Paul and Soul / Body Dualism

[Drew]

There are times in his letters when Paul uses expressions that suggest he believes in “anthropological dualism” – the notion that the human person is constituted by both a body and a soul, the former being the “container” for the latter, with the latter bearing of consciousness. This idea that human beings have immaterial souls which bear consciousness is deeply ingrained in western 21st century evangelicalism. However, I suggest it is not a Biblical view. The purpose of this post is to “explain” why Paul might use terminology suggestive of dualism even if he does not really ascribe to such a model of the human person.

Consider this text from the end of 2 Corinthians 4:

16Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. 17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

If all we had were this text, we could easily imagine that Paul identifies the “outer man” (v16) with the body which is decaying (v16), is visible (v18), and is temporary (v18). By contrast, the “inner man” could be taken to represent the soul which is being renewed (v16), is unseen (v18), and will last forever (v18).
Paul continues with the same general picture at the beginning of the next chapter:

For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.

As the material in bold suggests, this text could easily be seen as re-enforcing a dualism wherein the “real person” is a soul that inhabits a “tent” of a body.

Why would Paul use such dualistic terminology if he does not believe it accurately describes the constitution of the human person? Answer: Paul understands that some of his readers are heavily Hellenized, and therefore bring a dualistic worldview to the table, and he wants to appeal to them in terms they can understand, even though he, as a typical Jew, does not ascribe to such a position himself.

In this respect, it should be noted that the material from chapter 4, verses 16 to 18, is widely acknowledged as echoing Platonic ideas – it was Plato who asserted that the visible world we all inhabit is populated by impermanent stuff of a “lesser” order than permament “pure forms” that exist in an unseen realm.

Paul is essentially speaking to his Hellenized readers using a worldview with which they can identify.

Some readers, no doubt, will be uncomfortable with my assertion that Paul adopts a dualistic stance that is fundamentally incorrect simply in order to appeal to a particular readership (I am claiming that the “objective” truth about the nature of the human person is the Jewish, monistic model). My response is that it is simply naïve to expect every single statement in the Bible to be a propositional assertion that needs to be read as true in a direct, literal sense. This is not how the Bible is written – as just one example, we have Job expressing the belief that “when you die, that’s it”. We know that this is simply not the case. So the view that all statements in the Bible are “objectively true” simply does not work. This makes things more complicated and difficult, but that is the hand we have been dealt.

 

[jasoncran]

jews in the tanakh have nine words for soul and the new testament has three.

is that change that drastic?

of course there's this.fear him that can destroy both body and soul in hell. the words of the lord jesus.

 

[Eventide]

Drew,

Do yo believe that the Spirit of Christ lives in you ?

Is He the same as you ?

If the answer to the first question above is YES, then how many does that make.. ?

Would it be You and Christ living within the same vessel, the same lump of clay ? ?

Isn't that two..ie, a dual nature ?

 

[Drew]

of course there's this.fear him that can destroy both body and soul in hell. the words of the lord jesus.

True. But such a statement does not necessarily entail the kind of dualism that I am talking about. In such a statement, the term "soul" need not refer to an immaterial consciousness-bearing "thing" - it would equally be a "descriptive" term like the term "personality".

I maintain that the Jews had no sense of the kind of "body-soul" dualism that many modern Christians have actually inherited from the Greeks. I suggest we need to read the Bible, as much as possible, from the perspective of those who wrote it.

 

[Drew]

.
†. 2Pet 3:16 . . Some of Paul's comments are hard to understand, and those who are ignorant and vacillating have twisted his epistles around to mean something quite different from what he meant, just as they do the other parts of Scripture— and the result is disaster for them.

All I'm saying is; when people construe the Bible to mean things it doesn't say in writing; beware.

†. Eph 4:11-15 . . He gave gifts to the church : the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers. Their responsibility is to equip God's people to do His work and build up the church, the body of Christ, until we come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God's son that we will be mature and full grown in the Lord, measuring up to the full stature of Christ. Then we will no longer be like children, forever changing our minds about what we believe because someone has told us something different or because someone has cleverly lied to us and made the lie sound like the truth.

†. 2Cor 11:3 . . But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

C.L.I.F.F.
|

True, but what is your point?

From one perspective, those who embrace Greek dualism have "twisted" the scriptures.

From another, it is those who deny the dualist view have twisted the scriptures.

Anybody can accuse anybody of twisting the scriptures. However, one needs to do more than simply "accuse", one must "make the case".

 

[Free]

True. But such a statement does not necessarily entail the kind of dualism that I am talking about. In such a statement, the term "soul" need not refer to an immaterial consciousness-bearing "thing" - it would equally be a "descriptive" term like the term "personality".

