WHERE WE BELONG
RELATEDNESS, ASSOCIATION, AND IDENTIFICATION
For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:26-28
The purposeful sorting of items into different groupings, or genres, is a commonplace activity in daily life, as well as a critical activity in science. In biology, the result is a “taxonomy” of living things, which today is based not so much on discontinuous differences as it is on similarities: In particular, perceived ancestral degrees of “relatedness,” in an attempt to sketch out an evolutionary “tree of life.”
By the year 2000, after a number of years teaching, I noticed that few persons, in particular Christians, recognized the evolutionary bias inherent in today’s biological classification. This motivated me to expose and explain that bias. Yet further, I became driven to promote a different bias—to see what a biblical framework for biological classification might look like. So I began an in-depth study of the creation-oriented passages in Scripture, leading to a broader study of all biblical passages concerning living organisms. What came of this 15-month effort was the book Biblical Classification of Life. (You can download a “pdf” version of it here.) Though it certainly had mixed reviews and I cannot assess its long-term impact, I’d like to spin this month’s essay from its main ideas…a primer of sorts, followed by specific application for us regarding our identity.
I will start with a simple question: Which two of the following four creatures are most closely related?
an eagle / a salmon / a bat / a whale
A typical biologist today would declare the answer as “bat and whale,” due to their mammalian characteristics (they are in “class Mammalia” in the modern taxonomy). In fact, not only would he or she believe that these two are most closely related, he would, by evolutionary inference, believe that all four are truly “related,” only to different degrees. 
All share a common ancestor, but bats and whales just happen to share a nearer common branch on the tree of life.
So what is the correct answer? Actually, there are two:
1) None of these are related. All four are of different, discontinuously created kinds, and
2) Though not related, the eagle and that bat are most closely associated, created as flying creatures (Hebrew owph) on Creation Day 5, and further listed together as “unclean” flying creatures in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
To clarify our ideas about these things, we should define three terms: 1) related, 2) discontinuous, and 3) associated. “Related” concerns the all-important biblical concept of the “kind” (miyn in Hebrew). This should be the fundamental unit of biological classification, and this is essentially what Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) had in mind when he fathered modern taxonomy, using the term “species.” Yet for reasons I will not detail here, today’s species have little in common with his original concept. The Hebrew word miyn is used ten times in the first chapter of Genesis, “according to its kind [miyn],” punctuated with several other phrases shown as important through repetition. Though the exact number of original kinds is not declared in the creation account, it is evident that on Day 3 of creation, God created multiple kinds of vegetation. On the two days in which living creatures were made (Days 5 and 6), God created multiple kinds of aquatic creatures, multiple kinds of flying creatures, multiple kinds of terrestrial creatures, and separately, mankind. Kinds, not species or varieties, delineate what Adam named, and what Noah preserved by boarding selected specimens on the ark. Within these kinds, that is to say, through ancestry on each separate tree of life, the variety is truly “related.” That is the extent of how “related” should be used.
Thus, “discontinuous” is the complementary idea to “related.” Any organism of one kind is discontinuous in terms of ancestry, or relatedness, to any organism of another kind. Again, the reality is not about a massive ancestral tree of life as evolutionism draws up, but rather about many trees of life. Within each “tree” (all ancestors in a kind), we find true relatedness, and a glorious expression of variety therein! Yet between each “tree” is discontinuity, and no inbreeding—past, present, or future.
“Associated” should be applied to things grouped together on a meaningful basis other than relatedness. We might also use the term “affiliation,” and will do so later. For example, all creatures of water and sky can be associated as Day 5 creatures. This is not to say that these are related. More specifically, creatures of water can be associated together, and flying creatures can be associated together. Neither does this say each of these associations has common ancestry. Even more specifically, Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 indicate that the leaping insects can be associated (even though grasshoppers and crickets are unrelated), and that the birds of prey can be associated (even though falcons and owls are unrelated).
So we see two distinctly different approaches to biological classification. On one hand, the evolutionary method assumes that all are related, and therefore any associations based on similarities are also inferred as associations based on ancestry. On the other hand, the biblical method presents purposefully distinct and unrelated kinds, which are just as purposefully associated together based on the Creator’s own prerogatives. So the two methods differ not only in how they associate creatures (that is, by what criteria they are grouped), but also on what these associations mean (descent vs. design).
That having been said, let’s take a look at some fundamental differences in classification criteria between these two approaches. Larger associations are inevitably going to be defined by what is considered the most important, or primary, criteria. Songs, for example could be classified first by genre, then artist, then date. A person looking to build a cross-section of music from the 1920s, however, would classify them first by date, then perhaps genre, with artist last. Several approaches could be made, but few would consider song length or age of musicians as a meaningful primary criterion. So, classification criteria are purpose-driven decisions. Consider the following general groups of creatures: beetles, birds, fish, bats, spiders, cattle, corals, humans, crabs, and earthworms. In the evolutionary scheme these creatures are all thought to be related, but those most related would be primarily grouped as follows:
| Chordates (vertebrates): | Humans, Bats, Birds, Cattle, Fish | |
| Arthropods: | Beetles, Spiders, Crabs | |
| Invertebrates: | Corals, Earthworms |
Thus we see that, among kingdom Animalia, the primary classification criterion for the evolutionist is skeletal structure. (Cell structure is actually more important in the overall organization of domains and kingdoms leading up to these). The Biblical approach would associate these quite differently (and again, by doing so would not suggest relatedness):
| Aquatic: | Fish, Corals, Crabs | |
| Flying: | Bats, Birds, Beetles | |
| Terrestrial: | Cattle, Spiders, Earthworms | |
| Mankind: | Humans |
The difference is that God did not create based on skeletal structure, saying “let there be arthropods…” but rather based on major habitat, “let the waters abound…” (Genesis 1:20). Such distinctly different criteria between the two approaches co
ntinues at many levels, and we find that the two approaches assign differing importance to characteristics such as locomotion, mode of reproduction, cell structure, complexity, metabolism, and so on. For more detail on this, have a look at this table.
