You are here: Home / Theology / Body/Soul

Word Studies in Genesis Chapter II (Part 2)

August 19, 2009 By admin Leave a Comment

In Brief Bible Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.19-24, by Sidney A. Hatch.

v.7. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

There are other interesting occurrences of neshamah, of course. Two which especially indicate its significance are Job 32:8 and Job 34:14-15.

In the first of these passages, Elihu exclaims, “But there is a spirit (ruach) in man: and the inspiration (neshamah) of the Almighty giveth understanding.” A.B. Davidson comments here that both “spirit” and “life” refer to God’s spirit of life breathed into man when He brought him into existence. It is a spirit of intelligence as well as of life (Job 33:4. The Book of Job, p. 224).

In interpreting Job 32:8, two factors must be taken into consideration. Man’s thinking is done in the brain, not by an immaterial entity through the brain. Secondly, the verb in the final clause is in the Hebrew causative conjugation (hiph’il), and may be rendered, “causes them to be intelligent.” The neshamah, then, causes a person to be intelligent in the sense that it is the life-energy that makes the brain function.

In Job 34:14-15, the life-giving aspect of neshamah is obvious: “If he (God) set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit (ruach) and his breath (neshamah); all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust (‘aphar).”

“Life,” in Genesis 2:7, is the familiar Hewbrew word chayyim. Its verb is chayah which means to live, be alive, or have life. Chayyim is also used of the animals in Genesis 7:15: “They went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life (ruach chayyim).”

Chayyim is actually masculine plural in form, but the singular “life” is the correct translation. Chayyim is used in Genesis 7:11 of “Noah’s life.” We would not say. “Noah’s lives”!

Many Hebrew words are used more often in the plural. This is called by various terms: Abstract plural, plural of excellence, plural of eminence or majesty, etc. Somehow it strengthens or intensifies the idea iof the singular. The plural chayyim sums up the abstract idea of the qualities of a living being now being in Adam (on such plurals, cf. Gesenius, Grammar, p, 397; also A.B.Davidson, Hebrew Syntax, p. 18).

We must be careful not to read into the plural chayyim what is not there. I once heard a conference speaker say that the plural form of this word indicated the trichotomous nature of man: Adam was “body, soul, and spirit”!

We would not say, however, that the animals were trichotomous, or the “tree of life” which is literally, “tree of the chayyim” (Gen. 2:9). Such methods of interpretation are facetiously known as “eisegesis,” reading into something what is actually not there. (In the same way, some schools of thought would read the doctrine of the trinity into the plural form ‘elohim.)

We come now to the conclusion of verse seven: “and man became a living soul.” Literally, “and the ‘adam became a soul of life (nephesh chayyah).”

We have pointed out previously in these studies that the Hebrew phrase, nephesh chayyah. “soul of life,” is also used of animals in Genesis 1:20, 21, 24 and 30. It is used again in reference to the animals in 2:19.

“Soul of life” or “living soul” simply means “living creature” or “living being.” Man has this in common with the animals. It is impossible, therefore, to read into this expression any Platonic or Greek idea of “immortal soul.”

Man also has chayyim or “life” in common with the animals, and, he and the other animals were both “formed” from the “ground” or “soil.” That the other animals were also “formed” from the “soil” is indicated by Genesis 2:19 where both ‘adamah and yatzar occur.

The question may be asked then, What is it, in man’s nature or constitution, that makes him different from the animals? The answer is simple: Man’s body, his form or shape, is made in the likeness of God’s image. That this refers to outward form or shape is indicated, not only by the Hewbrew words in Genesis 1:26-27, but also by such New Testament passages as James 3:9: “Therewith [i.e. with the tongue] bless we God . . . and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.”

We have in Genesis 2:7 what is often called the “creation equation” of man: Moulded dust plus breath of life equals a living creature. It is, we affirm again, the golden text of Biblical anthropology.

When it comes to the nature of man, all the rest of Scripture must be interpreted in the light of this passage. A so-called progressive revelation does not alter its meaning, or change the record as to what man is. Truth advances, but it does not evolve into something different.

Perhaps more than any other passage of Scripture, Genesis 2:7 illustrates how the first three chapters of Genesis are the seedbed of all truth. To neglect this verse, or to refuse to accept its plain teaching, can be distrastrous. It can affect not only a Christian’s anthropology, but also his eschatology or doctrine of last things. There is no Platonism in Genesis 2:7!

Click here to read Word Studies in Genesis Chapter II (Part One)

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State

The Souls Under The Altar

August 18, 2009 By admin 2 Comments

Revelation 6:9-11 & Hebrews 11:4

Many Christians will be familiar with Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, which book contains a graphic account of the persecution of faithful men and women of God down through the centuries. Today Christians are still suffering and dying for their faith, mainly among Muslim and Communist nations and on the Indian sub continent.

One of the purposes of John’s Revelation was to remind the suffering church that God has not forgotten his people. In his own time God will act to avenge the faithful, to judge the wicked, and to establish a kingdom of everlasting righteousness upon the earth. To this end John was given a vision whereby after he sees Christ open the fifth of seven seals, he sees “under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained” (v. 9).

This verse is all too often cited by those who believe in the immortality of the soul to prove that the real person lives on in a conscious state after the death of the body. Indeed does not John actually see the immortal souls of martyred Christians in conscious communion, even conversation with the Lord? Admittedly, it is odd that these “souls” are seen dwelling under an altar, but if it be assumed that this altar is in God’s heavenly temple, then do we not have before proof that departed saints are conscious in heaven?

The short answer is, no!

Revelation is a book of symbols. This does not, however, mean that the book can be made to teach what ever we please. Fully half of the visions are interpreted for us, by the angel that accompanies John, for example. Where no interpretation is given, in most instances, the figures used in Revelation are used elsewhere in the Scriptures, particularly in the Old Testament, and thus the true meaning of these visions is readily available to us.

Note the following:

1. In the case of the martyrs under the altar we must turn to the Bible’s account of the first martyr: Abel. When Cain murdered his brother it was Abel’s blood, not Abel himself, that is said to cry out to the Lord for justice (Gen. 4:8-11). Abel’s blood, however, is not literally a part of Abel separable from Abel himself. This is but a very graphic figure of speech. Abel’s blood stands for Abel himself. Just as Abel did not literally cry out from the ground, so too the “souls” of the martyrs (not a part of the martyrs, separable from the martyrs, but the martyrs themselves) do not literally cry out for justice.

2. The book of Leviticus draws a strong connection between the life of the soul [the person] and the blood (Lev. 17:11). Medically speaking, blood carries oxygen throughout the body. Life is thus literally carried in the blood! The Bible often uses the terms soul and blood in parallel, even interchangeably. Isaiah prophesies of the Messiah that he “poured out his soul unto death” (Isa. 53:12). It was Jesus’ lifeblood that was poured out unto death at the cross.

3. Indeed, though the priests of old put some of the blood of the sacrifice upon the horns of the altar of incense, they poured most of the blood onto the ground at the foot of the altar of burnt offering (Lev. 4:7). The “souls” of the martyrs are “under the altar”, their blood, as it were, poured out in sacrifice to God. Though the language is figurative the truths expressed are very real: The oppressors of God’s people will not go unpunished; his servants will be rewarded. They may have to wait. They may have to suffer, even unto death, as many have before them, but they are not forgotten. Their blood speaks, as does the blood of Abel before them.

Meanwhile, Hebrews 11 is God’s own version of Foxes Book of Martyrs. It furnishes us with numerous examples of how the heroes of old bore witness (the meaning of the word martyr) to the true God by way of faith. By faith Enoch walked with God until he was translated (v. 5). Noah showed his faith in building an ark (v. 7). Abraham left Ur (v. 8) to dwell in the land of Canaan (v. 9). He believed that Sarah would bear him a son (v. 11). Later he was willing to sacrifice that son (v. 17). So too, much later, Moses showed his faith by forsaking the wealth of Egypt to be with God’s people (vv.24-28). The lives of each of these worthies is an example to us, but none more so than Abel. By faith he still speaks (though not literally) despite his being dead (v. 4). His example commends to us the way of faith.

(First published in “From Death To Life”, Issue 31, September 2006, pp. 4-5).

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State, From Death To Life Tagged With:

Word Studies in Genesis Chapter II (Part 1)

August 18, 2009 By admin 2 Comments

In Brief Bible Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp.19-24, by Sidney A. Hatch.

v.7. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

We come now to a description of the creation of man, a creation first announced in Genesis 1:26-27. Here in 2:7, it is the creation of Adam. That of Eve is reserved for verses 18-25.

Genesis 2:7 is the golden text of Biblical anthropology. In this regard, it is the most important verse in all the Bible, and absolutely essential to an understanding of man’s nature.

It may be divided rather conveniently into three parts: The formation of man, the inbreathing of his life, and the result or product of that combination.

It was “the LORD God” (Jehovah Elohim) who created man. Here He creates the first Adam. In Luke 1:35 He creates the second Adam.

It hardly seems necessary, therefore, to refute the idea, apparently based on a misunderstanding of John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, that Christ created all things and therefore created man. Jesus Christ is not Jehovah.

The Lord God “formed” the man. The Hebrew verb is yatzar which means to form, fashion, or mould. The participle form is often translated “potter,” which indicates that God is the divine potter, and man is His ceramic. Isaiah expressed it well, when he said, “But now, O LORD, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand” (Isa. 64:8).

God told Jeremiah, “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” (Jer. 1:5). The plain statement, “I formed thee in the belly (womb),” indicates that the power of embryonic development is of God, and may recapitulate what He did on the sixth day of creation.

