7. Are the “mind, will, emotions” part of the soul? Are they materialistic things or spiritual things?

Linkage:  This is part of the study "Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit".  You should read that Introduction first.

 

Quick Answer:  The mind, will, and emotions (also heart) are part of the "You", which includes body, soul, spirit.  The mind, will, and emotions can be either materialistic or spiritual, probably at the same time.  

 

Key Scriptures:

             Rom 8:27 “…and he who searches our hearts <kardia> knows the mind <phronema> of the <pneuma>…”  To me this illustrates the loose use of terms like <kardia> and <phronema>.  That the "spirit" would have a "mind" clearly indicates that, at least in some cases, the concept of "mind" is a spiritual one and resides in the spiritual, or non-material, world.  I believe that if you say that the "mind is purely a material outcome of the brain's intricacies", then you are contradicting scripture.  At the very least, you have to acknowledge that the word "mind" is sometimes used to refer to something in the spiritual realm.  But many academics would say that everything meant by the term "mind" resides in the material universe.  Such a concept would not square with scripture.

             Eph 2:3 …fulfilling the desires of the <sarx> and of the mind <dianoia>…and were by nature <phusis> the children of wrath.  Here the “mind” <dianoia> is coupled with the <sarx>.  But it could be that the <psuche-pneuma> becomes so depraved that it has the same desires as the <sarx>.  But we also know that the physical brain, which is part of the <sarx>, must be closely related to the mind <dianoia>.  I think our <sarx> can influence our <psuche-pneuma> just like a bad friend can corrupt a good friend.

             Mt 5:28  …hath committed adultery with her already in his <kardia>...  Clearly <kardia> can refer to the <psuche-pneuma> - the non-physical part of the person.  Jesus is not saying that physical adultery occurs just by thoughts/intentions.  But sin does occur just by thoughts/intentions.  We know that this is the case.  There are times where we intend to sin, but we are prevented by some situation outside of our control.  We don't commit the physical act of sinning, but we commit the spiritual act of sinning.  Jesus points out that, either way, it is still sin.  As with nearly every other principle encountered in this study, this further shows the importance of the spiritual realm.  

             Mt 12:34  out of the abundance of the <kardia> the mouth speaketh.  The <kardia> can…and often does…result in the physical working out of what we really are in our <psuche-pneuma>.  Our physical body is driven by that deeper us…the real us comes out.  The body is not a filter for good in the sense that our deeper selves think up evil and then our body resists and tries to get us to change for the positive.  I can’t think of any verse that indicates that our body could have a positive influence.  Certainly there are times when the physical limitations of our body keep us from acting out our intended sin.  But, as Jesus has said in Mt 5:28 – we’ve already committed the sin, and the fact that our body…our physical self in a physical world…just can’t carry out that sin at that moment does not mean we have not sinned. 

             Lu 1:66  ..laid them up in their <kardia>  Here <kardia> is basically referring to memory.  Memory is an interesting aspect and somehow seems tied to both flesh and soul.  Animals, plants, even computers have memory in a very basic sense.  But we can recall memories and “relive” experiences.  Memories can evoke emotions and desires.  Certainly our actions today are strongly influenced by our past - specifically our memories of our past.  The acting out of our will must pass through the memory of our past experiences.  In a fleshly sense, our memories are what provides us with the continuity of “ourselves”.  I remember the past of me, even though none of the current molecules in my fleshly body were there in my distant past.  I assume that I don’t remember someone else’s memories.  The fact that a memory, at least to some extent, can be evoked by stimulating a specific region of the brain, does not negate the idea that these various human characteristics, including memory, have a spiritual component.  Given the advances of neuroscience, we know that there is a physical component, so it is wrong to say that these characteristics are all spiritually-based. 

             Eph 6:6 doing the will of God from the <psuche>  Here "<psuche>" is used in a place where you might have used “heart”…the place where decisions are made.  Again, it is important to recognize that hard lines are not drawn around the definition of these terms.  We know what they mean because we experience them every day - every moment - as human beings.  But it is hard for us to define them with great specifics.  It's just like trying to define consciousness or life.

 

Caveat:

             With respect to the scriptural use of terms like "mind" <phronema>, I think it would be a mistake to declare that they refer only to the spiritual realm or only to the material realm.  They cross the boundary.  In fact, that is their unique characteristic.  Something has to cross that boundary or else our <psuche-pneuma> could never influence our <sarx> (and vice versa).  It seems that the mind and heart that provide that bridge.   

             Also, I used the word "emotion" in the question for this entry because, as I recall, I was always taught about the "soul" being composed of mind, will, and emotions.  But the word "emotion" doesn't appear in scripture - at least no Greek word is translated "emotion" in the KJV or NIV.  I think the tendency was to equate the use of the word "heart" as a stand-in for emotion, but that is clearly not right.  The word <kardia> is much closer to the idea of "mind" as we would use it today.  As with "mind" and "will", the word emotion carries a certain physical connection, and, in fact, might be "all physical."  I don't know about that, but most of our emotions are in response to some physical situation.  On the other hand, the line between "emotion" and "mind" or "heart" is very very fuzzy.  It does not appear that the intent of scripture is to be prescriptive regarding the boundaries between the physical and the spiritual.

