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.