I maintain that the Jews had no sense of the kind of "body-soul" dualism that many modern Christians have actually inherited from the Greeks. I suggest we need to read the Bible, as much as possible, from the perspective of those who wrote it.

I'm sure you would agree that whether or not this dualism comes solely from the Greeks is largely irrelevant. Truth is truth wherever it is found. Those who wrote it, although Jews, were living in this cultural milieu which also constitutes the context of what is said in Scripture. So the authors' perspective could very well include a body-soul dualism.

That man can destroy the body but not the soul is very telling. Perhaps Jesus was revealing more about the make-up of man, just as he continually revealed more of himself and his nature, to the point where Christians believe that he is God incarnate.

 

[Free]

.

Do you honestly, and sincerely believe yourself to be one of the Lord-supplied teachers about whom Paul wrote at Eph 4:11-15?

C.L.I.F.F.
|

He simply asked what your point was. If you think he is wrong, then engage his arguments but do not attack the person.

 

[Drew]

I'm sure you would agree that whether or not this dualism comes solely from the Greeks is largely irrelevant.

Yes, but we need to remember that we in the 21st century west are deeply influenced by Greek ideas, as a result of how history played out). So a belief in body / soul dualism is part of the "received wisdom" that many Christians bring to their reading of the Bible, and never question whether that received wisdom might be at odds with the truly "Biblical" position. So, naturally enough, they read "soul" and think in terms of an immaterial thing that bear consciousness. I believe that this is not what the (primarily) Jewish writers of the Bible meant by that term (including Jesus).

Now, to be fair, and as I have implicitly conceded in my OP, Paul (and I suggest Jesus as well) were knowledgeable of Greek ideas. But I still think neither of them "bought into it" - I suggest they retained the Jewish idea that body and soul cannot really be "separated".

 

[Webers_Home]

He simply asked what your point was.

And I answered. However, since my answer didn't meet your criteria for a proper response, I've withdrawn it; and in addition have decided to no more either visit, or participate on, this thread.

C.L.I.F.F.
|

 

[Free]

And I answered. However, since my answer didn't meet your criteria for a proper response, I've withdrawn it; and in addition have decided to no more either visit, or participate on, this thread.

C.L.I.F.F.
|

That is your right but if you thought I was wrong in the assessment of your response, you could simply have explained what you meant.:

 

[childeye]

I believe the soul is the consciousness or sentience of man. The Word of God is the life of man and to be sentient is to be alive. God breathed into man and man became a living soul. Body and soul are seperate since the will of the flesh is not the same as the will of the soul.

 

[Drew]

I believe the soul is the consciousness or sentience of man. The Word of God is the life of man and to be sentient is to be alive. God breathed into man and man became a living soul. Body and soul are seperate since the will of the flesh is not the same as the will of the soul.

You are free to believe this, of course. But there is nothing in what you say here that would constitute any kind of defence for this position Biblically.

In fact, the statement about God breathing into man, resulting in him becoming a soul actually supports the notion that "soul" is not a "thing", but is rather a word that descibes the "total person".

You are begging the question at issue when you say talk about a will that is "located" in the "flesh understood as body" as distinct from a will that is "located" in the "soul understood as something non-physical".

 

[childeye]

You are free to believe this, of course. But there is nothing in what you say here that would constitute any kind of defence for this position Biblically.

All I've said is biblical. Need I quote you the scriptures?
Genesis 2:7

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

7 the LORD God formed the man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

John 1

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
1 Peter 2:11

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)


11 Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul.

Acts 2:27

King James Version (KJV)


27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Romans 7:17-18

King James Version (KJV)



17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
John 1:13

King James Version (KJV)


13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 6:62-63

King James Version (KJV)



62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Hebrews 4:12

King James Version (KJV)


12For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The will of the flesh is hardwired as in experiencing pain and pleasure. It desires to avoid pain and achieve pleasure. Paul talks of a war whithin his own corporeal existence between his will that agrees with the law and his flesh which cannot be subject to the righteousness of the law. Hence there are two seperate wills as is pointed out in John 1:13.

Jesus' soul was in hell while seperate from his body in the tomb. As were all whose souls are in hell as well as the souls under the alter of God. The Word of creation that was God's energy become physical matter is scriptural.

I have no problem with the soul being the person to a point. The spirit in the soul is more an indicator of the personality or character.

 

[Drew]

7 the LORD God formed the man[a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Perhaps I am not understanding your position. I assume that you are arguing for the position that the "soul" is an immaterial thing that "bears", "carries", or "manifests" consciousness and that can exist apart from the body. I do not believe this is a Biblical view and I will deal with your texts in this light.

