What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

If man has an immortal soul

What is 'soul'?

The Hebrews never believed in the immortality of the soul. The soul is not the same as spirit nor is it something that survives physical death. The Hbrews believed the soul was the life bound up in the body transported by the blood

DT12:23, Lev 17:11.

At death, it dies (Numbers 23:10) draining away with the blood.

The spirit is not the same as soul in the bible and at death, it returns to God (ecclesiates 12:7) and the spirit is never associated with the blood.

A good analogy of what a soul is is the difference between someone lying in bed asleep to a corpse.
 
Mike and Mutzrein,
First of all, in regards to Deut. 12:23 and Lev. 17:11, “life†is probably a better translation. The JW’S have this word translated “soulâ€Â, in their New World Translation, and many a JW has died not wanting needed blood transfusion, because of this misinterpretation. Blood is the life of the body, supplying nutrients and oxygen to the cells.
Second of all, “soul and spirit†are often interchangeable, that is why, I think of the nature of man as two parts (physical and invisible parts). Check out John 12:27, Jesus says, “Now is my soul troubled,†whereas in a similar context we have the next chapter of John saying that Jesus was “troubled in spirit†(John 13:21). In regards to death, the words are also interchangeable in regards to the spirit and soul leaving the body (physical part), see Gen. 35:18 and Eccl. 12:7. Man is said to be able to sin with his “soul and or spiritâ€Â, see 2Cor. 7:1 and 1Peter 1:22 (soul needs cleansing).
Third, it is highly debatable what the Hebrew believed in respect to the immortality of man. It totally depends on what camp you reside in. Read my post’s on “breath and spirit†from LETUSREASON.ORG.
And last of all, I believe our immortality is a product of God, those who have His spirit have become eternal, those who do not have His spirit are finite and will eventually cease to exist in both the physical and the spirit/soul (Mt.10:28).

Bubba
 
Hi Bubba,
DT 12:23 and lex 17:11 actually contain the word 'Nephesh' which is the Hebrew word for soul. So essentially the soul means the life bound up in the body. But it also means the whole person and also it is emotions of a physical kind. Though 'Nephesh' and 'Ruach' are used interchamgeably, they are not the same thing. 'Ruach' is never associated with blood and 'Ruach' if you like is personhood open to God's influence.

Here is some notes from a course known as workshop which looks at the Hebrew view of soul and not the popular Greek idea that has corrupted Christian thought that its somehow the essence of a person.


The error
Traditional Christian doctrine has been very unhelpful in giving us a biblical understanding of personhood, it has usually presented one of two views as being the correct way of defining the components of human being. They have been as follows:-
• Tripartite
This is the view that the human individual is composed of three components; 'the body', 'the soul' and 'the spirit'. This fails to take a whole biblical picture, and bases itself upon a misinterpretation of two verses:-
'May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely;
and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless
at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ'
[ITh 5:23]
'Indeed, the word of God is living and active,
sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit,
joints from marrow;
it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart'.
[Heb4:12]
In context these statements are clearly the rhetorical words of a preacher, they are not foundational theological statements. They must be interpreted against the broad biblical background of statements about personhood; and not it against them.
• Bipartite
This is the view that the human individual is composed of two components; 'the body' and 'the soul', with the 'spirit' being the quintessence of the 'soul'.
Neither of these two views are satisfactory, because:-
• they create the impression that the human person is comprised of three [or two] quite distinct elements [like a Neapolitan ice cream!], rather than a totality.
• they do not do justice to the range of biblical vocabulary with the variety of senses in which it is used.
• they are influenced by Greek philosophy rather than by Jewish thought; the words of the New Testament have too frequently been filled with concepts from Greek speculation while the Hebrew ideas they are translating have been forgotten.
• to imagine 'body', 'soul' and 'spirit' as distinct entities is to fundamentally misunderstand the biblical concepts.
• in ITh 5:23 the verb and adjective are both singular; the implication is 'keep the whole of you', not 'parts' of you.
• in Heb 4:12 the implication is to 'permeate every dimension' of a person, not separating 'parts'..
• neither of the models give any direct mention to the 'heart' which is a key biblical concept.
Bearing these facts in mind we must now attempt to resolve our thinking about the riddle of human nature by looking more closely at the way in which the biblical words are used.
 
continued..

