The Hebrew word Moses used that our English bibles sometimes translate soul is nephesh, a word that suggests something that breathes. In fact, the Ugaritic and Akadian cognates also mean “throat.”² Moses’ use was consistent with an understanding that a soul is a living breathing being.

Consistent with this understanding, Moses had no problem using the term nephesh to refer to animals. In the creation account, Moses records “And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.”³ The ESV uses the phrase “living creatures” to translate the Hebrew nephesh chayah (souls of life). It is obvious from the context that Moses refers to fish and sea mammals, and birds, not people. This first use  of nephesh highlights a contrast with Plato’s teaching that only human beings have souls.

Moses continues to use the term to refer to animals in the next few verses. He says “So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.”⁴ Likewise, in verse 24, “And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds- livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.”⁵ And later he says, “And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so.”⁶ The phrase “breath of life” translates nephesh chayah again. So all four references to the soul in Genesis 1 refer to animals, not people.

Later in the account of Adam’s dominion in the garden of Eden, Moses again speaks of animals with souls when he describes Adam’s responsibility to name them: “So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.”⁷

When Moses recorded God’s covenant with Noah after the flood, he included the provision which allows for eating animals. The covenant stipulated that “you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”⁸ The word the ESV translates as life is the same term,nephesh. He probably meant that the blood of the animal is essential to its life – that is – if you take away its blood it will stop

breathing. The rule forbade eating an animal while it was still alive – while it still had its soul. The account continues to use the term nephesh in reference to animals.⁹

It is poor theology to simply suggest that the same term means living being when referring to animals, but implies an immortal being when referring to people. It does not do justice to the fact that the term is used of both animals and people, nor to the fact that their meaning is consistent as long as the interpreter is not already biased with a presupposition that humans were created immortal.

What we learn from Moses is that humans were created — like the animals — as living, breathing beings, and that when they lose their breath, they die, and return to the dust from which they came.¹⁰ Without the promise of resurrection, that would be the end of human existence.

Greek philosophy came along and subverted that simple theology by taking God and the resurrection out of the picture. Instead Plato and others exalted the nature of humanity. That magnified anthropology bolstered the concept of the dignity of man, at the expense of Moses’ teaching on human dependence upon God.

The gospel message does not require that humans be deified. It tells us that believers have the hope of eternal life – not because we were born different from the animals – but because Jesus has made a way for us to be resurrected to immortality. It is the cross of Jesus Christ – not our created human nature – that gives us hope of life beyond the grave. It is the second coming of Jesus Christ – not our own death – that is the biblical blessed hope.

1. B. F. Cocker, Christianity and Greek Philosophy (New York: Carlton & Lanahan, 1870), 10.
2. See The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 1935a Nephesh.
3. Genesis 1:20.
4. Genesis 1:21.
5. Genesis 1:24.
6. Genesis 1:30.
7. Genesis 2:19.
8. Genesis 9:4.
9. Genesis 9:10, 12, 15, 16.
10. Genesis 3:19

What is the soul? This is a question which has been asked in all ages; but the answers which they often gave or got have in many cases failed to convey the correct idea, if not  an altogether erroneous one. Before proceeding to answer the question for ourselves, we will glance at one or two answers which have been already made to this question.

Hodge defines the soul as being “unextended and indivisible.” ¹ Now it follows that a thing which is without extension, must necessarily be without substance, and hence must be immaterial. The same argument has been adopted by Drew, who defines the soul as being “a single unextended indivisible atom.”  ²   The question before us thus resolves itself, do humans have souls? To this we answer humans are souls.  Since  humans are souls, the soul must be a real existence capable of extension and division, and also composed of, not one atom, but of all the atoms which go to make up the body.

But let us turn to the Bible, and see what it says. In the first place Hodge and Drew, along with the majority of writers on this subject, says the soul is a part of the human. The Bible says the soul is the human. Gen.2: 7 states. “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became (not got) a living soul.” This is clear evidence; but let us proceed.