The material out of which God formed man is called “dust” or, in Hebrew, ’aphar. Very rarely, Gesenius says, is this word used of fine dust, such as blown by the wind (Lexicon, pp. 645-46). It means earth or clay, and, in the context here, would refer to loose earth or soil.

’Aphar, incidently, is the word Job used when he said, “For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.”

The words for “man” and “ground” are the familiar ’adam and ’adamah. The relationship of the two is obvious: Man is the creature from the soil, an ’adam from the ’adamah. (This relationship is also evident in our words “human” and “humus.”)

The verb root for ’adam and ’adamah is ’adam which means to be red or ruddy. The adjective “red,” used in Isaiah 63:2 of the garments of the Messiah, is ’adom. And the word for “blood” is dam. All this suggests that the first man, Adam, was of a red or ruddy complexion.

This completes the first part of Genesis 2:7. the formation of man. In the words of the Psalmist, we may assume that man was “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:14). Or, to use the words of Paul, “fitly joined together and compacted” (Eph. 4:16).

One thing, however, is still lacking in man, and that is “life.” We read, therefore, that God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.”

The verb for “breathe” is naphach which means to breathe or blow. With the preposition used here (Hebrew be-), it means to breathe into or blow upon.

It is interesting that this same verb and preposition are used in Ezekiel 37, the vision of the valley of dry bones. There we read: “Thus saith the LORD God; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live” (vs. 9). Thus the resurrection of the dead recapitulates the steps at creation and is, in itself, a re-creation. The body is formed again from the dust or soil of the earth, and then the breath of life is again breathed into it.

The word for “breath” is neshamah. Its usage here, and elsewhere in Scripture, would indicate that is more than air or atmosphere of the earth. It comes from the person of God.

In the phrase, “breath of life,” the two nouns are probably in apposition to each other: “Breath, that is, life” (cf. the note in The Companion Bible). The “breath” or neshamah, then, which God blew upon Adam, was the life-force or vital principle.

The fact, however, that God deigns to breathe into man His own “breath” or neshamah does not mean that God is giving to man an “immaterial entity” or some form of immortality. Nor can this “breath” be construed to be the “image of God” (as the comment in Skinner, Genesis, p. 57, might indicate).

In Genesis 7:22, in the record of the flood, neshamah is used of all the animals. All or everything that had the breath of life died (cf. here the New International Version translation).

Psalm 150:6 would seem also to include the animals as having neshamah: “Let everything that hath breath praise the LORD.” Literally here, it is, “all the neshamah.” Wherever, and into whatever, the vital force of Jehovah extends, let it praise the LORD! Such is the glory of the future kingdom.

It should be mentioned that both neshamah and ruach, “spirit,” are in Genesis 7:22. This is indicated by the margin of the King James Version: “the breath of the spirit of life.”

In view of this evidence, it seems reasonable to identify neshamah as the vital principle or life-force from God which is in all living things, not just man. Also, when speaking of the vital principle in living creatures, neshamah and ruach are identical. Compare here Psalm 146:4 which says of man: “His breath (ruach) goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.”

(Part 2 to follow).

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State

Is Death Better By Far?

August 12, 2009 By admin 3 Comments

Does Paul’s desire “to depart and to be with Christ” show us that the believer goes immediately to “heaven” at death and thus that death is “better by far” than life? No way!

Once again we must ask, on the subject of the afterlife why was it that the only comfort Paul offered the Thessalonian Church was that the dead in Christ would be resurrected when Jesus comes again? (1Thess. 4:13-18). Likewise, in 1Corinthians 15, if Paul believed that the departed go straight to heavenly bliss why does he put forward no hope other than that of the resurrection?

Looking at Philippians 1:20-24 in context, we note the following:

1. It is in Paul’s body (not his “soul”) that he hopes Christ will be exalted, whether by life or death (20);

2. The “gain” Paul has in mind is first and foremost that to the cause of Christ through his dying a martyr’s death (20), then that which is to Paul personally from his martyrdom (21). He no doubt aspired to be like the many “others”, the unnamed heroes of the faith, who are mentioned in Hebrews 11, who “were tortured and refused to be released so that they might gain a better resurrection.” (See Heb. 11:35);

3. So elsewhere Paul speaks of his desire to share in Christ’s sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so at length to attain to the resurrection from the dead (3:10-11);

4. In 2Tim. 4:6-8 too Paul speaks of his imminent death as a “departure”: beyond death however it is the “Day” of Christ’s return that he (along with everyone else) looks to;

5. Throughout the book of Philippians it is clearly the resurrection of the dead at Christ’s return upon which Paul fastens his hope: It is only then that “our lowly bodies … will be like his glorious body” (3:20-21).

Paul speaks not of his “soul” departing but of his whole self. His use of the term, “depart”, suggests a journey in which the beginning is death and the end is being with Christ. It is this end which is “better by far.”

Paul will be with Christ after death, but Philippians 1:23 tells us nothing as to how or when he will be with Christ. Elsewhere Paul makes it clear: It is by resurrection.

Meanwhile either by the way he lives his life, or by the way he dies a martyr’s death, Paul aims to exalt Christ.

This should be our aim too!

(First published in “From Death To Life”, Issue 27, p3).

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State, From Death To Life, Immortality, Resurrection Tagged With: ,

Conditional Immortality and Natural Immortality Compared (Part 2)

August 11, 2009 By admin 3 Comments

From, “What Is Conditional Immortality?” (Miscellaneous Comparisons with the Greek Doctrine of Natural Immortality) by Pastor Sidney A. Hatch, Brief Bible Studies: Vol. 20, No. 2, p.9-18.

Conditional Immortality recognises that only God has immortality (1 Tim. 6:16). It is an attribute of His essence or being. Any other creature or person that has immortality–or will have it–receives it from God. Jesus our Lord, the Son of God, received it at His resurrection from the dead.

Natural immortality opens the door to all sorts of vagaries, such as spiritualism, invocation of the saints, transmigration of souls, reincarnation, etc. If the dead are alive somewhere in the universe, perhaps man can communicate with them!

Conditional immortality closes the door on all such vagaries. The dead are totally unconscious in their graves. They “know not anything” (Eccles. 9:5); their thoughts have perished (Ps. 146:4).

Nevertheless, we shall see our loved ones again some day. This is very much a part of the hope of conditional immortality. However, this reunion will not be effected by our dying and going to heaven. Rather, it will be when Jesus comes to earth again: “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with Lord” (1 Thess. 4:16-17).

Natural immortality is the very thing which the serpent in Eden offered to Eve: “Ye shall not surely die . . . ye shall be as gods (or God)” (Gen. 3:4-5). It is, essentially, that blindness with which “the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not” (2 Cor. 4:4).

Conditional immortality rejects the words of the serpent as a lie. By way of contrast, in the doctrine of conditional immortality, “the light of the glorious gospel of Christ . . . hath shined in our hearts” (2 Cor. 4:4,6). The gospel of Christ — life and immortality only through faith in Him — is utterly irreconcilable with the lie of the devil.

Natural immortality says that a Christian has the light of the gospel in his “soul” or immaterial entity; his “soul” has been “saved.” It identifies a person with his “soul,” the “soul” is of eternal worth. It is that part of a man which, through the brain, thinks.

Conditional immortality recognizes that we are “earthen vessels.” It identifies a person with his body. Christ, when raising the dead, spoke to the body, not to an immaterial entity. Man thinks in his brain, for God can create an instrument that thinks.

Conditional immortality or life only in Christ is, therefore, the light of the gospel. It is “this treasure in earthen vessels” (2 Cor. 4:7). We are the “earthen vessels”!

Natural immortality was the message of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. They believed the Greek view of the immortality of the soul. Josephus tells us this.

Jesus believed and taught conditional immortality. He said that Lazarus and Jairus’ daughter were asleep (Jn. 11:11; Lk. 8:52). He said the dead are in the graves, whence they shall “come forth” (Jn. 5:28-29). He presented Himself as the only source of immortality (Jn. 11:25-26).

Natural immortality came into the western world, and eventually into Christendom, through the teachings of Greek philosophers, especially Plato and his successors. It was part of that original “modernism” (Greco-Roman philosophy) which corrupted early Christianity.

Plato believed and taught that men possessed a personal immortality. The human soul was both immortal and divine. In its disembodied state, it shared the life of the gods (article “Plato,” Encyclopaedia Britannica).

I have observed that believers in natural immortality sometimes have recourse to Plato when defending their views about “the soul.” They seem to be unaware of his personal life. The “Symposium,” which, we are told, is the key to Plato’s philosophy, is supposed to be about “love.” But it is all about homosexuality, especially pederasty (cf. John Jay Chapman, Lucian, Plato, and Greek Morals, pp. 121-36).

Conditional Immortality comes only from the Word of God. Its message may be found from Genesis to Revelation. It is the true “orthodoxy” or “fundamentalism” of Scripture. It is mindful of Paul’s warning, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit” (Col. 2:8).

Conditional immortality utterly rejects the views of Plato regarding the nature of man. It derives its views from pure and unquestionable sources: A holy God, His inspired Word, and a sinless Saviour.

Ironically, the views of natural immortality are sometimes described as “fundamentalism.” This is due to its emphasis on “soul salvation,” heaven or hell at death, eternal torment, etc. Actually, however, it is a contemporary version of that original modernism mentioned above.

Conditional immortality is called “heresy” by some, “liberalism” by others. This is because it takes the words of Scripture at face value, and does not impose on them a philosophical meaning. The gospel issue is really “life” or “death,” not better housing in eternity! “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).

