Joshua Moritz - On Human Uniqueness

[John Bauer]

Both humans and animals are described as “living souls/living beings” (nephesh), and the word used here implies a certain kinship (for animals, see Gen. 1:20, 1:30, 2:19, 9:4 and for humans, see Gen. 2:7, 9:5, 12:5). The word “spirit” (neshama) is also used in reference to both humans and animals (Gen. 6:17, 7:22). Other biblical Hebrew terms also reflect this similarity between humans and animals. The phrase “spirit of life” (ruach hayyim) is used for both animals and humans without distinction (for animals see Gen. 1:20–24, 2:19, 9:10, 15; for humans, see Gen. 2:7, 9:5). The word “flesh” (basar) includes both humans and animals. The expression “all flesh” (kol basar) literally means “all living creatures, animal as well as human.” In Scripture, there is only one designation that humans unequivocally have and that animals do not: humans, unlike animals, are said to be created “as the image and likeness of God” (imago Dei).

Joshua M. Moritz, “God’s Creation Through Evolution and the Language of Scripture,” Theology and Science 11 (2013): 6.

 

[Josheb]

In Scripture, there is only one designation that humans unequivocally have and that animals do not: humans, unlike animals, are said to be created “as the image and likeness of God” (imago Dei).

Joshua M. Moritz, “God’s Creation Through Evolution and the Language of Scripture,” Theology and Science 11 (2013): 6.

Exactly.

We might, therefore reasonably ask, "Does the image of God make an 'animal' something other than an 'animal'?" The word "animal" comes from the Latin animalis, which means "having soul." Sometimes a dictionary or lexicon will say "having breath or soul," but the Latin word for breath is "spiritus." This leads to conflation of soul and spirit, which may or may not be accurate (since the scriptures themselves sometimes treat the two synonymously). It doesn't help that the Greek word, "pneuma," also has the same dual meaning of breath and spirit (but not soul). Personally, I doubt this would be a concern if we stuck to the Hebrew and the fact there are no such things as disembodied spirits or souls in scripture. That fact makes the question, "Are there animals in heaven?" baseless. Why wouldn't there be? The question also begs a distinction between heaven(s) and earth that may not be justified given the heavenly bestiary found in scripture . Curiously, the first mention of "animal" in our English Bibles occurs in Genesis 6 when Noah informed of God's intent to blot out humans, beasts (Heb. = behemah), creeping things (remes), and birds. Aren't creeping things ad birds also animals? The Hebrew behemah is translated as animals in some English translations. It doesn't help that the Genesis 1 creation account's first use of nephesh hayyah (living creatures) refers to creatures living in water (fish and water-living mammals like whales and porpoises) and birds of the air, NOT land-living creatures. Are humans fish or birds? Nope.

I could go on at length with other relevant information but, in the end, it boils down to the simple fact only humans are made in God's plural image (the image of "our," not "my"). Whatever else we may or may not be, we are made in God's image and, of all the living creatures having breath, we alone are made in God's image.

 

[makesends]

Both humans and animals are described as “living souls/living beings” (nephesh), and the word used here implies a certain kinship (for animals, see Gen. 1:20, 1:30, 2:19, 9:4 and for humans, see Gen. 2:7, 9:5, 12:5). The word “spirit” (neshama) is also used in reference to both humans and animals (Gen. 6:17, 7:22). Other biblical Hebrew terms also reflect this similarity between humans and animals. The phrase “spirit of life” (ruach hayyim) is used for both animals and humans without distinction (for animals see Gen. 1:20–24, 2:19, 9:10, 15; for humans, see Gen. 2:7, 9:5). The word “flesh” (basar) includes both humans and animals. The expression “all flesh” (kol basar) literally means “all living creatures, animal as well as human.” In Scripture, there is only one designation that humans unequivocally have and that animals do not: humans, unlike animals, are said to be created “as the image and likeness of God” (imago Dei).

Joshua M. Moritz, “God’s Creation Through Evolution and the Language of Scripture,” Theology and Science 11 (2013): 6.

Exactly.