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             Mt 24:48, Mr 2:6 reasoning in their <kardia>.  From the way the terms for heart, mind, etc. are used, I think it would be a mistake to build any doctrine on the idea that a person is composed of mind, will, emotions, as if those were distinct from one another.  Scripturally, those terms are not tightly controlled.  Also, some features of these terms cross from the material <sarx> into the spiritual <psuche-pneuma>, so I wouldn't put them solidly in the soul. 

             I Th 2:8 imparting our own <psuche>.  We can impart our deep motivation to another person.  We understand by our common experience that it is possible to copy the actions of another person and “go through the motions.”  But there is no life and no motivation in that.  We know and understand that there is a deeper part of us.  It would be hard for us to define the edges of that deeper person, but we know it is there. 

             Examples of the "loose" use of these terms - they are often used in place of one another:

             John 10:24 <psuche> translated as doubt

             John 12:27 <psuche> is troubled (worried, anxious)

             Acts 14:12 made their <psuche> - translated as mind

 

Discussion:

             It seems that the mind, heart, will, emotions...are all features that can be attributed to the whole person.  In general, though, the really unique human aspects, such as will and understanding are more commonly associated with the soul <psuche>.  There is a spiritual, nonmaterialistic aspect to these features.  Based on my understanding, it would seem that the mind, heart, and will can all be thought of as the features that enable interaction between your <psuche-pneuma> and your <sarx>.

             Also, in general I find the use of the various terms like <psuche> and <phroneo> and <kardia> and so on to be a bit loose.  I don’t recall a verse that really puts tight bounds on those concepts.  We don’t really have a word, for example, that means “the human characteristic of will and purpose that is unique to humans and resides only in their soul.”  When we use the term will, it often has that meaning, but we might also apply it to something that arises from our flesh, not our soul.  We might even apply it to an animal.  The problem is that, in our experience, we can’t really tell the difference between a "materially-based will" and a "spiritually-based will"…or at least it is too difficult to tell the difference without a lot of work.  So, we have to be loose with these terms. 

 

6. When the Bible uses the term “body”, does that only refer to our physical, material, body?

Linkage:  This is part of the study "Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit".  You should read that Introduction first.

 

Quick Answer:  No, not always.

 

Key Scriptures:

             Matt 5:29, 6:22, 26:26, 27:52  You can’t make sense of these verses if you think of the word <soma> as being equivalent to <sarx> as being equivalent to the material, fleshly body that will die and decay.  In particular, at the death of Jesus, “many <soma> of the saints which slept arose…” Matt 27:52.  Their bodies would have decayed…their fleshly bodies.  In this passage, you might think the word should have been <psuche> or <pneuma>.  So, with respect to the use of the term <soma>, the answer to the question is clearly "no".

             Rom 8:11 “mortal bodies” - <thnetos soma>; here Paul combines two words to make clear that he is referring to our physical bodies.  I think that provides evidence that Paul might have used the word <soma> to mean the whole person (including non-material parts of our whole person), but wants to clarify in this case that his discussion is limited to the physical.   It seems that the word <sarx> would apply here, so I'm not sure why Paul uses the combination of the two words instead of just using the word <sarx> in this instance.

             Rom 12:1 "present your <soma> a living sacrifice..."  I feel this makes the most sense if <soma> is thought of as the "container of you."  Our fleshly bodies are part of that sacrifice, but our <psuche-pneuma> has to be involved also. 

             Rom 7:18  "in my <sarx> dwelleth no good thing..."  yet in Rom 12:1 we are to offer our <soma> as a living sacrifice.  Therefore, the <sarx> is the fleshly old nature that is incapable of doing anything that is not totally self-serving and selfish; and is incapable of being transformed.  If we removed the selfish portion of the <sarx>, there would be nothing left.  So the <sarx> and the <soma> are not the same thing.

             1Th 5:23 "And <de> the very <autos> God <theos> of peace <eirene> sanctify <hagiazo> you <humas> wholly <holoteles>; and <kai> I pray God your <humon> whole <holokleros> spirit <pneuma> and <kai> soul <psuche> and <kai> body <soma> be preserved <tereo> blameless <amemptos> unto <en> the coming <parousia> of our <hemon> Lord <kurios> Jesus <Iesous> Christ <Christos>."  I don't think, based on passages like Romans 6-8, that the <sarx> can ever be considered to be blameless or can ever be made blameless.  Therefore, this passage would seem to indicate that the <soma> is different than the <sarx>.  In this case, the <soma> can be made blameless, referring to the "whole self" (see Discussion below).  Ultimately, achieving the "whole-self blameless state" requires a new "physical" body as described in I Corinthians (...sown perishable...rises imperishable, etc.).