The key
The Bible leads us towards an understanding of our personhood in its totality by approaching it in terms of our physical body. To the Hebrew mind 'personality' resulted from an 'animated body', it was not, as the Greeks thought, an 'incarnated soul'. The important biblical truth is that a person does not have a body they are a body. The Hebrews never thought about the body in isolation and for its own sake, they were only interested in the whole person and their relationship with God.
So the Bible sees the human body as the pathway into the whole person; it sees the physical body as the medium of an individuals personal life. Added to this, an organic and inseparable connection is seen between the physical and the spiritual dimensions of a person. As a result we see that various physical organs are spoken of as being connected with particular aspects of inner feelings and spiritual experience [eg breath, blood, heart, liver, kidneys, bowels etc]. In fact, at first sight, one could be forgiven for imagining that each individual person is composed of a number of unrelated and isolated centres of inner activity, seemingly independent of any unifying factor. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth; and understanding this paradox is in fact the essential key to understanding biblical anthropology.
The key to the biblical doctrine of personhood is understanding that the Hebrew mind saw no contrast or distinction between the 'one' and the 'many', the 'whole' and the 'part'. This results in two fundamental conclusions upon which everything else is built>
• the human person is a unity; a physical and spiritual totality which is an indivisible whole.
• the whole may be represented and seen in each particular part. At
any moment any part can stand for the whole person. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew scriptures mention some 80 parts of the human body, and yet, as we shall see, there is no single word for the 'whole'; almost any part can be used to represent the whole.
So in studying biblical anthropology we are presented with personhood as a totality and a whole; an indivisible unity. What the nature and substance of that unity is, is illuminated by a wealth of pictures which have their root in physical organs and observable phenomena from which they provide a 'bridge' into the spiritual depths of human personality:-
• each picture gives a vivid description of some aspect of the inner spiritual processes of personhood.
• each picture serves as a window into the whole person.
• each picture represents the whole person from a particular point of view.
Putting all the pictures together we have a series of windows each looking in on personhood as a whole, but highlighting different aspects of our unity from different perspectives. Imagine a free standing room with a window in each of the four walls and one in the ceiling; looking through each window gives you a view of the whole room, but each window also gives you a unique perspective on the whole room. The same is true of each of the biblical words.
The teaching of the Bible about personhood is profound. At first sight its approach may appear naive, but on examination we discover a treasury of pictures which interlock with one another in the most complex manner. Their variety of emphasis and colour, their subtle nuances in sense and feeling, all express deep truths about a person as a spiritual being.
The New Testament naturally builds from its Hebrew foundations. While it makes no clearer dogmatic statements than the Hebrew Bible, it does provide a centre around which all the fluid Hebrew ideas can arrange themselves - this is the personality of Jesus. Paul's treatment of the nature of personhood is the most elaborate in the New Testament, due to his emphasis on'personal experience'. While he enlarges the biblical vocabulary he uses the new words in the
established biblical manner and framework. Also the New Testament emphasis on both the
present and future experience of the Kingdom of God, and its promise of the 'resurrection of
the body1, bring a new force to the whole subject.  « - ^
THE PICTURE - WINDOWS Nephesh - Psyche - Soul
The important passage in Genesis 2:7 sets the scene for this 'window - word' into the nature of personhood. An individual becomes a 'nephesh' from the infusion of divine breath into moulded dust. In physical terms 'nephesh' means, 'neck', 'throat', 'gullet' and came to mean 'life', that 'vital motion' which distinguishes a living being from a corpse.
'Nephesh' has such a variety of senses that we must make a careful definition in each particular case. Meanings overlap and are used side by side. It is easy to end up with contradictory statements about 'nephesh'. Here are some of the central statements about 'nephesh':-
• it is that vital life which is shared by both humans and animals [Gen 2:19].
• it is life that is bound up with the body, blood is the vehicle of nephesh [Dt 12:23], at death it dies [Nu 23:10] draining away with the blood, with resuscitation it 'returns'; not that it has gone anywhere.
• it can denote 'the living individual themselves' [Gen 14:21], and can replace the personal pronoun to create special emphasis [Ps 42:6], God uses it of himself [Am 6:8].
• it is strongly instinctive [animal] activity; desire, vital urge, feeling, emotion, mood [Dt 14:26].
• it is feelings and emotions of a spiritual kind; grief, pain, joy, peace, love [Ezk 27:31]; its highest expression is longing for God [Ps 25:1].
The New Testament uses the Greek 'psyche' with the sense of the Hebrew 'nephesh'. Paul's writings are significant for how rarely he uses it. The Synoptics are interesting in that one third of their usage refers to life beyond death [Mt 10:28,39; 16:25-26; Mk 8:35-37; Lk 9:24; 21:19], due to the overlap of present and future in the Kingdom of God; revolutionary in terms of its Hebrew roots.
This 'nephesh' is primarily the life of the whole person in terms of strongly instinctive [animal] activity. It reflects the glory and richness of God's gift of life to him though susceptible to death. It is not an independent substance which, as many have argued, survives death. It is, as we shall see a highly complex image very easy to misinterpret.
Ruah - Pneuma - Spirit
This 'picture - window' into personhood highlights our unique relationship with God.'Ruah' has its roots in the 'wind' which emphasises both its powerful and yet subtle nature. 'Ruah' is used in a number of different contexts:-
• for the wind in nature.
• for the nature of God's being ['Spirit of God', 'Holy Spirit']; dynamic, overwhelming, at times completely dominating [Jg 6:34], the root of prophesying [ISam 10:5-6] and abnormal strength [Jg 14:6].
 
