Church of Christ Magazine

NEW ARTICLE

Do Human Beings Have an Immortal Soul?

A reader has alleged that the expression “immortal soul” is not consistent with biblical teaching. He contends that this concept is more akin to the pagan philosophy of Plato than to the Scriptures.

The gentleman says that 1 Timothy 6:16 affirms that “only God” possesses “immortality,” thus we, as humans, are not immortal.

Further, he has suggested that since 1 Corinthians 15:53 promises immortality to the redeemed, as something yet to be realized, this implies we do not possess this attribute presently.

The gentleman states that most Christians have not studied carefully such terms as “immortality” and “soul.” He has argued that the “soul” merely is the “life of the body,” and that the “spirit” and “soul” are “not in the same category.” They “are not synonyms,” he insists.

The man’s sincerity is not questioned. His position is erroneous however. My brief response to the case outlined above is as follows:

1. Those known as conditionalists, i.e., who argue for the eventual annihilation of the wicked (though the gentleman under review is not in that class), frequently suggest that Bible students who believe in the concept of eternal consciousness have been influenced by Plato and other Greek philosophers. On this basis, they contend that there can be no eternal, conscious punishment for the wicked. This sort of guilt-by-association accusation is without merit. Such a charge is condescending and does not give credit to other students who have examined the issue and drawn different conclusions. The gentleman who argued this case likely would not appreciate the suggestion that his denial of the immortality of the soul has been influenced by the Watchtower Witness sect.
2. When Paul declared that “only God has immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16), it is commonly understood by responsible Bible scholars that the passage addresses an immortality that is underived from another source. Paul spoke of an immortality that is intrinsic to the very being of God. See my commentary, Before I Die (2007, 182; cf. Thayer 1958, 13). This phrase, therefore, would not negate the concept, as taught in other passages, that man possesses an immortality that was imparted to him as a part of the original creation procedure. Soul immortality appears to be one aspect of the blessing of being created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:26-27). This idea may be later suggested when Solomon says that God “has set eternity in their heart” (Ecclesiastes 3:11; cf. Longman 1998, 119).
3. First Corinthians 15:53 speaks of the nature of the future resurrected body, not the essence of the “soul,” or the “spirit,” that is within man (James 2:26). If the soul of man is only the biological life resident in the body, as some argue, then one man can destroy another’s soul (contra Matthew 10:28), for men murder each other frequently.
4. To suggest that “most of us have not given much time to a study” of such terms as “soul” and “immortality” is to assume a premise that is not accurate. Many, including this writer, have studied this topic in considerable detail, and have drawn conclusions quite at variance from those under review.
5. This gentleman’s position fails to take into consideration that words convey a variety of meanings, and that context is the final determiner of a word’s meaning. This, if I may respectfully say so, is a major fallacy in the essay under examination. While it is true that “soul” sometimes refers to “life” (which appears to be the case in Acts 20:10), it also is a fact that the term can be employed for the non-material element within a person (Matthew 10:28; Revelation 20:4).
6. While “spirit” generally is used for that component of man that “grieves” and “knows” (Daniel 7:15; 1 Corinthians 2:11), i.e., the intellectual, emotional, morally sensitive element of a person, on occasion, “spirit” can refer to a certain aspect of existence that is common to both humans and animals (Ecclesiastes 3:21). To generalize, therefore, and contend that the terms “soul” and “spirit” may never refer to the same entity within human beings does not represent a sustainable case. I have dealt with this matter in some detail in my book, The Bible & Science (chapter 10, “The Bible and Modern Psychology,” 103ff). The terms “soul” and “spirit,” therefore, on occasion can refer to the same aspect of a person (cf. John 12:27; 13:21), though such is not always the case.
7. In his first epistle, Peter, by implication, suggests that the human “spirit” is “incorruptible” (1 Peter 3:4). Why would a person need “incorruptible” apparel for a “corruptible” spirit? Thus, the human spirit, by deduction, is suggested as being incorruptible. This appears to be confirmed by Paul’s interchangeable usage of athanasia (“immortal”) and aphtharsia (“incorruptible”) in his discourse concerning the resurrected body (see 1 Corinthians 15:42, 50, 53-54).
8. In his second Corinthian letter, Paul speaks of the “outward” man and the “inward” man (2 Corinthians 4:16). These two expressions contrast the body with the soul. But in the same context, the apostle distinguishes between that which is temporal and that which is “eternal.” The implication clearly seems to suggest that the “inward man,” i.e., the soul, is eternal. Not that it has existed forever; rather, from the commencement of its creation, it partakes of the nature of an everlasting entity (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:16).