             I Cor 5:4-5 "When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature {5 Or <that his body>; or <that the flesh>} may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord."  Salvation of the <pneuma>.  The flesh can be destroyed by satan, but the spirit can live on in salvation.  This seems in contrast to the “new body”.  Thus, it would seem that the word <soma> is distinct from the word <sarx>.  <Sarx> seems to only refer to the physical body…and thus the translation to the word “flesh” seems to carry the right connotation completely. 

 

Caveat:

             With respect to the word <sarx>, I think the answer to the question at hand would be "yes".  I don't know of a scripture that uses the word <sarx> to refer to anything other than physical flesh, at least in context. 

             With respect to the word <soma>, which is often translated "body", the answer is definitely "no".  There are clearly scriptures that use the word <soma> to mean "the whole person", which includes their non-material <psuche-pneuma>.  However, there are scriptures where <soma> is used in the passage and it could be substituted for <sarx> and the meaning would be the same.  I could not discern a particular pattern where <soma> was used instead of <sarx>. 

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             I Cor 2:11  shows how our own personal spirit knows the deep things going on within us.  No one else (anyone who cannot be described as "me") can really know the deep things going on within me.  I think this is one thing that helps explain the uniqueness of the <soma>.  Each one of us is distinct from everyone else around us.  Where do we end and others begin?  It seems obvious to us most of the time except maybe during pregnancy.  But one thing that defines the borders of "us" is that we know our deep thoughts and those are not known to anyone else - and cannot be known - unless we reveal it.  Paul is making a similar point about God - God is distinct and no one knows the deep thoughts of God either, unless He reveals them to us.

             Acts 2:30-31 speaking of the resurrection… “his <psuche> was not left in hell, neither his <sarx> did see corruption.”  There is something fundamentally different about the treatment of Jesus' body at death.  His <sarx> did not decay.  That was a supernatural thing - it is abnormal (meaning it is not natural).

 

 

Discussion:

             I think one of the really important principles here is that the "person" remains intact after the resurrection.  There is a chain of custody of the "person".  We retain our self-hood forever.  We are not absorbed into a whole.  Also, we are not just re-made as heavenly clones that seem to be us.  We stay as us.  We know that even our current bodies are constantly changing molecules in and out.  But there is a chain of custody of "ourselves".  There is no confusion in our minds thinking that when we breathe out some carbon dioxide molecules that used to be part of us, and breathe in new oxygen molecules that were just floating around in the air a second ago…there is no thought that we are losing, in any way, what “we” are or that we are become part of a cosmic whole.  Here is one of those times where the academic splitting of hairs is just unnecessary and not helpful.  It is obvious to every human being that there is a "them" and there are "others" and trying to delve deeper is, in my opinion, searching for trivia that has no practical basis on how we live our lives. 

             My impression, after reading through the various verses, is that the word <sarx> always refers to the physical, material, "going to die and decay" body that we each have.  The word <soma> has a more interesting and nuanced meaning.  There are certainly many times where the word <soma> used to mean the same thing as <sarx>, but <soma> is also used where the context clearly indicates a broader meaning.  In my view, a proper description of the meaning of <soma> would be:  “the container of everything that is unique to you.”  Thus, sometimes the word <soma> seems to refer to the entire person, including <sarx>, <psuche>, and <pneuma> (and therefore also includes mind, will, emotions, etc.).  A key point to Christian belief is that “you” remain “you” for eternity.  Specifically, we do not become part of some cosmic whole.  We do not ever lose our identity as a separate being from other humans and as a separate being from God.  I think the word <soma> is often used to convey that concept.  Thus, when we are resurrected, we will have a resurrected <soma>.  It is not made of flesh in the same material, physical flesh that we have now.  But we will have a body:  there will be some “boundary” that separates what is defined as “me” from everyone else and everything else.  I believe this concept is a fundamental Christian concept – an important doctrinal point.  This would be one of those key sticking points when people try to say that "all religions are the same."  That is plainly false and this is one of those cases where it is clear.  Do "you" stay "you" forever - yes or no?  Christianity does not allow for any gray area there - the answer is an unequivocal "yes."

             The term <soma> often does refer to the physical body because that is the context in which we encounter others and even ourselves in the general context of scripture.  Scripture is written to people living in the physical world.  It is not written from the perspective of us when we are in heaven.  So when we see “us”, we see our physical body.  For example, Rom 8:13 - "mortify the deeds of the <soma>" but also "if ye live after the <sarx>" - here <sarx> and <soma> seemed to be used interchangeably.  It’s just important to realize that the word <soma> can always mean more than the flesh. 

             I think the distinction between <soma> and <sarx> is clearer when scripture talks about us getting a new body.  I think that is always a new <soma>.  That is not difficult to understand if the word <soma> means the “container” or “set of all items” that makes up the individual in question.  The New Testament is not really giving scientific details about how this all works because it is not necessary for understanding the whole concept.  The key thing is that we stay an individual after we physically die, and therefore physical death is not the end of “us”…we each continue as a being, distinct from every other being.

5. Is the “body” the same as the “soul”?

Linkage:  This is part of the study "Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit".  You should read that Introduction first.

 

Quick Answer:  No.

