Tell me more ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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. Genesis 2:7 (KJV)

What is the meaning of "breath of life" here? Is there any relation between spirit of man?

share|improve this question
It does seem as if there is a tangent forming as if to cause the reader to be wowed by this is what I think and not " thus sayeth the Lord ". I'd like to know more about what G-d actually wanted to say – Gerald McDonald Apr 20 at 12:09

2 Answers

up vote 6 down vote accepted

The phrase in Hebrew is נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים (nishmat chayyim). The Hebrew word typically translated as "spirit" in English is רוּחַ (ruach).

Here is a link to a Jewish understanding of the distinctions between neshamah, nefesh, and ruach.

However, it is my belief that neshamah and ruach are probably equivalent to one another.

For example, in Genesis 2:7, it is said that God inspired into man the נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים (nishmat chayyim), or "breath of life" (A.V.).

Later on in Genesis 7:21-22, where the narrative is speaking about all those who died on the face of the earth in the flood (viz. "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 earth, and every man..."), regarding them it says, "...all in whose nostrils was the breath of life..." (A.V.). Here, the phrase "breath of life" is translated from the Hebrew phrase נִשְׁמַת־רוּחַ חַיִּים (nishmat ruach chayyim), which is like saying "the nishmah of the ruach chayyim."

Grammatically, I would understand this phrase as nishmat being in apposition (genitive of apposition) to ruach chayyim, and thus meaning, "the nishmah, that is to say, the ruach chayyim."

In summary, it seems as though they are equivalent.

@Fraser Orr: Yes. That would be prefential. But, you could still read it as: nishmat, that is to say ruach, chayyim.

  • A better view of the appositive: 2 Sam. 22:16; Psa. 18:15
  • In parallelism: Job 4:9, 33:4; Isa. 42:5
  • With epexegetical vav: Job 34:14
share|improve this answer
1  
Question for you: were nishmat ruach chayyim actually appositive, wouldn't you expect it to be ruach nishmat chayyim or nishmat chayyim ruach? I don't have tools here but I don't think ruach chayyim is a common expression. – Fraser Orr Dec 6 '12 at 18:05

Word studies without reference to structure will not give us the full picture. Adam is a triune creature. Genesis 1 portrays him as physical, Genesis 2 as social and Genesis 3 as ethical.

So the initial breath is physical and the later breath is ethical. Adam's disobedience meant that he missed out on his "Pentecost," that is, the "ethical breath" of God, the Word.

The Word was made flesh. His initial breath was physical. His life of obedience was vindicated at His baptism. He received an "ethical breath" which began His ministry of representing the Father in the flesh.

Jesus breathed physical breath on His disciples, but they did not receive the Spirit on that day. The physical breath was the liturgical prefigurement of the ethical breath to come on the Day of Pentecost.


Edited: No citations available but the text itself, so here is further explanation.

Genesis 1 is construction process: the world is formed (Days 1-3) and filled (Days 4-6) with a "future" on Day 7.

In Genesis 2, Adam is formed and filled (physically) then he is "de-formed" that he might be filled socially. Forming is always Adamic (usually involving a creation of empty spaces) and filling is Evian, or bridal. Adam is the house and Eve is the fragrant smoke.

We also see this in the Tabernacle and Temple. They were formed and then filled by God. But that was just a priestly beginning. They were then called to a social ministry (towards Israel as the bride - kings) and ethical ministry (towards all nations - prophets). The three-level structure of the building would be "measured out" in the nations.

In Genesis 3, whether Adam has been "formed" under the tutelage of the Law is being tested. The filling available here is ethical. The test is designed to take him from a natural state to a supernature, that is, being like God, but by God's means, not that of the serpent. Adam must be an obedient priest before he can be a ruling king and representative prophet. He must obey the law (priest), rule over the serpent (king) and repeat the law to the mother of all (prophet). It is "Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy."

So there is a physical breath, which Adam shares with the animals (Genesis 1) but the animals are not called to obey any Law. Adam represents them, as a union between heaven and earth, made of earth but to be filled with heaven. Unlike animals (physical breath) man does not live by bread alone. Man also requires a steady diet of truth, the "breath" of the Spirit from heaven.

Now, we see Jesus go through this process as a new Adam. His obedient life is vindicated at His baptism. He receives the Spirit from the Father, and begins His ministry. Once His ministry is fulfilled, He can share the Spirit with others. He has defeated the devil personally, so He can rule over the devil in the lives of others.

share|improve this answer
I respect the desire for sources but does this mean that everything in theology has already been said? Can an answer not be judged on how it handles the text itself? I find very few theologians deal with the liturgical and architectural structure of the text, which means they miss a great deal of what is going on. I've done all I can here. Thanks. – Mike Bull Feb 17 at 22:09
4  
Speaking for myself, I would like your answer to contain biblical sources, not necessarily references to what other theologians have said. For example, when you say "Adam is the house and Eve is the fragrant smoke." I can't figure out why you think this should be so. If you don't provide some biblical reasons why you came to this conclusion, it seems like you just plucked it out of the air. This is just one example; you seem to have many unusual and unsupported assertions. – cdjc Feb 17 at 23:22
Ah - the construction of the Tabernacle and Temple both recapitulate the Creation Week. The first half of each pattern is a forming (building the house) and the last half is a filling (furnishing the house). The same pattern is replicated in the creation of Adam and the construction of Eve. The tent is a model of the cosmos but also a representation of the Man (hence both Adam and the tent are initially covered in skins). This is cross-eyed exegesis - aligning similar events based on identical structures in the text. Another example would be seeing the Creation Week recapitulated in Lev. 1. – Mike Bull Feb 17 at 23:29

This post does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.