Creation: Miracle or Anomaly?

             It seems that Christians feel threatened by the theory of evolution along with the commonly lumped-together theories about the origins of the universe and the origins of life.  The reasoning seems to be that the Bible presents a particular story of creation and, if evolution is shown to be true, then it negates the Bible and undermines the Christian faith.  But this seems like a misguided approach and does not follow the general pattern of the Christian view of some other differences between science and faith.

             Even before science became known as science, there were key "naturalistic theories" that directly contradicted the very foundational beliefs of Christianity.  Here's one:  every person dies, and when they die, they decay into dust and they never ever come back to life!  They are gone.  Here's another one:  a human female who is a virgin can never become pregnant without being physically impregnated in some way!  It has never happened in the history of mankind and it will never happen.  These events are physical impossibilities.  In fact, these issues are so fundamental that they aren't usually explicitly taught - they are just assumed.

             Christians claim that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, died, and rose again after being dead for three days.  These claims are not just one set of a wide range of beliefs in the Christian religion.  They are not incidental to the Christian faith.  They are the central claims of the Christian faith.  These claims establish the divine nature of Jesus.  If someone rejects these claims then they cannot claim to be a Christian.  If these claims are false, Christianity is false.  These claims cannot be more fundamental and critical to Christians.

             And yet...Christians never try to attack the basic scientific claims regarding the impossibility of a virgin birth and the impossibility of rising from the dead.  Christians do not feel threatened when scientists, atheists, or anyone else, claim that these things cannot happen.  Christians are not up in arms, trying to get these principles taught in the science classes in public schools.  Why?  The answer is obvious to all:  the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus Christ are miracles.  They are supernatural events, not natural events.  In fact, the more it is shown and demonstrated that these events could never happen in a natural world, the stronger is the case for Christianity.  If these events could happen naturally, it would significantly weaken Christian faith.  It is actually important that these events be shown to be miracles - supernatural events - and not unusual but natural events.  Science is helpful to the Christian faith here because it can help to establish why these events are impossible in a purely natural world.

             Somehow, the Christian view of creation seems to have escaped classification as a miracle.  Why is that?  Actually, the basic concept of creation has been clearly demonstrated to be supernatural to some extent, based on the scientific demonstration that spontaneous generation does not occur in the natural world.  Of course, even Christians do not claim that creation is necessarily continuous to the present day.  Also, science has to uncomfortably backtrack on this issue a bit because obviously, at some point, some form of "spontaneous generation" did occur in history.  Science is stuck claiming that life only spontaneously appeared under some specific conditions in the past that have not been duplicated since.  I think it is hard for scientists not to refer to the spontaneous generation of life as a miracle - instead they have to say it is an "anomaly" - but that is not the main point here. 

             I think the reason that creation isn't typically lumped in with other miracles is that the creation of the universe by an all-powerful God does seem like a logical possible explanation of how the natural world came into being.  It is one of many possible explanations, of course, and one that science tries to avoid.  However, because it could be considered logical or rational, it seems like Christians kind of adopted the sense that the creation story of Genesis was a rational natural explanation of creation.  Unlike miracles, which depend on being classified as supernatural, and thus are never threatened by natural proofs that they could not happen, but are rather strengthened by such proofs, the Christian view of creation seems to have been placed in the "natural occurrence" category.   I think Christians liked the fact that the existence of the natural world seemed to "prove" that a Creator God must exist.  The idea was comforting.  The idea is, in fact, rational.  But that does not mean that it is natural. 

             Here's my suggested view:  Creation of the universe, starting with nothing and wrapping up the work in six days, is a miracle.  It is a supernatural event.  It might correlate well with some natural observations, but that does not negate the fact that the creation story in Genesis is, at it's very core, a description of a truly miraculous event.  In fact, the idea that God created in six days what scientists claim the natural universe would take 5 trillion days to create establishes the immeasurable creative power of God.  What God did in creation is definitely not natural!  It is a Class A-1 miracle!

             Some may be uncomfortable calling creation a miracle because they are vested in the idea that Genesis relates real human history and worry that "relegating" creation to the category of a miracle somehow negates the "realness" of it.  They worry that it somehow makes it less of an account of history and more of a fable or myth.  But that is not at all what is meant by creation being a miracle.  The four gospels are clearly meant to relate real human history, yet it is within the gospels that we find the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Recognizing an event as a miracle does not negate its historical nature.  A miracle is something that should not have ever happened based on the principles of the natural world, but did actually happen.  A fable is something that never happened but maybe could have.  The virgin birth is a miracle.  The resurrection is a miracle.  And creation is a miracle.

