Unsettling Questions
Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die. Ezekiel 18:4 NASB
Soul – It comes as no surprise to learn that every instance of the translated word “soul” in this verse is the Hebrew word nephesh. It’s a bit more surprising to learn that nephesh doesn’t mean anything like our idea of “soul.” We have inherited the meaning of “soul” from Greek philosophy. In Greek thinking, “soul” is a part of the human existence, the part that continues to exist after the death of the body. In Christian thought, the body dies but the soul lives on eternally. What God “saves” is the soul, not the rest of us.
In Hebrew thought, nephesh is directly related to the idea of breath. To be human is to participate in God’s animating breath. He breathes life into the person. Nephesh is God’s breath visible in the world, but not in the sense that it is a part of human composition. To be nephesh is to be alive; a whole, homogenized creature who participates in God’s animating force in bodily form. That’s why animals are also referred to as nephesh. They participate in God’s animating power as well. But when the body dies, the animating power no longer is present. The “soul” doesn’t exist separately from the body. The unity disintegrates. God no longer breathes in this being. It ceases to exist. As Ezekiel clearly says, the nephesh dies! There isn’t any “soul” left over to run off to heaven. There is nothing left alive after the breath of God leaves.
Something went astray when the influence of Greek philosophy altered Christian interpretation of the Tanakh. Jacques Ellul highlights this impact. We find the same historical examination of the infiltration of the idea in the work of Gary Petty. But I do not think these studies reach back far enough. Now that I am investigating the history of this idea, it appears that the first suggestions of the concept of the immortality of the soul begin in the pagan idolatry of Dionysus in the eighth century BC in Greece, and even that isn’t old enough. The Dionysus cult of the souls may have come to Greece from Middle-Eastern origins. In other words, it would have been present in the idolatrous empires that surrounded Israel during the time of the kings. It’s difficult to find any justification for the idea of an afterlife in the Tanakh and the concept of a “soul” that exists after death is a real stretch. But the idea certainly seems to be part of the first century thinking in Israel. So where did the idea come from? Could it be that the Dionysus cult of souls that propagated the belief in the immortality of the soul actually began in a pagan fertility cult, made its way into Greek pagan religions, filtered into the poets and philosophers of ancient Greece, crept into rabbinic thinking with the influence of Hellenism and ended up in the New Testament from rabbinic thought? Would that cause us to step back and ask, “Why do we think that part of us will immediately go to heaven at death?” Is it possible that our doctrine of the immortality of the soul is really a well-refined pagan construct? What would happen to the “Where will you go after you die?” evangelism if the eternal soul is a pagan idea?
Topical Index: soul, nephesh, immortality, Dionysus, Ezekiel 18:4
I have listened to, or read, several studies recently that deal with this topic. Have I come to a conclusion yet? Not really. I am still chewing on all the different aspects of it — I kind of like the saying that I am a “pan”-theist — it will all “pan” out in the end regardless of what I believe about death. I am still in the camp that I should be more worried about how I live my life, than what happens when I die. And just so no one thinks I am talking about “earning salvation,” I am not.
However, having said that, in the studies I have completed to this point, none of them have mentioned 2 Cor 5:8, “We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.” And also, Philippians 1:23, “For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better.” Paul seems to be saying that when we die, we go to be with the Lord. This does not seem to agree with the concept of when we die, we are no longer.
And, just by sheer “coincidence,” I came across this video series by Jeff Benner about Heaven and Hell. Again, not saying I agree with it, but it provides a different aspect of some verses dealing with the after-life: (about 30 minutes in length)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFUzFfahZKw&list=PL6F01724871E00C45
Any thoughts?
And at the same time Paul write in 1 Thess. 4 that when Jesus returns, the dead in Christ shall rise.
If it is so that the dead know nothing (Ecc 9:5), then at the point of death, time “ceases”. The next knowledgeable moment will be when Christ returns, and as such one will be with the Lord when you die.