• for demonic activity [ISam 16:14].
• for the 'principle of life' [akin to 'nephesh' often used interchangeably]. It is the life force present everywhere; independent, universal, it does not die.
• for the vital energy dwelling within each individual, that force which affects temperament.
Human 'ruah' is more than just the natural breath we breathe [which is 'nesama']. There is a vital energy within each person which is the result of the special 'in-breathing' of God; the centre of thoughts, decisions, moods, and is the dimension of personhood most directly open to the influence of God. 'Ruah' particularly stresses:-
• the direction of the will, it is the energy behind willing and acting, that which urges good and evil [Isa 29:24; Ps 51:12].
• the deep emotions; passion [Jg 8:3], grief [Gen 26:35] zeal [Hag 1:14], often seen in the panting of excitement or distress which is different from normal breathing.
• the seat of individual moral qualities and attitudes [Ecc 7:8; Isa 57:15; Num 14:24]. Ezekiel sees the Messianic age as a period when individuals will be permeated by Yahweh's 'ruah' which in turn will renew their own [11; 19; 18:31; 36:26; 39:29]. This is one of the most important words in Paul's vocabulary with his emphasis on regeneration, sanctification, fellowship with God [Gal. 5:22-23 etc].
• the experience of being in touch with God and under God's influence. The human 'ruah' searches out God's ways [Ps 77:7; Isa 26;9], it can be stirred or hardened by God [Jer 51; 11; Dt 2:30].
'Ruah' presents us with human nature's in interplay with the nature of God. It is stressing a person open to and transmitting the life of God [Rm 8:16; ICor 2:10-11]. It has no physical 'animal' character, [never associated with blood], transcending mere desire or feeling.
Leb - Kardia - Heart
'Leb' is a 'window - word' that looks in at personhood in terms of deepest emotions and from the perspective of intellect and will. 'Leb', in some ways, draws together every spiritual process. It is'conscious spiritual activity'.
It was early recognised that emotions and intense feelings produce physical effects in the heart [slow, quick, intermittent pulse rates, sometimes strong pain]. So it has come to picture the epicentre of the human person as an emotional being. Other bodily organs have been drawn alongside to add other facets to this idea:-
• Kidneys: the unfathomable depths of an individual, centre of emotions that only God can search out and test [Jer 11:20; 12:2; Isa 29:13].
• Bowels: emotions that can be deeply agitated; seething fermenting, troubling [Job 30:27; Lam 1:20].
• Inwards-Belly: emphasising the unique character of human spiritual nature in contrast to the external world [Phil 3:19; Jn 7:38].
• Bones: the basic structural element in man; spiritually and emotionally as
well as physically [Ps 35:10; Pr 3:8], they suffer seismic shock in emotional distress [Jer 23:9].
The other very important emphasis of 'leb' is personhood in terms of their inner direction; the deliberate conscious activity of the will and the responsibility it brings.
What comes from an individuals heart is 'the distinct property of the whole person' making them responsible for it. The 'responsible will' is central to the biblical concept of the 'heart'. Making God's will our own requires a new heart [Ezk 36:26].
Paul in his writings uses 'kardia' with all the senses of the Hebrew 'leb', but enlarges it by the introduction of two other words that emphasis 'will' and ' responsibilities':-
• Mind [nous]: human intellectual capacity [Phil 4:7] which may be good or bad. It may be immoral, vain, corrupt defiled [Rm 1:28; Eph 4:17]. It contains God's law [Rm 7:23] and in a Christian is renewed transforming life [Rm 12:2], imparting the mind of Christ [ICor 2:16].
• Conscience [suneidessis]: human faculty for moral judgment. It can be defiled [ICor 8:7] or pure [ITim 3:9]. It is that consciousness of 'being right within one's heart' [Rm2:15].
So 'leb' is conscious spiritual activity, stressing the sense of responsibility.
Contrast : Nephesh, Ruah, Leb
It will be quite clear that 'nephesh', 'ruah', and 'leb' overlap one another at significant points.
The distinctions between 'nephesh' and 'leb' at the higher level of understanding is very difficult. They are often used interchangeably [cf Ex 6:9 with Jg 16:16; Ecc 7:8 with Job 6:11], and yet they are not the same. The distinction is found back at their roots.
The overlap between all three is to be expected when we remember each is considering the whole man from a slightly different angle. Their contrasting stresses may be seen as:-
• Nephesh : instinctive 'animal' activity.
• Leb : conscious spiritual activity.
• Ruah : personhood open to the influence of the nature of God.
'Nephesh' and 'leb' stand in contrast with 'ruah' between them. 'Nephesh' and 'ruah' stress the 'lower' and 'higher' levels of consciousness.
Basar - Sarx - Flesh
'Basar' is the 'window - word' that looks at 'the whole life substance of personhood organised in visible form'. It is common to both human and beast. As we have seen we do not have a body, we are a body. 'Basar' is 'nephesh' in its outward form, the same reality is involved, a person as a living being. It is the whole tangible form of a person controlled by the 'nephesh', [there are different Hebrew words for simply the muscular parts of the body and for a lifeless corpse]. The Hebrew scriptures do not have a word for 'the body' in the way we would understand that term [the whole]. 'Basar' is 'flesh', though [as we shall see] the New Testament term 'body' is rooted back into it.
The Bible places high value on a person's physical aspect, 'basar' affirms our physical existence. It destroys the Greek idea, that has so often polluted Christian thinking, that 'the flesh' is a prison cell, the enemy of the spirit, which incarcerates the 'real self in matter.However the Bible also affirms that the physical alone does not give complete meaning to personhood. 'Flesh' is simply the whole person from one particular perspective:-
• it is personhood in corporeal form: often used as a personal pronoun [2Cor 5:5; Eph 5:28]; notice how 'flesh', 'longs after God' [Ps 63:1], 'rejoices in God' [Ps 84:2].
• it is personhood in external and visible in contrast to internal and spiritual [Gal 4:13-14; 2Cor 12:7].
• it is personhood in earthly solidarity with earthly existence [Phil 1:24; Gal 2:20]. It is God's chosen will for us to be part of this world, our God-given sphere of life. It is neutral. John stresses Jesus came 'in the flesh' [Jn 1:14; Un 4:2].
• it is personhood in contrast to God: human as opposed to divine. It is 'mere mortals' in their weakness, their impotence, their mortality, temporary, perishable; in contrast to the power and eternal nature of God.
• it is personhood in opposition to God; flesh has been exploited by the rebellious forces of 'this age' and has fallen under sin and death [Rm 8:12; Gal 5:13]. It is a person living for this world. Their God-given place has taken over as the principle of his life and conduct [humanism]. An individual in their self-sufficiency. For this reason flesh will neither 'glory before God' [ICor 1:29], nor 'inherit the kingdom' [ICor 15:50]. In this sense 'being in the flesh' is incompatible with being a Christian [Rm 8:8]; not because it is evil but because it distorts a person's relationship with God.
'Flesh' is the whole person in visible form and it is good. Dependent life which requires a physical organism to sustain it. It stresses human impotence and the fact that ultimately we are wholly perishable. There is no promise of resurrection for the 'flesh'.
 
