What are we as humans?
Huw P L Thomas.
Returning to the Bible, Barton Payne [2] says, “In Scripture… man is generally treated, not dualistically, but as a whole.” Let’s start by taking a look at Paul’s teaching about the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15:35-56. He makes comparisons between that body and the present human body. In 1 Cor 15:42-44 our present body is described as perishable, capable of destruction, decay. It is a natural body, a body suited for life in this age, weak and without honour, flesh and blood (1 Cor 15:50).
Paul describes our present human composition in 1 Cor 15:45. “So also it is written, ‘the first man Adam became a living soul…’” What does this mean? The quote comes from Genesis 2:7 which reads, “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being/soul.” Man is a ‘living being/nephesh/soul’, the result of God bringing together physical elements (dust) and animating Adam as a living person. Adam was not tripartite or dual in his being but one. “Here nephesh/soul is obviously not meant as a tertium quid [third part] between spirit and body, but denotes the totality which has come about through the combination of the body formed out of the earth and the divine breath breathed into it.” Eichrodt goes on to say that the body is not some possession containing the real person. It is, “…the living form of that self, the necessary expression of our individual existence, in which the meaning of our life must find its realization… the medium of a spiritual and personal life, which stands under divine vocation, and finds its nobility in being God’s image.” The nephesh/soul is the entire person. "Human beings live as souls; they do not "possess” souls [3].
So what is the animating principle of our lives? What makes us alive now? What is it that makes us nephesh/soul? Leviticus 17:10ff forbids the eating of blood and gives the reason as, “…the life [nephesh/soul] of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life [nephesh/soul] that makes atonement.” So the blood is the source of the soul. “For the nephesh/soul of all flesh, its blood is its nephesh/soul. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the nephesh/soul of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’” (Leviticus 17:14). In fact, the blood is the soul! This is confirmed in Genesis 9:4 “Only you shall not eat flesh with its nephesh/soul, that is, its blood.” This then makes sense of Paul’s statement that ‘flesh and blood’ cannot inherit God’s kingdom. That which animates and keeps us alive now is the blood. A change is required for eternity and we see this in Jesus' description of his resurrection body. In Luke 24:36ff the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples and they thought he was a ghost. He invited them to look at his wounds and touch him, stating that a ghost wouldn’t have ‘flesh and bones’ as he had. The point here is that blood is no longer mentioned. His bodily existence is in a new mode. The animating principle was no longer the blood but God’s Spirit (1 Corinthians 15:44). The new body is no longer subject to ageing and decay. It is powerful, glorious and heavenly. Unlike now, it will be immortal. This then makes sense of such prophetic statements concerning Jesus “…he poured out his soul/nephesh to death…” (Isaiah 53:12, ESV). The blood of Christ was the soul of Christ being given up in sacrificial death.
Death then...
This brings us to the question of what happens at death? Without now dealing with texts which appear to support an intermediate state between death and resurrection I just want to lay out the basic biblical picture. Ezekiel states, “… the soul who sins shall die.” (Ezekiel 18:4, cf. v20, ESV). It is not just the body which dies, the person does. The circulatory system stops, the blood no longer sustains and animates, the living soul becomes a corpse. There is no immaterial soul migrating elsewhere. The person is dead. What I am not saying here though, is that the person ceases to exist but that those Christians, from our temporal perspective, are ‘asleep’ (euphemism for death) in Christ (1 Thess 4:13). Not soul sleep because there is no soul to sleep. He or she is dead. For the person/soul who dies, the next conscious moment is resurrection. No waiting place, no disembodiment but instantaneous awareness of resurrection life. What analogy can I use? For those who have been under general anaesthetic, you may understand what I am about to say. A number of years ago I underwent a nasal operation which required a general anaesthetic. Now I recall being taken to the operating theatre and while in the waiting area the anaesthetist gave me an injection and told me to count to ten (which I didn’t reach). Before losing consciousness, I remember looking up at a clock above the theatre door. It was just before 1 pm. In what seemed to me to be seconds I was being shaken by a nurse and began feeling this horrible pain and tightness around my nose. When my eyes cleared I looked up at the clock and it was nearly 5.30 pm. For me, there passed but seconds but those around me had been busy for hours trying to sort out my nasal problem. This then clears up a New Testament paradox. Paul clearly talks about those who are dead in Christ and he states that they will be raised at a point in the future. He also states that to die is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6). In context here, Paul is talking about death and the hope of resurrection (2 Cor 5:1, 4). From my temporal perspective as someone who is still alive my parents, who were both Christians, are dead and their ashes are buried in the local cemetery. From their perspective, at the point of death they immediately experienced resurrection life in, what is for us, still the future, at Christ’s return (1 Thess 4:16; 5:10). For those without Christ, at death they will immediately experience the Great White Throne judgement of God (Hebrews 9:27).