We are taught that the Soul is immaterial, and as an immaterial existence can have none of the appetites which belong to the body. The Bible, on the contrary, teaches that the soul partakes of the same nature as the body, inasmuch as it is liable to the same passions and appetites. We read of “hungry souls,” ³ ; “thirsty souls,” ⁴ ; “full souls,”⁵ ; “afflicted souls,” ⁶; “unstable souls,”⁷ ; “idle souls”⁸ ;   “weary souls,”⁹ where we also read of ” sorrowful souls.”

But, further, an immaterial soul could not perform any actions, or have any actions performed upon it. Upon this point the Bible is most clear. It plainly teaches that the soul is capable of performing all the actions pertaining to the body, and also of having these actions performed upon it. We read that the soul can be cut off.¹⁰ It is capable of offering sacrifice¹¹ ;  of swearing¹²;  of committing trespasses¹³;   of being destroyed¹⁴ ; of sinning¹⁵ ;  of touching¹⁶; of dying¹⁷; of being killed¹⁸;  of being grieved¹⁹ ;  of being torn²⁰ ; of being stolen²¹ ; of mourning²². It can fast²³ . It can eat flesh²⁴.  It is said to creep upon the earth²⁵ . One soul to be given in exchange for another²⁶ . It can be possessed by animals²⁷ .  It is said to be born²⁸ . It can be bought with money, and used as an article of food²⁹ .  It can be buried³⁰ .

The grave, or hell, has a soul³¹ .  The soul may be beheaded³² . It may also be hunted³³; snared³⁴ ;  strangled    ³⁵  ;  or taken in a pit³⁶ ; or taken by ambush³⁷.  It can be put in prison³⁸;  and taken into captivity ³⁹ . It can be healed, and as a necessary consequence must suffer from disease⁴⁰ .  The Soul is said to be the blood, or in the blood⁴¹ .

A careful perusal of these texts will be quite sufficient to show any honest reader that the doctrines of Immateriality and Immortality are nowhere to be found in Holy Writings.⁴²

1. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2. {New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1873}, 46.
2. Samuel Drew, An original essay on the Immateriality &Immortality of the Human Soul, Founded Solely on Physical and Rational Principles {7th Edition} {Baltimore: A Neal, 1810}, 129.
3. Psalms. 105: 9; Proverbs 27: 7.
4. Proverbs 25: 5.
5. Proverbs 27: 7.
6. Isaiah  58: 10, Lev. 16: 29, 31, Num. 29: 7.
7. 2 Pet 2:4.
8. Proverbs 29: 15
9. Jeremiah 31: 25.
10. Gen. 17: 17; Ex. 12: 15; Num 9: 13, 15: 30, 31; Ezek, 17: 17.  The word translated “cut off,” is a most emphatic one, namely, kah-rath which means to cut off (as applied to trees), to kill, to destroy. In the Septuagint it is translated by the Greek word; ezolothreuo, which according to Liddell and Scott, means” to utterly destroy.”
11. Lev.  2:1.
12. Lev. 5: 4.
13. Lev. 5:15.
14. Lev. 23: 80; Matt. 10:28.  The word here translated “destroy,” is even more emphatic. In the Hebrew it is abad, which primarily means to go; hence, to destroy, and passively, to be destroyed.
15. Num. 15: 27; Rom 2:9.
16. Lev. 12: 6; Num. 19: 20.
17. Num. 23: 10; Josh2: 13; James. 5: 20. These texts are quite sufficient to show that the popular idea of an immaterial soul is false, for it is plainly taught that the soul, in virtue of its immateriality, can never die. The Bible teaches something very much different. Which are we to believe, the Bible or Plato?
18. Num. 35:11, 15; 31: 19; Joshua 20: 3; Rev. 16: 3.
19. Judges 10: 16; Mark 14: 34.
20. Job 18:4.
21. Deut. 24: 7.
22. Job 14: 22.
23. Psalm 35: 13.
24. Deut, 12: 20.
25. Lev. 11: 46.
26. Ex. 21: 23; Deut. 19 :21; 1 Kings 20: 42.
27. Gen. 1: 20, 21, 24, 30; 2: 19; 9: 10, 12, 15
28. Gen. 46: 15.
29. Lev 22:2.
30. Gen. 23: 8.
31. Isaiah 5: 14.
32. Rev. 20: 4.
33. 1 Sam, 24: 11.
34. 1 Sam 28: 9 ; Prov. 22: 5.
35. Job 7: 15.
36. Psalm 35: 7.
37. Psalm. 56: 6.
38. Psalm 117: 7.
39. Isaiah 46: 2.
40. Psalm 41: 4; 71: 10.
41. Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17: 14, 15. This idea of the soul being in the blood was held by most of the ancients. Josephus, speaking of the law concerning animals, says: ” He (God) entirely forbade us the use of blood for food, and esteemed it to contain the soul and spirit.”-Antiq., Bk, Ill. ch. xi, 2. Josephus, as will be seen, believed in the tripartite nature of man. In another place he says, ” God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul.”-Antiq” Bk. 1., ed, i. 2.
42. Let it be observed that in all the passages I have quoted, I have only taken those in which the radical terms for soul occur, namely, nephesh. in the Old Testament, and pseuche in the New Testament. In some cases the words are left untranslated in our version, but a careful examination of the original will show the connection in which the words occur.

