin used the concept of accommodation extensively in his discussion of the sacraments, which were provided as signs and seals of divine promises. In every aspect of God's communication to mankind, he used accommodation to ensure that finite man could both understand and enjoy a relationship with the infinite God.

This does not mean that Reformed divines such as Francis Turretin held a wooden view of inspiration. Contrary to the belief among some scholars that the post-Reformation scholastics did not develop the concept of accommodation, Reformed scholastics such as Turretin posited a full doctrine of biblical accommodation in striking similarity to Calvin by which God reveals himself progressively throughout Scripture.

 

[Vance]

Yes, that is extremely interesting, and it should provide some self-awareness of how we read Scripture, even if subconsciously. I have found that people DO tend to grasp this concept of accomodation when it is pointed out to them, and agree that they accept metaphors and figurative language throughout Scripture for that very reason. But, I think they tend to only accept the figurative to the extent they realize it can not be literal.

By this I mean that a modern reader, even one who still reads Genesis 1 as literal, may read things as figurative that someone a few hundred years ago may have taken literally, since their knowledge of natural matters was more limited. I am trying to think of a good example off hand, but they are alluding me for the moment. I am thinking of something like a reference to thunder or earthquake or other natural phenomenon that we now understand which earlier Christians still took as God acting.

Oh, well, a good example would be the all the geocentric stuff. The descriptions in Psalms and elsewhere talking about the earth being "fixed" and similar statements about nature which we, today, naturally convert to a figurative meaning, whereas the earlier Christians may not see as figurative at all.

 

[herev]

very interesting, both of you!

 

[icxn]

...Oh, well, a good example would be the all the geocentric stuff. The descriptions in Psalms and elsewhere talking about the earth being "fixed" and similar statements about nature which we, today, naturally convert to a figurative meaning, whereas the earlier Christians may not see as figurative at all.

Actually the early Christians knew that the earth mentioned in Genesis and in the Psalms and elsewhere, was figurative of the human soul (heart), which is "fixed" on four corners, that is on the four cardinal virtues: courage, moral judgment, self-restraint and justice. Also, if you recall, after Adam's transgression the first "punishment" he received was that of suffering pain in working the earth (of the heart) and eating his bread (virtues) - and hence growing spiritually. And if you can accept, the garment of Christ with which a soul (woman with the hemorrhage) is healed, is the adornment of the virtues. The hemorrhage is the soul's dissipation in evil passions. The same allegory can be observed in the building of the temple of Solomon. Again the human soul (the believer), which can be said to by founded on Christ's faith, is erected using the bricks of righteous acts/thoughts (virtues) and covered with the roof of love. And when man thus builds the temple of his soul the Glory of God, fills the house, as the story with prophet Solomon goes, that is, man becomes a dwelling place of God.[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]

icxn
[/font]

 

[herev]

Actually the early Christians knew that the earth mentioned in Genesis and in the Psalms and elsewhere, was figurative of the human soul (heart), which is "fixed" on four corners, that is on the four cardinal virtues: courage, moral judgment, self-restraint and justice. Also, if you recall, after Adam's transgression the first "punishment" he received was that of suffering pain in working the earth (of the heart) and eating his bread (virtues) - and hence growing spiritually. And if you can accept, the garment of Christ with which a soul (woman with the hemorrhage) is healed, is the adornment of the virtues. The hemorrhage is the soul's dissipation in evil passions. The same allegory can be observed in the building of the temple of Solomon. Again the human soul (the believer), which can be said to by founded on Christ's faith, is erected using the bricks of righteous acts/thoughts (virtues) and covered with the roof of love. And when man thus builds the temple of his soul the Glory of God, fills the house, as the story with prophet Solomon goes, that is, man becomes a dwelling place of God.[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]

icxn
[/font]

so what are you saying about the OP?

 

[Vance]

Yes, unfortunately, this metaphorical reading was not so widespread as to prevent the Church from using those Scriptures to support their geocentrism and condemn heliocentrism. The "fixity" scriptures are still used by modern geocentrists to this day.

But don't lets get sidetracked onto geocentrism! (even if I did start it!) :0)

 

[icxn]

ccel

so what are you saying about the OP?

That the breathing signifies the action of the Holy Spirit, creating the human soul and giving life to the body.

icxn

 

[Vance]

ccel
That the breathing signifies the action of the Holy Spirit, creating the human soul and giving life to the body.

icxn

Agreed. But what is troubling is that YEC's (not you, since I have no idea what your position is on origins), will also accept this as figurative, but then act as if figurative readings are taboo unless there is some specific mandate to read it that way within the text.

 

[icxn]

Vance,

Since God's nature is incomprehensible to us I would say His actions are also beyond human understanding and stay at that. My position on origins is that God is the Creator of the Universe as far as the literal interpretation of Genesis goes, but in my reading I try to concentrate on the spiritual meaning of scripture, which is more important and sometimes 'transgresses' the literal sense of what is being said. (See: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/origen_philocalia_02_text.htm)

icxn

 

[Vance]

I think you are right.