Well, that is a primer on the fundamental differences between an evolutionary and a biblical approach to classifying life. So what is the application for us? After all, how many persons find themselves concerned daily with how one should associate animals?
Our personal application, which is indeed important, begins with recognizing that we are not animals, but human beings, created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-28). Though God made multiple kinds of land animals on Day 6 alongside mankind, He did not make more than one kind of man. We are a lone kind, unrelated to the animals in nature, associated with them only as terrestrial-dwelling, Day 6 creations, and totally affiliated with all humanity. We are made separately from the animals (see the transition in vv. 25-26). We are given rule and dominion over the earth and its creatures (vv. 26, 28). We are the climax—the final movement in his creation symphony. And to really bring this home we read that God did not merely speak mankind into existence, but involved His own hands in the creative process (Genesis 2:7, 21, 22).
Thus, our primary association and relatedness is to be human. Do not mutter, “I’m only human,” for to be human is a wonderful thing. And though it sounds intelligent to call oneself a member of Homo sapiens, beware of this name, for it describes the human animal. In Luke’s genealogy of Christ, we are told at the end “…the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God (Luke 3:38). It is not a stretch to say that God not only created the first man, but fathered humanity.
Yet as glorious is our association and relatedness in humanity, it is equally sobering that we are associated and related in the sinful condition. One might protest “But it was Adam’s doing!” or even blame Adam’s wife, or the serpent. (Hardly an original protest given the dialogue of Genesis 3:12-13.) But the reality is that Adam’s rebellion is our rebellion. We are “guilty by association” as the saying goes, but even more so, “guilty by relation.” We ate of the forbidden fruit. A tough reality, but an essential understanding if one is to be saved, redeemed, and regenerated. To identify with Christ, the “last Adam,” we must identify with the first (1 Corinthians 15:45).
Which brings us to a more specific level of association, and yes, even of relatedness in a mysterious way: Belonging to the church universal—that glorious affiliation of believers through the ages who have a discontinuous nature to the rest of humanity. Christians are “members of one another” (Romans 12:5), an interesting and pleasantly illogical statement. Though we are all in the family of humanity through the 
creation and the fall, only believers in Christ are sons of God. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). It is more than a cultural, ethical, or religious association; it is literally one of relatedness: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17). Thus the Jew who receives Christ is not a Christianized Jew, but a Jewish Christian. The devout Lutheran might call his denomination the “Lutheran Church,” but this in inaccurate. His local fellowship is a “church,” and he belongs to the universal “Church,” but there is no church in between, regardless of doctrine or practice. “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10). Jesus said, “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). This should be held above any club membership, professional affiliation, political party, or crusading cause.
Considering these two associations, it is a difficult matter to live out our Christian lives without being worldly: Difficult because we identify well with the flesh that we must continually crucify. It is our first affiliation, and God does not want us to forget it just yet. Still, our new belonging and nature must usurp the old one with which it coexists. We can foster no nostalgia for our first family (“Do not love the world, or the things in the world” – 1 John 2:15), and yet we must still love its members to fulfill the Great Commission (Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:18-20). And so the tension: we are no longer the sinners that we are (1 Corinthians 6:11, Romans 7:21-25), and our second family comes first.
And lastly, just as we are associated as humans (both in the splendor and the fall), and as Christian believers, we are associated personally with Christ. This is a profound affiliation, and one of Paul’s few stated “mysteries,” that individually, Christ is in us, and we are in Christ (Colossians 1:27-28). In terms of association, it is the ultimate overlapping set, much like the “members of one another” idea, only closer to home. For the believer, the great question of identity, “Who am I?”, is really the question “Whose am I?”
© 2010 Chard Berndt.
All Scriptures NKJV .
15th year convention of Xena, Warrior Princess!
No, I’m not into this. Never watched the show once. But as I was writing about the concept of “relatedness, associations, and identification” for the coming essay, I was reminded that humans really like to affliate on the basis of things that are trivial. We need to remember that we are a part of a fallen sinful race, but you don’t see people flocking to “Confessing our Utter Depravity 2010″ conventions. We need to celebrate our strong affiliation with all Christian believers, but we (and I mean myself here) get really bummed out when the Eagles fall apart in the Wild Card round of the playoffs. What really defines us? What is our true affiliation and identification from day to day?
Believe it or not, those thoughts are addressed in a coming essay that starts out as a primer on biological taxonomy. Understandably, you may not see the connection just yet, but stay tuned, as later in the week I’ll post my January ’10 essay. It’s a solid primer on the “Biblical Classification of Life” concepts that I developed in a book of the same name ten years ago. You may or may not be fascinated with the biological side of the essay–tweaking how we think about the way creatures are grouped–but if you stick with it you’ll not only get the primer, but some strong encouragement about who you are.
And if you are NOT a believer in Christ as your Lord and Savior, then maybe you’ll see the great affiliation that you are yet missing.
God bless. Back later in the week…
- Chard
THE BREATH OF LIFE, Part II
CELLULAR RESPIRATION
The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life. – Elihu, in Job 33:4
In the first part of this “Breath of Life” article, I discussed the importance of spirit (ruwach) as both the material and non-material animation of many living things. I also considered the idea of being spiritual (pneumatikos) as not so much about being pious as about really living—being animated as God intended. In this continuation, I want to have a look at the full journey of oxygen—that vital constituent in the breath of life—from the air to the body’s cells. And, of course, I hope to make analogous application for our lives.
Though we likely think of breathing as primarily a lung activity, this is only its beginning. One might break it down like this: Oxygen must be brought into the lungs, then into the blood, delivered to the cells, and then effectively used by those cells.