On the other side of the rope are conditionalists.  We tend to emphasize Matthew 10:28b, where Jesus speaks of God being able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna hell. We reason that anything that can be destroyed is not    by nature immortal. We do not believe that “Matt. 10:28 presupposes a sharp division between body and soul in which the ‘soul’ is the more important, immortal part.”² We see that presupposition as reading into the text of Matthew 10:28a a dualistic view of the nature of humanity which is not reflected in the rest of Scripture, and essentially denies the reality of death.
In a recent article on this text, David Burge summarized a conditionalist approach:

1. The Bible affirms that death is a real event which affects the whole person.
2. In hell, the lost will suffer complete destruction; no part of them will survive.
3. Jesus is teaching that the first death is only temporary. The resurrection will reverse it.
4. Jesus is teaching about the nature of God here, not the nature of man. Believers should fear God, not human persecutors.³

Psuché in Matthew
If our brothers with the innate immortality view are right, Jesus is affirming something about the nature of humanity in Matthew 10:28a. He is teaching that there is a part of every human being that God has made indestructible. This is the soul. One way of assessing the validity of that interpretation is to cross-reference each occurrence of the word soul (psuché in Greek) as it appears in Matthew’s Gospel. This should help us grasp how Matthew understood the term – whether or not he understood it as an immortal part of every human being.

Matthew 2:20
The first occurrence of psuché in Matthew comes from the mouth of the Angel of the Lord. He tells Joseph that it is safe to return to Israel from Egypt because those who sought Jesus’ life are dead. The word the angel uses for life is psuché. It is clear that the angel is speaking about Herod’s desire to kill Jesus, to prevent him from challenging the authority of the Herodian dynasty. There is absolutely no way to read into this statement any affirmation of human immortality. Perhaps this is the reason that the translators of many versions render the term psuché as life in this passage. Matthew is using the word psuché as the Old Testament⁴  usually does: as a reference to the life of the whole person.

Matthew 6:25
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses the term psuché to talk about human appetites. He tells his disciples not to worry about their psuché: “what you will eat or what you will drink.” This is a significant text in the debate for two reasons: 1) these are the words of Jesus, so they reflect how Jesus used the term psuché; 2) Jesus also used the word body (soma) in the same verse.
Crucial to the innate immortality position is the assumption that body and soul are contrasting terms. Yet, in this passage body and soul are not contrasted. Both body and soul are terms which imply the earthly, fleshly appetites. The body is concerned with what it will wear, and the soul is concerned with its next meal. Clearly Jesus is not teaching that what one eats and drinks is more important than what one wears. He is not contrasting the soul with the body. Both soul and body are used here to refer to earthly, fleshly appetites of the whole person. Nor is Jesus downplaying the importance of these human needs. He is merely teaching that the kingdom of God is more important. That is what believers should concern themselves over.⁵