 

[KleinerApfel]

God breathed into Adam to give him life.
What's your problem? Just because God doesn't need to breathe doesn't mean he could not in some way expel air into Adam's lungs, thereby giving him his first breath of oxygen.

God breathed into the fully-formed but inanimate Adam; a simple action which gave both physical and spiritual life in one instant.
The gift of life; impossible for man, but as easy as breathing for God!

God bless, Susana

 

[Vance]

No, you missed the point. God doing the act is not the problem, God can do whatever He likes. The problem is that we know that God did not actually "breathe" Himself, because He does not have lungs, etc. Yes, He DID something, but the words used to describe that action are figurative rather than literal. It SAYS God breathed, but God did NOT breathe. Not literally. He did something and CALLED it "breathing".

Just as an aside, and it is not really the point of this discussion, but exactly what the breath of life was is another discussion. You have seen one possibility mentioned above, and I would agree that most interpretations, even by fundamentalists has been that it was not merely "oxygen" that was given to Adam, but a Spirit and/or Soul.

 

[andy153]

Genesis 2:7 states that God "breathed" life into Man. While most Christians over the ages have seen this as God infusing His Spirit into Man, it raises an interesting question for strict literalists.

Most (but not all) literalists will readily acknowledge that they don't read everything literally, but they insist that there are always clues in the text that let us know when a figurative meaning is meant. They absolutely insist that it is improper to just "pick and choose" among Scripture those we think is literal. We must be explicitly guided there by internal (not external) prompts.

Well, I am not sure how this works with Genesis 2:7. We know that God is not, and was not, a human being with lungs and "breath". God is spirit other than when He came down to earth as Jesus. So, we know that God did not use literal "breath", and did not literally "breathe". We know He did SOMETHING, and He chose to use the figurative expression of "breathing" to describe this process.

Why did He not just explain to us exactly what He did in its strictly historically and scientifically accurate detail? Why use a figurative description? Surely God could have found a way to describe it in a literal way we could all understand over all time, right? Is it "lying" to us to say He breathed when He did not breathe? No, of course not. And, sure, God is God and could have chosen to convey exactly what He did in a historically and scientifically accurate way. But He chose to tell it in a single, powerful, evocative figurative phrase. I happen to think it works pretty well. We don't need to know the details, we all get the important point. Good job, God.

But here is the odd thing for the strict literalists. There is no clue in the text that this is meant to be read figuratively. It just flows right along with all the other text which they insist must be read literally.

Is it possible that this entire section of Scripture should be read the way we all read Genesis 2:7? Could it be that God is providing us with powerful, evocative figurative language to convey the important things about what happened?

I believe it to be literal :

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

As Jesus breathed new life into the apostles so did the father breath into Adam.

with love and respect, andy153

 

[Vance]

But Jesus was flesh and blood, and so had the breath with which to do this literally. God the Father is spirit. Do you believe that God took on human form (before any human existed) for the purpose of performing this act literally?

I think YEC's should take Andy's post as an example of how distorted interpretations of Scripture can become if a literal reading is insisted upon, or if improper comparisons between texts is forced in order to force a literal reading.

 

[andy153]

But Jesus was flesh and blood, and so had the breath with which to do this literally. God the Father is spirit. Do you believe that God took on human form (before any human existed) for the purpose of performing this act literally?

I think YEC's should take Andy's post as an example of how distorted interpretations of Scripture can become if a literal reading is insisted upon, or if improper comparisons between texts is forced in order to force a literal reading.

Dear Vance,

I'm not a literalist in anyway shape or form, never have been never will be. You do not understand my post.

Can I ask you how Jesus was flesh and blood when he breathed on the Apostles as he was at that time a resurrected being ?

with love and respect, andy153

 

[Vance]

Ah, sorry for taking your post as an example of a strict literalist, but you were reading that one strictly literally, even when most strict literalists don't.

But, as for Jesus, did not Thomas touch His hands? The exact nature of Jesus' resurrected body has been the subject of much debate, but I don't think anyone says it was spirit.

 

[MAC]

No, you missed the point. God doing the act is not the problem, God can do whatever He likes. The problem is that we know that God did not actually "breathe" Himself, because He does not have lungs, etc. Yes, He DID something, but the words used to describe that action are figurative rather than literal. It SAYS God breathed, but God did NOT breathe. Not literally. He did something and CALLED it "breathing".

Just as an aside, and it is not really the point of this discussion, but exactly what the breath of life was is another discussion. You have seen one possibility mentioned above, and I would agree that most interpretations, even by fundamentalists has been that it was not merely "oxygen" that was given to Adam, but a Spirit and/or Soul.

How about this view?
Changes in brackets are mind.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and {place a Soul} into his nostrils {the Soul} of life; and man became a living Soul.

 

[Vance]

Well, yes, that may be what God meant when He used the figurative phrase "breathed". But the point here is not to determine exactly what God did (although I agree with you on that), but to point out that WHATEVER He did, he SAID He breathed, when He did not literally breathe. Thus, God was using a figurative, and not literal, literary style. So, why here and not with days?

 

[MAC]

Also is good to asked why God has giving to us these words {into his nostrils} there is a reason why He has mentioned that. {Nostrils = opening}