             Maybe, in some odd way, it would have been nice if, as science delved further and further into the age of the universe, they would have kept honing in closer and closer to exactly 6,024 years for the age of the earth and then found that the "void" was exactly two days older.  Such a finding would have "proven Christianity beyond a reasonable doubt."  But, of course, there was never a reason to think that that was going to happen.  There are plenty of ways that God could use to prove his existence beyond a reasonable doubt.  He does not avail Himself of any of them.  He leaves room for doubt.  He leaves room for choice.  He leaves room for belief.  It makes us uncomfortable as Christians because belief can be so hard sometimes.  We think it would be so easy if the belief part of Christianity was done away with.  We want to see, not believe.  We want to see the nail marks in His hands and thrust our hand into His side.  That would make everything so easy, we think!  But it is not to be so.  Not yet anyway.

             I strongly encourage Christians to see creation for what it is and was always meant to be:  a miracle.  Stop degrading this miraculous event by trying to force fit it into a naturalistic explanation.  Instead, celebrate every time science makes the idea of creation harder and harder to imagine.  All that does is demonstrate, in more and more certain terms, the omnipotence of our Creator God.  Revel in that fact that your God, the God you believe in, was born of a virgin and rose from the dead...and created the universe out of nothing, apparently in one trillionth the time it should have taken!  And He still cares about you.  That is a miracle!

19. Do animals (non-human) have souls? Do animals have spirits?

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:

             None really.  I looked through all 95 instances of the word <psuche> as used in the NT.  94 of the uses clearly refer to the soul of human beings.  For example, see my note on I Pet 3:20 below.  The 95^th use, found in Rev 8:9, is discussed in the Related Scriptures section and cannot be used to confidently claim that animals have souls.  Beyond that, I did not find any indication that animals have <psuche>.

             In addition, I could not find anything that references an animal having a <pneuma>.  Jesus did send the evil spirits into a herd of swine, but that is clearly presented as an unusual (miraculous) event.  Scripture is about the spiritual realm and is always about humans, not animals. 

             I Pet 3:20  “a few…eight <psuche> were saved by water” – speaking about the people saved on Noah’s ark.  Here, the human souls are clearly counted even though there were numerous animals of all kinds saved on the ark.  This verse seems to clearly distinguish the human <psuche> from the life of all of the other animals that were saved after the flood.  This is an example of how the whole tenor of scripture assumes that human beings are the only creatures with a <psuche-pneuma>.  Only humans can sin.  Jesus died only for humans.

 

Caveat:

             I thought this might be a simple question and not that important.  As it turns out, it is both difficult to answer and has broader implications on Christian beliefs than I initially imagined.  I gave a "quick answer" of no, but it may warrant further study.

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             Rev 8:9…the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had <psuche>, died.  Given that there is no other verse that references animals having souls, it is important to make sure that there is only one logical interpretation to this verse if we're going to claim that this verse means that animals have souls (or, more specifically, that fish have souls!).  However, there are at least three logical interpretations of this verse: 

1) The term "creatures" refers to animals (non-humans) and <psuche> means "soul" in the unique sense, thus implying that animals - at least sea creatures - have souls. 

2) The term "creatures" is referring to humans.

3) The term <psuche> is referring to life in general, not the "soul" in the unique sense.

 

             With respect to option #2, note first that the point of the verse is not to talk about souls;  it is talking about death and destruction in the end times.  It could be that the "creatures in the sea with <psuche>" were all "human creatures".  Especially since it seems like the word “in” could be “on”.  At any given moment, there must be a lot of human beings in or on (mostly on) the sea.  Yes, it would seem weird for John to use the word "creature" (Greek: ktisma) to mean just humans, but not completely out of the question.  That word is only used four times in the NT.  The other use of the term in Revelation, Rev. 5:13, speaks of all creatures praising God.  Even there the word could be referring to humans only, though it would seem like an odd word choice.  I think the general interpretation of the word is that it means "every created thing", but that would also include non-living things like rocks, and certainly rocks don't have souls.  But, regardless, some words are used in an unusual way in Revelation, so I don't think we can completely eliminate this option as a possible interpretation.

             I think the most likely explanation is that the word <psuche> is meant to convey the idea of "life" and not in specific reference to a soul (option #3).  The verse could be thus interpreted as saying that "things living in the sea were destroyed", which is consistent with the context of the verse.  As I have discussed elsewhere, there is some fuzziness about how terms like <psuche> and <soma> and <sarx> are used in the NT.  The question is whether the word <psuche> is used elsewhere in the NT to clearly refer to the idea of "life" rather than "soul."  I found at least one instance where this is the case:  Luke 12:22.

