Following the record of creation, there is a constant emphasis upon this creative word

(see verses 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28 and 29). This creative word, according to Job, is

"the Spirit of God" in creative power; according to Psa. 33: 6, it is the creative

breath of His mouth, which is also called "the Word of the Lord".

It will be seen therefore that while we believe "spirit" and "breath" to be

interchangeable, this by no means allows us to assume that "spirit" and "breath" are

synonymous in our acceptation of the words.

It may be objected by the reader, that we are departing from the title of this series,

viz., "What is Man?" but this is not so, as the establishing of the true meaning of ruach

demands a wider field of search in order to institute comparisons. There must be some

one common factor that is true both of "breath" and "spirit", which seems to be the sense

of an "invisible force". Just as "water", "bread", "fruit", etc., have their spiritual

counterparts, justified by some common factor, so breath and spirit having something in

common are both good translations of ruach. We have never yet found anyone insisting

that the "water" of life must of necessity be chemically composed of hydrogen and

oxygen, or that the "bread" of life must be made of wheaten flour. Christ Himself could

say, "My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me", using the word "meat" in exactly

the same way.

Man "became a living soul", according to Gen. 2: 7, not at the moment that he was

formed of the dust of the ground, but after some further work of creative power had been

performed. There, in Gen. 2: 7, we have discovered that it is the gift of n'shamah,

which man does not share with the brute creation. Here we shall find that ruach is a

wider term embracing all that live, whether possessing the more exclusive n'shamah of

life or not.

There is an old difficulty that is continually cropping up in new forms. Because

animals have ruach and man has ruach, the argument has been put forward that men are

no better than the brute of creation; but stay, God also has ruach. Can we dare go on

with this argument?

We shall have to be pardoned by those who appreciate this point, for the sake of those

who do not. Take the following argument: "Devon is in England; I am in England;

therefore I am in Devon." As a matter of fact these words are being written in Essex.

The fault in this argument lies in the failure to realize that the term "England" is a much

wider one than "Devon". Both "Devon" and "Essex" can be in "England" without

necessitating the conclusion, "Therefore Devon and Essex are synonymous terms".

Change the names to ruach and n'shamah, beast and man. Animals are within the sphere

of ruach; man, angels and even God Himself are within the sphere of ruach, but this

does not prove that they are all on one common level any more than the former argument

proved that Devon and Essex were the same.  We have purposely avoided the set

phraseology of logic--those who are logicians do not need it.