He goes on to say, “I came to understand that my mother believes what most Christians have believed down through the centuries: humans are immaterial souls capable of disembodied existence.” Corcoran, however, no longer holds his mother’s point of view. In fact, he flatly denies that human persons like you and me have any immaterial “soul”. Corcoran rightly says that both Christian tradition and Christian doctrine, with respect to the afterlife, emphasise the resurrection of the body not the immortality of the soul.
“None of the Ecumenical creeds of the Church confesses belief in a doctrine of soul survival,” he says. “No, the Christian doctrine regarding the afterlife is a doctrine of resurrection.” From a philosophical point of view the notion of the resurrection of the body is no more difficult to comprehend than that of soul survival. “Both dualists and materialists have the problem of telling a coherent story about how a body that peters out and ceases to exist can somehow turn up in the New Jerusalem,” he says.
What sets Corcoran’s treatment apart from other discussions of biblical anthropology is the emphasis he places on the moral implications of his views in the here and now.
“A materialist view of human nature,” he says, “makes good sense of the urgency and importance of our call to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and pursue justice. Why? Because we are material beings; starvation, want and physical impoverishment are kingdom concerns. Contrary to the sacred hymn, this world is our home. It is broken, disfigured and diseased to be sure, but it matters to us. It matters to us because we are created for this world in all of its physicality.”
While scholars debate the nature of humanity the question, What makes us human? is not only of academic interest. End-of-life ethical decisions, human cloning, fetal tissue transplants, and stem cell research make this an issue of utmost importance to ordinary people. Corcoran’s view — called the “constitutional view”— suggests that we are constituted by our bodies without being identical to them. A building is constituted of bricks and mortar yet is not mere bricks and mortar. A statue is constituted of marble yet is not mere marble. So too, a human being is constituted of a animal body but is no mere body. It has been suggested that Cocoran’s view is morally flawed; that by reducing human beings to the level of “mere animals” he destroys any rational ground for maintaining the sanctity of human life — especially at the margins, where a fetus or a person in a persistent vegetative state exhibits none of the capacities we normally associate with “personhood” and which many claim distinguish a human being from an animal.
In discussing abortion, however, Corcoran argues that the opposite is true. As a “potential person” and a member of the human family the fetus deserves protection. But if the “soul” continues to exist after the demise of the organism it animates; and the “soul” carries with it the identity of the person; then abortion does not end the life of a “person” or “potential person”. What grounds have we for saying abortion is wrong? The materialist viewpoint is thus, in fact, the better starting point from which to build an “ethic of life”.
Corcoran concludes that anthropology alone is insufficient to ground an “ethic of life” (other theological ideas come into play as well) but a materialist anthropology is superior to the dualistic alternative in that it does more to connect the philosophy of human nature with the great themes of Biblical theology: themes such as Creation, Incarnation, the New Creation and the Resurrection; all of which reaffirm God’s commitment to this material world and embodied life. I am inclined to agree.
- David Burge

Mind Reading, Soul Searching And A Neurobiological Portrait

Turning first to science, after an introduction by Joel Green, Malcolm Jeeves looks at how modern neuroscience has impacted upon our understanding of what it means to be human (chapter 2). Over the last three centuries, at least among philosophers, talk of the “soul” has changed to talk of the “mind”. The last 100 years has forged an ever tightening link between “brain” and “mind”. Aspects of personality, once seen as attributes of the “soul”, are found to be closely related to the activity of the brain. Jeeves concludes: “The take-home message is that any view of human nature that fails to recognise the psychosomatic unity of the person is a view that cannot be defended from science.” (p30).
D. Gareth Jones likewise takes a scientific approach (Chapter 3). He looks at neural plasticity (our brains are changing), and behavioural genetics and concludes that while there are biological and physical limits to
human capacities, the environment and moral choices play the larger part in shaping who we are and who we will be as persons. Jones concludes that the “neurobiological portrait” of the human person “is entirely consistent with Christian emphases on the wholeness and coherence of the person.” (p46).

The Soul: Possession, Part or Person (What Is A Human Being?)