Firstly, we consider getting the oxygen into the lungs, or “pulmonary ventilation.” A typical adult male has a relaxed lung volume (“Functional Residual Capacity,” FRC) of about 2300mL. The lungs, however, can be squeezed to force out about 1100mL of additional air (“Expiratory Reserve Volume,” ERV). That leaves a minimum size (after maximum exhalation) of 1200mL, the “Residual Volume” (RV). Above the relaxed state, a normal inhaled breath has a “Tidal Volume” (TV) of 500mL. Yet, just as one can forcefully exhale, one can forcefully inhale, such as during exercise, a big sigh, or in preparation for being really loud. This forced-in volume is 3000mL above a normal breath. So, adding up everything, it goes like this: Forced inhalation (IRV, 3000mL) plus regular inhalation/exhalation (TV, 500mL) plus forced exhalation (ERV, 1100mL) equals 4600mL for full-on breathing, or about 1.2 gallons at a time, if one is really huffing it! Including the minimium size (RV, 1200mL), that’s a TLC (not “Tender Loving Care”, but “Total Lung Capacity”) of 5800mL, or about 1½ gallons.
All this, of course, is to bring oxygen into and out of the lungs, where it can flow among blood capillaries (porous vessels, like mini soaker hoses) that are masterfully weaved in the many-folded alveoli. This is known as gas exchange, because oxygen (O2) is being traded for carbon dioxide (CO2). Yet it is a common misunderstanding that we simply breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, and though breathing is not complicated, it is neither that mathematically simple. Seventy-eight percent of air is nitrogen gas, and about 1% is argon, both of which just go in and out. Only the 21% of air made up of oxygen has opportunity to diffuse into the blood. And of that, only about 25%, or 5.3% of the total air, actually diffuses. (This is why rescue breathing can work: If all we exhaled was carbon dioxide, rescue breathing would suffocate its intended rescuee! Yet exhaled air has still three-fourths of the original oxygen.) As for the carbon dioxide, inhaled air has almost none of it, while exhaled air has a concentration of about 4.5%. Thus, it is a gas exchange, out of total air volume, of 5.3% oxygen for 4.5% carbon dioxide. As would be expected, the amount
of oxygen making it into the blood is a function not only of breathing volume and rate, but also the health of the lungs’ alveoli; unhealthy lungs will perform below the 25% rate of diffusion.
The third step is the delivery of oxygen to cells via the bloodstream. Though we might hear of the famed lung capacity of the Nepali Sherpa, or of a great endurance athlete, it is not lung capacity alone that makes for their great abilities. Any oxygen diffused into the blood at the lungs must yet travel to the cells where it is needed. This requires “cardiac output,” which is the product of the heart’s stroke volume and the heart rate. An average healthy male can move about five liters of blood per minute while at rest, and up to sixteen liters during intense activity. A trained athlete moves slightly more blood at rest, yet close to twenty liters per minute during competition! This is especially impressive when one recognizes that there are only about five liters of blood to move at all. Thus it is aptly called “circulation”! Interestingly, the engineered method of oxygen transport is to bind each four oxygen molecules to four iron atoms in a massive macromolecule known as hemoglobin. The molecule itself is over 500 times the weight of the oxygen atoms it carries!
Clearly, the more blood that is moved, the more oxygen delivered. And yet it will only be delivered to where it is effectively used. So, fourthly, cells must develop the mechanisms to burn fuel using oxygen. When something is lit on fire—“combustion”—fuel and oxygen produce heat, carbon dioxide, and water. Yet when a cell “burns,” the process is far more complex, and is known as “aerobic cellular respiration.” Greatly simplified here: fuel (sugars) with oxygen produces heat, carbon dioxide, and water (as with combustion), yet additionally, motion, and energy for maintenance and growth.
The capacity of steps three and four together are known as the “VO2 max,” typically expressed in milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of body mass, per minute. The average male can deliver and 
use 45mL per kg per minute. For a 165-lb male, this means that about 3400mL of oxygen can be delivered to the body per minute. If a typical male breathes deeply a rapid rate of, say, thirty breaths per minute, that can supply about 5500mL of actual diffusible oxygen…well above what the body can even use! Thus, the amount of oxygen getting into the lungs is only as good as the amount that can be scurried out of there by fast-moving blood in amazing networks of vessels. Furthermore, this amount is only as good as that which can be effectively employed by the cells’ powerhouses, while still maintaining the proper cell environment. So if you’re short of breath, it’s likely that you should blame your cells first, not your lungs.
Our cells can, however, burn fuel without oxygen—“anaerobic cellular respiration”—but only for a time, and we feel the burn as this forces cells into a painful acidic state that must be reversed. It is “matter over mind” at this point, until time and oxygen get things back to normal.
So, to summarize, the full extent of breathing involves:
Pulmonary Ventilation (bringing oxygen into the body)
…product of Vital Capacity x Respiratory Rate
Gas Exchange (bringing oxygen into the blood)
…requiring healthy alveoli, red blood cells, and hemoglobin
Circulation (delivering oxygen to the cells)
…product of Heart Stroke Volume x Heart Rate
Aerobic Cellular Respiration (using oxygen in the cells)
…a complex process employing mitochondrion and acid removal
What can we make of all this? Firstly, we see the biblical wisdom of the statement “The life [nephesh, or soul] is in the blood” (Leviticus 17:11,14; Deuteronomy 12:23). Long before we had the scientific knowledge to put this together, before closed circulation was understood, and while bloodletting was still practiced as a therapy, the Scriptures stated that what animates us is in the blood.
Secondly, we can extract deeper application from the command to “be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18), or the idea that “the Spirit searches all things, yes the deep things of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10), or that “the spirit of a man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all the inner depths of his heart” (Proverbs 20:27). The spirit, both in its material and nonmaterial sense (recall from part I of this article that these are practically inseparable), is to be penetrating and pervasive. God wants his Spirit activated in one’s entire being, just as oxygen finds its way to all of a person’s trillions of cells. God desires “truth in the inner parts” (Psalm 51:6), and what better way than to be “strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man” (Ephesians 3:16)?