Conditional immortality, then, is the true and original orthodoxy. It is an effort to lay aside those aspects of philosophy which have corrupted Christianity, and return to the simple truths of the Bible.

A fervent preaching of the doctrines of natural immortality can make a preacher or religious leader very popular. It may seem strange, but it is not to be unexpected. people like to be told that there is no death, it is only, as the poet Longfellow once wrote, “transition.” The naivete of Eve has never died away (1 Tim. 2:14).

In times of grief, natural immortality offers a momentary comfort. Death is portrayed as a “friend,” and the grave as the portal to glory. But in doing so, it forfeits the triumph of the Christian hope of resurrection (1 Cor. 15:57).

Conditional immortality, on the other hand, can produce a mixed response. In my own experience, no other message has provoked such varied reactions, from enthusiastic interest to open hostility.

After all, the devil hates this message. It contradicts his false but soothing doctrine, “Ye shall not surely die.” Opposition, as in Jesus’ day, can arise from those in position of leadership who are anxious to maintain the traditions of the elders.

Also, the preacher of conditionalism may expect to be misrepresented as a “soul sleeper” and annihilationist.” But the Scriptures simply say that the wicked will “perish” or be destroyed. And a “soul” or “ghost” does not sleep in death, people sleep! “Lazarus sleepeth,” Jesus said.

But there are great consolations, even moments of excitement, in presenting life and immortality only in Christ. It can be true today, as in Jesus’ day: “The common people heard him gladly” Mk. 12: 37). There will be those who prove to be “good ground.” They will hear the word, receive it, and bring forth fruit (Mk. 4:20).

The conditionalist pastor can look at his flock, and say, as Paul to the Ephesian elders, “I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God” Acts 20:26-27). Conditional immortality is the gospel for the strong, not the fearful.

Conditional immortality recognises the truth of Paul’s words, “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:26). John wrote that in the new heavens and new earth “there shall be no more death.” God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be neither sorrow, nor crying, nor pain (Rev. 21:4).

Conditional immortality is the only true Scriptural comfort in time of death. The dead are “asleep” and know nothing of the passage of time. Therefore, to die, and someday be in the resurrection, is like going to bed at night, and waking up in the morning. “Joy cometh in the morning” (Ps. 30:5).

There is another contrast between the doctrines of natural immortality and those of conditional immortality which should be mentioned: Natural immortality has two hopes, conditional immortality has one.

Natural immortality’s first hope is to go to heaven at death. Its second hope is to be re-embodied later at the return of Christ. Thus natural immortality tries to combine the Greek hope of immortal souls going somewhere at death with the Christian hope of resurrection.

Conditional immortality’s one hope is the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead. This is in keeping with the principle established by Paul: “There is . . . one hope of your calling” (Eph. 4:4). Jesus said, “I will come again” (Jn. 14:3). The conditionalist waits patiently for Him.

There is “a great gulf fixed” between conditional immortality and  natural immortality. They are actually two different religions. Yet there are those who lamely excuse themselves by asking. “Is it really important?” To this argument, we ask, “What communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).

For the first few years of my ministry, I vigorously preached the doctrines of the  natural immortality of man. But, through personal study of the Scriptures, God changed my heart and mind. It was then that someone informed me that my new faith was “conditional immortality.” The term was new to me, but I knew its message was true!

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and Salvation, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State, Heaven | Afterlife, Immortality, Resurrection

Conditional Immortality and Natural Immortality Compared (Part 1)

August 10, 2009 By admin 1 Comment

From, “What Is Conditional Immortality?” (Miscellaneous Comparisons with the Greek Doctrine of Natural Immortality) by Pastor Sidney A. Hatch, Brief Bible Studies: Vol. 20, No. 2, p.9-18.

Many times, over the years, I have remarked to people that I believe in conditional immortality. However, oftentimes, the response has simply been, “What is conditional immortality?” Perhaps, then, a few words of explanation will be in order.

There are, essentially, only two views of man’s nature, the primitive Biblical view, and the ancient philosophical view. The primitive Biblical view is the foundation of the doctrine of conditional immortality. The ancient philosophical view may be called natural or innate immortality.

Natural or innate immortality says that man is born with something immortal in him. Conditional immortality says just the opposite, there is nothing in man that is immortal.

Natural immortality says that this something in man lives on after death. It may be called “soul, spirit, ghost,” or something else, but it lives on as a conscious, thinking, immaterial entity.

Conditional immortality says that nothing lives on after death. The body returns to dust, and the “spirit” or “breath of life” returns to God who gave it (Eccles. 12:7). This spirit or breath of life is not a person or conscious entity. Rather, it is simply the life-force in man.

Natural immortality says that after death, during the so-called intermediate state, man’s “soul” or “immaterial entity” goes somewhere. Christians who profess faith in natural immortality say the soul goes to heaven, hell, or purgatory.

Others suggest various places (and here the doctrine of natural immortality fragments into many pieces): Elysium, Valhalla, the underworld of hades, a happy hunting ground, etc., etc.

Still other believers in natural immortality solve the problem by saying that the soul is reincarnated in another living creature, a human being, or one of the lower animals.

Conditional immortality says that a “soul” is a person. During the immediate state, his resting place is the grave, and, as God Himself says, he returns to dust (Gen. 3:19). But the Scriptures also describe this immediate state as “sleep” (Jn. 11:11: Lk. 8:52; I Thess. 4:13). This is because it will be interrupted someday by the return of Christ and the resurrection (awakening) of the dead.

Natural immortality claims to believe in the resurrection of the dead. But, in reality, its resurrection is simply the reincarnation someday of a man’s “soul” or “ghost” in a body.

According to conditional immortality, resurrection is that great moment when a re-creation takes place. The individual is brought back from the dust and “formed alive” again (Jn. 5:21; Rom. 8:11; I Cor. 15:22).

Natural immortality says that in the eternal state “lost souls” live (burn) in the fires of hell forever. This idea is so incomprehensibly horrible that some believers in natural immortality tone it down to “eternal separation” from God.

Conditional immortality says that “death” means death, the loss and deprivation of all life (Rom. 6:23). Since there is no such thing as “an immortal soul,” there is no such thing as eternal torment. In the judgment, the lost person is simply destroyed. This is the meaning of “perish” in John 3:16. This is the “second death” (Rev. 20:14).

Conditional immortality recognises that such a thing as the eternal torment of humans never entered the mind of God (Jer. 7:31). It is contrary to His holiness which includes a perfect justice (Deut. 32:4; Ps. 7:9; Rom. 2:5; I Pet. 1:16).

Natural immortality says that “hell” is a spirit-world of the dammed. “Sheol” and “hades” are regions of sorrow where the wicked are fully conscious. Gehenna, the Valley of Hinnom where the refuse of Jerusalem was burned, denotes or signifies the place of eternal torment. Eternal torment, we are told, is the second death.

Conditional immortality says that “hell,” that is “sheol” and “hades,” are the grave. The grave– not a spirit-world– is the realm of the dead. Gehenna represents the destruction of the wicked, not their eternal torment.

Natural immortality creates a problem for itself when it says that the second death is eternal torment or eternal separation from God. Christ died for our sins, but He did not endure eternal torment. Who, then, has fully paid the penalty for sin? No one, according to natural immortality.

Conditional immortality has no such problems. “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), and “Christ died for our sins” (I Cor. 15:3). Full atonement has been made! The blood [=death] of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanses us from all sin (I Jn. 1:7).

Throughout history, natural immortality has had a tragic effect on society, organized Christianity, and even the human psyche. Traditionally, believers in natural immortality have persecuted those who rejected their doctrines.

Queen Mary of England (“Bloody Mary,” 1516-1558) burned heretics at the stake. She argued that the “souls” of heretics are hereafter to be eternally burning in hell. Hence, she added, there can be nothing more proper than for her to imitate the divine vengeance by burning them on earth (J.H.Petingell, The Unspeakable Gift, p. 278).

Even today, I have observed, believers in natural immortality can become very upset, even angry, when told that there is no such thing as eternal torment. Why, we may ask, this inexplicable loyalty to such a horrible doctrine? Certainly Satan would rejoice in the eternal torment of a victim, but not God, or a child of God.

The doctrines of conditional immortality are conducive to a Christian life that is kind, loving, and tolerant. The God of the conditionalist is both just and merciful, not a monster or fiend operating a torture chamber for all eternity somewhere in the universe.

The conditionalist often finds himself in a “minority status.” He recognises the practical need for tolerance, that men may live together in peace, and have liberty to study the Scriptures.

Natural immortality says that a person’s eternal destiny is settled and begins at death. He therefore begins his punishment before he appears before God to be judged. Obviously, a judgment day has been reduced to a judicial farce. (Theories of a purgatory only serve to complicate this!)

Conditional Immortality says that future judgment for all men takes place after a resurrection from the dead. While there may be different judgments, they all take place after one is raised from the dead (I Cor. 15:21-28; 2 Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:4-6, 11-15).

Natural immortality says that salvation is by faith in Christ. However, by this it means that at death a Christian’s “soul” will go to heaven and not to hell. Christ is, therefore, the umpire or director of a great host of “immortal souls” which must, at death, travel through the invisible world, en route to heaven or hell.

Conditional immortality believes in salvation by faith in Christ. Christ alone is the worker of resurrection and the giver of immortal resurrection life (Jn. 11:25). At Christ’s return the believer is raised from the dead and given immortality. Conditional immortality is based on 1 Corinthians 15:57, “But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory [over death and the grave] through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Natural immortality does not know when a person receives his “immortal soul” or natural immortality. Is it handed down from generation to generation (“traducianism”)? Or is it created in the individual at conception, during pregnacy, or at birth (“creationism”)?