Lawson G. Stone (Chapter 4) turns to the Scriptures to answer the question, what of the soul? The opening chapters of Genesis provide a wealth of information from which we derive a biblical doctrine of humanity. The pivotal text is Genesis 2:7. “Adam” (not just his body) was formed “of the dust.” God breathed into his nostrils “the breath of life”. As a result Adam became “a living soul”. Adam does not have a soul. He is a living soul.
Adam has much in common with the animals. They are of the earth (Gen. 1:24). They have the breath of life (Gen. 6:17; 7:15,22). They are living souls (Gen. 1:21, 24, 30). Stone concludes: “No exegetical justification exists for finding here the notion of abstract, immortal, disembodied personhood that we usually mean when we speak of the “soul” (p59).
This does not reduce humanity to the level of brute beast. It does, however, recognise that physicality is a vital element to human existence. It is wrong to distinguish the “physical” from the “spiritual”. The fate of all creation hinges on human destiny; a truly human person is a social person; humanity stands responsible to obey God’s word and is called to be his “image” before creation, but none of this requires an “immortal soul” or “substance dualism”. Neuroscience then, far from undermining Christian belief, encourages a closer reading of the text and supports the biblical view of human person-hood. Patrick D. Miller also seeks to answer biblically the question, What is a human being? (Chapter 5). Looking at Psalms 8 and 144, at Job, and at Jesus in Hebrews 2, Miller concludes, “What therefore is to be said about the human cannot be confined to general statements about humanity apart from God. It cannot be said apart from the discovery that in Jesus Christ we see who we are and we also see God for us.” (p 73).
Bill Arnold (Chapter 6) admits that a cursory reading of 1 Samuel 28 may suggest that Samuel’s disembodied “soul” was present at Endor. If so this would undermine the view of humanity presented throughout this book. Arnold notes, however, that many ancient authorities assumed that the figure at Endor was not Samuel at all, but a demonic apparition. Others indeed argued that Samuel was really present. Among this latter group some saw in this text evidence of the survival of the “soul”, others said Samuel was in fact resurrected by God. Thus nothing in this (or in any other) passage contradicts the “monist anthropology” derived from modern neuroscience.

The Resurrection of The Body

Are Scripture and the new science compatible as regards the hope of a life to come?
Green (Chapter 7) begins by asking, what might the resurrection of the body entail? And if I have no immortal soul, how might the continuity of my personal identity from death to life after death be guaranteed? In answer to these questions Green summarises the teaching on resurrection found in Israel’s Scriptures – in Hosea 6:1-3, Ezekiel 37:1-14, Isaiah 26:19 and Dan.12:1-3. The resurrection signals the end time restoration of Israel and her victory over her enemies. It is the time of reward and punishment. It embraces a view of the person as a psychosomatic whole and rejects any notion of salvation as an “immortal soul” being liberated from a mortal body.
The post-resurrection appearance of Jesus, in Luke 24:36-39, confirms that Jesus was no immaterial ghost. And in 1Corinthians 15 Paul is explicit concerning the need for a body suited for life-after-death. From the interface of neuroscience and theology, Green draws a number of conclusions regarding resurrection and personal identity. It is problematic, he says, to speak of human identity in purely physical terms. Throughout our lives our bodies are in a state of flux. Our identity consists not only in our physicality alone but also in a network of relationships and in our “story”. Death is not only the end of one’s body, it is the severing of relationships and the end of one’s story. No aspect of our personhood survives death. Resurrection then is a work of God by which, not only are we reembodied, but relationships are re-established and our stories continued. This introduces a corporate aspect into our understanding of resurrection.
In an excursus, in answer to the question, where was Jesus between Friday afternoon and dawn on Sunday Green suggests that he was “with God.” This seemingly nonconditionalist conclusion needs to be seen in
the light of the discussion of time and eternity in Chapter 9.