We might, therefore reasonably ask, "Does the image of God make an 'animal' something other than an 'animal'?" The word "animal" comes from the Latin animalis, which means "having soul." Sometimes a dictionary or lexicon will say "having breath or soul," but the Latin word for breath is "spiritus." This leads to conflation of soul and spirit, which may or may not be accurate (since the scriptures themselves sometimes treat the two synonymously). It doesn't help that the Greek word, "pneuma," also has the same dual meaning of breath and spirit (but not soul). Personally, I doubt this would be a concern if we stuck to the Hebrew and the fact there are no such things as disembodied spirits or souls in scripture. That fact makes the question, "Are there animals in heaven?" baseless. Why wouldn't there be? The question also begs a distinction between heaven(s) and earth that may not be justified given the heavenly bestiary found in scripture . Curiously, the first mention of "animal" in our English Bibles occurs in Genesis 6 when Noah informed of God's intent to blot out humans, beasts (Heb. = behemah), creeping things (remes), and birds. Aren't creeping things ad birds also animals? The Hebrew behemah is translated as animals in some English translations. It doesn't help that the Genesis 1 creation account's first use of nephesh hayyah (living creatures) refers to creatures living in water (fish and water-living mammals like whales and porpoises) and birds of the air, NOT land-living creatures. Are humans fish or birds? Nope.

I could go on at length with other relevant information but, in the end, it boils down to the simple fact only humans are made in God's plural image (the image of "our," not "my"). Whatever else we may or may not be, we are made in God's image and, of all the living creatures having breath, we alone are made in God's image.

I'm not sure where on the list angels go, but they are certainly living creatures, if not animal. They, too, are not said to be made in the image of God. Yet, they apparently have intelligence, moral responsibility and (I think) all the other things I have heard posited as what it means to be made in the image of God.

 

[Josheb]

They, too, are not said to be made in the image of God.

Can you point me to the scripture stating that?

 

[John Bauer]

We might, therefore, reasonably ask, "Does the image of God make an ‘animal’ something other than an animal?"

I would push back on that—but just a little. It doesn’t make an entity other than an animal, but rather more than an animal.

Some scholars, like Derek Kidner and John R. W. Stott, have argued (and I am inclined to agree with them) that the image of God fundamentally defines “human being” (i.e., it is constitutive of humanity as such). In other words, apart from the image of God an entity may be an anatomically modern Homo sapiens but not a human being or Homo divinus. Biology supplies the material substrate; the image supplies the identity. This position implicitly rejects any reductionist move that treats the imago Dei as an accidental property layered onto an already complete humanity.

Critics tell me, “If ‘human being’ is not reducible to Homo sapiens, then empirical criteria cannot settle questions of humanity. This move commits you to a theologically governed ontology.” And I can only smile and reply, “Oh, thou art singing my song.” But it’s also a participatory ontology in which creaturely kinds are intelligible only in relation to God’s purposes. (Another beautiful feature of this view is that it resists both reductionism and species essentialism.)

For a fuller treatment of this idea which engages its critics, I recommend Andrew Loke, “The Genealogical Adam and Eve Model,” in Perspectives on the Historical Adam and Eve: Four Views, ed. Kenneth D. Keathley (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2024).

P.S. “Breath” is already embedded conceptually in anima, not borrowed from spiritus; it functions metonymically as the sign of life.

[To makesends:] Can you point me to the scripture stating that?

He can’t really point you to where Scripture doesn’t say something. (“They are not said to be made in the image of God.”)

 

[John Bauer]

I'm not sure where on the list angels go, but they are certainly living creatures, if not animal.

If we look to biblical predication rather than metaphysical speculation, angels are not described as animals or biological kinds. Angels are never described as being formed from the earth or any generative medium. The language of animate life in Genesis—nephesh chayyah (“living creature”)—is tied to embodied, ensouled organisms that breathe, eat, reproduce, and die. Angels are never placed in that category.

Another theological implication occurs to me: Angels are fully creatures yet lack the cruciform vocation embedded in the imago Dei. That is why Scripture can say, without embarrassment, that redeemed humanity will one day judge angels (1 Cor 6:3). Angels are glorious servants, but humans are covenantal sons.