What The Bible Really Says About The Soul, II

Yesterday, I responded to a post titled, The Bible Says The Soul Is Not Immaterial, by Matt DeStefano. DeStefano’s response seemed rushed, but I liked his point about AT&T park [even though I’m not convinced he fully got my point].

He wrote,

Over at The Warfare is Mental , cl has responded to my previous post about the soul being immortal.

Immortal? Did he mean “immaterial” there? Or, did he also mean to imply that the Bible says the soul is not immortal? If that’s the case, I do not believe in the immortality of an immaterial soul that persists after death and independent of the physical body. That’s an example of Hellenistic influence that the Bible doesn’t seem to support. Rather, I believe in what I would call the wholistic resurrection of the dead, as that’s what the Bible clearly seems to teach. I believe in the resurrection of the whole human being: body, soul, and spirit. However, believing in such a resurrection does not entail that “materialism” or “physicalism” are correct, nor does it entail that humans are monist entities, nor does it entail that the spirit can’t leave the body. Lastly, I also believe that non-human spirits exist independently of physical bodies, even sometimes inhabiting physical bodies, as the Bible seems to clearly teach this, too. I hope this clears things up. I touched on some of the Scriptures that I think support this view in yesterday’s post, so feel free to check those out and let me know if you need more.

The last post was an attempt to dispel the notion that the Greek dualism present in modern Christianity is an extra-biblical notion.

Wasn’t his last post was an attempt to confirm the notion that Greek dualism is an extra-biblical notion? That one, I think, is just a typo.

While the analysis was certainly limited in Biblical exegesis, after surveying the opinion modern of Biblical scholars, it seemed that further discussion was not necessary. I felt my mission was to merely bring it to the attention of those who had not had the benefit of further study. It seems an overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars agree with the lack of a dualism inherent in Scripture, and rather attribute it to a Greek influence.

“the opinion modern of biblical scholars?” “Overwhelming majority?” He cited two sources, and Wendell Berry is NOT a biblical scholar! I did a Google search for “dualism and Christianity biblical scholars,” and I didn’t so easily find this overwhelming majority. Like anything else, I found a hit or two there, seasoned by plenty of misses and lots of irrelevancy. Of course, I agree there are elements of Greek influence in modern Christianity. As just explained, the Bible seems to teach that the resurrection is physical, not spiritual.

This is really just dualism redux. He’s arguing that spirit and body are distinctive elements (presumably spirit is immaterial – while body is material), and that soul is what we call one that has both. This is still dualism, but merely giving the fission of the two elements a different moniker.

I disagree. Soul would be an emergent property of the two, something not reducible to either one. What I’m talking about would be more accurately described as emergent tripartism, I think. However, DeStefano’s objection is purely semantic–not an objection of substance. It doesn’t matter what words we use. The map is not the territory. That he calls what I believe “dualism” and I call it something else is irrelevant, and certainly not an objection which would justify his claims that the “overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars” promote substance monism, or that “the Bible says the soul is not immaterial.” Right?

His next verse is Matt 10:28 which cautions Christians on whose judgments to be concerned with: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Again, I think this verse fails to serve as an indictment to the monism we see apparent in the Bible. God decides the eternal fate of mankind (has the ability to resurrect one to a physical rebirth), so he has the ability to ‘kill the soul’, while man can merely kill the body. No need to posit dualism in order to account for this verse.

Yet, on monism, wouldn’t killing the body -> killing the soul? There would be no way one could kill the body without killing the soul, if the soul was just the “life” of the body.

DeStefano closes by citing Harpers:

“In the NT, ‘soul’ retains its basic Hebrew field of meaning. Soul refers to one’s life: Herod sought Jesus’ soul (Matt. 2:20); one might save a soul or take it (Mark 3:4). Death occurs when God ‘requires your soul’ (Luke 12:20). ‘Soul’ may refer to the whole person, the self: ‘three thousand souls’ were converted in Acts 2:41 (see Acts 3:23). Although the Greek idea of an immortal soul different in kind from the mortal body is not evident, ‘soul’ denotes the existence of a person after death (see Luke 9:25; 12:4; 21:19); yet Greek influence may be found in 1 Peter’s remark about ‘the salvation of souls’ (1:9).”

Here are each of those verses as found in the ESV:

…saying, “Rise, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who sought the child’s life are dead.” [Matt. 2:20]

And he said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they were silent. [Mark 3:4]

But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ [Luke 12:20]

And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ [Acts 3:23]

For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself? [Luke 9:25]

“I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. [Luke 12:4]

By your endurance you will gain your lives. [Luke 21:19]

…obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. [1 Peter 1:9]

So where, in any of that, does it say “The soul is not immaterial,” as DeStefano claimed? Does he mean to imply that monism is true because nepesh is also used to denote life? Why does DeStefano seemingly ignore the distinction between soul and spirit? I disagree with DeStefano that the Bible promotes substance monism. That is a strong claim, and it needs more treatment than what he’s given it IMHO. The Bible clearly talks of “spiritual realms,” and further claims that “God is spirit.” Of course, neither of those facts refute his monist hypothesis, but you would think a worthy treatment would at least take them into consideration. It’s not that I’m 100% opposed to DeStefano’s claim, don’t get me wrong. It’s just that it’s going to take a little bit more than passing reference to unnamed biblical scholars to really get my attention. I think a monist conception of the human being can actually resolve some of counterapologetic arguments on the scene, but I’m not going to go jumping towards it just because it’d be easier to respond to atheist apologists. It’s not as if Christianity sinks or swims on dualism. It sinks or swims on Christ.