 

Key Scriptures:

             Mt 10:28 – there are some who can "destroy the body but not the soul", so the soul must be distinct from the body.  In this verse, Jesus uses the term <soma> for "body" and seems to be referring to the physical body.  However, Jesus also talks about God being able to destroy the <soma> in hell.  In that instance, it seems that the word <soma> has more of the “total person” meaning (see Question #6 for more on this).

             I Thes 5:23  This verse indicates that humans have a <pneuma>, <psuche>, and <soma>.  We have already established that the <pneuma> and <psuche> are different (though hard to separate).  It would seem odd that this list would include two things that are different and one that is the same.  Given that, the plain interpretation of this statement by Paul is that he is intending to describe three different things.

             I Cor 5:3 absent in <soma>, but present in <pnuema>.  Clearly our <soma> and <pneuma> are not the same. 

             Rom 7:25 with the mind <nous> I myself serve the law of God; but with the <sarx> the law of sin.  The mind is part of the <psuche-pneuma> - a non-material thing.  The brain is <sarx>.  This verse makes it clear:  the "brain" and the "mind" are not the same things. 

 

Caveat:

             The quick answer I gave above refers to the common use of the English word "body".  Specifically, when we use the word "body" in everyday English to refer to a human being, we are thinking of that person's physical body.  In fact, if someone dies, we would still refer to their corpse as their body.  When taken this way, the answer to the question is clearly "no".

             However, the Greek New Testament uses two words that might be translated body:  <soma> and <sarx>.  I discuss this in more detail in Question #6 [here], but the word <sarx> is probably closer in definition to the way we use the English term "body".  The word <soma> is, it seems, closer in definition to the way we use the English term "person" or even "you", "them", "me", etc.  When we use those terms, we aren't generally thinking any deep metaphysical thoughts, but if we were asked, we would generally say that those words mean both the person's body, and their soul (if we think people have souls), and their spirit (if we think people have spirits), and anything else that might make up what is, uniquely, one single, separate human being.  Sometimes we will clarify the term "person" and say the "whole person".  By that we are generally clarifying that we are not just talking about the person's body.  Even a materialist would attach some different nuance to that term and probably thinks of the "whole person" as including not just their flesh, but also more nebulous things such as their mind, emotions, will, etc. 

             So, by way of a caveat here, with further discussion [here], the question would not be so simple to answer if it was phrased "Is the <soma> the same as the <psuche>?"  There are certainly differences in the meanings of those Greek words, but as they are used in the New Testament it appears that the usage sometimes blurs any distinction.

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             Rom 7  The body can wage war against the mind, so they are clearly not the same.  Elsewhere, I suggest that it is reasonable to consider words like the mind and heart and understanding to be part of the soul [See here].  Passages like Romans 7 seem to be very clear that there is a difference between the brain and the mind.  However, this passage also strongly supports the idea that a lot of what we do is driven by the body, not the mind.  I take that to mean that we make a lot of decisions that are just simply the brain responding to inputs.  The materialist would probably say that every decision we make fits that category.  From my reading of scripture, my observation of my fellow human beings, and from being a human myself for a few decades, I've come to this conclusion:  the materialists are close to being right.  But, of course, the difference here between saying that our decisions are 100% material versus 99.999999% material is the difference between night and day.  True materialists would not allow for any non-material influence on our brain.  They would say "mind = brain" or, at the very least, that the mind is the outcropping or end-result or emergence phenomena of physical processes in the brain.  Based on my reading of scripture, there is plenty of room to accept that some (maybe nearly all) activities we call the "mind" are - or will be - explainable by a materialistic understanding.  However, to claim that there is no real "mind" is plainly against scripture.  But that does not mean that we humans are mostly controlled by our spiritual (i.e. non-physical) component.  In fact, and this is just my personal view, we are mostly "on autopilot" and "creatures of habit."  To me, those terms describe us as we go through our day and live in the fleshly, material world.  It doesn't mean we are doing anything wrong or stupid - it just means that we aren't making deep moral decisions all the time - in fact it is very rare that we make such decisions.  Our daily lives are not generally composed of one deep moral decision after another.  And, even when we are faced with moral decisions throughout a day, most of those decisions are things we've already decided on so we are really responding by habit, not by deep thinking.  And, really, deep thinking is hard to do, so if we can fall into a habit, it makes living life a lot easier.  I would venture to guess that this is similar to the System 1/System 2 idea of Kahneman, although I doubt he would include a moral "soul" into the mix!

             The idea that we rarely have to make real moral decisions that involve our soul, our spirit, our non-physical mind, is an important one with respect to evaluating science.  When neuroscientists record brain activity, I wouldn't expect them to find widespread evidence for the influence of some non-material force.  In fact, I would expect that to be extremely difficult to find.  Maybe one in a million - or one in a trillion (who knows?) - of our neuronal signals is under the influence of our soul, and even then under unusual conditions.  I just don't think it is something that we scientists will be able to measure.  I think it will just be a slightly random "background noise" that is just known to be present.  I tried to express this concept in some earlier blogs [here], but I don't know if any of those blogs make sense to anyone.  Science is not looking for a soul, but even if it was, and even if a really good honest experiment was designed to find it, I just don't know if it is findable.  I know that will seem like kind of a cop-out to anyone who is academically and materialistically minded, but that's how I see it. 