             Luke 12:22 shows that <psuche> is used to mean life – even physical life – in some cases.  “Take no thought for your <psuche>, what ye shall eat…”  Jesus is referring to worrying about finding physical food, so the "eating" is physical eating, which is necessary to sustain physical life.  Physical eating doesn't sustain the soul.  Therefore, at least in this verse, the term <psuche> is used to mean physical life.  I think that the term <psuche> is being used in the same manner in Rev 8:9. 

 

Discussion:

             My conclusion is that non-human animals do not have a supernatural soul.  Animals have <zoe> life, which is a physical life, but not a spiritual life.  They are not responsible for their own actions.  The presence of the <psuche-pneuma> is a distinguishing factor in human beings when compared to all other creatures in the universe.

             I'm sorry to all you dog and cat lovers out there!  However, a lack of a soul does not mean that there won't be dogs in heaven.  With respect to that issue, scripture is completely silent.  But if you need dogs or cats or butterflies in heaven in order for it to really be heaven, then I'm sure they'll be there.

             If animals did have souls, then this would present significant complications.  First, where would you draw the line as to which animals - or living things - have souls.  Most people I know, if they tend to think animals have souls, think of dogs and cats, but not frogs and bats.  And certainly not spiders and cockroaches.  Or grass and mold.  But where would you draw the line for "soul-possession"?  There is certainly nothing in scripture to guide such a dividing line.  Actually there is:  the dividing line is between humans and all other creatures of any sort.  Humans are unique, and one of the distinguishing characteristics...or maybe the fundamental distinguishing characteristic...is that humans have souls and no other creatures have souls.

             Is there room in Christianity to believe that animals sin?  It seems that the whole tenor of scripture is that only humans can sin, but I can't think of a passage that is explicit about that.  Only Adam and Eve are described as eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  The implication is that Adam and Eve were the only ones to eat from that tree.  Any attribution of moral responsibility to any creature other than humans is outside of scripture.

             What about animals showing emotions?  Certainly we tend to attribute to our pets a lot of "human emotions".  My working hypothesis is this:  if animals only have <sarx> and <zoe>, then any attribute an animal might exhibit must be the <sarx> in action, not the result of a <psuche-pneuma>.  Given this hypothesis, it seems clear that there are many emotions that span both <sarx> and <psuche-pneuma> and it is very difficult to tell when, in humans, they have crossed the line from a purely <sarx> (physical) response to one that is now driven by the <psuche-pneuma>.  Anger is a good example.  Certainly animals get angry.  Humans get angry.  Jesus got angry.  God gets angry.  We are told that not all anger is sin.  "Be angry and do not sin."  No animal sins by being angry.  In the case of anger, there is also a morally-right anger - we call it "righteous anger".  We know righteous anger exists because God can be described as angry.  Thus, it can be instructive to consider the emotions that animals show, because that can help us understand where our emotions can be purely "fleshly" and where they might be more spiritual (or moral) in nature.  If there is a moral component to an emotion, it becomes uniquely human.  If there is a type of anger that is sinful (there is), then that is a type of anger that is unique to humans.  Sexual immorality is another example.  Animals never commit sexual immorality, but humans do.  But for humans, sex has a moral component that can be good or bad.

             I think that Christians have to be careful about ascribing human traits to their pets.  In general these attributions are harmless and there is no deep meaning intended.  But we have to make sure we keep God's eternal priorities in our minds if we are to live according to Christian principles.  The eternal spiritual state of each human being is an eternal priority for God.  The eternal state of any other created being is not an eternal priority.  We should not mix those things up in our own lives.

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

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

 

Quick Answer:  I don't think so - not when referring to physical life and physical death.

 

Key Scriptures:

             I Pet 4:16  Death is in the <sarx>, life is in the <pneuma>.  If life is only in the <pneuma>, then how can animals be alive?  How can plants be alive if life is only in the spirit?  This argues for another term that would describe life in a more earthly, material sense.  I believe that term is <zoe> and its derivatives. 

             I Cor 15:45 describes a "<zao> <psuche>" or "living soul".  Based on the phrasing, it seems that the <zao> is describing a condition of the <psuche>.  Given this, it would seem that there is a difference between "life" or "living" and the soul.  I think plants and animals could be <zao>, but without a soul.  I think the soul is unique to humans, but I don’t think living is unique to humans.

             James 5:20  James talks about saving a <psuche> from death – so souls can die.  But I think that means the eternal “state” of the soul, not physical death.  A dead soul means a soul destined to hell.  I don’t think it necessarily means a soul without physical life.

