The Biblical Meanings of "Soul"

Post by **_Michelle** » Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:15 pm

Thanks Paidion,

I've thought of all those things before, that's why I asked.

First of all I've always believed in the resurrection: when you die your soul goes to heaven to await the bodily resurrection sometime in the future. I've sometimes wondered if being stuffed back into this body would be a bit of a let down.

My mother, who has loved and served the Lord all her life, is getting loopier and loopier in her older years. I've wondered if that meant that something was happening to her soul. I know it doesn't mean that...I've seen plenty of pictures of brains of people who died of Alzheimer's and it's a physical disease. But what happened to her soul?

A few years ago I began to feel really tired and worn down, so I did something that I hardly ever do: I went to see a doctor. I was diagnosed with diabetes. What a difference your blood sugar levels make in your attitude! Which is the "real" me -- my soul? Depressed because of too much sugar? Loopy because of too little?

These thoughts made me start thinking that we are more integrated than I had been taught. I haven't quite figured out what I ultimately believe, but your view makes a lot of sense to me.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:43 am

Philippians 1:23-24 - I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.

From Paul's standpoint, he could depart and be with Christ. For the next thing of which he would be aware, when he died, would be his presence with Christ in the resurrection. "Remaining in the body" meant to remain alive.

Paidion, Paul said he was "torn" which emphasizes a sense of urgency in his mind. Torn means he was in a crisis trying to decide on one or the other which suggests that he had no idea that he would be sleeping 2,000 years.
Paul used the phrase "inner man" to describe our spirit and an inner man has intellect and can learn and become perfect before we gain immortality at the resurrection.
Heb 12.23 " to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect." The writer of Hebrews is speaking to justified men's spirits who are alive and made perfect in heaven IMO.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:16 am

Mort, at the risk of being accused of sounding gnostic,anti intellectual and calvinistic i have to lean toward trichotomy because i think Paul believed it and i think there are enough instances where the "spirit" or "inner man" is identified alone or in a verse with the soul.
I think this inner man has an immaterial nature which includes an intellect and when we die our inner man departs to be with the Lord based on how i understand Paul.
Stephen said "Lord Jesus receive my spirit" Why did'nt he say soul since the soul includes the mind?
Jesus said "Father into your hands i commend my spirit" Again would'nt Jesus want his mind to go up to heaven?
Paul said "your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved" Did'nt Paul realize his spirit is already just a part of his soul?
Paul said "therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit" 1 Cor 6.19 Did'nt Paul realize the spirit is part of the body/soul?
Paul said "willing rather to be absent from the body and be present with the Lord" 2 Cor 5.8 Since Paul understood he was leaving his body behind which includes his brain and mind he understood that his "inner man" has a mind of it's own, how else could he enjoy being with the Lord?

And there are verses in the OT also where the soul and spirit/heart are identified separately.
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Duet 6.5
"With my soul have i desired thee in the night , yea with my spirit within me will I seek thee" Isa 26.9
Also 1 Sam 1.15 , Job 7.11, 1 Chron 15.12, Psalm 84.2

Post by **_Paidion** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 1:23 pm

Steve 7150

Paidion:
Philippians 1:23-24 - I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.

From Paul's standpoint, he could depart and be with Christ. For the next thing of which he would be aware, when he died, would be his presence with Christ in the resurrection. "Remaining in the body" meant to remain alive.

Paidion, Paul said he was "torn" which emphasizes a sense of urgency in his mind. Torn means he was in a crisis trying to decide on one or the other which suggests that he had no idea that he would be sleeping 2,000 years.

Would it have made any difference to Paul if he had known this? If he had died right then, the next thing of which he would have been aware was being in the presence of the Lord. I have heard that people who are put to sleep in order to have surgery, do not realize any time has passed when they awake. Some ask when the surgery is going to begin, when, in fact, it was completed. Why did Paul, and Jesus too, refer to death figuratively as "sleep"? If we are immediately in the presence of the Lord after death, then "sleep" does not seem to be a good figure of speech to describe death. Oh yes, I know some say that it is the body only that sleeps. But it doesn't seem that a body which is cremated, or is devoured by an animal, or is placed into the earth to rot, is sleeping. It is disintegrating.