I wrote about this in a Today’s Word entitled “Nyquil Sleep”
It seems to me at this point undeniable that the idea of the immortality of the “soul” finds its origin in pagan cults, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t incorporated into the thinking of Jews in the first century. After all, that sort of process has happened before. A good piece of Proverbs is from Egyptian moral teaching and Proverbs 31 explicitly tells us it was written by a royal outside the kingdom of Israel. So we should not be surprised. What should surprise us is that fact that there is almost nothing to support this idea from the Tanakh but it is nevertheless present in first century Jewish thought. Perhaps we need to revise our ideas of inspiration as well. Consider Jude’s appeal to non-canonical material.
Maybe even in the Garden: the serpent said; You shall NOT die ….
Oops someone else had the same idea… Sorry!
Skip,
When you say we need to “revise our ideas of inspiration”, I am not sure I understand your meaning. When I read this, it seems you are implying we need to revise our understanding of the Bible’s inspiration by the Ruach. Meaning, Paul was influenced by the thinking of the day regarding death. I see this as a slippery slope. If we say that Paul was a “Hebrew of Hebrews” and he fully understood the scriptures, but he could be influenced by faulty teaching regarding death, then we can also say that all his teachings are not really inspired by the Ruach, and they, too, are faulty. Either his writings are inspired, or they aren’t. He can’t have a flaw in one area, and yet we can believe everything else he writes.
So where does this leave us?
But wait. Who said is was “faulty” teaching. It just didn’t come from the prophets. We might have to revise the idea that ALL inspired text comes from only one source.
Then you have lost me at the barber shop…
First you say our idea of death doesn’t match what is in the Tanakh. When I asked about Paul’s writings, in which it seems he is saying as soon as we die we are with Christ, I thought you said he was being influenced by First century beliefs (in turn, influenced by Greek/pagan beliefs). But now, well…I don’t know where you are going.
I just realized the web site isn’t posting all my comments. I have been placing little “grin” comments, but they aren’t posted. Hopefully the grin in “quotes” will show up.
For instance, in the comment: “Then you have lost me at the barber shop…” I placed a “grin” in brackets. In other words, I don’t want you to think I am angry (one of the pitfalls with writing instead of speaking to each other). “grin”
“So where did the idea come from?”
Genesis 3:4-5 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
Everyone saw that after the fall of man death was inevitable. So in order for the lie to live, the devil had to introduce something “immortal”. And that was that the soul would not die, you shall be as gods and live forever.
I wouldn’t go so far as to blame all of this on the devil. I am pretty sure that most of our thinking about Ha-Satan is also a product of human invention.
True, but given that he is the father of lies, the root so to speak much of our “invention” is inspired by him.
Were are more studies about the soul. What happens to our spirit at death
Spirit? In Greek thought, soul and spirit are synonyms. Same problem. Start with Ellul’s work, then read Edwin Rohde (and his extensive footnotes) and then perhaps more material on the Dionysus cult. Follow with a serious study of pagan beliefs in Mesopotamia and then Martin Hengel’s classic work on Judaism and Hellenism. Then let’s see where we are.
but soul and spirit are NOT the same…the soul is the mind of the spirit.
IF things are as you say, then death becomes final. glad to find this post, it clarified for me what Dionysus teachings you were referring to.
This interesting conversation reminds me of the argument between the Body in 1Cor. 12. I won’t quote it, because we know it, but Paul states clearly that the Body is “one” and has a lot of pieces, and he concludes with the summation: “Now ye are the Body of Christ, and members in particular.”
I don’t think we could even be having this conversation if the Greek hadn’t split up the language into pieces, but the problem surely goes back further than that. So, if we are talking about bodies, let’s talk about bodies.
Can anybody still be an anybody without their heart? How about their head? Well, what about their digestive system? Oh, a “body” needs all its parts to even exist as a whole?
Ok. So that ‘proves’ that, because a body has to be ‘whole’ it CANNOT have pieces?
Oh, well, then. What about if a body has pieces, then any particular piece can run off in some special resurrection and be a nephesh without the rest of the pieces?
What if we put it ALL back together, and just say that a body can be composed of particular and disparate elements, with separate but related and fully communicating FUNCTIONS (would that function stuff make it Hebrew thought again?) and that it needs ALL its functions to be a body? Would that help?