             I would also say that scripture allows for really fuzzy edges between body and soul or brain and mind.  I don’t believe any of these terms are meant to be totally exclusive with sharp edges to their definition. It does not seem that the point of scripture is to carefully define these boundaries because, on a practical basis, it doesn't matter.  

 

Discussion:

             Why is this question important?  The answer to it defines an important distinction between the materialist view and the Christian view.  If the materialist ever uses the term "soul" (personally I don't think they should be allowed, just like determinists shouldn't be allowed to use the term "choice" or "will", but that's for a separate discussion), they would not distinguish the soul from the body and thus they would answer the question "yes." 

             Also, going a bit further, science has to assume the material-only condition and the soul is not material.  Thus science would have to say "the existence of a soul is outside of my realm of study."  By contrast, living the Christian life is all about the "soul-spirit" of each person.

4. Is the human “spirit” the same as the “Holy Spirit”?

Linkage:  This is part of the study "Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit".  You should read that Introduction first.

 

Quick Answer:  No.

 

Key Scriptures:

             Rom 8:16 “The <pneuma> itself beareth witness with our <pneuma> that we are children of God.”  This is a clear scripture indicating that we have a spirit that is ours, and then there is the Holy Spirit.  Also, we don’t lose our spirit when the Holy Spirit indwells us.

             I Cor 6:20 "...and in your <pneuma>" - further indication that we have our own <pneuma> distinct from the Holy Spirit.

             Acts 7:55, 59  Stephen was “full of the <hagios pneuma>”.  As he was dying, he said “Lord Jesus, receive my <pneuma>”  I think  this clearly shows that we can be full of the Holy Spirit, but we still have a spirt of our own. 

             Acts 15:28 “For it seemed good to the <hagios pneuma>, and to us…”  Thus distinguishing the Holy Spirit from the human <psuche-pneuma>.  Even when the Holy Spirit indwells us, there is still "us" there as well.  It is not that the Holy Spirit kicks out our spirit and takes over.

 

Caveat:

             None.

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             Matt 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in <pneuma>…”  Obviously not referring to the Holy Spirit.  From this verse we can see that sometimes the word <pneuma> is not used to mean the Holy Spirit.  In fact, here it seems that the word <psuche> could have been used also.  That’s why I like the term <psuche-pneuma>. 

             Matt 8:16  he cast out the <pneuma> with his word.  There can be evil <pneuma>.

             Matt 26:41 …the <pneuma> is willing, but the <sarx> is weak.  I think this definitely shows that we have a “<pneuma>” that is not the Holy Spirit.

 

Discussion:

             As with Question #1, I just feel that it is sometimes useful to study what seems obvious to verify that it is, indeed, obvious.  Part of the importance of this question is that the word <pneuma> is sometimes used to refer to the Holy Spirit, but the word "Holy" (<hagios>) is not added.  Thus, in the New Testament, sometimes the word <pneuma> refers to God and other times it refers to man.  The difference is determined usually by context and it is not always obvious.  That's why sometimes one translation will translate the word <pneuma> as Spirit (with a capital "S") referring to the Holy Spirit and other translations will translate it as spirit (small "S") referring to the human spirit. 

             Also, we don't lose our souls when we gain the Holy Spirit and if you couple that point with the concept of "<psuche-pneuma>" [See Question #3], then it is pretty obvious that we can't lose our spirit when we gain the Holy Spirit.

3. Do human beings have a soul and a spirit, and are they different?

Linkage:  This is part of the study "Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit".  You should read that Introduction first.

 

Quick Answer:  Yes - but it doesn't seem to be important to make a clear distinction between the human soul and the human spirit.

 

Key Scriptures:

             Mark 12:33, Luke 12:19 (examples)  The clear implication throughout the New Testament is that human beings have souls <psuche>. 

             I Thes 5:23 “…your whole <pneuma> and <psuche> and <soma> be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This seems to clearly establish that “we” are each composed of a body, soul and spirit and that each of those three entities has some distinction between them.

             I Cor 15:45 Would seem to indicate that there is some difference between the soul and spirit.  Adam had a soul.  Jesus had a spirit.  But, in this case the verse is speaking of Jesus in his human “form” – the “last Adam” – so I think the description means that humans have a spirit. 

             Heb 4:12 seems to be definitive:  there is a distinction between the soul and the spirit – they are not the same thing.  Yet this verse also implies that separating the soul and the spirit is a very hard thing to do.  In fact, it takes a unique instrument to do it:  the Word of God.  As a result of this verse I began to refer to the supernatural part of human beings as the “<psuche-pneuma>” or soul-spirit.  Granted, that term is never used in scripture, but there does not seem to be an emphasis in scripture on separating the concept of human soul from the concept of human spirit.  I could not find a single verse where the distinction seemed to matter in any way.  Thus, I think it is kind of a mistake to think of them in really distinct terms.  The analogy I used in my mind was that of the material brass.  Although it is composed of copper and zinc, each of which is a distinct metal, yet in brass it almost seems like you can’t divide them and that brass itself is a new metal.  I thought of the term <psuche-pneuma> as being like brass.  If pressed, you would say, yes, it is composed of two elements (copper and zinc), but for all practical purposes, it is just brass.