             James 2:26 “…the <soma> without the <pneuma> is dead…”  At death, the spirit is separated from the body.  But whenever spiritual death is under consideration, it is more about the state of the <psuche-pneuma>.  It is either in the state of death - eternal punishment - or life - eternal life.  I wouldn't say that this verse says that physical death is the <pneuma> departing from your body.  That does happen, but that is not what makes us physically dead.   

 

Caveat:

             In general, it seems that when your physical body dies, the soul departs at the same time.  But physical death is, I think, the loss of <zoe>.  The two events are simultaneous.  But dogs and frogs die, and that is not because their soul departs.  I would say that, for humans, the physical death of the body releases the soul.  The departure of our soul is a consequence of our physical death.

 

Related Scriptures and Thoughts:

             Matt 22:32  God is not God of the <nekros>, but of the living <zao>.  Further evidence, I would say, that <nekros> is referring to physical death of the <sarx> that results in the decay of the <sarx>.  At some point dust really does return to dust.  All memory and evidence of the physical life of any single individual is eventually lost.  Then it is just matter.  God is not God of that.  Of course, He is the God of the universe.  But to be the God of Abraham is not to be the God of dust, or the God of someone that was in the past.  God is in the moment.  To say that God was the God of Abraham doesn’t make sense.  God doesn’t live in the past.  Jesus uses this to show that there is a resurrection of the dead.

             John 5:24-25  Jesus seems to use <Thanatos> and <nekros> interchangeably.  He also uses <zoe> in the first verse and <zao> in the second.  I don’t know if there is a significance to that.  “the <nekros> shall hear the voice of the Son of God:  and they that hear shall live.”  If this was referring to physical death of our <sarx>, this wouldn’t make sense.  Those dead can’t hear.  I think Jesus has to be referring to the “spiritually dead”.  In fact, we are all spiritually dead before we believe.

 

Discussion:

             To summarize this topic with respect to a Christian view of the science related to living, I suggest the following:

             <Zoe> and similar Greek terms refer to "life" in the way that we used to (a century ago) refer to a "life force" - whatever it is that makes living things alive.  Human beings, animals, plants, etc. are "alive" because they have <zoe>.  This "lifeforce" could be material, could be spiritual, could be a combination of both.  My feeling is that there is a good chance that it is purely material and part of the natural world.  It could be the natural outcome of biochemistry in action.  This is in contrast to "eternal life", which is fundamentally spiritual in nature.  [Note though that sometimes the word "eternal" isn't added to "life" in the Greek NT - you have to deduce that the reference is to eternal life from the context.] 

             The key issue with respect to science - biology and neuroscience in particular - is that I would leave open entirely the possibility that science will find that the "lifeforce" is a material thing; a natural phenomenon that can be explained by laws of physics and chemistry.    This would not negate Christian beliefs or go against scripture, as far as I can see.  Thus, Christians should not have irrational fears or angst about such scientific discoveries, either now or in the future.  In fact, Christians ought to be quite interested in the whole concept and in any discoveries made through scientific exploration.

             By the way, I really think scientists ought to be more humble when you consider that, of all the most fundamental things we can observe in the universe, "life" is certainly the most interesting.  It has been studied by scientists from before there was science.  And yet - and yet - there still is no good explanation of what life really is.  There's no embarrassment in that - life is unique and complex - but it certainly ought to be humbling!

             <Psuche>, on the other hand, is certainly spiritual.  Or, more properly, <psuche> is a link between the spiritual and the material.  The complete <psuche-pneuma> of the human being is never going to be discovered by natural science.  I suppose it might be possible to discover evidence of the action of the <psuche-pneuma> on the material but, as I have discussed elsewhere, such an experiment is difficult to define and is certainly outside the current realm of what is feasible.  The spiritual nature of the <psuche-pneuma> is a fundamental Christian doctrine.  Thus, when science claims that human beings are purely material, that does go directly against Christian beliefs.  Such a claim also goes beyond the bounds of science.  Therefore:  Christians should oppose this concept and scientists should not make this claim - they have no basis to do so.  There is no room for compromise on this issue.

             When scripture talks about "life" with respect to the <psuche-pneuma>, I think it is generally talking about eternal life and is maybe more easily understood as the "eternal state" of the person.  A human being who is destined to hell is "dead" even though they may be physically (<zoe>) alive.  When we are "made alive" as Christians, it is a change of eternal destiny.  We were, as real human beings with a body, soul, and spirit, always destined to "last" forever.  But lasting forever and being eternally alive are not the same thing. 

 

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.