Basar - Soma - Body
The word 'body' is unique as a 'picture - window' into the whole person. It is a word that takes on particular significance in the New Testament vocabulary of Paul. The word 'flesh' [ ['sarx'] properly translates the Hebrew 'basar'. The word 'body' ['soma'] must find its origin in the same Hebrew root, but it develops quite differently. Paul speaks of 'the body of the flesh' [Col 2:11]; this makes a complete identity between 'body' and 'flesh'. It is significant that the Greeks stressed the contrast between 'body' and 'soul', while Paul draws the contrast between 'body' and 'flesh'.
The word 'body' carries the following emphases:-
• it is the external presence of the whole person. It is what an individual has that makes their earthly life possible [Gal 6:17; 2Cor 10:10]. In as much as it is the sum of sensual functions and physical appetites, it will pass away. Only when the 'body' has emphasised everything in 'flesh' does it diverge from it.
• it is personhood in opposition to God. The 'body' is identified with 'flesh' in the power of sin and corruption [Rm 6:6] humiliation [Rm 7:24] dishonour [ICor 15:43] and lust [Rm 6:12]. It is because sin is not just 'fleshly' but a reality of the whole person that it is essential that redemption be accomplished as a bodily event.
• it is what personhood is. The whole person is an expression of the very core of their being. Hence fornication is a sin against the body [ICor 6:18]. It is the 'body' that is the temple of the Holy Spirit [ICor 6:19-20].
• it is personhood made for God. It emphasised the strength of human creativity [ICor 6:13-20]. In contrast to 'flesh' it is not merely the external as opposed to the spiritual. It is not merely the human as opposed to the divine.
• it is personhood in solidarity. 'Body' stresses that which binds one individual to another. It contrasts the Greek idea which saw the body as the boundary that separated one person from all others. The 'body' never stresses the individual [singular or plural are not significant], it is social. It emphasises the solidarity of the human race [Heb 13:3]. Biblically a person's individuality is found only in their relationship before God [Jer 31:29-30]. It is in the vertical direction that biblical individualism is seen.
• it is the whole person destined for God. 'Body' stresses an individual's 'goal', 'destination', and 'end' in God, rather than their origins; 'the body is for the Lord' [ICor 6:13]. Only the resurrection reveals a person's true destiny, and only the 'body' carries an individual into their resurrection, and that as part of the 'Body of Christ'. Before the body is raised it is essential that it dies first [Jn 12:24; ICor 15:36]. 'Flesh' must be replaced by a 'resurrection body'.
Resurrection body
• Focus
Death brings visible physical destruction to the human body. If personhood is a 'whole' a 'unity', how can there be life beyond this point? This is the moment when for the Christian the distinction between 'flesh' and 'body' becomes critical. To focus on death as the crisis point for personhood is 'humanist', it distorts the biblical perspective. For the Christian the hope of resurrection of the body is rooted in the reality of their being part of the eschatological community which is one with the resurrection Body of Christ. Nowhere is the 'resurrection of the body' to do with the moment of death. Neither is the modern obsession 'the survival of the individual' a biblical emphasis. Rather the Bible speaks in 'corporate' and 'social' terms which envelope the individual. Two key passages for our discussion are; ICorinthians 15:35-58; and 2Corinthians 4:16-5:10. The focus points for Christian thinking on the resurrection body are 'baptism' and the 'Parousia'.
• Promise
The corner stone of the hope of the 'resurrection of the body' is the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ [Mt 28:6]. Upon this the promises are based:-
• 'whoever lives and believes in me shall never die' [Jn 11:25].
• 'He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies' [Rm8:ll].
• 'He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also' [2Cor 4:14].
• 'God is our certainty, guaranteeing the promise by his Spirit' [2Cor 5:5].
• Baptism
This is the point at which we become part of the resurrection body of Christ; the corporate Christ who will one day be the only one. Our survival 'present' and 'future' does not depend simply upon our 'body' but on this unique relationship with God through the risen Christ.
From baptism onwards we begin to be inwardly renewed [2Cor 4:16] Christ being formed within us [Gal 4:19] transformed into his image [2Cor 3:18]. Flesh is decaying but the individual as 'body' is being continually transformed [Rm 12:2]. Resurrection begins at
'spiritual birth' [Jn 3:3,5]; future life is a development of present spiritual life [Jn 6:40], a sequence in the life already possessed, a life which passes through death untouched [Jn 11:25].
Being part of the Body of Christ releases within us 'the powers of the age to come' [2Cor 5:17]. The present indwelling of the Spirit is the link with our resurrection bodies, full manifestation is yet to come [Col 3:4]. The 'heavenly body' is the result of sowing in corruption, dishonour and weakness now [2Cor 5:17; ICor. 15:42-45].
There is a tension between present experience and future hope. The body of Christ is a 'suffering body' as well as a resurrection body [Phil 3:10-11]; we groan in longing [2Cor 5:2]. The 'resurrection body' cannot be complete until the 'Parousia' when Christ is 'all in all' [Eph 1:23].
• Parousia
The final change will take place 'in a moment' [ICor 15:52]. As the 'old' falls away it will be seen that in Christ all things are become new [2Cor 5:17]. The 'Parousia' will not be an entirely 'magical moment' quite unrelated to the present.
ICorinthians 15 appears to be stressing 'resurrection' in 'individual' terms but the language must to be understood corporately to get the full biblical force.
There are many perplexing questions about the nature of the resurrection body at the 'Parousia'. They remain unanswered. It is a mystery. What is raised? What is preserved and purified through resurrection? To what extent will the resurrection body be 'physical'? We cannot say [Un 3:2-3]. Just as a 'plant' is different from its 'seed' and yet there is 'continuity' between the two, so it will be for us [ICor 15:37-38]. The body will fulfil its essence. However, it will only inherit if it is radically changed [ICor 15:51]. Sin is done away with [Rm 6:6]. The body is redeemed and fashioned anew [Rm 8:23]. The natural body is transformed into the 'spiritual' body [ICor 15:44].
When Paul wrote 2Corinthians 4 and 5, and ICorinthians 15 he clearly expected that he would be alive at the 'Parousia1 :-
• ICor. 15:52 : 'The dead will be raised ... we shall be changed'.
• 2Cor. 5:4 : 'Not that we would be unclothed, but... further clothed'.
This leads to the question, "What is the position of those who die before the 'Parousia'?"
• Interim
This is a very hard question to answer. In Hebrew thinking the 'dead' were not 'nephesh' but 'rephaim' ['shadows', 'the weak' Isa 14:10]. They are 'insubstantial' but not 'immaterial', death being 'the weakest form of life' not extinction. Their habitation was 'sheol', a state of twilight existence [cf Job 3:17-19]. There is this sense of suspended animation.
Jesus promised the dying thief that he would be with him in 'Paradise' [originally a Persian loan word meaning a 'nobleman's park or garden', a clear link with the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life]. It is difficult to know what Jesus was implying as he was happy to use popular Rabbinic language which saw 'Paradise' [a place of blessing] contrasted with 'Gehenna' [a place of judgment].
Paul is no more clear. He speaks of the dead being 'raised' and those alive being 'changed' [ICor 15:52]. We are not to grieve about those who die because 'God will bring them with [Jesus]', but a few sentences later he says 'the dead in Christ will rise first' those alive being 'caught up together with them' [ITh 4:3-4]. Whether the words 'naked' and 'unclothed' [2Cor 5:3-4] refer to believers dying before the 'Parousia', or unbelievers at the 'Parousia' is uncertain. We have no advantages over those who die, implying that they have none over us[ITh 4:15]. He says that 'whether we live of die we are the Lord's' [Rm 14:8]. Though paradoxically 'to die is gain' and given the choice he would depart to be with Christ which is 'far better'[Phil 1:21-23].
Our resurrection hope is:-
• fundamentally social.
• inescapably historical.
• of the body [not from the body].
• the old made new [not a fresh start].
• transformation of body of sin and death [ICor 15:54].
• part of the redemption of creation.
• the church is a witness to the world's true nature, the 'firstfruit' of its destiny.
 
In regards to Deut. 12:23 and Lev. 17:11:The Hebrew word translatable as soul is "nephesh" <Strong's #05315>, but as Vine's Dictionary of Bible Words points out, it includes all of the following meanings: soul; self; life; person; heart. So, the way "nephesh" is interpreted depends on context and what other sections of Scripture speak to. I noticed that those who adhere to a "soul" interpretation in these verses, seldom address the references to "spirit" in other places of the O.T., as a separate thought then their interpretation of the "soul". Also, I find it interesting, that they do not use the N.T., references that seem to show man's immortality in regards to being born again and participating in our Saviors resurrection, in the spiritual sense. Though the N.T., brings us more light to the O.T. passages that they use.
Bubba
 
Hi Bubba,
The whole point of that whole post is that the Hebrews believed people were a unity which is indivisible. The notion that soul is a separte part that survived death never entered the Hebrew mindset. The soul is the life of the body, not the Greek view that it was the person incarnated in a flesh body.
Here is the summary again about 'Nephesh'. Please also remember that Jesus said the scriptures cannot be broken.