How are we so infused by God’s Spirit? If we compare this to the full process of breathing and aerobic conditioning, we see that being filled with the Spirit is not merely about a well-intentioned occasional effort, but about consistently exercising our spiritual capacity. The more we live and breathe in Christ’s Spirit, and the more we train a spiritual heart (that is, doing works from the right motives), the greater our spiritual “VO2 max.” Perhaps the adaptive effect of increased blood vessels and mitochondrion through aerobic conditioning can be paralleled to our spiritual growth. “For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come” (1 Timothy 4:8). A fleshly Christian seeking occasionally to do God’s work in a deeper way is like a couch potato trying to complete a distance runner’s interval workout. Ironically, though Christ’s Spirit is plentiful, we may find ourselves gasping for Him, not getting enough; we may “bonk” spiritually simply because we haven’t persevered previously. Being filled with the Spirit is a long-term training objective—a state realized certainly by God’s grace, but not without our submission to an ongoing regimen.
To be animated in the life that God desires for us—to be godly—we must breathe within. And to do so, we must do so consistently and increasingly. We cannot be “anaerobic Christians” for any meaningful stretch of time. Yet patient spiritual training makes even day-to-day “breathing” less laborious, and makes us more effective partakers and participants in His spiritual work. “Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever” (1 Corinthians 9:24-25).
© 2009 Chard Berndt.
All Scriptures NKJV.
Last essay of 2009 almost up…
“The Breath of Life, Part II” is just around the corner. I hope you all will be motivated to “breathe within”, both in your physical and spiritual health. Back to you tomorrow or Wednesday.
THE BREATH OF LIFE, Part I
ANIMATION
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 being. – Genesis 2:7
What is life? Biologists answer this questions via a list of common characteristics: Living things are made up of units called cells / Living things reproduce / Living things are based on a universal genetic code / Living things grow and develop / Living things obtain and use materials and energy / Living things respond to their environment / Living things maintain a stable internal environment / Taken as a group, living things change over time (list courtesy of Biology by Miller and Levine: Prentice-Hall, 2002).
Life is truly remarkable. Just the machinery alone—the chemistry, the organization of systems, the myriad of structures and their functions—that alone should make one marvel. And yet beyond this, we should also consider the animation of organisms, and nonmaterial aspects such as consciousness and volition.
The animation of living things—the life in life—is a profound gift. Consider this: Naturalistic scientists go to great lengths just to explain how the proteins and DNA instructions necessary for the first living thing could have formed spontaneously. And they furthermore lack a convincing explanation for how these, if fortuitously appearing, could then assemble to make that first organism. Yet if all that could come together fortuitously in the design of a living organism, would it come to life? Consider this: a recently deceased creature (for the sake of argument, suppose a dog that perished by suffocation) has, at that moment, all the intricate physical organization for life. Think of it like the bodies in Ezekiel’s vision: “Indeed, as I looked, the sinews and the flesh came upon them, and the skin covered them over; but there was no breath in them…So I prophesied as He commanded me, and breath came into them, and they lived, and stood upon their feet, an exceedingly great army” (37:8,10). So try to jump-start the canine, wake it up, resuscitate it; it just doesn’t work. Why not? Because it is no longer animated. Evidently, a nonmaterial attribute of that dog has departed. Just ask the sad owner, who speaks the truth when she says that Rover is “gone.”
The nonmaterial is imparted in varying degrees to various kinds of life. Some initiate no movement, yet interact energetically with their environment, producing food from light and maintaining their own internal environment. Others acquire nourishment from outside sources, with varying methods of locomotion. Still others interact communally, communicating and responding accordingly. Adding to this, others may even show emotion and self-awareness. And furthermore, humans reflect and find meaning, create works of art, pursue unique accomplishments, and actively foster individuality.
These various states of animation are elucidated in a variety of biblical labels for “life.” Biblically, for example, vegetation is never regarded as “living,” despite showing the eight biological characteristics above. So in the following, I would like to walk through some significant “life” vocabulary in Scripture, and spend a bit more time on the words that can make strong devotional application for us.
First, we look at the word translated as “being” in Genesis 2:7 above. The Hebrew word is nephesh, used 753 times in the Old Testament and usually translated “soul” in the NKJV and KJV. It is frequently used of non-human life, and thus in this sense we cannot say that only humans have “souls.” A nephesh is a unique living individual, created on Day 5 or Day 6 of Creation, and any individual offspring thereof. There are nephesh kinds in water, sky, and land, and humans are nephesh creatures of our own kind. The New Testament parallel to nephesh is the Greek psuche (“psoo-kay”). These general but important nouns have their adjectival counterparts: chay (“kha-ee”) in Hebrew is usually “living,” and the Greek word for “living” is the more familiar bios. Of importance here is that the “soul” in typical biblical use is not exclusively the nonmaterial self, distinct from the physical body. The soul, rather, is the whole of the individual. For example, we might rightly say “she is a kind soul,” (not “she has a kind soul”) referring not only to the personality, but the person. So it is not that we have souls, it is that we are souls, as are all living creatures.
Another important pair of biblical “life” words is the Hebrew word ruwach (“roo-ach”) and Greek word pneuma (“pnoo-ma”), usually translated “spirit”, but also “wind” or “breath.” This is not so much a type of soul, or component of a person,as it is the animation of that soul, both in creating and sustaining it. Psalm 104:28-30 illustrates this:
…What You give them they gather in; You open Your hand, they are filled with good. You hide Your face, they are troubled; You take away their breath [ruwach], they die and return to their dust. You send forth Your Spirit [ruwach], they are created; And You renew the face of the earth.
