by Christopher Talbot
(Note: This is the second in a four-part series from our annual Convention seminar. Read Part 1 here.)
As various proof texts offer insight into a larger biblical vision of the constitution of man, so is an understanding of various words used in the Bible. I am not a biblical scholar, so I am depending heavily on various resources that have done more thorough work in these areas.
In seeking to construct an Old Testament anthropology, John Cooper notes there are at least five words used in conjunction with a person: (1) Nephesh, (2) Ruach, (3) Basar, (4) Qereb, and (5) Leb.[1] Cooper notes that nephesh has often been translated as “soul” but involves a variety of meanings and is anatomically connected to the throat or neck.[2] Cooper argues that it could be understood as the seat of the emotions, and might be most appropriately understood as “person” or “self.”[3] Ruach is often translated as spirit, and refers to wind or moving air. Again, according to Cooper, ruach “is not an immaterial substantial soul, but a vital force, the power of life.”[4] Put another way, Cooper does not believe this word in the Old Testament to be referring to a substance of the human constitution.
Concerning words that are related to the body, we can consider three: basar, qereb, and leb. Basar can refer to the human body as a whole, or even human relationships (e.g. “all flesh”). Qereb refers to the inner parts, or more plainly, the “bowels.” Though referring to an anatomical location, it seems to have a more metaphoric connotation in the Old Testament: “My inmost being [quite literally “my kidneys”] will exult when your lips speak what is right.” (Proverbs 23:16). Lastly, there is leb or lebab which is best known as the “inner organs.” This term is used at least 814 different times in the Old Testament, often translated as “my heart.”[5]
When surveying the usage of these words in the Old Testament, a metaphysical vision of the human person seems somewhat unclear. However, while there may not be a treatise on the human constitution offered, there does seem to be a theological understanding. Cooper argues that while the Old Testament may not posit clearly a “substance dualism” or dichotomous vision of the person, it does seem to argue for an “ontological holism.” That is,
It defines the very being of an entity and its constituents in terms of their systematic unity. A thing in its totality is simply a particular holistic organization. The parts, aspects, and dimensions of the thing have being only in virtue of their status within the whole. Their existence, their nature, and their identity all depend on the whole…. In anthropology this means that a human person is a single integrated totality of psychophysical functions. If the totality is broken up, neither soul nor body nor person continues to function or exist.[6]
Cooper argues, then, that while the Old Testament may not offer a clear understanding of the relationship between the body and soul, it does refer to an “ontological holism,” where you cannot have the parts except if you have the whole—the soul, spirit, flesh, heart, and yes, kidneys. Further, Cooper is willing to argue that the “Old Testament picture of human nature repeatedly and consistently represents humankind as constituted from two different and mutually irreducible sources, elements, ingredients, “stuffs,” or principles.”[7] Even in Ezekiel 37 you have material parts (bones, flesh, sinews and skin), but no life until God’s breathe (ruach) enters into the great army. Thus, at the very least, the Old Testament deals with material and immaterial parts of the individual.
The New Testament usage of words finds similar concerns as the Old Testament. Usage of words like sarx, soma, psyche, pneuma, and kardia all have a wide semantic range.[8] Yet for the New Testament the question may be better framed in how to understand the human constitution in light of the intermediate state. Without working verse by verse, suffice it to say that the New Testament seems to teach that the body and soul are separated at death, to then be brought back together in the eschaton when all believers experience the physical resurrection. As Cooper notes,
If to be absent from the body for me is to be with the Lord—still ‘in Christ’ and ‘living with him’ as I am already now—then I must exist between my death and resurrection. And I must be able to enjoy fellowship with Christ in some way, and probably also communion with the saints who have died, since being in Christ is a corporate reality. That is all we know form the New Testament. It does not say more. It does not elaborate. It does not describe in detail. For anyone to say more than this is indeed to speculate.[9]
The Bible, then, seems to allude to man being made of both body and soul, and at least does not rule out that metaphysical idea.
As we explore the biblical data, an immediate discussion arises as to whether or not man is a dichotomous or trichotomous. As I stated earlier, I tend to use the term “soul” to refer to the immaterial substance of mankind, and “body” as the material substance. In doing so I show my theological cards on the subject. While there are certainly good arguments to the contrary, I generally assume that Scripture uses the terms “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably. This seems to be the case in passages like Luke 1:46–47, Isaiah 26:9, Matthew 6:25; 10:28, and 1 Corinthians 5:3, 5. However, I am not a biblical scholar and leave those larger questions to those with more expertise in this area.
While I do hold to a dichotomous view of human constitution, I do believe that my view here, which is not novel with me, is one that can easily be in agreement with theologians like F. Leroy Forlines. Forlines tends to use the term “spirit” to refer to the immaterial part of man. Conversely, he uses the term “soul” to refer to “a self-conscious individual, the innermost being, the self, the life, or the person.”[10] He clarifies later that “If we will give soul the basic meaning as person…”[11] that it will help clarify his position. Forlines seek to argue that we are a soul (or person) and that we have a body and spirit.
In the way Forlines uses these terms, I am in general agreement. I would argue that an individual person is constituted by both material and immaterial substance, calling those substances a body and soul (or spirit) respectively. Further, I would agree that body and soul together constitute a “person.” In actuality, Forlines’ point here is central to what I am seeking to communicate. A person’s identity is not that they are their soul, or that they are their body, but that they are both. They do not possess a body or a soul, but instead are fundamental to who they are as an individual. Forlines’ view is congruent with John Cooper’s view of “holistic dualism” that identifies the person as the whole of two substances. Forlines’ view is also in congruence with Anthony Hoekema, who uses the term “psychosomatic unity.”[12]
_______________________________________
[1] See also Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 210.
[2] John W. Cooper, Body, Soul & Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 39.
[3] Cooper, Body, Soul & Life Everlasting, 39.
[4] Cooper, Body, Soul & Life Everlasting, 40.
[5] Cooper, Body, Soul & Life Everlasting, 40–41.
[6] Cooper, Body, Soul & Life Everlasting, 46.
[7] Cooper, Body, Soul, & Life Everlasting, 47.
[8] See also Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 213.
[9] Cooper, Body, Soul & Life Everlasting, 161.
[10] F. Leroy Forlines, The Quest for Truth: Answering Life’s Inescapable Questions (Nashville: Randall House Publications, 2001), 150.
[11] Forlines, The Quest for Truth, 151.
[12] Hoekema, Created in God’s Image, 217.