THE PICTURE - WINDOWS Nephesh - Psyche - Soul
The important passage in Genesis 2:7 sets the scene for this 'window - word' into the nature of personhood. An individual becomes a 'nephesh' from the infusion of divine breath into moulded dust. In physical terms 'nephesh' means, 'neck', 'throat', 'gullet' and came to mean 'life', that 'vital motion' which distinguishes a living being from a corpse.
'Nephesh' has such a variety of senses that we must make a careful definition in each particular case. Meanings overlap and are used side by side. It is easy to end up with contradictory statements about 'nephesh'. Here are some of the central statements about 'nephesh':-
• it is that vital life which is shared by both humans and animals [Gen 2:19].
• it is life that is bound up with the body, blood is the vehicle of nephesh [Dt 12:23], at death it dies [Nu 23:10] draining away with the blood, with resuscitation it 'returns'; not that it has gone anywhere.
• it can denote 'the living individual themselves' [Gen 14:21], and can replace the personal pronoun to create special emphasis [Ps 42:6], God uses it of himself [Am 6:8].
• it is strongly instinctive [animal] activity; desire, vital urge, feeling, emotion, mood [Dt 14:26].
• it is feelings and emotions of a spiritual kind; grief, pain, joy, peace, love [Ezk 27:31]; its highest expression is longing for God [Ps 25:1].
The New Testament uses the Greek 'psyche' with the sense of the Hebrew 'nephesh'. Paul's writings are significant for how rarely he uses it. The Synoptics are interesting in that one third of their usage refers to life beyond death [Mt 10:28,39; 16:25-26; Mk 8:35-37; Lk 9:24; 21:19], due to the overlap of present and future in the Kingdom of God; revolutionary in terms of its Hebrew roots.
This 'nephesh' is primarily the life of the whole person in terms of strongly instinctive [animal] activity. It reflects the glory and richness of God's gift of life to him though susceptible to death. It is not an independent substance which, as many have argued, survives death. It is, as we shall see a highly complex image very easy to misinterpret.
 
Bubba said:
In regards to Deut. 12:23 and Lev. 17:11:The Hebrew word translatable as soul is "nephesh" <Strong's #05315>, but as Vine's Dictionary of Bible Words points out, it includes all of the following meanings: soul; self; life; person; heart. So, the way "nephesh" is interpreted depends on context and what other sections of Scripture speak to. I noticed that those who adhere to a "soul" interpretation in these verses, seldom address the references to "spirit" in other places of the O.T., as a separate thought then their interpretation of the "soul".
Click to expand...
Its all answered in the above. The spirit does not die, it returns to God (ecclesiates 12:7)

Also, I find it interesting, that they do not use the N.T., references that seem to show man's immortality in regards to being born again and participating in our Saviors resurrection, in the spiritual sense. Though the N.T., brings us more light to the O.T. passages that they use.
Bubba
Click to expand...

There are NT references, but one must be careful in making a doctrine on a single verse against the broad background of the whole biblical teaching on the subject. Man's immortality is a gift (Romans 6:23), not an automatic right. If you dig deeper, its no surprise to see where the Greek and Babylonian idea that the soul was immortal polluted late Jewish and early Christian thought. One must also remember that Jesus used popular Rabbinical language to bring a point across (eg the rich man and Lazarus, and also Matt 10:28) which some people have used as some kind of doctrinal statement.
The bootom line is that there will be a resurrection then judgement, then eternity either in everlasting destruction or eternal shalom. Nowhere does the bible talk about disembodied souls in heaven!
 
I am not going to bother debating this point but I will throw some things out there for others to study and dicsuss.

1. Those who deny the existence of an eternal soul continually ignore the many nuances of words such as "soul" (and "death") insisting that they have only one meaning. But if one looks closely at all the biblical references to "soul," there really is no way one can argue that they all mean "living being" or "life". There certainly appears to be times when it is referring to something not physical, the "inner man".

2. It is possible that the use of "heart" is often synonomous with the idea of a soul. The "heart" is spoken of often in Scripture and seems to rarely mean a physical heart.

3. The so-called parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is quite telling, and may not even be a parable. However, whether or not it is a parable is of little consequence. Read the rest of the parables and you'll see why it is significant.

4. I find that the cheapest argument against an immortal soul is that it is from Greek thought. This has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is true. If one wants to continue in that line of argument, the case can be made against many Christian doctrines and beliefs.
 
CP_Mike,

Thank you for that wonderful and thorough expose on the biblical mindset of human nature. Unfortunately, it was completely ignored for Free and Bubba's assumptions. True scholarship isn't as important for preconceived notions apparently.

Free, you are wrong. The word for 'soul' is never used as immortal and means 'life, living being'. Man is a wholistic being who is raised to immortality as a wholistic being.

I wish people would get rid of this dead horse once and for all and really see that the Bible teaches wholism, not dualism and resurrection, not immortality. The evidence isn't there contextually or linguistically.

Great job, Mike! I wish people would go back and really read what you wrote instead of glossing over it for weak arguments.
 
Quibox,
Did you happen to read the couple articles I posted before you praised Mike about his scholarship?
Bubba
 
Bubba said:
Mike,
This is an article refuting a SDA scholar, which may help you see the other sides views are legit. Please read, then respond back.
Bubba

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sleepy.html
Click to expand...

Hi Bubba,
Thanks for your link..but this is not about soul sleep this thread. Its more to the point of what 'soul is in the bible. It is clearly not something that survives death.
This is not just an SDA thing, the immortality of the soul. Its widely taught in many denominations that the soul is not immortal. I am not a member of the SDA church and I did a basic theology course which had Penticostals, Anglicans, Methodists, Charismatics from every tradition.
I don't believe in 'soul sleep' either, because even though there is evidence for both views from the bioble, its almost impossible to bring them together. There is a sense of 'conscious waiting' and 'asleep'.

Coming back to the point in hand; the Hebrews (who incidently wrote the OT) believed people are 'wholistic' beings long before the pagan influences arrived with the invasion by Alexander the great. who brought the teachings of Plato. In the early church, people like Origen made statements like 'I accept Plato's view that the soul is immortal'.. , its worth remembering that Origen was, before he converted to Christianity was a student of Greek philosophy!
The point is, Bubba, do you disagree with what the Hebrews wrote and their view about 'Nephesh' (Numbers 23:10, EZ 18:4, Lev 17:11, DT 12:23) and should have omitted those words from the bible? I am sure you agree fully with God's word?
The bottom line is that 'soul' in the bible is primarily the physical 'life' and its attributes to the whole person. Its not an alternative to 'spirit'. We all die, but we all believe in the afterlife, but not the way the Greeks would have it, but the way the Hebrews understood it .
 
Free said:
I am not going to bother debating this point but I will throw some things out there for others to study and dicsuss.