             Luke 11:24-25 This is the passage where the unclean <pneuma> goes out of man, then comes back to find the “man” swept and cleaned, and invites other unclean <pneuma>.  I don’t think this means that the person’s physical brain is swept.  There is something about our <psuche-pneuma> that allows for the indwelling of another <pneuma> or even multiple <pneuma>s from without.  That can be the Holy Spirit, but it can also be evil spirits (I never hear of a good spirit indwelling a human other than the Holy Spirit – so I think that must not happen).  And I think it must be hard for us to ward off the outside spirit connection.  In other words, it must be hard for us to maintain our own <psuche-pneuma> in the “swept and empty” condition.  Clearly, I would say, once the Holy Spirit indwells us, the Holy Spirit keeps all other spirits away.  That would be a part of the sealing that happens [Eph 4:30].  Without that connection, we are vulnerable.  I feel that the condition of being "swept and cleaned" describes the state that many people are trying to achieve and maintain.  Many people want to live a good moral life, but they don't have anything to do with anything "spiritual." 

 

Caveat:

             None.

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             Here's an obtuse thought: is it possible that there are some “human equivalent” creatures with no souls?  I’m not sure you could absolutely exclude that concept.  I do not know of a verse that says “all creatures that look and act like human beings have souls.”  But it seems to be just accepted in scripture that all human beings have souls.  However, as odd as it may seem, I don't think you could make this a point of doctrine.  There is a clear difference between being alive and responding intelligently; and having a soul. 

             Also, just because human beings have a <psuche-pneuma> does not mean that they are fully controlled by that component of themselves.  There is still the flesh - <sarx> - which often controls behavior.  This will be dealt with in more detail in response to some of the other questions I have posed.  In fact, I do believe it is scriptural to say that there are some people who are so given in to the control by their <sarx> that they do not appear to be influenced in any way to their <psuche-pneuma>.  That is a bad state to be in.

 

Discussion:

             This question was of high importance to me as it provides a framework for understanding the brain-mind problem from a Christian viewpoint.  Where is the "mind" located?  Is it in the brain?  Is it in the soul?  Is it in the spirit?  Based on my review of scripture, it seems to clearly fit into the "soul-spirit" and to try to break it down further requires going beyond what is clear in scripture. 

             To me, this also means that the nice neat diagram of three concentric circles...body, soul, spirit...[see earlier discussion here] is not necessary correct.  Based on Heb 4:12, I wouldn't make a solid line separating the soul from the spirit.  In fact, I would just have two circles:  the <sarx>, and the <psuche-pneuma>.  As discussed elsewhere, the common term for body, <soma>, can either refer specifically to the <sarx> (flesh) or to the entire human, including the flesh and soul and spirit. 

             Finally, as a result of this study, I decided to add a couple of additional questions to my list (#20 and 21).  These questions relate to the issue of whether science is equipped to "find" the soul or spirit and, if so, what kind of test would be needed.

 

 

1. Do you have to believe that there is a spiritual part of human beings (i.e. a nonmaterial soul/spirit) in order to be a Christian?

Linkage:  This is part of the study "Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit".  You should read that Introduction first.

 

Quick Answer:  Yes.

 

Key Scriptures:

             I Thes 5:23 “…your whole <pneuma> and <psuche> and <soma> be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This seems to clearly establish that “we” are each composed of a body, soul and spirit and that each of those three entities has some distinction between them.

             Mt 16:17 "for <sarx> and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven..." Here <sarx> means the physical world and in particular physical humans.  I think this verse alone is sufficient to say that there is some form of communication between the spiritual, non-material realm; and the physical realm we are living in now.  Of course Jesus is a physical embodiment of that, but here Peter comes to understand something in his brain that clearly is not a result of physical inputs.

             II Cor 5:8 “…willing rather to be absent from the <soma>, and to be present with the Lord.”  Although the word <soma> does not have to refer "only" to the flesh, it certainly includes the flesh.  I don't see how to understand Paul's sentiment without having a view that a person is both flesh and soul-spirit [Note:  for a discussion of how and why I use the term "soul-spirit" or <psuche-pneuma>, see here].  We know that God is spirit [John 4:24].  Certainly to be present with the Lord is to be in the spiritual realm.  To be absent from the body is to be dead.  So, when we are dead, there is a spiritual part of us that exists and is with God.  Also note that Paul is referring to himself and showing that he can be absent from the body and still exist - he can be present somewhere else.  Thus a "person" must have more than just flesh.

             John 4:24 “God is <pneuma>…”

             Joh 6:63 "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."  You cannot believe in Jesus without believing in a spiritual world.  And you certainly can't understand His teachings without believing in a spiritual world.  In fact, a central tenet of Jesus' teaching is that the spiritual world is of primary importance.  When he tells people to "eat my <sarx>", He is forcing them to see the most material of all material things (i.e. <sarx>) in a spiritual way. 