(more...)

EDITOR’S CHOICE

Principles of Bible Prophecy

An examination of the lexical literature reveals that scholars are undecided as to the etymology of the term “prophet.” Some think that the noun is from an Arabic term meaning “spokesman” (Smith 1928, 10), whereas others have contended that the root is a Hebrew form which signifies a “bubbling up,” as when water issues from a hidden fountain (Girdlestone n.d., 239). This would suggest the idea of the inspiration behind the prophet. It is now more commonly believed, however, that the word may be of Akkadian origin and that it may denote “to be called” (Unger and White 1980, 310).

Perhaps the best way to determine the meaning of the term is to examine the manner in which the Bible employs it. The classic passage which sets forth the role of the prophet is Exodus 7:1,2.

And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. Thou shalt speak all that I command thee; and Aaron thy brother shall speak unto Pharaoh.

A prophet was simply a spokesman for God. The prophet was also called a “seer.” Note how the terms “prophet” and “seer” are interchanged in 1 Samuel 9:9:

Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he said, Come, and let us go to the seer; for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.

(more...)

RECENT ARTICLES

Examine Yourselves! Second Corinthians is probably one of the least frequently studied, or even read, books of the New Testament. To fully appreciate this inspired treatise, one needs to have some background knowledge of the establishment of this church, the problems that plagued these Christian people, and the relationship between the apostle … “Examine me, Lord” – A Study of Psalm 26 Psalm 26 is a brief (twelve verses) but delightful psalm (i.e., in poetic form) in which the author petitions his God for protection from some threatening, deadly force. Hence, he will argue his case to the Lord in the hope of a favorable response to his prayer. There are two … The Plague of Perversion One of the most potentially devastating movements to evolve from the environment of human degeneracy in recent decades is the so-called “Gay Movement.” The homosexual “lifestyle,” with considerable support from the entertainment industry, and significant publicity from the news media, is a growing phenomenon. No longer content to practice their … Rachel’s Tears Rachel was the wife of Jacob (grandson of Abraham) and the mother of two sons—Joseph and Benjamin. Her name is found more than forty times in the Old Testament. In giving birth to Benjamin she died, and was buried near Bethlehem (Genesis 35:19). A thousand or so years after her … The New Testament Compared to Classical Literature The amazing preservation of the New Testament documents can perhaps be appreciated best by comparing the evidence for their authenticity with that available for the works produced by the classical writers of antiquity. One of the greatest textual critics of the past was F. H. A. Scrivener (1813-91). He did …

More Evolutionary Nonsense Those who subscribe to Darwin’s theory of organic evolution continue to frantically look for evidence to undergird their baseless ideas. Their panic is fueled by the acceleration of scientific data that establish how very complex our universe is. The probability of an “accidental” cosmos (instead of a chaos) and an … The Necessity and Reality of a Sinless Savior Was he, or was he not? Was Jesus of Nazareth a perfect man, completely flawless both spiritually and morally? The importance of this question cannot be exaggerated. If he was not, the whole of humanity is hopelessly and eternally lost. Here is the problem: How would it be possible for … A Warning to a Wayward Church Chapters two and three of the book of Revelation contain a series of seven letters. These issued from the resurrected-ascended Christ himself, and were directed to seven representative congregations of the Roman province of Asia. The sacred record affirms that Jesus Christ “walks” (present tense; constant supervision) in the midst … David Lipscomb University and the Christian Scholars Conference The Christian Scholars Conference (CSC) convened in June, 2008 on the campus of David Lipscomb University in Nashville, Tennessee. With support from several sister schools, e.g., Pepperdine University, Abilene Christian University, Oklahoma Christian University, and Harding University, it was the twenty-eighth annual gathering of some of the most radically liberal, … California High Court Wrong Again The California Supreme Court again has demonstrated what an inept conglomerate of jurists it is. In an August 18th decision that once more assaults religious freedom, the court came down with a “wrong,” not “right,” decision. In its unanimous judgment, the Court determined that doctors may not refuse, on a …