Skip to main content

Do We Have an Eternal Soul?

I frequently hear Christians say, 'We have an eternal soul!'

But is that a) Greek philosophy or b) biblical teaching?

It is mainly the former, and we have read it into our Bibles, a process called eisegesis (as opposed to exegesis - reading out what is there). There is no clear teaching in the Bible on this issue. Nor is there clear teaching that humans are tripartite in nature: body, soul and spirit. Grudem quotes Berkhof:

'The tripartite conception of man originated in Greek philosophy, which conceived of the relation of the body and the spirit of man to teach other after the analogy of the mutual relation between the material universe and God.' Grudem, Systematic Theology, p481

The fact that the Hebrew word nephesh is often translated 'soul' does not help. In fact it should be translated something like 'inner being' or 'life-breath'. Though there are some verses that talk about a dead nephesh - i.e. a corpse (Lev 21:11; Num 6:6). Also animals have nephesh (Gen 1:20).

The Hebrew term ruakh is used for both 'wind' and 'spirit' (Gen 1:2; Isa 7:2). The term is used less frequently than nephesh, and is more likely refer to God's Spirit than to human spirit, per se. The prophets were filled with the Spirit, or the Spirit came on them (there are many verbs used for this).

In the New Testament a) the Spirit is available to all (young, old, men, women) b) Jesus teaches us that the result of believing and following him is that we inherit eternal life. This is our Christian hope. We therefore do not need to resort to the Greek philosophical tradition of us having an eternal soul. What, exactly, happens to us when we die is hard to figure out (from the Bible, from philosophical studies, etc.), but we do know that we will be with him for all eternity. Let's take comfort in that truth.

For further reading: http://ntwrightpage.com/2016/07/12/mind-spirit-soul-and-body/
And watching: https://youtu.be/g_igCcWAMAM

For the biblical scholars I have included a quote from NIDOTTE on nephesh below:

Nephesh:

OT 1. Comparable roots in Ugar. and Akk. confirm the basic biblical meaning for נֶפֶשׁ to be “breath” (as do the three verbal instances, Exod 23:12; 31:17; 2 Sam 16:14). Care should be taken not to import a Greek paradigm of psychology to נֶפֶשׁ; though at times in its over 700 appearances it refers to the inner person, it seldom denotes a “soul” in any full sense. Initially, it means the literal breath of both animals (Gen 1:20–30; 7:22, נְשָׁמָה) and humans (2:7; Ps 107:5; 1 Kgs 17:17, נְשָׁמָה). Since breath is tantamount to life itself, נֶפֶשׁ essentially means “life” on numerous occasions, e.g., Gen 9:5, “I will require the נֶפֶשׁ of man;” (also 2 Sam 23:17). The relationship of breath and life is taken a semantic step farther when נֶפֶשׁ is used to denote the living being itself, e.g., Lev 4:2, “If a person (נֶפֶשׁ) sins …” (Josh 11:14, נְשָׁמָה). In this sense נֶפֶשׁ becomes a synecdoche, representing the total person, both one’s physical and nonphysical composition. In fact, נֶפֶשׁ is so identified with the whole person that ironically it can denote a nonbreathing corpse! (e.g., Lev 21:11 “nor shall he approach any dead נֶפֶשׁ.”). This identity of נֶפֶשׁ with the entire person gives the word its frequent function as a reference to the self, e.g., Ps 7:2 [3], “or they will tear me (my נֶפֶשׁ) like a lion”; Lev 26:11, “I (my נֶפֶשׁ) will not abhor you.”

2. In some cases נֶפֶשׁ stands for the inner person rather than the entire individual. נֶפֶשׁ represents the desires and inclinations of animals and humans. Perhaps the panting breath that is associated with intense desire is the reason for this nuance in נֶפֶשׁ (see other words in this semantic group used for “panting” [שָׁאַף, פּוּחַ]). These desires range from the sexual drive of a wild donkey in heat (Jer 2:24), to the physical appetite (Prov 23:2; Eccl 6:7), to the holy preferences of those who love God with all their “heart … נֶפֶשׁ and … strength” (Deut 6:5). Even Sheol has an appetite for the wicked (Isa 5:14; Hab 2:5), as the wicked do for the righteous, e.g., Ps 27:12, “Do not turn me over to the נֶפֶשׁ of my foes.” One’s נֶפֶשׁ can be angry or bitter (Judg 18:25; Prov 14:10; Isa 19:10; Ezek 25:6), yet fortunately it can be encouraged as well (Ps 86:4).

VanGemeren, Willem, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 133

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Scripture Engagement for Translation Advisors

What do translation advisors need to know about Scripture engagement (SE), and why? Let's look at the 'why' first: Translation advisors (TAs) are often involved in day-to-day exegesis. They help mother-tongue translators (MTTs) prepare drafts. The MTTs they work with might not know Hebrew or Greek. The TAs then take part in the team check of that draft, which involves other MTTs in the project as well as the TA. Sometimes they are also involved in the coordination of the translation programme. They are very busy people. So why do they need to know about SE? Because: The translation is ultimately for an audience that has felt needs that are not being addressed by the translation programme. Analysing and meeting (or helping to meet) the felt needs of the audience should be the first priority of any mission worker, including TAs. Only about 30% of completed translations are well used. The initial set up of the programme needs to take SE into consideration (it's no good wai...

One Person's Contextualisation is Another Person's Syncretism

I was in an interesting discussion full of anthropologists the other day. They were discussing syncretism. Most of them were of the view that outsiders cannot decide which practices are syncretistic and which are not. It has to be a decision made by local believers. This is because only local people can create indigenous theologies, that is, interpret Scripture according to the local worldview(s).  Not only that, some practices need to be tolerated in the short term, as we trust that new believers will gradually mature, and realise that those practices need to be weaned out of their lives. This can take time, perhaps years. Outsiders can, however, help local believers through the process of deciding for themselves which practices need to be rejected, which can be accepted, and which need to be modified according to (local formed) principles from Scripture. For example, ancestor practices, which my PhD thesis was on, are often continued by people after they have come to faith. They...

The Problems and Pitfalls of Proof-Texting

Why is it wrong to proof-text when making an argument?  Proof-texting is when someone simply quotes a verse from the Bible, out of context, to make a point. This can be in a book, a conversation, an essay, or a sermon, to give some examples. I just did a quick read of some other blogs on this topic, and none of them wowed me, so I thought I'd write my own. Then I had an even better idea: why not get you to tell me why proof-texting is problematic? In other words, I want to crowd-source the problem, and get lots of input. Since it is my suggestion, and I already did some research, let me get the ball rolling. Proof-texting is problematic because: It ignores the original context of the verse. There are actually two types of context: The literary context of the verse, that is, the verse is situated in a passage (that might be making an entirely different point) of Scripture that has a certain genre. For instance, the book of Acts is narrative, which means it is descriptive of what hap...