             You need to believe in a spiritual realm to understand Gal 2:20.

             Heb 1:7  Angels are <pneuma>.  There are also evil <pneuma>.  I don't see how these beings can be understood in Scripture without a firm belief in a supernatural world that interacts with the natural world in some way.

             John 4:23 “…worship the Father in <pneuma> and in truth…”

 

Caveat:

             I think someone can become a Christian without knowing much of anything...but then they learn!  So, it may be that a new Christian hasn't even thought about the spiritual realm yet and has no opinion on it.  But any Christian, once they have considered the whole concept, must come away with the view that there is a spiritual realm.

             I strayed from my original question a bit.  My original question focuses on the human soul, but in many of the verses, I've looked at a broader view: the existence of the "spiritual realm" in general.  The "soul" or "spirit" or "soul-spirit" of human beings is, at least to some extent, a part of that spiritual realm.  The point here is to show that belief in a spiritual realm is fundamental to Christian belief, and that includes the idea that human beings have a "soul" that is non-material (ok, well, at the very least, the soul is not composed of the material substances currently known and recognized by science).

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             When the word <pneuma> is used, it would certainly seem to imply something that is not the flesh.  But I also take it to mean that it is something that is not physical either – or at least not a material thing or entity made of atoms.  The <pneuma> is not something you can sense – you can only see the outworkings of it in the physical world. 

             Also, you can't successfully live the Christian life without focusing on the spiritual component of your life over and above the material, fleshly component.  Rom 8:5  "Those who live according to the <sarx> have their minds <phroneo> set on what that <sarx> desires."  Living according to either the <sarx> or the <pneuma> is a mindset.  Making that moment by moment choice seems to be the central struggle of living the Christian life.  How do we decide that the spiritual is more important than the physical?  It seems that our <psuche-pneuma> is caught in the middle and being pulled in two directions:  our <sarx> is constantly dragging us toward the physical and the Holy Spirit is constantly encouraging us toward the spiritual.  I found it helpful to visualize that tug-of-war.  It is a daily challenge.

             Rom 8:7 "the sinful mind <sarx phronema> is hostile to God.  It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so."  That last phrase seems critical.  It is not possible to reform the <sarx>.  It is not possible to save the <sarx>.  The <sarx> must die.  (see also I Cor 5:5)  The only way of salvaging the person, any person, is through the salvation of the <psuche-pneuma>.  The <sarx> will not decide to stop being selfish.  It just won’t.

 

Discussion:

             I thought this question would be obvious from the beginning, and scripture does seem clear.  Still, it seemed important to establish this point first.  You can't have a fully materialistic view of the universe and claim to be a Christian.

             Christians struggle to focus on the spiritual over the material - it is not easy!  On a practical level, we can often act as if we only see and acknowledge the material world.  When Christians do that, they look ugly.

             The issue of whether a spiritual realm exists is a fundamental difference in "belief" between science and Christianity.  In fact, I would say it might be the fundamental difference.  Oddly, I don't hear much discussion about this.  Instead the arguments are about less fundamental differences.  Side issues, really [see here for elaboration of that point].  The important point to recognize is that this fundamental difference has to exist.  Science has to be grounded in a materialistic assumption and it ceases to be science if you ground it on the spiritual.  Further, as we have discussed in this entry, Christianity ceases to be Christianity if you ground it on the material.  The problem is that sometimes we mistake these a priori assumptions for a conclusion.  Science doesn't conclude that the universe is material only - it starts on that assumption.  Christianity (and many other religions) start with the assumption that there is a spiritual realm in addition to the material world.  Those are opposing assumptions.  It's not a point of disagreement, it's a difference in "initial conditions."  You can't really argue about the initial conditions - they just are what they are. 

             My interest is in understanding how to view the "brain-mind" problem.  It is fun to consider what the difference is between neurons firing in the brain and our thoughts, and even science hasn't figured out an answer.  But, given that science is confined to the material world, science is working hard to come up with an explanation of the "mind" that is based entirely on known material substances.  The point for the Christian scientist is this:  the idea of the soul as non-material is a non-negotiable part of their faith.  That's what I wanted to know in my study of this topic.  Science will never find the soul.  We just have to recognize that impasse and move on.

Scriptural View of the Body, Soul and Spirit

             This entry, and the related entries to follow on this topic (see links below), are part of a personal Bible study I did on the topic of the concept of body, soul, and spirit.  As a Christian and medical researcher, I feel that it is important to understand what scripture says, and doesn't say, about topics I am likely to encounter in my professional and personal life.  I need to know what principles are clearly laid out in scripture.  I have personally decided that science does not supersede scripture - that is part of my fundamental beliefs - but I also know that frequently Christians start arguing against science over things that are not clear in scripture.  So...I needed to know where the boundaries were, based on as thorough a study of scripture as I could muster.  Having gone through it now, it seemed that it might be helpful to other Christians in a similar situation.  So, this is just my personal study and notes, summarized in a hopefully helpful way.

