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.