Conditional immortality knows exactly when a person receives immortality: It will be in the resurrection at the second coming of Christ– and not before. At that moment, this mortal will “put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:54).

Natural immortality cancels out the need for Christ’s return and the resurrection of the dead. If there is no return of Christ and resurrection of the dead, it will still be all right, for the “soul” is enjoying the bliss of heaven!

Conditional immortality makes the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead an absolute imperative. It agrees with Paul that if the dead rise not, “then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished” (1 Cor. 15:16-18).

Natural immortality says that man is worth saving because he has an “immortal soul” or he is an “eternal spirit.” He offers to God his “immortal soul” as a head-start on immortality and eternal life. Thus natural immortality compromises the grace of God.

Conditional immortality says that man is made of the soil of the earth and is a “living soul” (Gen. 2:7), not an “immortal soul.” As Abraham said, man is “but dust and ashes” (Gen. 18:27). He has nothing in himself to offer to God; he is utterly unworthy, both as to person and works (Isa. 64:6). He is completely dependent on Christ’s work on the cross, and God’s love and grace, to save him. Conditional immortality, therefore, is a message of pure grace.

Natural immortality exalts man to the point of blasphemy. The Scripture says that “[God] only hath immortality” (1 Tim. 6:16). Thus natural immortality claims for man a divine attribute. It comes close to the sin of Lucifer who said, “I will be like the most High” (Isai. 14:14).

Natural immortality cannot claim that man received his immortality at creation. The Hebrew term for “living soul” is also used of all the other animals at creation. According to the Hebrew text, they too are “living souls” (Gen. 1:20-21, 24, 30; 2:19). They too have the same “breath of life” or “spirit” that was breathed into man (Gen. 7:22).

Nor can natural immortality claim that “image of God” means that man is, in some way, immortal. In Genesis 1:26, the Hebrew words for “image” and “likeness” (tzelem and demuth) refer to form, shape, or physical likeness, not to some spiritual or moral attribute in man. Compare also such passages as 1 Corithians 11:7 and James 3:9.

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and Salvation, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State, Heaven | Afterlife, Immortality, Resurrection

Answers To “A surprising Quiz” by Edward Fudge

August 8, 2009 By admin 1 Comment

Yesterday I posted Edward Fudge’s  ”Q and A” style summary of what the Bible really says about the end of the wicked. Click here to read the questions. What follows below are the answers – with Scripture verses to justify the answers given.

1.   I hope you marked (c).  According to the Bible, the human being is a perishable creature wholly dependent on God for existence.

The notion that your mortal body houses some kind of immortal soul sprang from the pagan Greeks and was popularized by the philosophers Socrates and Plato. The “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury” line originated with Shakespeare’s fictional Lady MacBeth, not with the Word of God.

Genesis 2:7; Psalms 103:14-16; Romans 6:23; 1 Tim. 6:16.

2.   Again the correct answer is (c).  Biblical writers point back to the Flood and to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to illustrate the fate awaiting the lost.

Adam and Eve walked away alive after their expulsion from Eden, something no one cast into hell will ever do, and the Bible does not say the Tower of Babel collapsed.  Jerusalem’s fall and the defeat of Spain’s navy armada don’t qualify here, either.

On the Flood, see Genesis 6-9 and 2 Peter 3:5-7.  Concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, see Genesis 19:24-29 and 2 Peter 2:6 and Jude 7.

3.   In the Bible, the expression “eternal fire” signifies choice (a), fire that destroys forever, as with Sodom and Gomorrah.

Popular tradition says hell will be like Moses’ Burning Bush which never went out, or like the non-consuming furnace into which their enemies threw Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.  However, the Bible warns that hell is a consuming fire which destroys both body and soul.

Jude 7; Matthew 25:41; Matthew 10:28.

4.   This time (b) is biblical.  The “brimstone” in the expression “fire and brimstone” is burning sulfur that suffocates and destroys.

The figure comes from the destruction of Sodom, which was incinerated without a trace. God is love, not an eternal torturer. The Bible really means it when it says the wages of sin is death!

Genesis 19:24-25, 29; Deuteronomy 29:22-23; Psalms 11:6; Ezekiel 38:22; Revelation 14:10; Romans 6:23.

5.   Surprise!  Throughout the Bible, “gnashing of teeth” denotes (c) extreme anger and hostility.

The picture of people grinding their teeth in unending torment owes more to Dante’s Inferno than it does to the Bible.  We learn about gingivitis, of course, from a television commercial for a brand of mouthwash.

Job 16:9; Psalms 35:16; Psalms 37:12; Psalms 112:10; Lamentations 2:16; Acts 7:54; Matthew 13:43, 49-50; Matthew 22:13-14; Matthew 24:50-51; Matthew 25:30; Luke 13:28.

6.   Again (b) is biblical.  Smoke rising symbolizes a completed desolation or annihilation, if we let Scripture interpret itself.

This figure of speech also originates with the annihilation of Sodom and Gomorrah, and appears in both the Old and New Testaments afterward.  Hell might well involve conscious pain, but conscious suffering will be according to God’s perfect justice and will stop with the death of both body and soul in hell.  (You didn’t guess the one about cigarettes anyway, did you?)

Genesis 19:27-28; Isaiah 34:10-15; Revelation 14:11; Revelation 18:17-18; Malachi 4:1-3.

7.   See for yourself!  When Scripture speaks of smoke rising “forever,” it signifies (a) destruction that will be irreversible.

That battery-powered rabbit came from the television commercials — it is no more biblical than the other choice, the notion of unending conscious torment.

Isaiah 34:10-15; Revelation 14:11.

8.   Another big surprise for most folks!  The “worm” in the expression “worm that dies not” is (a) a maggot that feeds on something dead until there is nothing left on which to feed.

The idea of everlasting agony in torment originated with former pagan Greek philosophers who also thought human beings had a “soul” which will never die.  More tender-hearted traditionalists later defined the “worm” as a pained conscience.  If they had read Isaiah 66:24 in context, they could have avoided the confusion to start with.

Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:47-48.

9.   This time (c) is correct.  The expression “unquenchable fire” in the Bible always signifies fire which cannot be resisted and which therefore consumes entirely.

Long after Christ, certain church fathers invented the doctrine of hell as a fire which burns forever but never burns up what is put in it.

Isaiah 1:31; Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 17:27; Ezekiel 20:47-48; Amos 5:5-6; Matthew 3:12.  Contrast human fire which can be quenched or put out, mentioned in Hebrews 11:34.

10.   No surprise here if you chose (b).  The Old Testament’s final book describes the end of sinners as ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous.

Long after Malachi, the apocryphal book of Judith introduced the non-scriptural idea that God will put fire and worms in people’s flesh so they will feel pain forever.

Malachi 4:1-3.

11.   John the Baptist warned of “unquenchable fire,” by which Jesus would (a) burn up the “chaff”.  Not surprising, since fire that cannot be extinguished (quenched) does exactly what we expect fire to do!

Missing this biblical truth, some later theologians claimed that God will torment the lost forever and never let them die, while others theorized that God will purge sinners of all evil and then send them to heaven.  Both theories have modern advocates, but neither of them reflects the Bible’s teaching.

Matthew 3:12.

12.   Jesus compared the end of the wicked to someone burning chaff, dead trees or weeds, and also said it will be like a house destroyed by a hurricane or someone crushed under falling rock.  Check (c) here to be correct.

Matthew 3:12; Matthew 7:19; Matthew 13:30, 40; Matthew 7:27; Luke 20:17-18.

13.   Choice (a) is accurate on this one.  Jesus personally described Gehenna (hell) as a place where God can destroy both soul and body — the entire person.

The just and loving God of the Bible who loved sinners all the way to the Cross will certainly not perpetuate the soul in everlasting agony.  On the other hand, if you pictured Satan reigning over his evil subjects and torturing damned humans, you might be watching too much late-night television!

Matthew 10:28.

14.   If you selected choice (d), you are right on target.  By describing hell’s punishment as “eternal,” the Bible tells us that it is a punishment which occurs in the Age to Come rather than during this life, and also that its results will be everlasting.

You’ll find nothing in Scripture about eternal life in horrible agony and pain. Jesus warns of everlasting punishment — which Paul further explains as everlasting destruction.

Matthew 25:46; 2 Thessalonians 1:9.

15.   The context and “punch line” of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus concern (b) the urgency of responding to God while there is opportunity.

When they read this passage carefully, most people are surprised to find that the context of Jesus’ parable has nothing to do with what happens to the wicked after resurrection and judgment, or even about a so-called “intermediate state” (which is not necessarily the same as what happens after resurrection and final judgment).

See Luke 16:9-16 for the context, and Luke 16:31 for the “punch line.”

16.   It’s choice (b) again.  Throughout his writings, Paul says that the lost will:  (b) die, perish, and be punished with eternal destruction.

If you picked choice (a) “go to hell and burn alive forever,” you will really be surprised when you look for anything like that in Paul’s writings.  Choice (c) is wrong, since all who finally inhabit God’s eternal kingdom will enjoy every “minute” of unending eternity!

Romans 6:23; Romans 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 3:17; Philippians 1:28; Philippians 3:19.

17.   The New Testament uses the adjective “immortal” to describe (b) the resurrection bodies of the saved but not of the lost.