Further, if I, as a person made in the image of God, am talked about as my nephesh being severally but inseparably composed of a triune of elements to be a living ‘soul’ (1Thess. 5:23, where the verse calls for us to be sanctified WHOLLY, and that our body, mind and soul ALL be “preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ), then would I even exist without even just ONE of those elements, say, my body? Would not I have to have it for the other particulars to exist, too?
Any time I see that a dialectic is even possible, I get suspicious that something unholy has been actively separating things that should not have been separated, so as to make us go to wrangling over the pieces. We should be at least as smart as that serpent… while being as gentle with each other as that Dove…
Your concepts are still Greek/Platonic. Please investigate the Hebrew idea. It is NOT the same as the ideas you are suggesting, and therefore, the biblical concept is not what you believe about human being.
Then please use the language when you write, that reflects that Hebraic thought. Please. I need to see it used correctly. How are you going to write if you do not use the words “spiritual”, “mind”, or even “soul”? Could you perhaps use the words, then put in parentheses what should be said instead? I am not trying to be difficult! This is a problem for me! We still think and converse with those words, even if we use them to express correct Hebraic thought. I say “we” because you do it, too. What are we going to do about the language? And what about that word “body”? Even the medical field and certainly the scientific realm is already thinking and talking about the physical body in ways that the religious community is not. Ways that suggest that the body is more than the sum of its parts, and even reality is not exactly as palpable as we might want it to be; where perception (observation) (paradigm?) can conclude and define our experience, and the body carries within its cells memory, experience (emotion), and the ability to inform the mind. My very digestion can determine my personality and dictate my morality by what composition of enzymes (not to mention parasites!) it is made up of. My choices can change those factors, but those factors, once there, can change me, too. I see the idea on nephesh, or one-entity, all over here. But, we don’t know how to talk about it. How DO we change this language? I appreciate what you do very much, but I really need to know!
I believe Heiki is right. “Ye shall not surely die” was the first sermon preached on the immortality of the ‘soul’, but it wasn’t the last! It must not be a coincidence that the serpent is generally regarded as a symbol of eternal life, health and fertility in many pagan religions. Weren’t the snake cults even earlier than the fertility cults?
This would be a good time to bring up Mat 17: 1-4
“Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James and John
his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves;
and He was transfigured before them. His face shone like
the sun, and His clothes became as white as the light. And
behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.
Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for
us to be here; if You wish, let us make here three tabernacles:
one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.”
What are we to make of this?
It seems to me that it was a vision – Moses representing the law, Elijah representing the Prophets – and Jesus representing the fulfillment of both. In Acts 2:29 Peter states that David is dead and buried but died in hope of the Messiah, in hope that he would be raised one day when the new covenant which was ratified by the death of the Messiah but will not be enacted until he returns is fulfilled. Then, and only then will death be destroyed.
I have also thought about this Scripture in connection with this subject. One way I find harmony between the Tanakh and passages like this in the B’rit Hadashah is to remember that YHWH is the God of Life. Is it any wonder He can breathe His ‘nephesh’ into any creature He wants and at any time, including those saints who got out of their graves and went into Jerusalem following the resurrection of Messiah? It’s as if the power God used to raise His own Son spilled over onto the tombs of those around it. What an event! This evening (Hebrew calendar) marks the anniversary of that resurrection. A W E S O M E.
I agree with Heiki’s assessment of time with regard to 2 Cor. 5:8, and Phil. 1:23. I think it’s very important that we don’t allow contradictions to stand between the “old” and “new” covenant scriptures and an understanding like she’s presenting allows for harmony.
Wasn’t this a vision? To the people who saw this, it was real. Daniel really did see all sorts of bizarre beasts. John really did see a Lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes. But these were all visions. Real to the viewers. God lets you see what He wants you to see. I don’t think these visions are real in a space/time way.
There is no problem with Moses and Elijah being on the mount.
In scripture we read of two people that have eluded death, one being Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and the other Elijah (2 Kings 2.10)
So that is Elijah accounted for, but what about Moses? Jude 1:9
Here we read that the devil is contending with Michael over the body of Moses, I presume along the lines of he who sins must die.
