![[#14] Genesis 1:20-23 – The Fish and Nephesh](https://redeeminggod.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/One-Verse-Podcast-Jeremy-Myers-150x150.jpg)
This episode of the One Verse Podcast concerns the question about whether or not animals go to heaven.
Do you believe that “All Dogs Go to Heaven”? To be honest, I don’t know if they do or they don’t. I am nearly certain that there will be animals in the eternal state, but I do not know if God will bring Fido or Fluffy to join you there.
Some people use passages like Genesis 1:20-23 as an argument for the idea that animals have souls, and therefore, animals will go to heaven.
Genesis 1 does in fact teach that animals have souls. Even fish, as we see in Genesis 1:20-23, have a soul. So does this mean that if Nemo had been flushed down the toilet, he would have found himself in paradise? This is one of the things we look at in this study of Genesis 1:20-23.
The Text of Genesis 1:20-23
Genesis 1:20-23. Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”
So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
In this discussion of Genesis 1:20-23 we look at:
- Why “creatures” in Genesis 1:20 is better translated as “swarmers.”
- Why many English translations leave out the word nephesh in Genesis 1:20.
- Why a belief that dogs go to heaven leads to a belief in universalism.
- Nephesh does not mean “soul” but “life.”
- What it means for birds to fly across the face of the firmament.
- The connection between blessings and obedience.
Resources:
- Logos Bible Software
- Eight Reasons Genesis 1 Does Not Teach Creationism – Spencer Boersma
- Study what it means to save the soul from death: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5
- Hamilton, Genesis 1–17 – Amazon or CBD
- Hasel Article on Genesis 1
- Hertz, The Pentateuch – Amazon
- Kidner, Genesis, Amazon or CBD
- Waltke, Genesis, Amazon or CBD
- Wenham, Genesis – Amazon or CBD
- Subscribe and Leave a Review on iTunes
Downloadable Podcast Resources
Those who are part of my online discipleship group may download the MP3 audio file for this podcast and view the podcast transcript below.
You must join a discipleship group or login to download the MP3 and view the transcript.
Thanks for visiting this page ... but this page is for Discipleship Group members.
If you are already part of a Faith, Hope, or Love Discipleship Group,
Login here.
If you are part of the free "Grace" Discipleship group, you will need to
Upgrade your Membership to one of the paid groups.
If you are not part of any group, you may learn about the various groups and their benefits here:
Join Us Today.
Do you like learning about the Bible online?
Do you like learning about Scripture and theology through my podcast? If so, then you will also love my online courses. They all have MP3 audio downloads, PDF transcripts, quizzes, and a comment section for questions and interaction with other students.
If you want to deepen your relationship with God and better understand Scripture, take one (or all) of these courses. They are great for personal study or for a small group Bible study.
You can see the list of available courses here, and if you join the Discipleship group, you can take all the courses at no additional cost. Go here to learn more and join now.
Comment on Spencer Boersma’s resource – Had to smh a number of times as I read his piece. Many of his frustrations and critiques of the ‘creationists,’ I find Spencer himself engaging in in order to ‘defeat’ them. He seems almost desperate to read his own presuppositions, constructs, and assumptions into the text. Appealing to ridicule, taking lack of evidence as evidence of lack, ignoring the concept of semantic range of words, etc. He reminds me of Kenneth Ham, just on the opposite side of the fence.
Spencer wrote: “When the earth totters, with all its inhabitants, it is I who keep its pillars steady” says God in Ps. 75:3. One cannot escape that the ancient people thought of the world like a building, with a dome over top and pillars below (cf. Ps. 104:5).
Is Spencer speaking ex-cathedra here? Look, we can respect Spencer’s position and understand where he’s coming from(even though he doesn’t return such civility to people that disagree with him), but just like Kenneth Ham and the ICR he’s lifting up his interpretation as the only valid one. In the Hebrew, the word translated ‘earth’ is ‘eretz’ and is also commonly translated ‘land.’ It isn’t necessarily the spherical planet. The bible often refers to the Eretz of Israel, so do we assume then that the ancient Israelites thought they were on their own separate planet? Detached from the planet of the Canaanites or the Phoenicians?
But even if we translate eretz as ‘earth’ here instead of land, what about observational language? Or figures of speech? Are we really 100% certain there wasn’t an idiom or figure of speech being used here? When I say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, nobody chuckles and says, ‘Ummm Dave, the sun doesn’t orbit the earth.’ Or if I say, ‘I’d travel to the ends of the earth to get one of those.’ Friends don’t reply, ‘Dave, don’t you know that the earth is spherical? It’s not flat. You really need to take a science class to correct your erroneous cosmology.’
Looking at Spencer’s piece, he seemed to be protecting a sacred cow more than anything else.
Regarding Spencer Boersma’s post which you list under “Resources” — I found his article to be spirited, engaging, and worthy of a considered response from a creationist. (I concur with much of what Dave says in his Nov. 9 comment, but I think a lot more can be said.)
My response/critique article can be read here: http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=187&Itemid=62
It should be noted that subsequent to the initial appearance of my response article, Mr. Boersma made various changes to his post. I will be modifying my article shortly to take those changes into account.
Thanks! I will check it out. Well done on responding through an online setting like your website.
OK, I have now addressed the changes Mr. Boersma made to his article on Genesis 1. I’ve just added a “Postscript” at the end of my critique, which appears here: http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=187&Itemid=62
Jeremy, I don’t agree that a belief in animal “souls” joining us in heaven leads to universalism. Scripture is quite clear that the decisions of human beings determine their ultimate destination. Since animals lack the capacity for sin and the need for salvation, the same cannot be said of them. If all people came to faith, they all would be saved.
Nephesh does mean soul, but there is reason to doubt that it necessarily implies immortality. The breadth of the term is a source of additional trouble and uncertainty. I think that it does imply more than life, however. It seems best to understand it as a term signifying the whole of a living being, including material and non-material aspects, often with an emphasis on the inner qualities: the mind and emotions.
The application of nephesh to animals is made more complicated when one sees the roughly synonymous (in the Bible’s usage) NT Greek term psyche associated with an afterlife. This suggests that the personal existence of not only humans but animals may exceed this life. The recognition that at least higher animals have an inner life, consciousness (although not necessarily self-consciousness as people do), emotions, personality, and the like, does much to explain God’s love and care for animals. So if all creation is to be redeemed, as several prophetic statements imply, it is deserving of consideration whether the unique inner beings of animals will be restored in the new creation (ie heaven).
There is no authoritative answer to this question in scripture, so opposing views may be seen as viable.
Now, regarding fish, I am uncertain whether they should be seen as nephesh or not. It seems Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe excludes them. As you rightly point out, the Hebrew seres means swarmers or something like that. The term is also applied to insects. Since Hebrew lacks punctuation, might we not understand Gen 1:20 (I think the only place that nephesh is seemingly applied to fishes) to mean “ …and let swarm the swarmers, living soulish creatures, and birds that fly above….”? These soulish creatures might include more advanced creatures that live in the waters. I’m curious if you think that is a viable reading. There might also be different levels of nephesh animals, just as some claim the souls of animals and humans differ (they certainly differ, although not necessarily as argued by some). Perhaps the Hebrew phrase “breath of life” might distinguish animals that possess an inner soulish nature from lesser living creatures (just a thought, since I haven’t done a survey to see).