Some philosophers in Paul’s day taught that every person has an immortal soul — a doctrine which later crept into the Christian church but is now increasingly rejected as unbiblical. Still others said no one will ever be “immortal” or deathless. Scripture rejects both those errors, when it declares that there is life only in Christ but promises that all who truly trust him will live forever!  You will always be correct to remember that the Bible always ascribes immortality to the saved, never to the lost; always in the resurrection, never now; and always in a glorified body, never as a disembodied “soul” or “spirit.”

1 Corinthians 15:54-57; 2 Timothy 1:10; 1 John 5:11-13.

18.   Did you choose (b)?  Good for you!  The Jewish-Christian books of Hebrews and James do indeed contrast salvation with inescapable destruction.

Read every word and you’ll never find a hint of unending conscious pain.  Going “gently into that good night” is poetic but comes from Welsh poet Dylan Thomas rather than the Bible.

Hebrews 10:27, 39; Hebrews 12:25, 29; James 4:12; James 5:3, 5, 20.

19.   Choice (c) is correct.  Peter’s epistles clearly say that the lost will be burned to ashes like Sodom and Gomorrah and will perish like brute beasts.

2 Peter 2:6, 12; 2 Peter 3:6-9.

20.   John is careful to define the “lake of fire” in Revelation as (c) the second death.

Read from Genesis to Revelation and you’ll never find a picture of indescribable, everlasting torture.  Does that come as a surprise?

Revelation 20:14; Revelation 21:8.

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State, Heaven | Afterlife, Immortality, Resurrection

A Surprising Quiz by Edward Fudge

August 7, 2009 By admin Leave a Comment

Edward Fudge presents this “Q and A” style summary of what the Bible really says about the end of the wicked.

The Bible warns that those who reject God’s mercy now will face him in judgment one day and be banished into hell.  But did you know that many popular ideas about hell actually sprang from ancient pagan myths and not from the Word of God?

In the following quiz, see if you can spot the biblical truth and the traditions of men. After the quiz, you’ll find the correct answers — and references to appropriate biblical passages for further study.

____________________________________________________

1. According to the Bible, the human being is:

a. a mortal body housing an immortal soul;

b. a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury;

c. a perishable creature wholly dependent on God for existence.

____________________________________________________

2. Two historical events which biblical writers use most often to illustrate God’s final judgment against the wicked are:

a.   expulsion from Eden and the collapse of the Tower of Babel;

b.   the fall of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Spanish Armada;

c.   the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

____________________________________________________________

3. Based on an actual event, the Bible uses the expression “eternal fire” to signify:

a.   fire that destroys forever (Sodom and Gomorrah);

b.   fire that cannot destroy what is put in it (Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego);

c.   fire that continues to burn indefinitely (the Burning Bush of Moses).

____________________________________________________________

4. The “brimstone” in “fire and brimstone” is:

a.   a symbol of terrible torture;

b.   burning sulfur that suffocates and destroys;

c.   a preserving agent that keeps someone alive forever.

____________________________________________________________

5. Throughout the Bible, “gnashing of teeth” denotes:

a. excruciating pain and agony;

b. gingivitis;

c. extreme anger and hostility.

____________________________________________________________

6. When the Bible portrays “smoke rising” to warn of judgment, we should think of:

a. people suffering horrible pain;

b. a completed desolation or annihilation;

c. a closed arena when cigarettes were still allowed.

____________________________________________________________

7. When Scripture speaks of smoke rising “forever,” it signifies:

a. a destruction that will be irreversible;

b. conscious torment that never ends;

c. a battery-powered rabbit that short circuited.

_______________________________________________________

8. The “worm” in the expression “worm that dies not” is:

a. a maggot that feeds on something dead;

b. a symbol for a pained conscience;

c. a figure of speech standing for everlasting agony in torment.

____________________________________________________________

9. Throughout the Bible, the expression “unquenchable fire” always signifies:

a. fire which burns forever but never burns up what is put in it;

b. fire which comes from a volcano;

c. fire which is irresistible and therefore consumes entirely.

____________________________________________________________

10. The Old Testament’s final description of the end of sinners states that:

a. God will put fire and worms in their flesh and they will feel their pain forever;

b. they will be ashes under the soles of the feet of the righteous;

c. neither of the above.

____________________________________________________________

11. John the Baptist warned of “unquenchable fire,” by which Jesus would:

a. burn up the “chaff”;

b. torment the lost forever and never let them die;

c. purge sinners of all evil and then send them to heaven.

____________________________________________________________

12. Jesus compared the end of the wicked to:

a. someone burning chaff, dead trees or weeds;

b. a house destroyed by a hurricane or someone crushed under a boulder;

c. all the above.

____________________________________________________________

13. Jesus personally described Gehenna (hell) as a place where:

a. God is able to destroy both soul and body;

b. God will perpetuate the soul in everlasting agony;

c. Satan reigns over his evil subjects and tortures damned humans.

____________________________________________________________

14. The phrase “eternal punishment” signifies:

a. punishment which occurs in the Age to Come rather than during this life;

b. eternal life in horrible agony and pain;

c. punishment which has everlasting results;

d. (a) and (c) but not (b).

____________________________________________________________

15. The context and “punch line” of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus talk about:

a. what happens to the wicked after resurrection and judgment;

b. the urgency of responding to God while there is opportunity;

c. details about the “intermediate state” between death and resurrection.

____________________________________________________________

16. Throughout his writings, Paul says that the lost will:

a. go to hell and burn alive forever;

b. die, perish, and be punished with eternal destruction;

c. go to heaven but hate every minute of it.

____________________________________________________________

17. The New Testament uses the adjective “immortal” to describe:

a. the soul of every person, good or evil;

b. the resurrection bodies of the saved but not of the lost;

c. no human being now or hereafter.

____________________________________________________________

18. The Jewish-Christian books of Hebrews and James contrast salvation with:

a. unending conscious pain;

b. inescapable destruction;

c. going “gently into that good night.”

____________________________________________________________

19. Peter’s epistles say that the lost will:

a. be burned to ashes like Sodom and Gomorrah;

b. perish like brute beasts;

c. both the above.

____________________________________________________________

20. John interprets his vision in Revelation of a “lake of fire” as:

a. a picture of indescribable, everlasting torture;

b. a place Eskimos might like to visit;

c. the second death.


Check out the answers tomorrow or if you can’t wait go to Edward Fudge’s website and scroll down to the bottom of the page

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State, Heaven | Afterlife, Immortality, Resurrection

Destroyed Forever

August 5, 2009 By admin Leave a Comment

In an article entitled Destroyed For Ever: An Examination of the Debates Concerning Annihilation and Conditional Immortality (Themelios, 1996) Tony Gray did an excellent job of summarising recent scholarly debate over conditional immortality.

He concludes “that the torrent of books and articles against annihilationism may have left some of its arguments ignored or in the background” and that “annihilationism is at the very least an option that ought to be considered fairly and honestly”. At the same time he suggests that “there remain major problems which proponents of the doctrine [annihilationism] must tackle.” Chief among these he suggests “hermeneutics, concepts of justice and assumptions about immortality.” He suggests that “much is left for future discussion and debate” and echoes John Stott’s plea for “frank dialogue among evangelicals on the basis of Scripture.”

The article is well worth reading in full.

(Note. The cover shown here is not that of the issue in which the article referred to appears).

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and Salvation, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State, Heaven | Afterlife, Immortality, Resurrection

Resurrection Hope: Advantages of this Doctrine

August 4, 2009 By admin 1 Comment

Resurrection Hope, by David A. Dean, Advent Christian General Conference, 1992, p. 73-74.

“Few doctrines are filled with more practical consequences than the biblical teaching that all the dead are asleep or unconscious.

First, the “sleep of the dead” guarantees that proper prominence will be given to the great truth of the resurrection of the dead.

Since the dead are asleep they can receive neither reward nor punishment until they are raised. The teaching that the saints go immediately to heaven at death tends to depreciate the value and need of the resurrection of the body. It is not the location of the dead, whether they are in heaven or in the ground, that is the major issue. The key question is the condition of the dead, that is, do they know where they are, or are they unconscious of all matters?

Second, the “sleep of the dead” brings comfort to those who remain. the believer who is dead “sleeps in Jesus” and is in the care and keeping of his saviour until the resurrection morning. The dead have neither ceased to exist eternally nor have they gone to their reward. Rather they rest in Christ’s keeping awaiting His return.

A third advantage is that the “sleep of the dead” means that all Christians of human history are only one life time away from Christ’s return. Time, to one who sleeps in death, is not time because its passage is not felt. One moment, or one year, or ten thousnd years, to him who sleeps throughout are all the very same. Each period is alike to the sleeper. It is as a moment of time, or rather as no time at all. He sleeps – he wakes. He knows nothing else when he wakes but that he has been asleep.

Either Christ will come before we die or the next moment of consciousness after physical death the Christian will hear the resurrection call of Christ. This doctrine makes every generation equally close to Christ’s second coming.

Finally, the  truth of the “sleep of the dead ” provides a strong refutation of many prevalent false ideas today. The current emphasis on the occult and upon communicating with the dead is cut off at the roots if the dead are asleep. We need not wonder whether the ghosts of the dead are haunting us. And we need not mourn that those who are dead are hurt by our actions here and now.”

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and Salvation, Heaven | Afterlife, Resurrection

Archdeacon Blackburn Said …

August 3, 2009 By admin Leave a Comment

[Bible Standard, No. 3, December, 1877, p. 19.]

“The more any man is convinced of the Immortality of the Soul form the principles of Aristotle or Descartes, the less he will concern himself about the gospel account of futurity … All those fine open notions about the Immortality of the Soul, and all the artificial deductions from that principle, teaching nothing but the art of blowing scholastic bubbles, which will certainly go peacefully to their rest, without the least detriment either to sound learning or true religion.”

