Creation: Miracle or Anomaly?

             It seems that Christians feel threatened by the theory of evolution along with the commonly lumped-together theories about the origins of the universe and the origins of life.  The reasoning seems to be that the Bible presents a particular story of creation and, if evolution is shown to be true, then it negates the Bible and undermines the Christian faith.  But this seems like a misguided approach and does not follow the general pattern of the Christian view of some other differences between science and faith.

             Even before science became known as science, there were key "naturalistic theories" that directly contradicted the very foundational beliefs of Christianity.  Here's one:  every person dies, and when they die, they decay into dust and they never ever come back to life!  They are gone.  Here's another one:  a human female who is a virgin can never become pregnant without being physically impregnated in some way!  It has never happened in the history of mankind and it will never happen.  These events are physical impossibilities.  In fact, these issues are so fundamental that they aren't usually explicitly taught - they are just assumed.

             Christians claim that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, died, and rose again after being dead for three days.  These claims are not just one set of a wide range of beliefs in the Christian religion.  They are not incidental to the Christian faith.  They are the central claims of the Christian faith.  These claims establish the divine nature of Jesus.  If someone rejects these claims then they cannot claim to be a Christian.  If these claims are false, Christianity is false.  These claims cannot be more fundamental and critical to Christians.

             And yet...Christians never try to attack the basic scientific claims regarding the impossibility of a virgin birth and the impossibility of rising from the dead.  Christians do not feel threatened when scientists, atheists, or anyone else, claim that these things cannot happen.  Christians are not up in arms, trying to get these principles taught in the science classes in public schools.  Why?  The answer is obvious to all:  the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are miracles.  They are supernatural events, not natural events.  In fact, the more it is shown and demonstrated that these events could never happen in a natural world, the stronger is the case for Christianity.  If these events could happen naturally, it would significantly weaken Christian faith.  It is actually important that these events be shown to be miracles - supernatural events - and not unusual but natural events.  Science is helpful to the Christian faith here because it can help to establish why these events are impossible in a purely natural world.

             Somehow, the Christian view of creation seems to have escaped classification as a miracle.  Why is that?  Actually, the basic concept of creation has been clearly demonstrated to be supernatural to some extent, based on the scientific demonstration that spontaneous generation does not occur in the natural world.  Of course, even Christians do not claim that creation is necessarily continuous to the present day.  Also, science has to uncomfortably backtrack on this issue a bit because obviously, at some point, some form of "spontaneous generation" did occur in history.  Science is stuck claiming that life only spontaneously appeared under some specific conditions in the past that have not been duplicated since.  I think it is hard for scientists not to refer to the spontaneous generation of life as a miracle - instead they have to say it is an "anomaly" - but that is not the main point here. 

             I think the reason that creation isn't typically lumped in with other miracles is that the creation of the universe by an all-powerful God does seem like a logical possible explanation of how the natural world came into being.  It is one of many possible explanations, of course, and one that science tries to avoid.  However, because it could be considered logical or rational, it seems like Christians kind of adopted the sense that the creation story of Genesis was a rational natural explanation of creation.  Unlike miracles, which depend on being classified as supernatural, and thus are never threatened by natural proofs that they could not happen, but are rather strengthened by such proofs, the Christian view of creation seems to have been placed in the "natural occurrence" category.   I think Christians liked the fact that the existence of the natural world seemed to "prove" that a Creator God must exist.  The idea was comforting.  The idea is, in fact, rational.  But that does not mean that it is natural. 

             Here's my suggested view:  Creation of the universe, starting with nothing and wrapping up the work in six days, is a miracle.  It is a supernatural event.  It might correlate well with some natural observations, but that does not negate the fact that the creation story in Genesis is, at it's very core, a description of a truly miraculous event.  In fact, the idea that God created in six days what scientists claim the natural universe would take 5 trillion days to create establishes the immeasurable creative power of God.  What God did in creation is definitely not natural!  It is a Class A-1 miracle!

             Some may be uncomfortable calling creation a miracle because they are vested in the idea that Genesis relates real human history and worry that "relegating" creation to the category of a miracle somehow negates the "realness" of it.  They worry that it somehow makes it less of an account of history and more of a fable or myth.  But that is not at all what is meant by creation being a miracle.  The four gospels are clearly meant to relate real human history, yet it is within the gospels that we find the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Recognizing an event as a miracle does not negate its historical nature.  A miracle is something that should not have ever happened based on the principles of the natural world, but did actually happen.  A fable is something that never happened but maybe could have.  The virgin birth is a miracle.  The resurrection is a miracle.  And creation is a miracle.