             As word of caution:  this and the related entries are written purely from a Christian perspective and I haven't made any attempt to be more broadly inclusive.  If you don't happen to believe that the Bible is true, or that it should be used as the basis of determining truth, then this whole series won't make sense to you.  If that is your situation, I really wouldn't bother reading this series.  You might find my series on "Theory of the Soul" more palatable.  But, if you do believe the Bible is the Word of God, then maybe this series of entries will be helpful in guiding you in your own study so you can come to your own conclusions.

             I began this study with the goal of trying to understand the proper spiritual view of terms like “soul” and “spirit” in order to help me to know how to view neuroscience discoveries about the workings of the brain.  There are certain “discoveries” – or rather interpretations of data – that seemed contrary to a proper Christian view.  For example, there is a body of work in which experimenters try to show that “free will” is a misconception.  Rather, they claim, the material brain’s decisions are already made before we are even aware of it.  I believe this work is very misguided and flawed [see here], but should I view it as an affront to basic Christian beliefs, or just bad science?  Even more deeply baked into much of neuroscience is the idea of the completely materialistic brain and materialistic human.  Words such as "soul" and "spirit" have no meaning in their view, and their scientific interpretation is based on that.  That’s ok – science kind of has to be materialistic – but I wanted to be sure I knew the boundaries of plain Christian (i.e. scriptural) views on these topics.

             I was taught, when I was a younger Christian, that the proper Christian view was the idea of “body-soul-spirit” in three concentric rings, and that each person had a body, a soul, and a spirit.  Also, the soul was divided into “mind, will, emotions.”  I had kind of taken that whole concept for granted, but I was recently wondering whether this was really scriptural or just an abstraction of scripture or just Greek thought imposed on scripture.  So…I began studying the Greek words in the New Testament that had to do with body, soul, spirit. 

             Methods:  I read and studied every verse that had at least one of the following Greek words in them:

Soma

Sarx

Psuche

Pneuma

Kardia

Phroneo

Phronema

Sunesis

Dianoia

Zoe

Zoopoieo

Thanatos

Nekros

             I went through verse by verse and made notes, with a focus on the general topic at hand.  I tried to note how each particular word was used and the relationship between different words.  That took me about a year and a half to do.  Then after I had a whole series of fairly random notes, I wanted to have some way of coalescing them into some kind of useful summary.  So, in an effort to do that, I established a series of questions on the topic, and then tried to answer those questions based on what I found in my study.  The questions I came up with are listed below.  If you click on them, it will take you to the entry on that topic (once I get them all written up!).

             As a practical bookkeeping note, when I am writing a Greek word in my notes, I put it in the arrow brackets ("<>").  That's just my personal style and has no deeper meaning.

             Again, this is just my personal, plain reading of scripture.  Also, as you might note, I haven't gone through the Hebrew in the Old Testament yet.  That will take a long time to do...not sure if I will ever get to that!

1.  Do you have to believe that there is a spiritual part of human beings (i.e. a nonmaterial soul/spirit) in order to be a Christian?

2.  Is it necessary for Christians to believe that the spiritual world interacts with the physical world in a very personal, individual level?

3.  Do human beings have a soul and a spirit, and are they different?

4.  Is the human “spirit” the same as the “Holy Spirit”?

5.  Is the “body” the same as the “soul”?

6.  When the Bible uses the term “body”, does that only refer to our physical, material, body?

7.  Are the “mind, will, emotions” part of the soul?  Are they materialistic things or spiritual things?

8.  Can the body die?  Can the soul die?

9.  Are human beings alive because their soul is in their body, and when their soul departs their body, then they are dead?

10.  Christians get a new body, but do they get a new soul?

11.  When Jesus was resurrected, was it the same body that he had when he was crucified?  Was it the exact same molecules?  If he had a new body, why was his old body gone?

12.  Does conversion happen to/in the body or soul or spirit?

13.  Does the flesh change at conversion?

14.  Who sins?  Is it my body?  My soul?  My spirit?

15.  Is the "total depravity" of Calvinism in reference to the <sarx> alone?  Is the <psuche-pneuma> totally depraved?

16.  Can you really have "good intentions" but do the wrong thing?  Is that any different than having "bad intensions" and doing the wrong thing?  If you had "good intentions" then why did you do the wrong thing?  Can the <sarx> overrule the <psuche-pneuma>?

17.  Is the concept of "tabula rasa" consistent with Scripture?

18.  What is the point of bodily discipline, habits, and spiritual disciplines?

19.  Do animals have souls?  Spirits?

Also - some "non-scriptural" questions...

20.  What would it take for science to verify the existence of the human soul?

21.  What would it take for science to verify the existence of the Holy Spirit?

An Observation

Jesus:  "...hypocrites!..."  Matthew 23:13

I have known many atheists and many theists and many shades of "-eists" in between.  

I just have one question:

Why is it that atheists often live as if there is a God...and theists often live as if there is no God?

We are all hopeless hypocrites.