Paul used the phrase "inner man" to describe our spirit and an inner man has intellect and can learn and become perfect before we gain immortality at the resurrection.

How do you know that "inner man" describes an entity separate from the the body (which you call a "spirit")? Even phychiatrists, some of whom do not believe in any afterlife at all, describe "the inner self". I am sure they are not thinking of a separate entity.

Heb 12.23 " to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect." The writer of Hebrews is speaking to justified men's spirits who are alive and made perfect in heaven IMO.

How do you know that? Have you come to the those spirits already? Have you come to mount Zion and to the New Jerusalem and to innumerable angels in festive gathering? I think the answer may be "yes". Every mature disciple has come. The passage is addressed to living disciples, and obviously has a lot of symolism. It doesn't say, "You are going to come when you die", but "you have come"!

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel. Heb 12:22-24

Does not the whole passage speak of the Assembly of God, the Body of Christ? Is this not the Heavenly Jerusalem? Is this not the Bride of Christ?

Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, and spoke to me, saying, "Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb." And in the Spirit he carried me away to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, Rev 21:9,10

John was shown in the Spirit the New Jerusalem, but it was not symbolic of a city to come, but of the bride of Christ!

The spirits of righteous people made complete are to be found in the bride of Christ.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:18 pm

Would it have made any difference to Paul if he had known this? If he had died right then, the next thing of which he would have been aware was being in the presence of the Lord. I have heard that people who are put to sleep in order to have surgery, do not realize any time has passed when they awake. Some ask when the surgery is going to begin, when, in fact, it was completed. Why did Paul, and Jesus too, refer to death figuratively as "sleep"? If we are immediately in the presence of the Lord after death, then "sleep" does not seem to be a good figure of speech to describe death. Oh yes, I know some say that it is the body only that sleeps. But it doesn't seem that a body which is cremated, or is devoured by an animal, or is placed into the earth to rot, is sleeping. It is disintegrating.

Yes i think it would make a difference because i think Paul had an expectation he would immediately be with Christ and if he thought that he would be sleeping for a long time he would'nt have said "to die is gain." I think Paul is describing two immdiate alternatives A) living in this body or B) depart and be with Christ. When would he be with Christ? He said himself "to die is gain."
Granted your point about describing the condition of the believing dead as sleeping does support your point but i guess Paul is just using that word to describe bodies awaiting the resurrection.
In Acts 7.59 we read "Lord Jesus receive my spirit." If Stephen's spirit was going to sleep why would Stephen ask Jesus to "receive my spirit?" And then in Acts 7.60 we read "And when he had said this he fell asleep."
So in two consecutive verses we first have Jesus being asked to receive Stephen's spirit and afterwards Stephen falling asleep.
So i don't think that "sleep" includes the spirit of a believer.

Post by **_TK** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:08 pm

i ahve to agree with you, steve. the context of both instances certainly seems "right now."

TK

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:26 pm

Hi Paidion,

I appreciated your thoughtful and thorough response to the scriptures I posted. Although I don’t care for the term “soul sleep” (I don’t recall if you use that term) I can see the validity of your view regarding the soul & resurrection. I’ve postulated along similar lines, but instead of the soul dying and being raised to life again, perhaps the soul goes into the presence of God, but since God transcends time, the soul goes outside of time. From the soul’s “viewpoint” death is immediately followed by bodily resurrection, with no knowledge of the thousands of years that may have passed in between. This is not a firm view that I hold – merely a postulate.

Of the scriptures which I gave and you kindly responded to, this one still gives me trouble:

----------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Scriptures like the following would seem to argue for the spirit/soul as able to exist apart from the body after physical death being the case:

Luke 23:43 - Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
-----------------------------------------------------

Hellenistic Greek in the days that the NT was written, had no punctuation.
Rather than saying, "Truly I tell you, 'Today you will be with me in paradise,'" Jesus may have actually said, "Truly, I tell you today, 'You will be with me in paradise."