[1] Eichrodt, W. Theology of the Old Testament, Volume 2, Westminster Press.
[2] Barton Payne, J. Theology of the Older Testament.
[3] Dyrness, W. Themes in Old Testament Theology.
Paul's Anthropology
Paul's anthropology was based upon Hebrew and not Greek thought. This saw Humans as not made up of many parts but as a unity. David Freeman in the Anchor Bible Dictionary says: "Is the anthrōpos [man] in Paul to be comprehended as having two parts (body and soul) or three parts (body, soul, and spirit) or is the anthrōpos a unified being who cannot properly be divided? ...in interpreting Paul at this point one has to deal with the fact of his Hebraic background, in which humanity is looked upon as a whole, rather than as assembled but discrete parts. The human being is seen as a psychosomatic unity there and in Paul as well ... A more accurate use of the term dualism would be for the sort of ethical dualism one sees in the anthropological dividedness Paul identifies in Rom 7:7–24. In his discussion... he points to the unresolved conflict between the ability... to will the right and his or her inability to carry out the right (7:15–20)."
In his commentary on Thessalonians, William Hendricksen states: "The fact that Paul was not a trichotomist is clear from such passages as the following: Rom. 8:10; I Cor. 5:5; 7:34; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 2:3; Col. 2:5. Apart from I Thess. 5:23 he nowhere employs trichotomistic language with respect to the nature of man. The conclusion seems valid that also in the present passage he does not write as a trichotomist."
In his commentary Jacob Elias says: "Would the Thessalonians have understood spirit and soul and body to identify three distinguishable components within human beings? Nowhere else does Paul or any other NT writer include a comparable listing of separable aspects of human nature, although each of these terms occurs frequently in Scripture... Paul and his colleagues pray that the Thessalonians as whole physical, psychological, and spiritual beings might be sustained in anticipation of the triumphant coming of Christ... Other commentators (Bruce: 129–130; Wanamaker: 206–207) suggest simply that the missionary pastors long for the Thessalonian believers as complete human beings to be preserved for the coming of Christ."
And John Walvoord makes the point that: "Rather than teaching man as having only three parts, Paul was probably using the three terms here to identify the different aspects of personhood he wished to emphasize."
Jon Weatherly quite rightly in my opinion says: "The combination of three terms here is probably only intended as a means of underlining the comprehensive nature of that protection; it is no more a systematic presentation of human nature than is the combination “heart, soul, mind and strength” in Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27."
And finally, Gerald Hawthorne states:
"...the overlap between sōma and psychē in Paul’s teaching will not sustain the rigid dualism inherent within much Greek thought of the time. As E. Best remarks, “Man cannot be divided into an ‘I’ and a ‘non-I’, a soul and a body; he is a unity and can be regarded as ‘body’ or as ‘soul’ ”.
Quotes on Paul's Anthropology:
"Paul's anthropology was steeped in Hebraic thought in which man is not made up of many parts but a unity.