Emergent Dualism, Time and Eternity

William Hasker (Chapter 8.) and Charles E. Gutenson (Chapter 9) are of a philosophical bent. Hasker argues for an “emergent dualism” by which he means that the mental individual, like a field of consciousness”, is generated or emerges from the organism and is sustained by it. It is not (as in traditional dualism) that some other thing has been “added to” the organism from outside. This philosophical “emergent dualism” lends itself to a doctrine of human mortality exactly as we find in Scripture.
Any discussion of an intermediate state between death and resurrection presupposes a particular view of the nature of time and eternity. Gutenson (Chapter 9) outlines three such views. The “common sense” view supposes God to inhabits time as we do, though he “knows” past, present and future. The Augustinian view supposes God to inhabit a realm outside of time from where he observes all of time as a whole. Gutenson argues for a third option, called the “eternalist position”, which has God actually inhabit all time at once. God’s experience of time differs from ours. To God the General Resurrection is as present as the moment of our death. From God’s perspective (and from the perspective of “the dead”) there is no intermediate state and hence no difficulty in God preserving one’s personal identity through the very real experience of death.

Pastoral Care, Mission and Counselling (Without a “Soul”)

Michael A. Rynkiewich (Chapter 10) argues that a “monist” view of persons makes a theology of missions more holistic, more incarnational and more naturalistic. For too long the Great Commission has been reduced to “preaching the gospel” and “saving souls”. A wrong-headed dualism has separated evangelism from social justice. Saving souls is saving bodies. Yet, a human person is not just a body, but a body-in-relationship. Conversion is not the saving of individual bodies (much less the saving of “disembodied souls”), it is the establishing of a new relationship with God, his people and the environment around about us – all in
Christ.
Both, Virginia T. Holeman (Chapter 11) and Stuart L. Palmer believe that different ideas of personhood affect a pastor’s approach to care and counselling. “Reductive materialism” (we are nothing but bodies), “radical dualism” (the real ‘you’ is the immaterial bit within), and even “holistic dualism” (we are made up of two bits, ‘body’ and ‘soul’ which belong together) are to be rejected in favour of some form of “emergent monism” (We are whole persons, including our body, from which emanates what we call ‘mind/soul’). Such monism eliminates unhelpful distinctions between body/soul and physical / spiritual. Both authors note that modern neuroscience stresses the importance of the self in relation to others. Holeman quotes studies showing that relationship factors (40%) are much more important in counselling than the theoretic orientation of the counsellor, or the techniques employed (15%). This emphasis on relationship is consistent with all that has already been said regarding the human person. When we are seeking to bring a person into relationship with God, his people and the world around us – weaving our stories into God’s big story – we are putting the “Christian” into counselling.

What To Make of It All

This is not a big-word-free book. Many will struggle to understand the science and philosophy which pervades this book. For those willing to work, the results are worth it. Those of us who hold a conditionalist understanding of the human person will be encouraged to note that this is not another instance of pseudo-Science and Scripture on a collision course, but rather a clear example of the book of Nature and the book of the Bible being read in perfect harmony. This should encourage us in our faith. The emphasis on relationships and “storytelling” found throughout the book should remind us that we are about more than imparting knowledge and asking people to edit the “immortal soul” out of their personal creed. We are seeking to impart to fellow Christians a holistic, incarnational, naturalistic, vision of our mission as the Church and to bring people into an eternal relationship with God, his people and the creation / new creation around us – again, weaving our stories into God’s big story!

Dear Mr. Burge,
Could you help me understand a difficult text. I am a conditionalist like you, but I am having a really tough time making sense of Heb 12:23, specifically, the reference in that verse to “spirits of righteous men made perfect.” I have consulted many commentaries, but they all explain this in a dualistic fashion. I have read your short study of this verse in “From Death to Life” (issue 30), but I had a hard time following your argument. I agree that as Christians we worship God in the Spirit, but I don’t see the connection of that point to the phrase in Hebrews about coming to “the spirits of righteous men made perfect.” The plural “spirits” is what makes the phrase tough. If it were singular, then I could see it as a reference to the Holy Spirit, but the plural seems to indicate that something else is in view. And seeing that the author has just catalogued the righteous saints of old, whom he says God wanted to perfect with the Church, it seems very much like the author is referring to these dead saints in 12:23. Perhaps the idea is that their spirits, that is their lives, which are somehow with God now, even if not conscious, have been perfected? Anyway, I am sure you are very busy, but might you be so kind as to drop me a couple of lines to clarify your position? I would be very appreciative. I hope to hear from you when you get a chance.