Some say that the latter would be an unusual way of speaking. Not so. We still do it in our society to this day. We may say, "I'm telling you right now, etc." We do it to emphasize what follows.

Agreed that Koine Greek was written without punctuation. However, I would want to know if the phrase “I tell you the truth today, …” is used elsewhere in Luke, the rest of the New Testament or contemporaneous Greek writings in the way you’ve suggested.

I remember Jimmy Swaggart used to have a habit of saying “Let me be frank and honest with you …”, which always made me think, “You mean you haven’t been frank and honest until now?” (which, it turns out, was often the case). Likewise, if a speaker said “I tell you the truth today, … “, I would be thinking “Does that mean you weren’t telling the truth yesterday?”

If Jesus said, “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in Paradise.”, this could also be interpreted (and, in fact, has been interpreted) as saying that the thief’s spirit would get to Paradise, but only after a stop in Purgatory.

The thing I always come back to is this: What did it mean to the original hearers? Luke’s audience was Hellenistic in thought. Both Jews and Gentiles of this time period held a concept of a disembodied afterlife. How then would they have understood Jesus’ statement to the thief?

And again, was “I tell you the truth today, … “ a common phrase at that time?

I agree that the scriptures where Jesus and Stephen commit their spirit to the Father could go either way.

These two verses though, and your responses, also still give me trouble:

-----------------------------------------
Quote:
Philippians 1:23-24 - I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
-----------------------------------------

From Paul's standpoint, he could depart and be with Christ. For the next thing of which he would be aware, when he died, would be his presence with Christ in the resurrection. "Remaining in the body" meant to remain alive.

-----------------------------------------
Quote:
2 Corinthians 5:8 - We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
-----------------------------------------

The chapter begins:

For we know that if the earthly tent in which we live is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, permanent in the heavens.

There is no doubt in my mind that by "a building from God, a house not made with hands", Paul refers to the resurrection body.

The whole passage is about the resurrection, and on that basis we must interpret the verse in question.

So in the verse you quoted, Paul means that he would prefer to be away from this present body, and to be at home with the Lord in the resurrection body.

If I understand your viewpoint correctly, the soul/spirit ceases to exist upon death and is then recreated along with the body at the resurrection. If so, then to be absent from the body is to be non-existent. If one doesn’t exist, one cannot be anywhere or in anyone’s presence. Yet, in the 2 Corinthians passage Paul speaks of “being” or existing “away from the body” and contrasts that with being in a different location or form: “with the Lord”.

If “The whole passage is about the resurrection”, and Paul is effectively saying that to be apart from the body and with the Lord is to be in the resurrection body, then the problem is that Paul hasn't included a second, resurrection body in the equation. It is assumed. He only speaks of one body.

Additionally, when Paul refers to “I” as being “in the body” or “away from the body” he seems to be making a clear distinction between his “self” and his body. Such a distinction would be consistent with commonly held views at that time.

The traditional take on this is that Paul is speaking of existing in the Lord’s presence, apart from the body, awaiting a resurrection body. Going back to my “What did it mean to the original hearers?” mantra, I think the Corinthians and Philippians would have understood it this way, barring some other, more specific teaching from Paul that we no longer possess.

Anyway, this is a fascinating discussion. We seem to have all three primary views represented: Monist, Dichotomist and Trichotomist.

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:27 pm

Mort, at the risk of being accused of sounding gnostic,anti intellectual …

Hi Steve7150,

I hope I have not accused you of sounding Gnostic or anti-intellectual. There is a distinction between saying that the trichotomy view can lead, if followed to it’s logical conclusion, to Gnosticism and anti-intellectualism, and saying that you are such. As far as Calvinistic, I have no idea where that fits in to the discussion at hand.

… i have to lean toward trichotomy because i think Paul believed it and i think there are enough instances where the "spirit" or "inner man" is identified alone or in a verse with the soul …

But have you explored the specific scriptures given or answered the questions that they raise?