1. Those who deny the existence of an eternal soul continually ignore the many nuances of words such as "soul" (and "death") insisting that they have only one meaning. But if one looks closely at all the biblical references to "soul," there really is no way one can argue that they all mean "living being" or "life". There certainly appears to be times when it is referring to something not physical, the "inner man".
Click to expand...
Hi Free,
The heart (Hebrew Leb) is the inner man in scripture. Jesus spoke about the heart and for the Hebrew, the heart was the centre of consciousness, not the head. 'Soul' in the bible is also the emotions of a physical kind like cravings, hunger, thirst, vital urge (Its all in my notes I posted on page 3 of this thread), but one must also remeber there is overlap and people just don't have 'compartments' where the inner man is kept, we are 'wholistic'. For example, soul also means the whole person..

2. It is possible that the use of "heart" is often synonomous with the idea of a soul. The "heart" is spoken of often in Scripture and seems to rarely mean a physical heart.
Click to expand...
Heart and soul have 2 seperate root words. There is overlap, but this is very thoroughly covered in the notes I posted..Did you read it all carefully?
3. The so-called parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is quite telling, and may not even be a parable. However, whether or not it is a parable is of little consequence. Read the rest of the parables and you'll see why it is significant.
Click to expand...
The rich man and Lazarus is simply Jesus using the Rabbinical language of the day to speak about Justice (the rich man had ignored or even tried to help Lazarus in his poverty), judgement and its eternal consequences. Nowhere does the word 'soul' occur anywhere..so your point?
4. I find that the cheapest argument against an immortal soul is that it is from Greek thought. This has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not it is true. If one wants to continue in that line of argument, the case can be made against many Christian doctrines and beliefs.
Click to expand...

Its not the cheapest argument, its very well documented. Try doing a google search of 'nephesh, soul immortal' and you will find a plethera of websites that speak against the Greek view.
All I am trying to do here is re establish what the Hebrews believed and get rid of the pagan, unbiblical influences that deserve to be kicked out and trust God's word. I am sure you agree with that and shun anything pagan, so why not?
Yours in Christ
 
The first part of the notes

I thought it maybe interesting for the discussion to post the first part of the notes to clarify a few issues in this thread..

03 THE IMAGE
THE PLACE OF PEOPLE Enigma and paradox
1... What are people that you are mindful of them,
and human beings that you care for them?
Vet you have made them little less than God,
and have crowned them with glory and honour'
IPs. S:4-5)
'A person that is born of woman
is of few days, and full of trouble.
They come up like a flower, and withers,
they disappear like a shadow ...*
[Job 14:1-2)
"Who am I?", is one of the most basic of life's questions. A question so obvious and easy to ask, and yet one which remains so profoundly difficult to answer. The simple and exciting fact is that human personhood is both an enigma and a paradox. We sense mystery and ambiguity about ourselves; within ourselves, within the world and in terms of our relationship with God. Apart from divine revelation human beings hold extreme and opposing views about themselves:-
• naive optimism : "Look what we have done „."
• cynical pessimism : "What hope for the human race ..."
Poets and philosophers of all ages have offered different perceptions of personhoodh we are:-
• 'the glory and the sum of the universe' [Pascal]
• 'the quintessence of dust* [Shakespeare in 'Hamlet'].
• 'an 'economic being' [Karl Marx],
The Bible stands in contrast to our own human ambivalent assessment of ourselves. It presents us as unique within the world, at one with the environment in which we move and yet at the same time with the call and destiny of God upon us.
We are unique within the world; the 'creature of God'. We are 'the zenith the crown and climax of the created order\ Within creation we alone are a mixture of heaven and earth; moulded out of the dust, yet receiving life by the direct transfer of God's divine breath [Gen 2:7]. Not only are human beings the final act of creation, God's noblest work, but it is in and through our existence and relationship with God that ihe rest of creation comes to fulfilment and meaning. The three major scriptures about human personhood are;
• Gen. 1:26 - 2:4a : "Let us make human kind in our image ..."
9 Gen. 2:4b-y : 'The Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground ..."
• Ps. 8:3-8 : "You have given them dominion over the works of your hands ..."
Harmony and rule
The human person is wholly part of nature. The name 'adam' emphasises the reddish dust from which the original person was formed [Gen 2:7; Job 10:8-9]. We share biological and physical similarity with the animal creation with whom we also share the breath of life [Gen 7:22; Ecc 3:19-20]. We are subject to the laws of the natural world and can find ourselves overawed by the grandeur of nature [Job 38-42]. Like all created creatures we are wholly dependent upon the mercy of God [Ps 103:15; 104:27-30], Human beings have a sympathy with nature [Gen 2:19]; we must respect its ordinances [Dt 22:9-10], recognise our dependence upon it, and work within its environment to sustain our needs [Gen 3:17; 9:1-7].
Nature is created and controlled by God. He has chosen to place us in unity and harmony within nature. God has placed mankind at the centre of creation and given us a mandate to exercise 'dominion' and 'rule' upon the earth. We are to possess nature and make it serve us, in harmony with God's character [Gen 1:28; Ps 8:6-8]. However, we are also to serve nature; to tend it and bring it to fruition [Gen 2:15]. We are God's agents and rulers within the world, the representatives of God's kingdom upon the earth.
The nature of human dominion over the created order is profound [Gen 1:27; Ps 8:5-8]. We are commissioned to take all the potential and possibilities of nature and develop, shepherd and build them to their highest level. This is only possible because of our unique covenant relationship with God. The rule and position of human beings within nature depends entirely upon their obedience to God, fulfilling his covenant requirements. We serve creation by serving God. We rule aright only as we ourselves are ruled by God. Our interface with nature will only be harmonious and fruitful as we fulfil God's call upon us.
In rebellion towards God, people have the ability to exploit and destroy the world, reducing paradise to a dust bowl. Rabbi Roshi has said of the expression, 've-yirdu' [lhave dominion*], that it may well imply 'descending* as well as the Ascending* of dominion. If we are worthy we will rule over the beasts, if we are not, we will sink lower than the beasts and they will rule over us. The spectrum of possibility is as low as it is high.
So nature is not simply a 'neutral' framework in the background against which human beings move. God has placed deep and mysterious bonds between nature and ourselves. Nature suffers and groans under human sin [Gen 3:17-19; Rm 8:20,22]. Nature rejoices at events that lead to our redemption [Ps 96:10-13; Isa 35:1-10; 55:12-13; Rm 8:19]. Nature will enjoy deliverance as we are redeemed [Isa 11:6-9; 65:25: Rm 8:21].
Image and likeness
On one hand we, as human beings, are fully part of nature, yet at the same time we can find nothing within it that corresponds exactly to ourselves [Gen 2:20]. In fact all true joy, harmony and completeness depend exclusively upon our relationship with God [Gen 3:8]. It is the spiritual dimension of human beings which determines their uniqueness. We have a partnership with God which no other creature shares. In Genesis 2:7 it is stressed that an individual's life is a divine gift, the result of the personal in-breathing of God. The words of Psalm 8:5 make the amazing statement that:-
*,.. you have made them a little lower than 'elohim' [God], and have crowned them with glory and honour.'
Genesis 1:26 speaks of God making human beings, 'in our image and after our likeness*. This is a tantalising statement, and the words 'image' and 'likeness* have led to considerable debate among theologians over the centuries. Among the different interpretations given to the words, some have suggested they refer to:-
 