The text you cite from Genesis never asserts that man has an immaterial consciousness-bearing soul that can exist apart from the body.

John 1

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

Again, nothing here that asserts somethings about human beings in general. And more specifically, no assertion that man has an immaterial consciousness-bearing soul that can exist apart from the body.

1 Peter 2:11

11 Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul.

Again, this is not a clear assertion that man has an immaterial consciousness-bearing soul that can exist apart from the body. This text could also read as "...abstain from sinful desires, which war against your total person" You cannot simply bring a view of what a soul is to this text and then apply it to the exclusion of other possibilities. That is to fundamental beg the question.

....more soon.

 

[Sinthesis]

The cultural origin of a concept doesn't necessarily indicate whether or not it is true. The learned Jews of Paul's era got some ideas quite wrong based upon a flawed understanding of scripture and how it pertained to reality, with dire consequences.

I can see at least two ways of looking at 2nd Corinthians 4, but each concerns the contrast between an ideal vs its realization in a finite creation.

 

[Drew]

Acts 2:27

King James Version (KJV)


27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

There is nothing here that does not let us read "soul" as "all of me", or "me". It fundamentally begs the question to assume that "soul" here refers to an "immaterial, consciousness-bearing 'component' or 'part' of the human person.

Romans 7:17-18

King James Version (KJV)

17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

I suspect your point is that "flesh equals body", with the implication that "soul" is something distinct from the body. Well, that does not work Biblically. I can easily make the case that "flesh" is often used to denote the entire human person in a fallen state.

This is one of the biggest mistakes we make - to read "flesh" as denoting the physical stuff of which we are made. The word can mean that in some contexts, but it commonly means something else - mankind in a fallen state.

 

[childeye]

Perhaps I am not understanding your position. I assume that you are arguing for the position that the "soul" is an immaterial thing that "bears", "carries", or "manifests" consciousness and that can exist apart from the body. I do not believe this is a Biblical view and I will deal with your texts in this light.

I'm not sure what you mean by immaterial thing. I know when man became a soul it was declared a living soul such as a sentient being. It is necessary that it can exist apart from the body since Jesus' body was in the tomb and yet his soul was in hell for three days and nights. I think this is perfectly clear.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

That man can destroy the body but not the soul is very telling. Perhaps Jesus was revealing more about the make-up of man, just as he continually revealed more of himself and his nature, to the point where Christians believe that he is God incarnate.

The question that bares consideration then is HOW does God plan of destroying souls. First we must understand that the soul is in fact destructable for God will destroy certain souls. Here is the context of Jesus' statement:

Mark 12:4-5 (Weymouth's NT) reads: But to you who are my friends I say, "'Be not afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do nothing further. 5 I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who after killing has power to throw into Gehenna: yes, I say to you, fear him.

We need to ask these questions:
a.) What was GeHenna to 1st century Jews?
b.) Who was typically killed and then thrown into the garbage dump?
c.) What did it mean to be thrown into the garbage as opposed to being buried?
d.) Who had the power to determine who should be throne into GeHenna?

 

[childeye]

There is nothing here that does not let us read "soul" as "all of me", or "me". It fundamentally begs the question to assume that "soul" here refers to an "immaterial, consciousness-bearing 'component' or 'part' of the human person.


I suspect your point is that "flesh equals body", with the implication that "soul" is something distinct from the body. Well, that does not work Biblically. I can easily make the case that "flesh" is often used to denote the entire human person in a fallen state.

This is one of the biggest mistakes we make - to read "flesh" as denoting the physical stuff of which we are made. The word can mean that in some contexts, but it commonly means something else - mankind in a fallen state.

If a man has no light in his soul then he is nothing but flesh driven which is a fallen state. Yes I mean to say the flesh is the body and as I stated before, has it's own hardwired will or desire defined as motivated by pain and pleasure

 

[Drew]

The cultural origin of a concept doesn't necessarily indicate whether or not it is true.

Not sure what your point is.

My point is basically that in order to understand what a word means, you need to understand what the word meant in the cultural context in which the term was written down. It would make no sense at all for a Jewish writer, to "predict" what 21st century westerners would mean by "soul" and then use the word "soul" in that way in his penning of Scriptures, and trumping the meaning the word carried in his culture.

I assert that there is powerful evidence that the Jews who wrote the Bible used the word "soul" as a descriptive term either for the whole human person (as in "there were 17 souls on the ship that sank - such usage is still permissible), or for describing certain aspects or features of the entire human person, much as we use the term "personality".

When we say "Jane has a nice personality" we are decidedly not claiming that there is this "thing" called "a personality" that mystically inhabits her body and can be separated from it. No, we use the term "personality" is a specifically descriptive mode.