“I think this inner man has an immaterial nature which includes an intellect and when we die our inner man departs to be with the Lord based on how i understand Paul.”

Stephen said "Lord Jesus receive my spirit" Why did'nt he say soul since the soul includes the mind?
Jesus said "Father into your hands i commend my spirit" Again would'nt Jesus want his mind to go up to heaven?

I’m confused about what your position is here. You had just stated “I think this inner man has an immaterial nature which includes an intellect and when we die our inner man departs to be with the Lord based on how i understand Paul.” This would indicate that you believe that the intellect is part of the “inner man” which goes to be with the Lord. I assume then that you mean that the intellect is part of the spirit? Or do you mean that the soul goes to be with the Lord along with the spirit? The questions you’ve posited after these two verses would seem to indicate that you believe the latter. If so, this is not the traditional trichotomic doctrine.

Paul said "your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved" Did'nt Paul realize his spirit is already just a part of his soul?

So you are saying that the spirit is part of the soul and not separate from it? Wouldn’t that make you a Dichotomist?

Paul said "therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit" 1 Cor 6.19 Did'nt Paul realize the spirit is part of the body/soul?

So now you’re saying that the spirit is part of the body/soul? Wouldn’t that make you a Monist?

Paul said "willing rather to be absent from the body and be present with the Lord" 2 Cor 5.8 Since Paul understood he was leaving his body behind which includes his brain and mind he understood that his "inner man" has a mind of it's own, how else could he enjoy being with the Lord?

So are you saying that man as two minds?

Honestly, I’m confused about what exactly your viewpoint is. What are you arguing in favor of and what are you arguing against?

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Duet 6.5
"With my soul have i desired thee in the night , yea with my spirit within me will I seek thee" Isa 26.9

In Mark 12:29-30, Jesus says "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." Does this mean (using the argument you've used) that man is composed of four parts? Doesn't this verse teach "Quad-chotomy"? Of course not. This is another example, like the scriptures you've quoted, of Hebraic Parallelism.

Are you familiar with Hebraic Parallelism? If not, you should learn a bit about it. It’s fundamental to Biblical exegesis.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_parallel.html
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ ... _verse.pdf
http://www.crivoice.org/parallel.html
http://www.shef.ac.uk/bibs/DJACcurrres/ ... elism.html
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T5044
http://www.dtl.org/dtl/treatise/soul-spirit-2.htm

Essentially, the Trichotomic view arose from mis-reading Hebrew Parallelism through the lens of Aristotlean compartmentalization. Breaking man up into discrete components is something the scripture writers never intended.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:27 pm

Honestly, I’m confused about what exactly your viewpoint is. What are you arguing in favor of and what are you arguing against?

Quote:
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Duet 6.5
"With my soul have i desired thee in the night , yea with my spirit within me will I seek thee" Isa 26.9

In Mark 12:29-30, Jesus says "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." Does this mean (using the argument you've used) that man is composed of four parts? Doesn't this verse teach "Quad-chotomy"? Of course not. This is another example, like the scriptures you've quoted, of Hebraic Parallelism.

My viewpoint is that the bible teaches the trichotomy of man. Body/soul/spirit make up man and the soul includes mind/emotions/will. The spirit is the "inner man" and as far as i see Paul and Stephen expected their "spirits" or "inner man" to be with the Lord and absent from their bodies at their deaths and that they each expected their "spirits" or "inner man" to be able to commune with the Lord. Therefore this inner man must have an intelligence inherrant in him , which i could'nt explain in a million years.
I am familar with Hebraic parallelism which is found in Isa 53 for example. But i have a Tanach with commentary and re Duet 6.5 they describe heart,soul and mind separately which suggests each has distinct attributes.

Post by **_Mort_Coyle** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:58 pm

OK, thanks for clarifying that.

I am familar with Hebraic parallelism which is found in Isa 53 for example. But i have a Tanach with commentary and re Duet 6.5 they describe heart,soul and mind separately which suggests each has distinct attributes.

How does that relate to the Trichotomy view of body/soul/spirit?