The animation that brings life is also what sustains it, and for many creatures this is “spirit.” Once again, we cannot say that “spirit” is unique to human life in this sense. Now, we know today that spirit or “wind” or “breat
h” is life-giving because it contains many little particles, known as oxygen molecules (O2). Virtually all kinds of creatures need this in some form. Some must acquire it passively (such as earthworms or some amphibians), others through the movement of water over gills (such as other amphibians, fish, and crustaceans), others through small structures known as trachea (such as insects and spiders), and still others, such as birds, reptiles, and “mammals” use larger chambers known as lungs. It is not clear exactly what degree of “breath” constitutes the minimum for ruwach life, yet Genesis 7:14-15 indicates that all manner of land and sky creatures were brought onto Noah’s ark, and that these all had the “breath [ruwach] of life.” So it is more inclusive than many commentators seem to indicate. (For one reason, they may not realize that the word often translated as “bird” [owph] in this passage is also used of insects in other Old Testament passages.)
Now this is where the material/nonmaterial overlap becomes interesting, because while the “spirit” is also “wind,” and the breath of life is very much about oxygen, a material substance, we realize that oxygen alone does not animate. CPR may “revive” a dying person, but it does nothing for the dead person. And when we read of “spirit” in biblical context we see that it also concerns the nonmaterial, and even demonic animation (see Luke 4:33, 8:29, and 9:42). We read that “God is spirit [pneuma]” (John 4:24), and yet this does not indicate some pantheistic notion that God is restricted to the movement of air. Even in the Creation account’s prelude “the Spirit [ruwach] of God was hovering over the face of the waters”—we encounter God’s creative power in a sort of fluttering wind even before the existence of light or atmosphere. Indeed, the adjectival counterpart to pneuma in the New Testament is pneumatikos, or “spiritual,” and yet not all living, breathing persons are regarded as such.
So how is this reconciled? I suggest that we regard spirituality not as exceptional, or exclusively nonmaterial, but rather as God’s desired norm for ruwach-animated souls. We should not force unspiritual/spiritual into the material/nonmaterial dichotomy. God originally created everything good, and all that which is animated by spirit is to be, by extension, spiritual. When Paul quoted the words of a contemporary poet to the Athenians, “In Him we live and move and have our being…” (Acts 17:28), he was not speaking to believers. In a broken creation, however, life is animated deficiently and thus“unspiritual” in a sense, or not really living. Thus when we receive God’s Spirit, we do not so much get something, but we get back something we were supposed to have all along—abundant life. God has a particular New Testament label for this type of life, typically reserved for those who are in the Spirit of God: It is the Greek word zoe (“dzo-ay”). “The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life [zoe], and that they may have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). This word is used 133 times in the New Testament, and we might miss its impact because it is simply translated “life” along with numerous other words of lesser or more general meaning. So in a very literal sense, the obedient disciple of Christ is animated beyond that of the unbeliever, or even beyond the carnal (sarkikos, or “fleshly”) believer. How? Just by living and breathing! For the disciple, every breath is spiritual, both in material and nonmaterial ways. For nonhuman creatures, on the other hand, full “spirituality” is yet deferred: “For the earnest expectation of the creation [ktisis, literally “creature”] eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God…because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Romans 8:19, 21).
Of course, the reason that human spirituality is so central in the discussion of life is because human life is unique. Granted, all creatures are living souls (nephesh, psuche), and many are animated by spirit (ruwach, pneuma), yet humans, created separately and lastly after the land animals on Day 6, are made in the “image of God,” a life attribute shared by no other kind, even the angels. The impartation of our first breath in Adam is detailed in Genesis 2:7, a vivid picture not given for other creatures. Furthermore, although ruwach and pneuma are used of our animation elsewhere in the Bible, in the Genesis account the word neshamah is uniquely used. In its 17 uses in the Old Testament, it is a more forceful and specified word than ruwach, translated “breath” or “blast.” So we must not see our animation simply as existence, but rather as inspiration, and though some mode of “spirituality” applies to all ruwach-animated life, it is human spirituality that is, most literally, at the crux.
In breaking down the varying modes of “life” in Scripture, we should see how precious are all living things as possessors of God’s great animating presence, both in their very existence and in their sustenance. Yet all the more we should desire to be spiritual, to thus be animated in the fullness of the life we breathe as humans, as believers, and as Spirit-led ones. Our Creator in our lives is, quite literally, a breath of fresh air.
© 2009 Chard Berndt.
All Scriptures NKJV unless indicated otherwise.
November essay is first in two installments
Readers,
I’ve explored a bit previously about the Holy Spirit as the “water of life” (July’s essay) and got to thinking that the images of water, wind, and fire are all strong in the Bible regarding the Holy Spirit. So I thought about making that a three-essay collection on the Holy Spirit using these three illustrations. Yet when I studied the nature of “life” in the Bible years ago while writing Biblical Classification of Life, I encountered the importance of “spirit” and “wind” not only in the sense of the Holy Spirit, but in the animation of life itself. So, I decided that it was time for a bit of an overview on the topic of spirit in general. This month’s essay will explore the concept of animation–”the life in life”–and next month I will delve a bit deeper into how it is that we breathe, both physiologically and spiritually.
Be patient with some of the biblical vocabulary in this essay. Terms like “soul” and “spirit” are thrown around a lot, and often have common understandings in the church that are not biblically accurate. I don’t know how well I’ve drawn out the meanings and their applications, but I know that when I did my first major studies on this topic years ago, it really helped me to move away from a secular/sacred dichotomy, and begin to see my whole life as Christ’s, and be less compartmentalized in my walk of faith. So I hope that maybe you’ll get something of that out of this.
SIGHT UNSEEN
PERCEIVING THE NONMATERIAL
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. – 2 Corinthians 4:8, NIV
We rely heavily on our eyes to observe and understand the world around us—so much so that we have made see synonymous with understand. For example, we might say “That’s not how I see it!” or “Don’t you see…?” Yet seeing with the eyes is not the only way to know reality; in fact, much can be “seen” best without eyes!