continued:-

* the dominion human beings may exercise over the earth
• the rationality and powers of human reasoning.
• the immortality of the soul.
• the ultimate destiny into which individuals must grow.
• the idea there are certain physical characteristics akin to God.
None of the suggestions are adequate in themselves, though some point towards were an answer might be found. Some are quite misleading. As we shall see, the notion of an 'immortal soul' is not biblical. Also, while the Bible uses anthropomorphic language, it is clear that God is spirit; while he is able to assume a form if he desires no physical 'image* of 'likeness' of him is possible [cf Ex 20:4]. However, the ease, naturalness and perfection of the incarnation is tantalising here.
Others thinkers have drawn clear distinctions between the words 'image' and 'likeness':-
• 'image' is said to refer to a unique gift from God, an original righteousness, perfect determination, all of which was lost at the Fall.
• 'likeness' is said to refer to that which belongs to us by naturally; free will, rationality, dominion over nature, all of which we still retain after the Fall. The Fall leaves the 'image* wounded but the 'will' free.
These are interesting but not completely satisfactory explanations. A number point in the right direction, but the others reflect Greek speculation rather than a biblical Hebrew mind. The tantalising phrase 'image and likeness' needs to be understood within strictly Hebrew terms:-
• 'image' (tselem): this word is a very concrete term, it has the sense of representing something in the form of a 'statue', 'picture*, 'drawing', 'a copy' of something.
• 'likeness' (demuth): this word is a much less distinct term, it has the sense of 'something resembling' [compare its use in the vision of Ezekiel 1:5,10,26 etc], it suggests 'similarity' yet the inability to be truly perceived by the senses, unreal and yet more than real.
The two phrases need to be held in poetic balance; 'likeness' softening the force of 'image'. The words must be understood spiritually, they cannot have any sense of physical resemblance. To say that we are in the 'image and likeness' of God is stressing that a human being is a medium of spiritual and personal life; that we have been given a share in the 'personhood' of God. Here is a unique dimension of creation, quite unlike any other part of it. Even though we stand in awe of God we also have a spiritual nature which gives us a kinship with God [Gen 3:19 we are called a 'thou']. This marks the honour and dignity God has conferred upon us. It marks our standing within God's purposes. The 'image of God' bestows upon us unique capacities for creativity, relationship, self-awareness, and self-determination. We alone, within creation, have moral freedom and a sense of responsibility.
It is only as individual people respond in relationship to God, with love, trust and obedience, that they can become what he truly is, and the 'image of God' be fully seen reflecting God's glory. Obedience to God is our fundamental human duty, but it is equally our privilege and the means by which we receive blessing [Ex 19:5]. Human beings alone receive commands from God; eg:-
• '... of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you may not eat' [Gen 2:16].
• 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and might' [Dt 6:8].
• 'Cease to do evil, learn to do good, seek justice' [Isa 1:16].
Fellowship with God is open to all people with a submissive spirit; those who have a heart that desires to obey his word.
it is important, to see that ‘the image of God’ is primarily corporate, with the individual factors flowing from that. The image of God is only complete in the totality of male and female [Gen 1 :27 'So God created human kind in his image ... male and female he created them']. The image of God' is only fully seen in the harmony of human relationships, one with another.
The 'image of God' is part of the 'psycho-physical totality of human nature'; while it can be damaged and distorted it can never be completely lost. It is in Jesus that we fully understand it. Jesus is the true 'image of God' [2Cor 4:4]. He is the 'true person' [Jn 19:5], the unique individual, the one bearing the very stamp of God's nature [Heb 1:3]. The profound concept >f a human person being in the 'image of God' is presented in Genesis 1:27, but it is nowhere further developed in the Hebrew scriptures. It is only 'in Christ' that the full potential of this act can be realised [Rm 8:29; 2Cor 3:18; ICor 15:49].
THE NATURE OF PERSONHOOD
The riddle
We reach the heart of the enigma of human personhood as we attempt to discuss and understand the structure of human 'being' and the function of our nature. The Bible presents neither a formal doctrinal statement, nor a theoretical analysis, of the nature of personhood. Such questions did not interest the biblical mind; however, they have been the obsession of the indent Greek, the systematic theologian, and modem science.
Modern humanism stresses the 'physical' and 'animal' aspect of the human species. Any suggestion that we are more than the function of our bodily parts is dismissed as illogical; equivalent to arguing that a car engine works because there is 'a ghost in the machine'. Yet, while I encounter 'persons' as physical beings, my experience alone suggests that this is not he whole story, and that there are unplumbed spiritual depths laying beneath and beyond the skin. These are clearly more than the mere electrical impulses of the brain. The human eye truly s a 'window upon the soul'.
The Bible uses a whole range of words to refer to a person's spiritual - psychological aspect. these words originate in the Hebrew scriptures; the New Testament gives them equivalent Greek names, but always retains their original Hebrew meaning and understanding. However, he New Testament does also make a small number of significant additions to expand this vocabulary:-
Hebrew……….NT Greek…………………………… English
nephesh ………psyche……………………………….. 'soul'
ruach………….pneuma………………………………. spirit
basar……………sarx……………………………………….. flesh
…………………...soma………………………………………. body
leb………………kardia………………………………………heart
…………………- nous……………………………………….- mind
………………… - sundidesis………………………………...- conscience
- kelayot ……….. – nephros…………………………………. - kidneys [reins]
- meim …………. – splanchua………………………………….- bowels
- dereb…………………………………………………… - inwards
- kedeb……………………………………………………. -liver
- eshem …………..- osteon…………………………………. - bones
- beten…………… - koilia……………………………………- belly
 