"Is the anthrōpos [man] in Paul to be comprehended as having two parts (body and soul) or three parts (body, soul, and spirit) or is the anthrōpos a unified being who cannot properly be divided? ...in interpreting Paul at this point one has to deal with the fact of his Hebraic background, in which humanity is looked upon as a whole, rather than as assembled but discrete parts. The human being is seen as a psychosomatic unity there and in Paul as well ... A more accurate use of the term dualism would be for the sort of ethical dualism one sees in the anthropological dividedness Paul identifies in Rom 7:7–24. In his discussion... he points to the unresolved conflict between the ability... to will the right and his or her inability to carry out the right (7:15–20)."
"The fact that Paul was not a trichotomist is clear from such passages as the following: Rom. 8:10; I Cor. 5:5; 7:34; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 2:3; Col. 2:5. Apart from I Thess. 5:23 he nowhere employs trichotomistic language with respect to the nature of man. The conclusion seems valid that also in the present passage he does not write as a trichotomist."
Hendriksen, William ; Kistemaker, Simon J.: New Testament Commentary : Exposition of I-II Thessalonians. Grand Rapids : Baker Book House, 1953-2001 (New Testament Commentary 3)
"Would the Thessalonians have understood spirit and soul and body to identify three distinguishable components within human beings? Nowhere else does Paul or any other NT writer include a comparable listing of separable aspects of human nature, although each of these terms occurs frequently in Scripture... Paul and his colleagues pray that the Thessalonians as whole physical, psychological, and spiritual beings might be sustained in anticipation of the triumphant coming of Christ... Other commentators (Bruce: 129–130; Wanamaker: 206–207) suggest simply that the missionary pastors long for the Thessalonian believers as complete human beings to be preserved for the coming of Christ."
Elias, Jacob W.: 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Scottdale, Pa. : Herald Press, 1995 (Believers Church Bible Commentary), S. 240
"Rather than teaching man as having only three parts, Paul was probably using the three terms here to identify the different aspects of personhood he wished to emphasize."
Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL : Victor Books, 1983-c1985, S. 2:710
"The combination of three terms here is probably only intended as a means of underlining the comprehensive nature of that protection; it is no more a systematic presentation of human nature than is the combination “heart, soul, mind and strength” in Matt 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27."
Weatherly, Jon A.: 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Joplin, Mo. : College Press Pub. Co., 1996 (The College Press NIV Commentary), S. 1 Th 5:23
"...the overlap between sōma and psychē in Paul’s teaching will not sustain the rigid dualism inherent within much Greek thought of the time. As E. Best remarks, “Man cannot be divided into an ‘I’ and a ‘non-I’, a soul and a body; he is a unity and can be regarded as ‘body’ or as ‘soul’ ”.
Hawthorne, Gerald F. ; Martin, Ralph P. ; Reid, Daniel G.: Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1993, S. 72
Problem passages?
“and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it (τὸ πνεῦμα ἐπιστρέψῃ πρὸς τὸν θεόν - LXX).” (Ecclesiastes 12:7, ESV)
"Koheleth has no thought of afterlife in his picture of death in 12:1–7. The talk of darkness (v. 2) and the grave (vv. 5–7) rule that out. [The] passage aims to recount a dissolution of the human personhood as a reversal—“return” does not hint at a new status—of the creative process of Genesis 2:7. The body, without which the Hebrews could not imagine full humanity, crumbles to dust, and God withdraws the life-spirit which he had given to energize the body into a “living being.” We should not infer, from the Preacher’s words, any conclusions about what happened after the spirit or “breath” (Gen. 2:7) and the body were sundered. Part of hearing Koheleth in his own time and setting is to resist the temptation to read back New Testament teaching into his texts."
Hubbard, David A. ; Ogilvie, Lloyd J.: The Preacher's Commentary Series, Volume 16 : Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon. Nashville, Tennessee : Thomas Nelson Inc, 1991 (The Preacher's Commentary Series 16), S. 243
The Gospels show what the writer meant:
“And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit (ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα).” (Matthew 27:50, ESV)
“And Jesus uttered a loud cry and breathed (ἐξέπνευσεν) his last.” (Mark 15:37, ESV)
To give up the spirit in Matthew, is to breath his last in Mark.