“How do scientists know that the earth’s core has a liquid layer?” “How did they measure the mass of Jupiter?” “How do we know that DNA controls heredity?” These questions might come from a sassy teenager in science class, but they are at the heart of an important query…how do we know what we know? This is so important in fact that it is its own branch of philosophy, known as “epistemology.”
What We Cannot See
One reason we don’t understand some realities is because they are too vast. As the saying goes, we “can’t see the forest for the trees.” We are in the front row of a huge movie theatre, and we can’t back up far enough to get the full screen in view. By contrast, “From heaven the Lord looks down and sees all mankind; from his dwelling place he watches all who live on earth—“ (Psalm 33:13, NIV). This is remarkable especially considering that we live on a spherical surface! This vastness includes complexity (ideas and concepts that are too sophisticated to consider without breaking them down), the passage of time (our memories are limited in “seeing” what has transpired as a whole), and physical size itself. We are limited in both depth and breadth of vision. And if we could see all time, space, and matter simultaneously, what could our minds even comprehend of that?
Other realities are too minute to understand. Though scientists have effectively modeled atoms, they are still never observed directly. Ironically, one thing that is well-defined about atoms is our limitation in observing them, a limitation that Heisenberg defined with clarity. Atomic behavior, to be explained within our models, requires a barrage of 
imagined yet-smaller particles, with strange names such as “quarks,” “muons,” “tauons,” “mesons,” “bosons,” and yes, even ones that are actually called “strange.” In fact, to really understand the full scope of vastness, one would have to see both vast and miniscule together—to physically and intellectually comprehend in mega-high resolution. But instead of such synthesis, we are restricted to analysis. When we further consider ongoing, rapid, small-scale biological processes, we realize that at any scale, we simply do not see it all.
In addition to the scope and scale of things, we also lack understanding because much is hidden. What color is a blue chair in the dark? Is it still a blue chair at all? To see a thing, it must be enlightened, or we might say further that we must be enlightened. This is true not only of matter, but of the nonmaterial. We, by nature, can easily hide our thoughts and feelings. God does the same, out of our necessity and limitation. “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no-one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:11, NIV). There exist nonmaterial truths that some do not grasp, “whose minds the god of this age [Satan] has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them” (2 Corinthians 4:4). And yet, interestingly, God instead finds a right purpose in selectively concealing truth: “At that time Jesus answered and said, ‘I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.’” (Matthew 11:25-26). Indeed, God even finds occasion to hide Himself (Hosea 5:6, Isaiah 45:15).
Perhaps in a broader sense, our limitations in knowing and understanding come from our limitation in experience. We have a brief amount of earthly time, both chronos (linear passage of time) and kairos (opportunity). Even our physical seeing requires experience. Consider Jesus’ remarkable healing of the man born blind (Mark 8:22-25). Initially, Jesus healed his physical sight, yet lacking experience to interpret his vision, the man declared that persons looked “like trees walking around.” Again, rather than this being a faulty healing, I suspect that it was a complete physical healing, and that the man’s true sight (optic nerve processing and neural connections, and more importantly, interpretation) would have eventually improved or even become complete. Yet Jesus proceeded to touch the man’s eyes once again, and “he was restored and saw everyone clearly.” The miracle’s part two was as miraculous as part one, if not more so; it effectively accelerated the man’s experience in seeing.
What We Will Not See
Of course, seeing goes beyond physical mechanics or even experiential, mental, and intellectual capacity. Seeing is an act of the will. We look beyond the faults of those we love and admire. We follow the cues of a clever magician, and do not see his sleight of hand. We will not see what we do not expect to, nor what we do not want to. And along with this, we will often see what we expect to and want to. Consider the prevailing “eyeglasses” of many intellectuals: We behold in the living creation clear discontinuities among the created kinds, with humankind superior not by degree, but by distinction. Yet the high priests of academia see a common ancestry for all, and imagine links that do not exist, or sophisticated historical schemes in buried fossils and rock layers.
Many do not see God. By this I do not mean to directly behold God in His glory, for as Moses was told “no man shall see Me, and live” (Exodus 33:20). I mean that many do not see the very idea of God—that a transcendent One exists. This is truly remarkable, and explicable only in one way: that they do in fact see God, but actively “became vain in their imaginations…” (Romans 1:21, KJV) and “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (1:18). Rebellion makes a people blind (see Ezekiel 12:2).
We can suppress the truth about ourselves as well: our mistakes, shortcomings, and offenses. Consider how Nathan had to trick David with a story (2 Samuel 12) to get him to see his acts of adultery and murder. Only after drawing David into his allegory could he declare “you are the man!” (v. 7). David, masterfully trapped by his own words concerning this horrible man (who represented himself), could suddenly see the obvious.
What We Can See
In spite of all these limitations, both natural and self-imposed, there is much we can see. Psalm 94:9 reminds us that God created the seeing eye and the hearing ear. Humans are created in the image of God, which includes great facility and perception of both material and nonmaterial realities. We recognize tension in a room, a voice on the phone, and have remarkable adaptability in our experiential learning. Even with academic learning aside, we know much more than we could ever articulate!
Spiritually, we are given great access to truth: “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32), “But when he, the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth…” (John 16:13). First Corinthians 12:9 reminds us that God’s Spirit reveals to us that which our natural faculties cannot perceive. In fact, the irony is that perhaps we see best when we recognize our limitations and allow God to illuminate matters, rather than to cast our own dim light upon them. If we look again at the previously mentioned portion of Matthew 11, we see that what is hidden to the wise and prudent (which is to say, the proud and self-sufficient), is revealed to “babes” (the humble and dependent).
A key to such perception is prayer. Paul understood this when he prayed that Ephesian believers would comprehend the greatness of God’s love (Ephesians 3:14-19). And again in Colossians 1:9-10, Paul prays with his fellow workers that believers “may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding… increasing in the knowledge of God.”