Matthew 10:39
Another significant use of psuché by Matthew occurs just eleven verses after 10:28. This is within the most immediate context. The situation and audience is the same: Jesus is preparing the twelve disciples for the mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.⁶  The threat is the same: believers are risking their lives if they proclaim the gospel. They will find that even the members of their own households will turn against them.⁷ To be a true believer is to face the sword⁸  and take up one’s cross.⁹
Yet, Jesus is not telling his disciples that it is only their bodies that are threatened. He is actually encouraging them to surrender their souls to be killed. He tells them “If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it” (NLT). Once again, the word life in that passage refers to the present life of the whole person, not an immaterial essence that survives death. But that term, life, is a translation of the same Greek word, psuché. If Jesus had meant to affirm that the soul is an immortal part of the human being that cannot die, why did he use the very same word to refer to the human life, which, by definition is mortal and in threat of dying? What is more, he is using the same term in the same message to the same audience.
So, conditionalists cannot accept the interpretation of Matthew 10:28a that insists that soul and body are separate anthropological entities, one of which is indestructible and the other is destructible. That interpretation contradicts what Jesus says in the four most important contexts of Matthew 10:28a. It requires that Matthew 10:28b be reread: anything that is indestructible cannot be destroyed, even by God. Therefore the innate immortality view insists that Jesus is talking about the perpetual torture of human souls, not their destruction. It requires that the same term be translated “life,” in 2:20 and 10:39, because the idea of an immortal soul cannot fit those texts. It also downplays the strong connection that the soul has with the body, as seen in 6:25.

Matthew 11:29
Expanding the contextual boundaries a bit further, we find Jesus promising rest for the souls of those who take his yoke upon themselves. Jesus could not have been referring to merely the immaterial essences of the disciples, because in the previous verse he had said the same thing without using the word psuché: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”  ((Matthew 11:28 ))  Here Jesus uses the term psuché the same way as he did in the previous passages in Matthew: as a synonym for the whole person. It parallels the pronoun “you.”

Matthew 12:18
In the next chapter, Matthew quotes Isaiah 42:1-3, which definitely does refer to an immortal soul. Unfortunately for the innate immortality view, that immortal soul is God’s soul. The text cannot prove anything about human souls. But in this text as well, the best way to understand God’s use of the word soul is as a parallel to the “I” in the same verse.

Matthew 16:25-26
In chapter 16, Jesus repeats the same admonition that he gave his disciples in 10:39. Jesus is about to go to the cross, , take up their crosses, and follow him. If they try to save their lives (by rejecting him) they will lose their lives. If they lose their lives (by being killed along with him) they will find them.
Here a rather peculiar thing happens. The word psuché appears in this passage four times: twice in v.25, and twice in v.26. Many of the modern translations render it as life in v. 25, and soul in v. 26. Apparently, the only reason for doing so is that v. 26, taken out of its context, could be used to contrast the soul with the body. In its context, however, v. 26 is saying the same thing that Jesus has said before: personal safety is not worth rejecting him.
In chapter 20, Jesus uses the term psuché referring to himself. He said that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many.” Again, the best translation for the term psuché is the English word life. It is clear that Jesus is referring to his impending death at Calvary. By his physical death on the cross, Jesus drank from the cup that led to atonement for the sins of the world. By dying that death, Jesus gave his “soul.” If the soul of every human being is immortal, then Jesus’ soul could not die. But if Jesus’ soul could not die, how could he give it as the world’s ransom?

Matthew 22:37
In chapter 22, Jesus quotes from the Old Testament again. He had been asked which is the greatest commandment. He replied that it involved loving the Lord with all one’s heart, soul, and mind. Despite the fact that this text is a favorite of preachers due to its built-in three points, it is best to see “heart, soul and mind” as an example of hendiatrys. Jesus is emphasizing complete devotion to God. He is not teaching anthropology. Any of the three terms in this verse could have been used alone to convey the idea of complete devotion. Together they maximize the same emphasis.