So Moses died, but YHVH raised him.
And they then could be viewed along with Jesus on the mount.
Interestingly, there is no record of the death of Moses nor Elijah. And this is a visionary experience. So bringing back Moses and Elijah doesn’t really impact the issue of the “soul” here. In addition, both of these men were seen in BODILY form, not as disembodied spirits or souls.
What about Matthew 27:52-53…the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many…??? where’d they go? back to the grave?
Might these be the 24 Elders in heaven in Revelation, which are never mentioned before?
Nope, probably heaven, the first fruits, found in the OT.
Where else? Notice that these came OUT OF THE GRAVES in BODILY form. This, by the way, is one of the most unusual verses in the NT and only recorded in Matthew. One must wonder if this really happened why it would not be recorded anywhere else. It would certainly be a spectacular occurrence.
Are tou saying there is NO reserection? Will not all be resurrected or “changed” at the return of the Messiah? The work of the cross is it not about the victory and authority over death at least in part?
I think Skip is saying that is ALL there is. Contrary to the Christian doctrine of heaven we don’t die and then have a part of us leave the body and “fly off” to heaven to be with God. We die and “rest” in the earth until the resurrection. At that time God will return His ‘nephesh’ to the bodies of His saints and we will be reanimated, but with new spiritual bodies more like that of the risen Messiah.
Sounds good to me. Interesting to note that Hebrew treats death with words that mean “sleep.” And then there is Genesis – to dust you will return.
Anyway, it looks like the idea of the IMMORAL soul doesn’t originate with Hebrew thought. That means we need to be a lot more careful about billboard like the one I say driving up to Port St. Joe today. It read “If you die tonight, where will you go — HEAVEN or HELL.” Perhaps the correct biblical answer is “NEITHER! I will go into the grave as Scripture says, and wait for the resurrection of the dead.” Of course, that make Jonathan Edward’s famous sermon something of a fable, doesn’t it?
I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT saying that there is no resurrection. In fact, I am suggesting that the idea of a RESURRECTION of all the dead makes more biblical sense than the idea that PART of us goes to heaven while the rest of us deteriorates in the ground. It seems to me that Scripture hints at the idea that ALL are resurrected before the final judgment, and then separated. There is NO question at all that resurrection is a fundamental part of Paul’s understanding, but that doesn’t mean he believed in a “soul” that departed to heaven at death. He could have believed that, of course, if Hellenism influenced Jewish thinking in such a way (and there is some historical evidence to suggest that it did). But it doesn’t seem as if the idea came from the Tanakh.
That is exactly my understanding from my study on this subject over the past year. Thank you for clairification. I had someone who thought you were saying death was the end.
Now do you address hell as an eternal punishment anywhere in your writings? I have an unpopular understanding of hell and wonder if you have further insight I might read?
I haven’t written anything about hell. Sorry. Some topics are left untouched because the cultural views are so powerful that academic research is dismissed without examination. The cross is one of those. I can only probably deal with one at a time. But the immortality of the soul needs to be addressed because of its impact on a retreat from obligation here and now.
Jesus to the thief on the Cross: This day you will be with me in Paradise.
There is another understanding.
The greek is spelt out without comma or full stops etc. So much of what we read is from a later period in time. Probably it conforms with the understanding of heaven at once thought.
This is more in line with what the scripture teaches.
Luke 23:43; verlily I say unto the today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.
Today, when all hope seems lost, I say unto you.
We must also take into account John 20:17; Jesus says He had not yet ascended to His father, leaving out the paradise today for the thief.
Please read my previous TW on this verse. The issue is the punctuation.
Thank you, I read it. However, for me it just felt like the Big Thud for Good Friday.
Peter, Skip has pointed out that this verse is a classic case of translators choosing punctuation to fit a certain paradigm, as the original Greek had no comma. How could Jesus tell the thief that he would be in Paradise when Jesus Himself would NOT be there? He would be dead–3 days and 3 nights. And after Jesus rose from the dead, He told Mary, “I have not YET ascended to my Father.” (John 20:17) This verse could be rendered, loosely, “I’m telling you today–you will be with Me in Paradise.” Why did Jesus say “Paradise” and not “heaven”? I think that would be another topic!