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Immortality Tagged With:

A Complex and Totally Mortal Monism

July 26, 2009 By admin Leave a Comment

E. Earle Ellis, in “Let the Reader Understand: Temple and Eschatology in Mark,” in Kent E. Browner and Mark W. Elliot, ed. Eschatology in the Bible and Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of the New Millennium  (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1997), 211 says:

“The Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, represent individual personality as a complex and totally mortal monism, a unity that can be viewed from different perspectives, but that cannot be broken into separate parts. The Biblical view is compatible with an outer/inner distinction or even matter/ thought or matter/ will distinction, as long as both aspects are recognized as mortal and as a part of the present fallen creation thus subject to the natural death process.”

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State, Immortality Tagged With:

Is Man Immortal?

July 22, 2009 By admin Leave a Comment

By A.A. Phelps, A.M. Late Free Methodist Minister, U.S.A.

[Bible Standard, No. 2, November, 1877, pp12-14.]

For many years I tenaciously clung to the dogma of natural immortality. At length I so far laid aside my prejudice as to give the whole subject a thorough investigation. I became intensely in earnest to know the truth, whatever might befall my preconceived opinions. This investigated resulted in a radical revolution of sentiment in regard to man’s nature and the sinner’s destiny. I have been compelled by an overwhelming array of Scripture evidence, to reject and repudiate the current doctrine of natural immortality. I subjoin a few reasons, very briefly stated for this rejection.

1. The doctrine of natural immortality has a very unfavourable origin.   It can be traced back through the Romish Church to the Pharisees, and from them to the heathen philosophers and idolatrous Egyptians! Who advocated it. They probably received it by a sort of Satanic mesmerism; for the old Serpent first published the doctrine amid the lovely bowers of Eden in these words: “Ye shall not surely die.” (Gen. 3:4). A dogma that was invented by the devil, received by Pagans, nurtured by Papists, and adopted by Protestants, ought to be looked upon with some suspicion.

2. It is at variance with the inspired record of man’s creation. His origin is succinctly stated thus: “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Gen. 2:7.) There is not the faintest intimation here of an invisible intangible, imponderable, immaterial, immortal conscious entity, without length, breadth, or thickness, without exterior or interior, capable of thinking, knowing, and feeling, independent of the body, and destined to live through all the years of God.

3. It clashes with the Bible account of man’s fall. Adam was placed on probation. A simple test was applied. Obedience would have brought immortality, while disobedience would as certainly result in mortality. The penalty was thus briefly stated: “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Gen 2:17,) or , “dying thou shalt die.” Whn a term is used for the first time, it ought to be used in a plain, natural, literal sense. It was so used in Eden. If the penalty in Eden was moral death, then the doctrine of Universalism is true; “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22.)  Adam sinned. He at once became a dying man. He was driven out of paradise, “lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.” (Gen. 3:22.) O, it was the hand of love that pushed fallen and sinful man aside; that shut him away from the tree of life, and thus cut off all possibility of his becoming immortal in sin and misery!

4.   It renders the execution of the sinner’s penalty impossible. God allowed the race to be propagated under the malediction of physical death, yet coupled with provisions for the future. Adam’s disobedience lands all his progeny in the grave; but Christ’s obedience lifts them all out of it. The whole human family share so fully in the atonement of Jesus as to have secured to them an unconditional resurrection from the Adamic death. Every man must now stand or fall for himself. Whoever will come into the glorious plan will be eternally saved. Whoever refuses must die for his own sins. This awful doom awaits the impenitent, after the judgement verdicts shall have been pronounced. In various phrases do the Scriptures teach the final extermination of the wicked in the “lake of fire.” They shall “die.” They shall “perish.” They shall be “destroyed.” They shall be “consumed.” They shall be “burnt up, root and branch.”  Such a destiny would be impossible, if man possessed an immortal soul.

5. Immortality is never ascribed to man. In our common version [the KJV] the term “immortal” occurs only once, and is then applied to God. (1 Tim. 1:17.) The term “immortality” is found five times; from which we learn: (1) that God only possesses it (1 Tim. 6:16); (2) that Christ brought it to light in the Gospel (2 Tim. 1:10); (3) that we are to seek for it (Rom. 2:7); and (4 and 5) that Christians are to put it on at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:53, 54). Such terms as “undying soul,” “deathless soul,” “never dying spirit,” though so common in theology are nowhere to be found in the Bible. So far from teaching that immortality is a birthright possession, the Scriptures everywhere hold it up as a priceless boon to besought – a blessing for which we are entirely dependent upon Jesus Christ, the great Life-giver.

6. The doctrine of natural immortality supersedes the necessity of a resurrection. The difference between Church theology and Bible theology is this: the former predicates a future life upon the assumed fact of inherent immortality; the latter predicates it upon a resurrection from the dead. There is a natural antagonism between the two positions. Hence it is that the glorious doctrine of the resurrection, so conspicuous in the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, has fallen into disrepute. Many popular divines utterly repudiate it. Others habitually ignore it. In the Churches generally, very little stress is laid upon it. Indeed, why should there be if the prevailing notions are correct? If death is a grand emancipation, coming with a friendly hand to open our prison and let us go free, if “death is the gate to endless joys,” if the dead are not really dead, but more fully alive than ever; then a resurrection is entirely superfluous, and ought to be rejected.

7. It reduces the judgement scene to a nullity. If the current view is correct, that the real man is immortal, “shuffling off this mortal coil” and entering upon his reward at death, surely a judgement day would be entirely useless. Consistency demands that we should either give up the idea of a coming tribunal, or cease to believe that man can be rewarded before he is judged. Popular theology would have us believe that Christians are continually flying up to heaven, and sinners sinking down to hell! That the one class are already crowned with glory, and the other class already cursed with the pangs of their merited doom, but that there is still a day of judgement, when the saints are to be rallied from their abode of blessedness, and sinners are to be brought out of prison of despair; that they are to receive their formal sentence, and then be sent back to their former abodes of blackness or bliss! Can anyone seriously believe that God’s administration will ever be so absurd?

8. It subverts the doctrine of Christ’s second coming. If men are rewarded and punished in a “disembodied” state, there is no need of Christ’s coming to raise the dead. If the destinies of men can be adjusted at death, there is no need of Christ’s coming to judge the world. If the saints are to live forever in heaven, there is no need of Christ’s coming to renew the earth and to set up His kingdom upon it; for it would be a lovely reign with every saint in heaven, and every sinner removed to a distant hell. Surely there is no adequate reason why Christ should ever return to earth if the prevalent ideas of man’s nature and destiny are correct. Is it any wonder that so little stress is laid upon the doctrine of Christ’s personal coming? The traditions of men have displaced this glorious truth, and turned the whole system of revealed religion into a terrible moral chaos!

9. The dogma of natural immortality is the fruitful source of dangerous error. It has given birth to a hateful progeny. It is the foundation of the worst religious developments that have ever cursed the earth. The intelligent reader will hardly venture to deny that Mormonism, Mahometanism, Swedenborgianism, Shakerism, and Spiritualism are built upon the assumed fact that man is immortal.  It is the boasted mission of Spiritualism, indeed, to teach that “man has an immortal soul.” The whole system depends upon it. And yet it is but a natural and logical outgrowth from what the Churches generally advocate as “orthodoxy.” Spiritualism is “orthodoxy” gone to seed. Nor can we with any consistency pour out denunciations upon a class religionists for having travelled legitimately to certain conclusions from the premises we have so generously granted them. Who does not know that Mariolatry and Purgatory are based upon the assumption that dead folks are alive? Let the Scripture fact that “the dead know not anything” be established; and there will be no more money paid to have departed friends prayed through the pains of Purgatory! Let the whole Catholic Church be convinced that the virgin Mary is now dead and she will cease to be an object of worship. The horrid doctrine of eternal torment would never have found a place in the Church of God but for the antecedent notion of natural immortality. This granted, the other is a logical necessity, unless it can be shown that all men are to be saved. But the doctrine of endless misery is so foul a slander on God’s character that many have been compelled to repudiate it. Assuming that man is immortal the only alternative is eternal torment or universalism. The latter is a natural rebound from the former. If men are to exist eternally, they must exist in a state of happiness or misery. The one being rejected, the other must be accepted. The consequence is, that the dogma of unending agony is making men universalists and infidels on a large scale. Universalism and endless misery are both built upon the foundation of inherent immortality. They are the dangerous extremes. The truth lies between them. But enough. The bitterness of the fruit attests the badness of the tree.

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and Salvation, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State, Heaven | Afterlife, Immortality, Resurrection Tagged With:

Plato versus Christ

July 21, 2009 By admin Leave a Comment

“The Son quickeneth whom he will.” - John 5:21

Sidney Hatch; Brief Bible Studies, Vol. 21, No.1, p. 21.

The Greek philosopher Plato has been called “the prophet of the doctrine of immortality.” By this, of course, is meant the immortality of a human soul.

It was Plato’s earnest undertaking to prove the eternal existence of the soul – its pre-existence, its present existence, and its continued  existence after death. Thus, to Plato, death was the medium to a blissful future, for it meant the release of the soul from the body (cf. Dollinger, The Gentile and the Jew, I, 336).

By way of contrast, Jesus of Nazareth may be called the prophet of the resurrection of the dead. Not only did He teach a resurrection from the dead, He also claimed the power and authority to perform that resurrection.

He told Peter and the disciples that “the gates of hell” would not prevail against His “church” or “congregation” (Mt. 16:18). The power of the grave could not keep them. Someday, in resurrection, they would come forth.