A remarkable account of prayer for perception—and for blindness as well—comes to us in 2 Kings 6:8-23. Elisha’s servant was intimidated by the military depth of the Syrian army surrounding Dothan. So Elisha prayed three times: firstly that the Lord would open his servant’s eyes to the surrounding spiritual army—“the mountain full of horses and chariots of fire” (v. 17). Secondly, Elisha prayed for the Syrians to be struck with blindness, that that he might deceive them and lead them out into Samaria in search of him. And thirdly, that they would again see their captors and participate in what turned out to be a remarkably gracious and diplomatically effective captivity feast. Thus prayer for perception, both of the material and nonmaterial, played out importantly.
What We Will See
As an extension of what we can potentially see now, we must consider how our perception will be transformed in the resurrection life to come. Paul compares our present vision to seeing “in a mirror, dimly”, and our future vision to the clarity of how God now sees us: face-to-face, perfectly (1 Corinthians 13:12). The mirror is an interesting picture, as it suggests that our perception is less than objective, but strongly influenced by how we see ourselves.
As such, the transformation of our vision will result from our very own transformation, effected by seeing the ultimate reference for reality and truth: Christ Himself: “Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” (1 John 3:2). Although the beatitude “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall God” (Matthew 5:8) has a degree of fulfillment on this side of heaven, the fullness of this promise yet waits.
What we cannot see should prod us toward humility, and a desire to understand what we can and ought. And in particular, it should motivate us to willfully pursue and perceive the “substance” and “evidence” (see Hebrews 11:1) of the greater realities, realized through faith: the unseen things. As our opening verse states profoundly, much of what is obvious will pass away in time. The weightier matters, paradoxically, are the nonmaterial, unconfined to this physical world. Our Bibles, and the ink on their pages, will someday be annihilated, but not what is revealed through them: “The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8).
[The following table compares selected biblical vocabulary concerning this month's essay]
© 2009 Chard Berndt.
All Scriptures NKJV unless indicated otherwise.
October essay up
Hello blog readers! My new essay, “Sight Unseen,” is now up. Hope you find it informational, inspirational, and enjoyable (or I suppose any one of those will do!). Don’t be shy about posting a comment.
Happy autumn,
Chard
In the works for October
Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. We rely heavily on sight for our perception of the world, yet God charges us to “fix our eyes on the things that are unseen”. In “Sight Unseen” I’ll be exploring the concepts of perspective and perception. Looking at such limitations wrongly might play into the hand of today’s pluralists (who say that truth can’t be known, and that truth-claims are simply personal preferences). But I think we’ll find that there is more to this than meets the eye.
Give me another week or two and the October post will be up.
THE BABEL DISPERSION
ETHNICITY AND THE GOSPEL
And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us… - Acts 17:26-27
In addition to the Great Flood (Genesis 6-8), the Babel dispersion (Genesis 11) is an oft overlooked epic overhaul of humanity. Not merely a story about a tower, this is an historical account of how God thwarted the world’s proud attempt to make a name for itself (11:4) apart from Him. As estimated by the late creationist writer Henry M. Morris, the “world” at this time entailed a five-generation post-
Flood population of around 800-1000 persons among 70 families. They had conserved a single language (11:1) passed down through Noah’s family. Notably, in a desire to settle in the plain of Shinar, they violated God’s original charge to mankind: “fill the earth” (Genesis 1:28). Their tower “whose top is in the heavens” (11:4) was simply a high tower (possibly of the ziggurat type, as shown at left), surpassing any before, as suggested by the previous verse’s reference to improved building technology. It may have been intended as an astronomical observatory, as a prominent landmark for distant travelers, or even as a high place of pagan ritual worship. It is unlikely the tower was an attempt to reach God, as suggested by the well-intended Sunday school metaphor for works-righteousness.
Before I analyze the effects of this historical scattering, I should comment on one component of its cause: mankind’s remarkable technological capacity. God, disappointed in human pride and disregard for Him, declared that, with their unified communication and intent, “nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them” (11:6). In today’s Christian culture, often reducing God to a self-help program, this might be a shocker: nothing is impossible for a cooperative, humanistic, godless society! So, rather than to assume that godless activities will fail, we should instead concern ourselves that they will succeed, and that the greater need for reconciliation and regeneration with the Creator will be forgotten.
Now, to analyze the effects of the Babel dispersion: One component of this great dispersion was God’s origination of diverse languages. “Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech” (11:7). This is not diversity in the sense of gradual changes or dialects, but in entirely novel and discrete proto-languages, through God’s direct action. Though languages today may be classified in the hundreds, these can be further clustered into ten to twelve proto-languages. This suggests that the ensuing dispersion produced that same number of people groups: perhaps ten to twelve.
The modern day interpretation of language formation is a strong analog to today’s interpretation of biodiversity. Evolutionists observe ongoing diversification and variation among living things, and assume that present population changes are sufficient to account for the origins of the populations 
themselves. This despite the fact that On the Origin of Species… by Charles Darwin never truly addressed that origin, as is evidenced by the dotted lines (to the imagined common ancestor) in Darwin’s only illustration in that work. Similarly, those who interpret the development of language from an evolutionary point of view assume that all languages naturally emerged from a common ancestral language, rather than having their source in a supernatural event, such as the Babel dispersion.
Another component of this great dispersion was God’s geographical scattering of humanity. “So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city” (11:8). At one level, it is noted that God successfully thwarted the intended city, tower, and great civilization. Yet much can be inferred from this, along with the hindsight we now have. Unique geographical habitations necessitate unique ways of life, diets, clothing, customs, and so on. One might think of the language as the guarantor of the scattering, such that the scattering might ensure not only failure in their endeavor, but a new anthropological framework to instead foster God’s intentions. More on that later.