contined:-

The error
Traditional Christian doctrine has been very unhelpful in giving us a biblical understanding of personhood, it has usually presented one of two views as being the correct way of defining the components of human being. They have been as follows:-
• Tripartite
This is the view that the human individual is composed of three components; 'the body', 'the soul' and 'the spirit'. This fails to take a whole biblical picture, and bases itself upon a misinterpretation of two verses:-
'May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely;
and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless
at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ'
[ITh 5:23]
'Indeed, the word of God is living and active,
sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit,
joints from marrow;
it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart'.
[Heb4:12]
In context these statements are clearly the rhetorical words of a preacher, they are not foundational theological statements. They must be interpreted against the broad biblical background of statements about personhood; and not it against them.
• Bipartite
This is the view that the human individual is composed of two components; 'the body' and 'the soul', with the 'spirit' being the quintessence of the 'soul'.
Neither of these two views are satisfactory, because:-
• they create the impression that the human person is comprised of three [or two] quite distinct elements [like a Neapolitan ice cream!], rather than a totality.
• they do not do justice to the range of biblical vocabulary with the variety of senses in which it is used.
• they are influenced by Greek philosophy rather than by Jewish thought; the words of the New Testament have too frequently been filled with concepts from Greek speculation while the Hebrew ideas they are translating have been forgotten.
• to imagine 'body', 'soul' and 'spirit' as distinct entities is to fundamentally misunderstand the biblical concepts.
• in ITh 5:23 the verb and adjective are both singular; the implication is 'keep the whole of you', not 'parts' of you.
• in Heb 4:12 the implication is to 'permeate every dimension' of a person, not separating 'parts'..
• neither of the models give any direct mention to the 'heart' which is a key biblical concept.
Bearing these facts in mind we must now attempt to resolve our thinking about the riddle of human nature by looking more closely at the way in which the biblical words are used.
The key
The Bible leads us towards an understanding of our personhood in its totality by approaching it in terms of our physical body. To the Hebrew mind 'personality' resulted from an 'animated body', it was not, as the Greeks thought, an 'incarnated soul'. The important biblical truth is that a person does not have a body they are a body. The Hebrews never thought about the body in isolation and for its own sake, they were only interested in the whole person and their relationship with God.
So the Bible sees the human body as the pathway into the whole person; it sees the physical body as the medium of an individuals personal life. Added to this, an organic and inseparable connection is seen between the physical and the spiritual dimensions of a person. As a result we see that various physical organs are spoken of as being connected with particular aspects of inner feelings and spiritual experience [eg breath, blood, heart, liver, kidneys, bowels etc]. In fact, at first sight, one could be forgiven for imagining that each individual person is composed of a number of unrelated and isolated centres of inner activity, seemingly independent of any unifying factor. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth; and understanding this paradox is in fact the essential key to understanding biblical anthropology.
The key to the biblical doctrine of personhood is understanding that the Hebrew mind saw no contrast or distinction between the 'one' and the 'many', the 'whole' and the 'part'. This results in two fundamental conclusions upon which everything else is built>
• the human person is a unity; a physical and spiritual totality which is an indivisible whole.
• the whole may be represented and seen in each particular part. At
any moment any part can stand for the whole person. It is interesting to note that the Hebrew scriptures mention some 80 parts of the human body, and yet, as we shall see, there is no single word for the 'whole'; almost any part can be used to represent the whole.
So in studying biblical anthropology we are presented with personhood as a totality and a whole; an indivisible unity. What the nature and substance of that unity is, is illuminated by a wealth of pictures which have their root in physical organs and observable phenomena from which they provide a 'bridge' into the spiritual depths of human personality:-
• each picture gives a vivid description of some aspect of the inner spiritual processes of personhood.
• each picture serves as a window into the whole person.
• each picture represents the whole person from a particular point of view.
Putting all the pictures together we have a series of windows each looking in on personhood as a whole, but highlighting different aspects of our unity from different perspectives. Imagine a free standing room with a window in each of the four walls and one in the ceiling; looking through each window gives you a view of the whole room, but each window also gives you a unique perspective on the whole room. The same is true of each of the biblical words.
The teaching of the Bible about personhood is profound. At first sight its approach may appear naive, but on examination we discover a treasury of pictures which interlock with one another in the most complex manner. Their variety of emphasis and colour, their subtle nuances in sense and feeling, all express deep truths about a person as a spiritual being.
The New Testament naturally builds from its Hebrew foundations. While it makes no clearer dogmatic statements than the Hebrew Bible, it does provide a centre around which all the fluid Hebrew ideas can arrange themselves - this is the personality of Jesus. Paul's treatment of the nature of personhood is the most elaborate in the New Testament, due to his emphasis on'personal experience'. While he enlarges the biblical vocabulary he uses the new words in the
established biblical manner and framework. Also the New Testament emphasis on both the
present and future experience of the Kingdom of God, and its promise of the 'resurrection of
the body1, bring a new force to the whole subject.  « - ^
THE PICTURE - WINDOWS Nephesh - Psyche - Soul
The important passage in Genesis 2:7 sets the scene for this 'window - word' into the nature of personhood. An individual becomes a 'nephesh' from the infusion of divine breath into moulded dust. In physical terms 'nephesh' means, 'neck', 'throat', 'gullet' and came to mean 'life', that 'vital motion' which distinguishes a living being from a corpse.
'Nephesh' has such a variety of senses that we must make a careful definition in each particular case. Meanings overlap and are used side by side. It is easy to end up with contradictory statements about 'nephesh'. Here are some of the central statements about 'nephesh':-
• it is that vital life which is shared by both humans and animals [Gen 2:19].
• it is life that is bound up with the body, blood is the vehicle of nephesh [Dt 12:23], at death it dies [Nu 23:10] draining away with the blood, with resuscitation it 'returns'; not that it has gone anywhere.
• it can denote 'the living individual themselves' [Gen 14:21], and can replace the personal pronoun to create special emphasis [Ps 42:6], God uses it of himself [Am 6:8].
• it is strongly instinctive [animal] activity; desire, vital urge, feeling, emotion, mood [Dt 14:26].
• it is feelings and emotions of a spiritual kind; grief, pain, joy, peace, love [Ezk 27:31]; its highest expression is longing for God [Ps 25:1].
The New Testament uses the Greek 'psyche' with the sense of the Hebrew 'nephesh'. Paul's writings are significant for how rarely he uses it. The Synoptics are interesting in that one third of their usage refers to life beyond death [Mt 10:28,39; 16:25-26; Mk 8:35-37; Lk 9:24; 21:19], due to the overlap of present and future in the Kingdom of God; revolutionary in terms of its Hebrew roots.
This 'nephesh' is primarily the life of the whole person in terms of strongly instinctive [animal] activity. It reflects the glory and richness of God's gift of life to him though susceptible to death. It is not an independent substance which, as many have argued, survives death. It is, as we shall see a highly complex image very easy to misinterpret.


And so one can continue from page 3 of this thread to make a 'whole'!
 
Mike,
I am totally confused on where you are coming from, may be you could explain to me your understanding of grace (the Gospel message) in regards to Jesus our savior, If you believe He is divine, if He physically rose, if He is physically coming back. Your views in plain English, on the eternal destiny of the lost as well as the saved, basically what do you believe in regards to essentials of the faith?
Bubba
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top