He told the Jews that as the Father raises up the dead, and forms them alive, so He, the Son, forms them alive. Resurrection power has been committed to the Son of God (Jn. 5:21).

Finally, Jesus said that some day the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God — and those who hear that voice will come to life again (Jn. 5:25). They will live again in resurrection.

Jesus of Nazareth proved His claims. He brought the widow’s son back to life (Lk. 7:15). He raised the little maid, Jairus’ daughter (Lk. 8:55). And finally, He raised Lazarus from the dead (Jn. 11:44).

The philosopher Plato never really proved his claims as to “the immortality of the human soul.” One of his so-called proofs was to accept as a certain fact the pre-existence of the soul (cf. Dollinger, op. cit., p. 337)!

Plato and his followers have never captured a so-called “soul” and put it on display. They have always had much help from the doctrines and practices of spiritualism, and from demons that impersonate “departed souls.” But the evidence is rejected, both by careful students of Scripture, and by reasonable men.

In view of these facts, is it not reasonable that we reject Plato’s doctrine, and accept that of Christ? One excludes the other. If we have immortal souls, then we really do not need a resurrection from the dead — in fact, we do not really die!

But God’s Word tells us that death is conquered, not by Plato’s philosophy, but by Christ’s resurrection from the dead, “Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory [over death and the grave] through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 15:57).

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Immortality, Resurrection Tagged With: , , , ,

The Body Dies, The Person Dies, Then What?

July 20, 2009 By admin Leave a Comment

Craig C. Hill, In God’s Time: The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002), 5, says “More characteristic of both ancient Judaism and early Christianity is the belief that the person is a psychosomatic whole. No soul exists independent of a body, so when the body dies, the person dies.”

Anthony Hoekema in his book, also tittled The Bible and the Future (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978), 91 says,  “We conclude that the concept of the immortality of the soul is not a distinctively Christian doctrine. Rather, what is central in biblical eschatology is the doctrine of the resurrection of the body.”

Later, he says, “The Scriptures make it abundantly clear that the resurrection of Christ is the pledge and guarantee of the future resurrection of believers” ( p. 245-46).

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State, Resurrection

Immortality of the Soul Rooted in Platonism and Neoplatonism

July 17, 2009 By admin Leave a Comment

Donald G. Bloesch, in The Last Things: Resurrection, Judgment, Glory (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2004), 114, says, “In the history of the church the Christian teaching of the resurrection of the body has again and again been challenged by the mystical notion of the inherent immortality of the soul, which has its roots in Platonism and Neoplatonism.”

Emil Brunner, in Eternal Hope (London: Lutterworth Press, 1954), 100, says, “For the history of Western thought, the Platonic teaching of the immortality of the soul became of special significance. It penetrated so deeply into the thought of Western man because, although with certain modifications, it was assimilated by Christian theology and church teaching, was even declared by the Lateran Council of 1512 to be dogma, to contradict which was a heresy, and likewise from Calvin onwards it was assumed in post-Reformation Protestantism to be a part of Christian doctrine. Only recently, as a result of deepened understanding of the New Testament, have strong doubts arisen as to its compatibility with the Christian conception of the relation between God and man, and its essentially pre-Christian origin has been ever more emphasized.”

He goes on to say, “That this dualistic conception of man does not correspond to the Christian outlook can be shown from various angles. The contrast stands out most clearly in the two following points. The effect of this Platonic dualism is not merely to make death innocuous but also to rob evil of its sting.” (p. 101 ).

“In the process there took place a substantial transformation of the New Testament hope of the end: it passed from being universal hope relevant to all mankind to being a personal hope relevant to the individual life.” (p. 133).

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and the Inbetween State, Resurrection

What the Word of God Can Do

July 11, 2009 By admin Leave a Comment

Brief Bible Studies.  Vol.24, N0 3, p.28.

Sidney Hatch, Th.M.

“Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth …. the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.”  – James 1:18,21.

The Word of God is able to accomplish “great and mighty things.” 1  Two examples are given in the first chapter of the Book of James. There the Lord’s brother, who was also head of the Jerusalem church, has written that God “begat” us with the Word of truth. Secondly, He will someday “save our souls” with His Word.

“Begat” is a translation of apo-kueo, a Greek word which meant “to bring forth” or “give birth to.” There are other words for “birth” in the New Testament, but apokueo is a medical word implying a safe delivery.2

Here is a wonderful thing. When we are “born” into the Christian life through the Word of God, it is a safe delivery. Other methods of evangelism may appear to work or “get results,” but they do not always prove to be successful. The Word of God, however, guarantees a safe delivery.

Secondly, James writes, the Word of God is able to “save your souls.” This expression refers to the future salvation, the resurrection from the dead when Jesus comes. Paul calls this future aspect “the hope of salvation.”3

It is interesting to observe that James also uses apokueo in verse fifteen of chapter one. There he says that lust conceives and brings forth sin, “and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” This is the only other occurrence of apokueo in the New Testament.

The ultimate and certain result of sin is the second death.4    This is an extinction that lasts forever.

But God’s Word gives life! We are “brought forth” by it. Someday we shall be resurrected by it. No other power can accomplish such mighty things.

1  Jeremiah 33:3.        2  Abbott-Smith, Lexicon, pp. 51-52.  3  1 Thessalonians 5:8.   4  Revelation 20:14-15.

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and Salvation, Devotional, Heaven | Afterlife

A Triune Model of Humanity

July 4, 2009 By admin Leave a Comment

Dear David,

I don’t particularly object to the “Unity” model, but I’d like to put in a good word for the “Triune being” model that includes distinctions between “Body, Soul, and Spirit.”

First, the reason that I don’t use a “Unity” model myself is because there is obviously something non-physical that is involved in our makeup.

1. My fingers move on the keys… but why?

2. Because the tendons pull on them because muscles behind them moved.. but why?

3. Because my brain or spinal cord send nerve signals to “instruct” them… but how?

4. Because neurons inside my brain were firing? But, this brings us to the last part….

5. How do those neurons fire? What makes them do that? What tripped this mousetrap?

There is something non-physical involved in our makeup that enables us to live, to think, to act, that makes all the difference of whether we are alive or dead, and also whether we have free will, or if we are just

machines that produce a fixed output for every fixed input (modified by even slight random chances.)

I also am not adverse to using terms like “Body” and “Soul” and “Spirit” (or even ghost) because these are words that my Bible uses. Granted, it does not use a term like “Triune being”

This model is compatible with what we observe around us in science, including biology and information technology:

1) A person can be rendered into a comatose or vegetative state, and be physically “alive” yet not really “alive.” Someone who is “brain dead” definitely has a body (Body) and it is breathing (Spirit of Life.) However, the part that is self “Soul” seems to be rendered useless, and for this reason they could be considered as being effectively dead.

2) Likewise, someone can be thinking and alert up until the moment their Spirit gives out (people sometimes just “Die” even if their body is otherwise all right.)

3) Of course, if someone is chopped up, or bled, or otherwise their body is damaged, they also die.

From the perspective of information technology, the computer is a model that can be likened to a living person (albeit without free will – it truly is a machine.) It too has a “body” and “soul” and “spirit.”

1) Anything physical about the machine is properly its “body.”

2) But the computer is more than physical parts. Pass a strong magnet over it’s hard disk and you’ll have a vegetative computer in mere moments. It consists of information and programming which are the sum of its experiences and its “character.”

This is the true “computer” which can be restored or resurrected, even with a better incorruptible “body” if something were to happen to any of its parts, or the machine as a whole.

3) And also, this machine requires a “spirit” to “live.” Without a power supply, it cannot live. This is not a “personal spirit” – but it is a spirit common to all machines, from the Lowly Electric Iron to the highest powered Cray Computer. If I may quote a verse from “the Programmer:”

“But the Cray Computer hath no Preeminence above the Iron. What befalleth the Iron befalleth the Computer, and they both turn into the Rust. Who knoweth if the spirit of the Iron returns to the Ground, and the Spirit of the Cray will be restored?”

(Please pardon the liberal paraphrase of “The Preacher.”)

But in this case, if the Iron were to break, we would not “resurrect it.” If the Cray Supercomputer were to break, we’d have its “Soul” backed up on Optical Disk and we would certainly restore it in “The Resurrection.”

I hope that analogy demonstrates how “Body + Soul + Spirit” in now way requires a presumption of an “Immortal Soul” any more than it requires an “Immortal Body” or an “Immortal Spirit.” My computer requires all three or it won’t function at all! So, in a way even the computer could be viewed as a “Unity” – but it is not the only working model.

If I were asked to “define” what I have read by these terms, I would say:

1) The “Body” is what we can see and hear and put on a scale and weigh. It does not have a “free will” but is best likened to a machine with programmable reflexes. If you cut off your right arm, you are still “you.”

2) The “Soul” is sometimes what we are. Sometimes this is used for the “Unity” because this our most important component. We can be resurrected even if our bodies are rendered to dust.

Even people that suffer brain damage are still “them” – so the brain is not the soul… the brain seems to act like a complex piece of interface hardware. Just as our computers have hard drives which store information, the hard drive itself is not the information.

You could think of the “information” as being little tiny magnets lined up as “1?s and “0?s but that’s not even information… it only represents information. Information is not physical!

Just like DNA itself is not “information” but it “represents information.” (This is a distinction recognized by some of the apologetic defenders of Creation vs. Evolution.)

In the English language, there is a differentiation between “man” and “beast” to where “soul” is applied to that which will be resurrected to judgment, and “creature” is that which shall not be resurrected. When you hear of a ship sinking with “88 souls on board” they are not counting the cattle or the rats.