Yes, especially since Yeshua didn’t say anything to this man in Greek. What would he say in Hebrew and how would that be understood? Thanks for adding the salient points. Once again, we find that we read the text according the our PRIOR understanding of the ideas.
Your explanation on who, and what part, soul or spirit was David referring to in 2 Samuel 12:
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
Thanks, always more than a mouth full to chew on from your perspectives. Dianne
Luke 23:43 “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee today, (you) shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
The comma is not inspired, and did not exist back when. Parentheses are added by me.
What does the original Greek say? And did those translators even get it right?
I read the Book of Enoch about 20 years ago and wondered then why it was so discredited, since Jude apparently quotes from it. It talks of what happens after death. It would interesting to really know the origin of that book, but apparently at least some first century people knew enough about to quote it. I realize there is a lot of controversy about the book, but I wonder how different this discussion would be, or even modern day altar calls, if the book of Enoch had made its way into the canon. Enoch himself is an interesting figure, How did he know how to please the Lord unless he was taught? And the Lord took him. I don’t think we know where he went either.
From my limited Bible knowledge, didn ‘t Jesus say believe in me and you will never die? If there is no soul why should we try to not sin ? From Hillary view, “What difference does it make?”
In spite of what many pastors will be preaching tomorrow morning, I don’t know any Scripture that promises we “never die” because we believe in Yeshua. There is His promise of life “eternal” but the Greek word aidios (for eternal) seems to be “olam” in Hebrew. Olam is not really equal to our current Greek perspective of eternity.
I think a better way to understand olam is to think about what happens when you look at the horizon. You can look in all directions but you can never see what is just over the “edge” of it — there is a sense of distance and location. I think that gives a better sense of olam than the Greek sense of eternity in which time goes on and on without any interruption. Olam seems to be used in the sense of an age and place that is beyond what we can see from where we are standing.
Yeshua’s promise of life l’olam va’ed is consistent with the Shema. His Kingdom is l’olam va’ed. We will be resurrected with Him into His Kingdom l’olam va’ed. The breath of life, nephesh, will be breathed into us again (our resurrection) because His resurrection was the seal of that promise: that death was overcome.
And BTW – tomorrow is not the anniversary of that resurrection. (smile)
Well actually it is the anniversary of the Resurrection. Not because it is Easter, but because it is First Fruits. It’s very rare for them to fall on the same day. Interesting.
(Of course, if you follow a different Hebrew calendar, then this would not be the case. But I’m not here to argue over the calendar.- smile)
Hi Skip, I am reading a pretty amazing book titled “The Wisdom of the Hebrew Alphabet” by Rabbi Michael L. Munk. In the chapter on Gimmel he has a short section called “Three Partners” (Pg. 75) that made me think of this TW. In it he says:
“Man is superior to animals because his existence is brought about not merely by the participation of male and female, but by the participation of God, Who gives man his soul and elevates him above all other creatures (Rashi) — as the Sages teach, שלשה שתפ’ם הן באדם, there are three partners in man: God, father and mother (Kiddushin 30b).
On a different plane, we find that the spiritual element of man is also expressed in triplicate fashion. It comprises נפש, the animal soul that gives life; רוח, the soul that raises humans above animals; and נשמה, the transcendent soul that embraces the special holiness of Israel.” (I hope I got the Hebrew right since I had to type out this quote instead of being able to cut and paste).
I know this is a late post so I hope it doesn’t seem too disjointed but I was wondering whether you would agree with the rabbi’s statement? If not, how do you differ with his definitions?
I have the book and enjoy it too. Comments will have to wait. Very packed schedule here in Jerusalem.
No problem Skip. I knew you were in Israel so I expected a delay. Enjoy you time in The Land and the City of the Great King. We were able to travel there in 2010 and it was a life changing experience. I hope it is for everyone in your group. Blessings and Shalom!