——————-

Here is the article to which the reader refers:

Hebrews 12:23.

The writer to the Hebrews speaks of “the spirits of righteous men made perfect” (12:23). Many assume this is a reference to believers who have died and that since, in some way, the Hebrew saints are “come” to them in Heaven, the souls of the departed must already be in heaven. Not at all! Jesus once told a Samaritan woman that a time was coming when true worshippers would worship the Father “in spirit and truth” (John 4:23). To worship “in spirit” is not just to worship sincerely. This God has always required (Deut. 6:4-7; Isa. 1:10-18). John, however, in Revelation, was “in the spirit” on the Lord’s Day (Rev. 1:10). In Revelation 4 we see him in heaven, “in the Spirit” (v2), at a heavenly worship service. The early church understood that all of our worship takes place, in some sense, “in the spirit”, in heaven, around the throne of God with the angels and other heavenly beings (Heb. 12:22ff).
While Old Testament worship consisted of “fleshly” ordinances, anchored in the physical realm (Heb. 9:1-10), New Testament worship is geared more toward what takes place in the spiritual realm. Ours is a “spiritual temple” (1Cor. 3:16; Eph. 2:19-22). We offer “spiritual sacrifices” (1Pet. 2:5,9; Rom. 12:1; Heb. 13:15). Our prayers are sweet incense (Rev. 5:8) offered to God. So too, to worship “in truth” is not to worship according to the commands of God. Such was expected in the Old Testament (Deut. 5:32-33). Rather the contrast is between that which is “true” and that which is a “shadow” pointing to the truth!
The elements of Old Testament worship were a “shadow” of things to come (Heb. 9:8-9 cf. 9:11-12, 24). The worship of the church is the true worship, of which the former is a shadow!
It is in this context that the author to the Hebrews tells his readers that they have already come “in the spirit”, though still very much alive upon the earth, to the heavenly Zion, in the heavenly Jerusalem, to myriads of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the first-born, whose names are already written in heaven (presumably in the book of Life), to God himself, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect (Heb. 12:22-24). These “righteous men made perfect” [See also Heb. 10:14] are no more dead than the Hebrews are! Are only the Hebrew Congregations worshipping “in the spirit” in heaven. Not at all. The whole
Church is there! They (we) have, of course, been “made perfect” in a relative sense only [See Heb. 10:14 again]. Only at the resurrection will we all be made fully perfect together (Heb. 11:39, 40). Meanwhile how wonderful to know our worship reaches up to heaven!
David Burge

——————-

My own point was that the “spirits of just men made perfect” are living believers (when Paul was writing) who, figuratively or spiritually speaking, are worshipping “in the spirit” in heaven. An equally acceptable interpretation consistent with a conditionalist view point is as follows:

“We know from Ecclesiastes 12:7 that the spirit returns to God when the body returns to the dust.The Lord Jesus commended his spirit to the Father’s keeping (Luke 23:36), even as (in Acts 7:59) Stephen commended his spirit to the Lord Jesus.There, in God’s keeping, the human spirit is preserved in a condition which Scripture designates as “sleep” — as undoubtedly even the Lord’s human spirit was also preserved till He Himself raised his own body as He said He would (John 2:19,”this temple”) and thus reconstituted his humanity. As each redeemed spirit is taken into God’s care, these “spirits of just men” (Hebrews 12:23) are freed of all imperfections, imperfections which are instantly left behind in departing from this world. Their spirits thus made perfect await a like glorification of the body (Philippians. 3:21). The ultimate immortality of the redeemed spirit is guaranteed by the promise of never again perishing (John 10:28) once the body has been reunited with it. This reunion is the “making alive” of 1 Corinthians 15:22f., a term meaning to place beyond the power of death. It is therefore unconditionalbecause God’s promise is unconditional.” (“Journey Out of Time” by Arthur Custace, 148-149).

Any other suggestions from readers of this website are welcome?