(There was another example of “soul” being used in modern English as the “person!” Even the old signal of S.O.S. for “Save Our Souls” is used in this way!)

3) “Spirit” can usually be substituted with “Life” with the connotation of “electric”. Even animals have spirit (so says the Preacher in Ecclesiastes). You often hear terms like “Spirit of Life” or “Breath of Life” which lends flavor to this term.

However, I’d say that there is sometimes splash over between these “categories” and we shouldn’t presume to apply strict dissections based on how these terms are used. I recognize (and appreciate) how a “Unity” model tries to avoid these “splash over difficulties.”

Yet, if I was asked to give only one reason why I think that we need to be able to use both models I’d quote when Jesus said that we should not fear those which can kill the body, but He which can destroy both soul and body in hell. Jesus used the distinction, and if for no other reason our model needs to be able to explain this verse.

There are too many places that use “soul” and “spirit” together, or “body” and “soul” – and I think it is a mistake to use a “biased translators” argument … as Henry Constable noted, under Queen Elizabeth England removed the law enforcing the “Immortal Soul” in the Church of England.

I also haven’t yet found anything in the writing of King James I that supports an “Immortal Soul” (but I have found him speaking out against the Calvinist “Immortal Soul + No Free Will” combination as being most likely to cause people to rebel against God!) I’m still looking… but I think I even found a few places in Daemonologie that seem to hint at “mortal soul…”

For example, he flat out rejected the notion that a Samuel was really summoned by the witch of Endor and said that no sensible religion acknowledged that as legitimate! I’d love to do more research on this sometime. Yet that is exactly what is often claimed as “actual” when people are clutching at straws to “prove” the “conscious immortal soul.” In other words, King James I sounded compatible with “soul sleep” (which is “conditional immortality.) .

As you might have noticed, I’m not being dogmatic about this… but I have no problem with being able to enter an already established turf that is familiar with a Triune Model of Man… just remind him that “These Three are One” and that none of these functions without the other.

1) What good is a programmed computer without electricity? (No Spirit)

2) Will you computer still “think” if you break its motherboard in two? (No Body)

3) How well does your computer function with a blank hard drive? (No Soul)

In all of these, the most important part of the computer is the Soul – if I back up the Soul on a flash drive or optical disk or spool of tape, then everything else is transient and can be replaced. If I truly destroy both “soul and body” there’s no restoring that computer ever again.

But an optical disk that stores a “soul” does not think, and it is not conscious, and it does not feel pain, or boredom, or hatred, or envy. It is at rest, until it is re-installed.

Andrew

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul

The Unitary Nature of Man (and its Correspondence with the Nature of God)

June 27, 2009 By admin Leave a Comment

Brief Bible Studies. Fall, 1993. Vol.24, No. 3.

In one seminary which I attended I was taught that man is two parts, body and soul. This was called the dichotomous view of man’s nature. In this view it is usually assumed that the soul is an immaterial entity that lives on after death.

In another seminary the teaching was trichotomy: man is three parts, body, soul, and spirit. The distinction between soul and spirit was rather fine-honed, the soul supposedly being related to aesthetic values on earth and the spirit to spiritual values from heaven.

Later, after the years in seminary and through personal study, I came to a different conclusion: man is neither dichotomous or trichotomous; rather, he is unitary.

In this new view—new to me at least—I came to see that man is not separable into two or three different entities but is a unit. The key passage, amongst others, which led to this conclusion was Genesis 2:7, “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

As a potter molds the clay, so the LORD God took some soil of the earth and formed man. Then He breathed into him “breath of life.” This breath or life was not a “soul” or immaterial entity but simply the force from God that made man alive.

The Hebrew word is neshamah. It is the word Elihu used when he said to Job, “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.”1 It is God’s “breath” or neshamah, Elihu says, that gives him life. More literally, that causes him to live or be alive.2

This then was the method God used: to mold the clay and breathe into it life-force, the result being “a living soul” or “living creature.” There is nothing here about immortal soul. Man is a unit.

As a matter of interest, it should be mentioned that the same term is used of the animals. In the Hebrew text of the creation account they too are “living souls” or “souls of life.”3 Also, Genesis 7:22 and Psalm 150:6 indicate that the animals also possess :

“life” or neshamah—the same “life” or neshamah as man.

There are many advantages to this unitary or materialist view of man’s nature. I mention here only a few.4

It is compatible with science. Christian people are not asked to believe in “souls” or ghosts.

It has a high regard for man’s body. It is the body that is made in the image of God.5 The Scriptures identify a person with his body. It is the body that is raised up in the resurrection, vivified, and glorified.6

It does not usurp God’s attribute of immortality.7 He alone possesses immortality. We shall put it on in the resurrection.8

It comes, as I have indicated already, directly from the Scriptures. The other view, that man possesses an immaterial entity that lives on after death, has come into the western world from the perverse and philosophical environment of ancient Greece.9

It is compatible with the physiological evidence that the power of thinking belongs to the brain. When a man dies, he ceases to think.10 In the resurrection, he begins to think again.

It leads to a simple and understandable view of death. The Scriptures illustrate the death state as an unconscious sleep.11 We awaken in the resurrection.

It eliminates from Christian doctrine the pagan and blasphemous idea of eternal torment for “lost souls.” No immortal soul means no eternal toment.

It is compatible with the kingdom hope. When Christ returns to earth to establish His kingdom, His saints are raised up to reign with Him.12

These are some of the advantages of the unitary view of man’s nature. There are others, of course, but I mention just one more: it corresponds with the nature of God.

God is one, so man is also one. God is unitary, not three-in-one.13 So man also is unitary, not two-in-one or three-in-one. What an encouragement this correspondence can be in our understanding of God and man!

Man is made in the image and likeness of God.14 The Hebrew text indicates that “image” and “likeness” refer to form and shape, not to some moral, spiritual, or metaphysical likeness. Nevertheless, it seems appropriate that if man is in the image of God, he should be unitary as God is unitary.

God is one substance or essence, and that substance is spirit.15 Man is one substance or essence, and that substance is clay or earth material.. As Paul has said, “man is of the earth, earthy.”16

In my own mind and heart, the discovery of the unitary view of man brought peace and joy into my Christian experience. It was a relief from the vagaries of dichotomy and trichotomy. In addition, it helped to confirm my understanding of God as unitary.

Sidney Hatch, TH.M.

Footnotes

1 Job 33:4.

2 The Hebrew verb is chayah, “to live.” In Job 33:4 it is in the Hebrew intensive or “piel” conjugation. In this conjugation chayah means “to cause to live, to make alive” or “to give life.” Compare Genenius-Tregelles, Hebrew Lexicon, pp.273-74.

3 Hebrew nephesh chayyah, Genesis 1:20-21, 24, 30; 2:19.

4 In my book, Daring to Differ: Adventures in Conditional Immortality, I draw a contrast between conditional immortality and immortal soulism. See Chapter 30, “What difference Does It Make?”

5 Genesis 1:26-27; 9:6; 1 Conrinthians 11:7; James 3:9.

6 So Jesus addressed the body when raising people from the dead. Compare Luke 7:14; 8:54; John 11:43. See also 1 Corinthians 15, the great resurrection chapter.

7 1 Timothy 6:16.

8 1 Corinthians 15:50-58.

9 Dollinger has written that paiderastia (pedophilia) was the “great national disease” of ancient Greece. The whole of society was infected with it and the people inhaled the pestilence with the air they breathed. Philosophers and poets glorified boy-passion in their writings. Parents commonly would not tolerate their children having any acquaintance with philosophers. See John J.I.Dollinger, The Gentile and the Jew, 2nd ed. (London: Gibbings & Company, 1906), II, 251-58. See also William Barclay, Flesh and Spirit, An Examination of Galatians 5.19-23 (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1962), p.26. This, I would remind my readers again. is the culture that gave the western world the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.

10 Psalm 6:5; 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5,10; Isaiah 38:18.

11 Deuteronomy 31:16; 1 Kings 2:10; 11:43; Psalm 127:2: Daniel 12:2; Matthew 9:24; John 11:11; Acts 7:60; 1 Corinthians 15:6;

1 Thessalonians 4:13 and other passages.

12 1 Thessalonians 4:13; 11 Timothy 4:1

13 Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Timothy 2:5.

14 Genesis 1:26-27.

15 John 4:24.

16 1 Corinthians 15:47.

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul

On Disabilities / Handicaps

November 29, 2008 By david Leave a Comment

Some people look at a disabled person and think “The real person is trapped inside that body”, a thought which is based on the Greek idea of the body as a carriage for the soul or the “real person”. What is the biblical perspective on disabled people?

We are are in fact a “living soul” (Gen 2:7), dust animated by the breath of God, and the soul is not separate from the body (see this post for more details ). Thus when we see a disabled person we see a disabled soul, not a disabled carriage-for-the-soul.

We are in fact all disabled souls, because even the finest physical specimen is disabled by the curse of sin under which he or she was born.

Such a person may appear to be in perfect health, but the truth is that the effects of sin can be seen in everything from their DNA to their limited life span.

A disabled soul in a wheelchair simply has disabilities arising from the curse of sin that are more visible than those of someone generally considered to have “perfect health”.

The good news is that one day those who love and follow the Lord will be free of the curse of sin, and there will be no more mourning, or crying or pain because the first things will have passed away (Rev 21:4). There will be no need for wheelchairs or doctors on the new earth because everyone will truly have perfect health.

Print This Post Print This Post Filed Under: Body/Soul, Conditional Immortality and Salvation, Devotional
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »