Recent discussions by biblical scholars, psychiatrists, and specialists studying the human mind raise crucial questions about the nature of humanity and about eschatology. For some time people have emphasized that the Bible views a human as a psychosomatic whole and not as a being with two or more "parts." Also for some time people have challenged the idea of an immortal soul, arguing—rightly I think—that only God is immortal, that the idea of an immortal soul is a Greek idea, not a Christian one, and that the Christian focus is on resurrection, not immortality. Now some people are challenging the whole idea of a human soul, arguing that everything thought to belong to the soul has a physical base. Is there a soul at all? (See Joel Green, Body, Soul, and Human Life:The Nature of Humanity in the Bible, Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.)
This discussion directs us to Jesus’ teaching and the Greek word psychē, which is sometimes translated "soul." Actually the idea of a soul is not that prevalent in the NT. The NRSV uses "soul" twenty-two times to translate pyschē, which appears 103 times in the NT, but few of these point to a belief in a soul. They occur in expressions like loving God with all the heart, soul, and mind. Most of the time the word means life or inner being, mind. This raises questions about the interpretation of verses like Mark 8:35: "Whoever wishes to save his psychē will lose it..." Does this mean save his or her soul for the future or for life in the present and future? More to the point is Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 10:28 not to fear those who can kill the body but not the soul. Surely texts like this point to an immaterial aspect of humanity. We do not have to accept the idea of the immortality of the soul to talk about an immaterial aspect of humanity.
There is another problem with the recent discussions. Those who are ready to jettison the idea of the soul can explain what happens at death only by saying that at death Christians immediately receive their resurrection bodies. This is difficult to square with the biblical material and presupposes that an "intermediate state" with a time lapse between the death of the individual and the parousia is an experience of time only from an earthly viewpoint. The further assumption is that God does not experience time. I do not find this convincing at all.
A body-soul dualism is not an adequate assumption, and "soul" is not the best choice of word. Finding the right language may be difficult. Some speak of a duality without dualism, which is none too clear. Whatever language we adapt, it seems to me that we must still speak of an immaterial part of humanity that survives death and awaits resurrection.
Post new comment