             Maybe, in some odd way, it would have been nice if, as science delved further and further into the age of the universe, they would have kept honing in closer and closer to exactly 6,024 years for the age of the earth and then found that the "void" was exactly two days older.  Such a finding would have "proven Christianity beyond a reasonable doubt."  But, of course, there was never a reason to think that that was going to happen.  There are plenty of ways that God could use to prove his existence beyond a reasonable doubt.  He does not avail Himself of any of them.  He leaves room for doubt.  He leaves room for choice.  He leaves room for belief.  It makes us uncomfortable as Christians because belief can be so hard sometimes.  We think it would be so easy if the belief part of Christianity was done away with.  We want to see, not believe.  We want to see the nail marks in His hands and thrust our hand into His side.  That would make everything so easy, we think!  But it is not to be so.  Not yet anyway.

             I strongly encourage Christians to see creation for what it is and was always meant to be:  a miracle.  Stop degrading this miraculous event by trying to force fit it into a naturalistic explanation.  Instead, celebrate every time science makes the idea of creation harder and harder to imagine.  All that does is demonstrate, in more and more certain terms, the omnipotence of our Creator God.  Revel in that fact that your God, the God you believe in, was born of a virgin and rose from the dead...and created the universe out of nothing, apparently in one trillionth the time it should have taken!  And He still cares about you.  That is a miracle!

19. Do animals (non-human) have souls? Do animals have spirits?

Linkage:  This is part of the study "Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit".  You should read that Introduction first.

 

Quick Answer:  No.

 

Key Scriptures:

             None really.  I looked through all 95 instances of the word <psuche> as used in the NT.  94 of the uses clearly refer to the soul of human beings.  For example, see my note on I Pet 3:20 below.  The 95^th use, found in Rev 8:9, is discussed in the Related Scriptures section and cannot be used to confidently claim that animals have souls.  Beyond that, I did not find any indication that animals have <psuche>.

             In addition, I could not find anything that references an animal having a <pneuma>.  Jesus did send the evil spirits into a herd of swine, but that is clearly presented as an unusual (miraculous) event.  Scripture is about the spiritual realm and is always about humans, not animals. 

             I Pet 3:20  “a few…eight <psuche> were saved by water” – speaking about the people saved on Noah’s ark.  Here, the human souls are clearly counted even though there were numerous animals of all kinds saved on the ark.  This verse seems to clearly distinguish the human <psuche> from the life of all of the other animals that were saved after the flood.  This is an example of how the whole tenor of scripture assumes that human beings are the only creatures with a <psuche-pneuma>.  Only humans can sin.  Jesus died only for humans.

 

Caveat:

             I thought this might be a simple question and not that important.  As it turns out, it is both difficult to answer and has broader implications on Christian beliefs than I initially imagined.  I gave a "quick answer" of no, but it may warrant further study.

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             Rev 8:9…the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had <psuche>, died.  Given that there is no other verse that references animals having souls, it is important to make sure that there is only one logical interpretation to this verse if we're going to claim that this verse means that animals have souls (or, more specifically, that fish have souls!).  However, there are at least three logical interpretations of this verse: 

1) The term "creatures" refers to animals (non-humans) and <psuche> means "soul" in the unique sense, thus implying that animals - at least sea creatures - have souls. 

2) The term "creatures" is referring to humans.

3) The term <psuche> is referring to life in general, not the "soul" in the unique sense.

 

             With respect to option #2, note first that the point of the verse is not to talk about souls;  it is talking about death and destruction in the end times.  It could be that the "creatures in the sea with <psuche>" were all "human creatures".  Especially since it seems like the word “in” could be “on”.  At any given moment, there must be a lot of human beings in or on (mostly on) the sea.  Yes, it would seem weird for John to use the word "creature" (Greek: ktisma) to mean just humans, but not completely out of the question.  That word is only used four times in the NT.  The other use of the term in Revelation, Rev. 5:13, speaks of all creatures praising God.  Even there the word could be referring to humans only, though it would seem like an odd word choice.  I think the general interpretation of the word is that it means "every created thing", but that would also include non-living things like rocks, and certainly rocks don't have souls.  But, regardless, some words are used in an unusual way in Revelation, so I don't think we can completely eliminate this option as a possible interpretation.

             I think the most likely explanation is that the word <psuche> is meant to convey the idea of "life" and not in specific reference to a soul (option #3).  The verse could be thus interpreted as saying that "things living in the sea were destroyed", which is consistent with the context of the verse.  As I have discussed elsewhere, there is some fuzziness about how terms like <psuche> and <soma> and <sarx> are used in the NT.  The question is whether the word <psuche> is used elsewhere in the NT to clearly refer to the idea of "life" rather than "soul."  I found at least one instance where this is the case:  Luke 12:22.