Matthew 26:38
The final example of psuché in Matthew’s Gospel is a quote from Jesus to his disciples at Gethsemane. He is in agony as he prays in the garden, knowing that his death is immanent. He explains to the disciples that his soul is “very sorrowful, even to death” and asks them to remain there with him and “watch.” It is clear from Matthew’s description of the event that Jesus’ body was also sorrowing. In fact, Matthew had said the same thing of the whole Jesus in v.37: “he began to be sorrowful and troubled.” So, once again, Matthew is using the term psuché as a parallel to a pronoun.

The Lucan Parallel
Luke 12:4 offers a synoptic view of the same statement as Matthew 10:28. Luke has Jesus saying “do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do.” Luke does not even mention the psuché, thus avoids the perception of dualism, perhaps because he was writing to a Gentile audience who would have been more prone to dualistic thought. His emphasis was the same as that of Matthew. He was encouraging commitment to God rather than fear of man. The death that the persecutors threaten is a real death, but it is merely a temporary one. The cost of rejecting Christ is permanent destruction in Gehenna at the final judgment.

What Matthew 10:28a Does Not Imply
Having surveyed every use of psuché in Matthew, and looked at the only synoptic parallel passage, we are now prepared to infer from our text what it does not imply. It does not imply an obvious contrast between two parts of the human person. In every text investigated, the psuché is used of the whole person, not one of many parts. In many of the texts, the soul’s loss is inextricably linked to the death of the body. In the most immediate context – Matthew 10:28b – both body and soul are destroyed together at the final punishment of the wicked. Thus, 10:28a could not be implying the innate immortality of the soul. Also, the only significant thing this text implies about the intermediate state is that it is just that – intermediate. It does not imply consciousness. It is a state of death, albeit a temporary death.
What Matthew 10:28a Does Imply
Conditionalists are not prepared to concede that body and soul are two distinct parts of a human, nor that the soul is by nature immortal. But that does not mean that conditionalists refuse to take Matthew 10:28a seriously. We believe that freed from the shackles of platonic dualism this text is better able to convey the original intentions of both Christ and Matthew. They encourage believers to be more concerned about doing God’s will than cautious about how others might respond to their devotion. They also remind us that although death is real, it is not permanent. Between Matthew 28a and 28b there is space and time for the dead to be raised by God’s power at Christ’s return. For believers, this is cause for celebration.

Jefferson Vann and his wife Penny have been missionaries with Advent Christian General Conference since 1996. They have served 13 years as professors at Oro Bible College in the Philippines, and are currently serving as pastors-at-large with Advent Christian Conference of New Zealand.

1. George Christian Knapp, Lecture on Christian Theology (New York: G. & C. & H. Carvill, 1833), 588.
2. Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Matthew (Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1991), 153.
3. David Burge, “On Matthew 10:28” in From Death To Life, Issue 29, Jan/Mar 2006, p.3
4. I am referring, of course, to the Septuagint – the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.
5. Matthew 6:33
6. Matthew 10:6
7. Matthew 10:35-36
8. Matthew 10:34
9. Matthew 10:38

Genesis 2:7

Today’s Scripture teaches the following truths: that Adam was moulded out of the ground around him (notice that the creature that God formed is twice called “man” before he is ever living); that life entered Adam by God’s breathing of the “spirit” (the “breath of life”) into his nostrils; and that Adam became a living soul. Clearly, Adam is NOT dust plus something else, be it soul or spirit. He is literally dust made alive by the “breath” (or “spirit”) of God (Genesis 3:19,18:27; Psalm 103:14, etc.). Man does not HAVE a living soul. Man IS a living soul. This he shares in common with the animals (Genesis 1:20,21,24,30,2:19,6:17,7:15,22, etc.). Nothing in this (or any other) passage suggests that the “soul” or “spirit” is in any way immortal. The biblical view of a human being is truly humbling.

“Stop trusting in man, who has but a breath in his nostrils. Of what account is he?” (Isaiah 2:22).