Soul Man
For He has satisfied the [a]thirsty soul, and He has filled the hungry soul with what is good. Psalm 107:9 NASB
Soul – Did you see that tiny footnote before the word “thirsty”? I hoped that the footnote would explain that the Hebrew word nepeš does not mean “soul,” ah, but not a chance. The footnote merely says that “thirsty” can also mean “parched.” The real issue, the meaning of nepeš, is ignored. Given the history of “soul,” we need more than a footnote. We need a different translation. Ellul explains:
“Hebrew thought was sown in a field nourished by Greek thought and Roman law. [in a footnote] A familiar example of the mutation to which revelation was actually subjected is its contamination by the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul. I will briefly recall it. In Jewish thought death is total. There is no immortal soul, no division of body and soul. Paul’s thinking is Jewish in this regard. The soul belongs to the “psychical” realm and is part of the flesh. The body is the whole being. In death, there is no separation of body and soul. The soul is as mortal as the body. But there is a resurrection. Out of the nothingness that human life becomes, God creates anew the being that was dead. This is a creation by grace; there is no immortal soul intrinsic to us. Greek philosophy, however, introduces among theologians the idea of the immortal soul. The belief was widespread in popular religion and it was integrated into Christianity. But it is a total perversion. Everything is not now dependent on the grace of God, and assurance of immortality comes to be evaluated by virtues and works. All Christian thinking is led astray by this initial mutation that comes through Greek philosophy and Near Eastern cults. . . . belief in the soul’s celestial immortality arose in the second half of the fifth century B.C. on the basis of astronomy. Pythagorean astronomy radically transformed the idea of the destiny of the soul held by Mediterranean peoples. For the notion of a vital breath that dissipates at death, for belief in a survival of shades wandering about in the subterranean realm of the dead, it substitutes the notion of a soul of celestial substance exiled in this world. This idea completely contaminates biblical thinking, gradually replaces the affirmation of the resurrection, and transforms the kingdom of the dead into the kingdom of God.”[1]
Is that strong enough for you? “Soul” is a completely pagan, non-biblical idea, imported into the Bible through inaccurate, syncretistic translation. It should never have been in the biblical text, but once it got in, it was just so tempting to keep it around. After all, it gave religion a certain kind of power, the power to condemn or forgive a man’s “soul.” As Ellul notes, the idea of resurrection is made null and void. All that really happens is reconnection.
Since virtually all modern scholars of the Bible know that “soul” is a pagan idea, why do they continue to use it? Answer: habit and culture. Imagine how you would explain the Four Spiritual Laws if the concept of “soul” didn’t exist? Ah, maybe you should try—if you want to be biblical.
Topical Index: soul, nepeš, person, embodiment, Greek philosophy, Psalm 107:9
[1] Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity, p. 25.
This is the question isn’t it. Paul said to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. I doubt he thought he was going to be with Yeshua in some shadowy underworld. Yeshua told the thief, “Today you will be with me in paradise”. The Torah,however does not support the immortality of the soul. In my opinion, both Paul and Yeshua were products of the religious milieu of their time. Both were influenced by Greco/Roman ideas on the immortality of the soul. The ramifications of that idea would be to many unthinkable and maybe even blasphemous as it calls into question the whole concept of Theanthropos. If Yeshua is God, it would be impossible for him to be influenced by any human ideas. If he was influenced by any of the Hebrew or Greek religious thinking of his time, then he is in fact, “one of us”. Tangentially, that of course could also mean that Pythagoras was given divine insight into the soul that prior to that time no one had entirely been given. Why would God give that to Pythagoras and not Moses if Israel was his chosen light to the world? I believe the Torah is pretty definitive on this particular subject. With regard to the Apostolic writings, I may be somewhat agnostic or just do not know what I do not know. Maybe that will change in time as I dig deeper. Many thanks Skip for challenging me to dig deeper.
My recent Today’s Word series on the idea of a general resurrection of the dead in the Tanakh confirms your comment. The idea did not originate from the Hebrew Scriptures. It came about because of the issue with justice in the Hellenistic world, and Yeshua and the disciples are a product of that environment, as we would expect. Your point that this has serious implications for the idea of the Trinity is well taken. Thanks.