             Luke 12:22 shows that <psuche> is used to mean life – even physical life – in some cases.  “Take no thought for your <psuche>, what ye shall eat…”  Jesus is referring to worrying about finding physical food, so the "eating" is physical eating, which is necessary to sustain physical life.  Physical eating doesn't sustain the soul.  Therefore, at least in this verse, the term <psuche> is used to mean physical life.  I think that the term <psuche> is being used in the same manner in Rev 8:9. 

 

Discussion:

             My conclusion is that non-human animals do not have a supernatural soul.  Animals have <zoe> life, which is a physical life, but not a spiritual life.  They are not responsible for their own actions.  The presence of the <psuche-pneuma> is a distinguishing factor in human beings when compared to all other creatures in the universe.

             I'm sorry to all you dog and cat lovers out there!  However, a lack of a soul does not mean that there won't be dogs in heaven.  With respect to that issue, scripture is completely silent.  But if you need dogs or cats or butterflies in heaven in order for it to really be heaven, then I'm sure they'll be there.

             If animals did have souls, then this would present significant complications.  First, where would you draw the line as to which animals - or living things - have souls.  Most people I know, if they tend to think animals have souls, think of dogs and cats, but not frogs and bats.  And certainly not spiders and cockroaches.  Or grass and mold.  But where would you draw the line for "soul-possession"?  There is certainly nothing in scripture to guide such a dividing line.  Actually there is:  the dividing line is between humans and all other creatures of any sort.  Humans are unique, and one of the distinguishing characteristics...or maybe the fundamental distinguishing characteristic...is that humans have souls and no other creatures have souls.

             Is there room in Christianity to believe that animals sin?  It seems that the whole tenor of scripture is that only humans can sin, but I can't think of a passage that is explicit about that.  Only Adam and Eve are described as eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  The implication is that Adam and Eve were the only ones to eat from that tree.  Any attribution of moral responsibility to any creature other than humans is outside of scripture.

             What about animals showing emotions?  Certainly we tend to attribute to our pets a lot of "human emotions".  My working hypothesis is this:  if animals only have <sarx> and <zoe>, then any attribute an animal might exhibit must be the <sarx> in action, not the result of a <psuche-pneuma>.  Given this hypothesis, it seems clear that there are many emotions that span both <sarx> and <psuche-pneuma> and it is very difficult to tell when, in humans, they have crossed the line from a purely <sarx> (physical) response to one that is now driven by the <psuche-pneuma>.  Anger is a good example.  Certainly animals get angry.  Humans get angry.  Jesus got angry.  God gets angry.  We are told that not all anger is sin.  "Be angry and do not sin."  No animal sins by being angry.  In the case of anger, there is also a morally-right anger - we call it "righteous anger".  We know righteous anger exists because God can be described as angry.  Thus, it can be instructive to consider the emotions that animals show, because that can help us understand where our emotions can be purely "fleshly" and where they might be more spiritual (or moral) in nature.  If there is a moral component to an emotion, it becomes uniquely human.  If there is a type of anger that is sinful (there is), then that is a type of anger that is unique to humans.  Sexual immorality is another example.  Animals never commit sexual immorality, but humans do.  But for humans, sex has a moral component that can be good or bad.

             I think that Christians have to be careful about ascribing human traits to their pets.  In general these attributions are harmless and there is no deep meaning intended.  But we have to make sure we keep God's eternal priorities in our minds if we are to live according to Christian principles.  The eternal spiritual state of each human being is an eternal priority for God.  The eternal state of any other created being is not an eternal priority.  We should not mix those things up in our own lives.

9. Are human beings alive because their soul is in their body, and when their soul departs their body, then they are dead?

Linkage:  This is part of the study "Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit".  You should read that Introduction first.

 

Quick Answer:  I don't think so - not when referring to physical life and physical death.

 

Key Scriptures:

             I Pet 4:16  Death is in the <sarx>, life is in the <pneuma>.  If life is only in the <pneuma>, then how can animals be alive?  How can plants be alive if life is only in the spirit?  This argues for another term that would describe life in a more earthly, material sense.  I believe that term is <zoe> and its derivatives. 

             I Cor 15:45 describes a "<zao> <psuche>" or "living soul".  Based on the phrasing, it seems that the <zao> is describing a condition of the <psuche>.  Given this, it would seem that there is a difference between "life" or "living" and the soul.  I think plants and animals could be <zao>, but without a soul.  I think the soul is unique to humans, but I don’t think living is unique to humans.