Since man’s great technological potential in part stirred up this event, it is only fitting to assess how God’s actions affected such technology. People groups could still communicate within their new languages, so what was truly the setback? Consider the numbers involved here; if 800-1000 persons are scattered into, say, twelve emigrations, each settled population might have only 75 persons. It is reasonable to think that 75 persons might possess the cumulative knowledge, skills, and ability to eventually rebuild a functioning society. Yet that number cannot nearly build at the same scale and rate, and by comparison, its sophistication would certainly be set back. We see today that massively sophisticated technology is commandeered not by renaissance men, or generalists, but by the complex interaction and contribution of many specialists. The world had become a connected “web” much as it is today, yet God returned it to a series of isolated communities, technology included. This, by the way, accounts for the true “stone age” concept: not a widespread, long-duration, evolutionary phase in “primitive” forms of man, but rather a localized, relatively rapid reconstruction among the technologically less-adept people groups.
As a side note, this might make us wonder what God now has in store for humanity. In many ways, we are figuratively in the “plain of Shinar” today, making a name for ourselves, gathered together in one “place” (the Internet, or consider the grid that powers it), building towers, manipulating reproduction, re-inventing materials at the microscopic level, tapping into the inherent nuclear power of matter, and so on. Nothing seems impossible, but where is God in all of it? It is not fanciful to see another Babel-type episode playing a part in the unfolding of the events depicted in Revelation. And it is understandable that worldwide economic markets and governing bodies are of great concern to the biblical thinker. Not all alarm-sounding is paranoia.
Yet another component of this dispersion, closely tied to the geographical scattering, is the isolation of gene pools. A major principle in population genetics suggests that allele frequency (that is, the relative amount of variation in each of our 20,000-plus genes within a population) remains relatively unchanged with no disturbing influence. Those “disturbing influences” include limited population size, non-random mating, and selection pressure for certain traits, all of which resulted from the geographical scattering. Even if the scattered people groups had the same allele frequencies (which is unlikely since the scattering was purposefully initiated), particular traits would emerge or lessen. In other words, within a few generations, these dozen or so people groups became physically different from each other. This is understood as “adaptive radiation”, exemplified by the amazingly diverse expression of lemur populations on Madagascar. This is not limited to obvious traits such as the darkness of skin, but includes metabolism, muscle composition, blood type, lung capacity, disease propensity, and on and on. Some traits depend only on one gene, or allele pair, where as others depend on several genes; yet with up to 25,000 genes estimated, there are likely thousands of traits (though there is no consensus on the actual number).
So, as a composite effect of the above components—language, geography, technology, and genetics—we have what is properly known today as ethnicity. Ethnicity involves a particular set of characteristics, including way of life, custom, diet, clothing, technology, language, and genetic makeup. Ethnicity may ha
ve been discernable in the post-Creation/pre-Flood world (though unlikely due to great variation, or heterozygosis, in early mankind). Likewise, it may have emerged in the post-Flood/pre-Babel world (due to a more homozygous human restart and a greater range of geographic and ecological extremes). Yet for certain it at least re-originated after Babel, under the physical influence of a post-Flood environment and post-Flood genetics, intensified by new languages and locations.
Thus, God “created” ethnicity (though it emerged after the creation event itself), not races. There is one human race, and within it, many ethnic groups descended from the proto-ethnic groups of the Babel dispersion. Because some of these later ethnic groups have degenerated (literally) into static allele frequencies, we tend to associate certain traits (usually visual ones) together, and label them as “races.” But the large-scale classification of humans (putting humans into just a handful of racial groups) is completely artificial, superficial, and inaccurate. For example, if one were to line up all living humans from light-skinned to jet-black-skinned, the transition would be gradual—light dark persons, dark light persons, olive, bronze, every value on the spectrum. One wouldn’t be able to divide the lineup. (And that’s not considering other characteristics that differ in skin, such as thickness, texture, etc.) Note in the figure to the left how much variation in melanin (a skin color factor) exists within populations of several “racial” sub-groups.
I think that in Adam’s time, one would be hard pressed to even define an ethnic group, let alone a race. Imagine traits in mosaic rather than clustered together: thick lips with light skin, straight hair with dark skin, wide-eyed persons with thick, yellow skin. Why, even today we have the speedy dark-skinned line (Ivory Coast, West Africa), and the endurance-oriented dark-skinned line (Kenya, East Africa). Meanwhile the Moroccans (North Africa) take the middle-distances, and the USA’s light-skinned Jeremy Wariner is a world-leader the 400 meters, a pretty fast race. (Forgive the track and field references.) The point is this: Ethnicity today is the extrapolation of the Babel dispersion, and such a diverse expression of traits, though often clustered in some populations, should not be forced into a “race” concept.
All that having been discussed, I return to the purpose of God’s initiation of languages and scattering of humanity in the Babel dispersion. The world attempted to gather, rather than spread, and make a name for itself, rather than to acknowledge God. God did not oppose their technological success just to oppose it, but rather to foster a framework in which mankind would again seek Him. This reality is revealed in Paul’s speech in Athens, excerpted from Acts 17 above. Every nation (ethnos) of men came from one blood (the human race), their times (kairos, or opportunities) and places appointed, that they might seek Him, “grope” for Him (NIV, “reach out”), and find Him! In what is known as the “Great Commission” (Matthew 28:19), Jesus charged the disciples (and by extension, today’s church) to go into every ethnos. He might have emphasized geographical or political regions, but he chose to target ethnic groups. This is the strategy. God fosters the hunger and delivers the Good News in this context.
Perhaps the next time you are reminded of the great ethnic diversity encompassing this planet, or when a concept of “race” stirs confusion and controversy, remember that “the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built” (11:5), and the rest is history—“His story,” of which you are an important part, in re-introducing the world to its Creator.
All Scriptures NKJV
©2009 Chard Berndt