             James 5:20  James talks about saving a <psuche> from death – so souls can die.  But I think that means the eternal “state” of the soul, not physical death.  A dead soul means a soul destined to hell.  I don’t think it necessarily means a soul without physical life.

             James 2:26 “…the <soma> without the <pneuma> is dead…”  At death, the spirit is separated from the body.  But whenever spiritual death is under consideration, it is more about the state of the <psuche-pneuma>.  It is either in the state of death - eternal punishment - or life - eternal life.  I wouldn't say that this verse says that physical death is the <pneuma> departing from your body.  That does happen, but that is not what makes us physically dead.   

 

Caveat:

             In general, it seems that when your physical body dies, the soul departs at the same time.  But physical death is, I think, the loss of <zoe>.  The two events are simultaneous.  But dogs and frogs die, and that is not because their soul departs.  I would say that, for humans, the physical death of the body releases the soul.  The departure of our soul is a consequence of our physical death.

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             Matt 22:32  God is not God of the <nekros>, but of the living <zao>.  Further evidence, I would say, that <nekros> is referring to physical death of the <sarx> that results in the decay of the <sarx>.  At some point dust really does return to dust.  All memory and evidence of the physical life of any single individual is eventually lost.  Then it is just matter.  God is not God of that.  Of course, He is the God of the universe.  But to be the God of Abraham is not to be the God of dust, or the God of someone that was in the past.  God is in the moment.  To say that God was the God of Abraham doesn’t make sense.  God doesn’t live in the past.  Jesus uses this to show that there is a resurrection of the dead.

             John 5:24-25  Jesus seems to use <Thanatos> and <nekros> interchangeably.  He also uses <zoe> in the first verse and <zao> in the second.  I don’t know if there is a significance to that.  “the <nekros> shall hear the voice of the Son of God:  and they that hear shall live.”  If this was referring to physical death of our <sarx>, this wouldn’t make sense.  Those dead can’t hear.  I think Jesus has to be referring to the “spiritually dead”.  In fact, we are all spiritually dead before we believe.

 

Discussion:

             To summarize this topic with respect to a Christian view of the science related to living, I suggest the following:

             <Zoe> and similar Greek terms refer to "life" in the way that we used to (a century ago) refer to a "life force" - whatever it is that makes living things alive.  Human beings, animals, plants, etc. are "alive" because they have <zoe>.  This "lifeforce" could be material, could be spiritual, could be a combination of both.  My feeling is that there is a good chance that it is purely material and part of the natural world.  It could be the natural outcome of biochemistry in action.  This is in contrast to "eternal life", which is fundamentally spiritual in nature.  [Note though that sometimes the word "eternal" isn't added to "life" in the Greek NT - you have to deduce that the reference is to eternal life from the context.] 

             The key issue with respect to science - biology and neuroscience in particular - is that I would leave open entirely the possibility that science will find that the "lifeforce" is a material thing; a natural phenomenon that can be explained by laws of physics and chemistry.    This would not negate Christian beliefs or go against scripture, as far as I can see.  Thus, Christians should not have irrational fears or angst about such scientific discoveries, either now or in the future.  In fact, Christians ought to be quite interested in the whole concept and in any discoveries made through scientific exploration.

             By the way, I really think scientists ought to be more humble when you consider that, of all the most fundamental things we can observe in the universe, "life" is certainly the most interesting.  It has been studied by scientists from before there was science.  And yet - and yet - there still is no good explanation of what life really is.  There's no embarrassment in that - life is unique and complex - but it certainly ought to be humbling!

             <Psuche>, on the other hand, is certainly spiritual.  Or, more properly, <psuche> is a link between the spiritual and the material.  The complete <psuche-pneuma> of the human being is never going to be discovered by natural science.  I suppose it might be possible to discover evidence of the action of the <psuche-pneuma> on the material but, as I have discussed elsewhere, such an experiment is difficult to define and is certainly outside the current realm of what is feasible.  The spiritual nature of the <psuche-pneuma> is a fundamental Christian doctrine.  Thus, when science claims that human beings are purely material, that does go directly against Christian beliefs.  Such a claim also goes beyond the bounds of science.  Therefore:  Christians should oppose this concept and scientists should not make this claim - they have no basis to do so.  There is no room for compromise on this issue.

             When scripture talks about "life" with respect to the <psuche-pneuma>, I think it is generally talking about eternal life and is maybe more easily understood as the "eternal state" of the person.  A human being who is destined to hell is "dead" even though they may be physically (<zoe>) alive.  When we are "made alive" as Christians, it is a change of eternal destiny.  We were, as real human beings with a body, soul, and spirit, always destined to "last" forever.  But lasting forever and being eternally alive are not the same thing.