Biblical Anthropology and the Mind-Body Debate, Part 1
Posted By MSH on January 17, 2010
We now come to one of the primary points of application for the data of biblical anthropology, the mind-body problem. Before sketching the various views for you, let’s review the salient data from the biblical text.
Review
1. That terms like ruach, nephesh, leb/lebab are not divisible into parts is evident from an examination of these OT terms. Part 4 of our biblical anthropology series summarizes the overlapping of ruach and nephesh, and Part 6 brings leb/lebab into that discussion.
2. We saw that the fusion of body and the immaterial/inner aspect of humanity was so tight as to have both “parts” refer to the entire person. In earlier posts, this was seen when terms like nephesh were used of the body, living or dead, while elsewhere (mostly) referring to the inner person. Indeed, nephesh was seen to be a broad term for the entire human being and human life.
3. However, despite the above, the terms ruach and leb were less seldom (if ever) used to refer to the totality of the human person. Those terms soke of the inner person / inner life. Moreover, there were two passages that seemed (with some clarity) to suggest that the immaterial part of humanity had an independent existence after death and an identification with what had been the total person. Those two passages were Eccl 3:21 and Eccl. 12:7. Taking a closer look, though, the first of these is not such a good reference point for the “soul” departing to another life:
Eccl. 3:19-21 – 19 For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. 20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?
The passage merely brings up the question; it does not put forth the proposition. There is an air of uncertainty or even skepticism in the passage about the soul’s afterlife.
Eccl. 12:7 is much more propositional:
. . . the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
This text is incomplete, though, with respect to the more clear New Testament notion of a disembodied soulish existence beyond the body where the soul is effectively identified with the (formerly united / total) person (see below for the NT). Eccl. 12:7 could merely be construed as saying that “life” (the “life principle”; that which animated the body) returns to the Maker. In other words, it’s more abstract than NT statements.
A New Passage
At this point, though, I’d like to add another passage for consideration. This passage (and verse 13 in particular) is controversial with some evangelicals, but it isn’t controversial at all to Semitists or those familiar with how Israelite religion dovetails with a broad ancient Near Eastern worldview. Take note of 1 Samuel 28:8-20
8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other garments and went, he and two men with him. And they came to the woman by night. And he said, “Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you.” 9 The woman said to him, “Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the necromancers from the land. Why then are you laying a trap for my life to bring about my death?” 10 But Saul swore to her by the Lord, “As the Lord lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.” 11 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” He said, “Bring up Samuel for me.” 12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, “Why have you deceived me? You are Saul.” 13 The king said to her, “Do not be afraid. What do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a god (elohim) coming up out of the earth.” 14 He said to her, “What is his appearance?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe.” And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage. 15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Saul answered, “I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do.” 16 And Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the Lord has turned from you and become your enemy? 17 The Lord has done to you as he spoke by me, for the Lord has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, David. 18 Because you did not obey the voice of the Lord and did not carry out his fierce wrath against Amalek, therefore the Lord has done this thing to you this day. 19 Moreover, the Lord will give Israel also with you into the hand of the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons shall be with me. The Lord will give the army of Israel also into the hand of the Philistines.” 20 Then Saul fell at once full length on the ground, filled with fear because of the words of Samuel . . .
At some point I’ll post about why Samuel is referred to as elohim here. In a nutshell, elohim does *not* refer to a set of attributes, though we are used to thinking of it that way since it is so often used as the proper name (or reference to) God. Rather, it is a term of classification: elohim are by nature (a) disembodied) and (b) inhabitants of the “spiritual world”. After death, Samuel is an elohim (as are all the dead). Other ANE cultures use the same term to refer to the human dead or any such entity classified as “not by nature an inhabitant of the human world.”
The implications are important. This passage has the disembodied Samuel as Samuel. The “soulish” part of Samuel is still Samuel. There is indeed no hint in the passage that this isn’t Samuel. He speaks the Lord’s word and it all comes to pass. This passage (and more importantly, the worldview that goes with it) is strong evidence from the OT for the belief that the disembodied dead were still viewed as the person he/she was when embodied in earthly life.
New Testament Data
There are several passages in the New Testament that reinforce and sharpen the idea that the disembodied inner part of a human being departs the body and goes somewhere (to be with the Lord in the examples below) and continues to exist as the person that formerly existed in the former life, when there was unity with the body:
Hebrews 12:22-24
22 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, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.
Here we have mention of an “afterlife assembly.” The fact that this passage is in Hebrews 12, which begins by saying “We are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses,” just after an entire chapter (11) was spent on Old Testament saints who had died sets the context for these verses. There is the suggestion that those who have died and gone before have some awareness of what is going on in the earth.
Luke 23:43 (Jesus to the thief on the cross):
“Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
Philippians 1:23-24 (Paul speaking about living and dying)
23 I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.
I doubt whether Paul would have had as much enthusiasm if he believed he had no personal existence waiting for him with Jesus. Seems pretty clear he believed his “inner part” would be with Christ and he would still be himself.
2 Cor 5:6-9 (ditto the above)
6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.
Rev 6:9-11 (similar idea to Hebrews 12)
9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. 10 They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been.
It seems a safe conclusion that biblical theology teaches the immaterial part of a person:
1. Can exist apart from the body.
2. Retains the “personhood” of the united flesh + immaterial unity it had in terrestrial life.
3. Is therefore a separate thing from the body, though its “natural” state is to be united with the body.
Applying this to the Mind-Body Debate
For those who want a more thorough overview of this debate and all the options, click here. I’ll be presenting only a summary of the views and issues, drawn from the above link (a Wikipedia article).
Definition:
Philosophy of mind is a branch of modern analytic philosophy that studies the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, mental properties, consciousness and their relationship to the physical body, particularly the brain. The mind-body problem, i.e. the relationship of the mind to the body, is commonly seen as the central issue in philosophy of mind, although there are other issues concerning the nature of the mind that do not involve its relation to the physical body.
Dualism and monism are the two major approaches.
Dualism: the body and mind / consciousness / soul are separate.
Monism: mind / consciousness / soul and body are not ontologically distinct. The former is a property of the latter.
Branches of Dualism:
Substance Dualists argue that the mind is an independently existing substance. This is the view most often traditionally identified with the “biblical” view.
Property Dualists maintain that the mind is a group of independent properties that emerge from and cannot be reduced to the brain, but that it is not a distinct substance.
Branches of Monism:
Physicalists argue that only the entities postulated by physical theory exist, and that the mind will eventually be explained in terms of these entities as physical theory continues to evolve.
* This view of physicalism is ontologically reductionist, as it reduces mental states and processes into physical states and processes.
The earliest forms of physicalism, growing historically out of materialism, were reductionist. But after Donald Davidson introduced the concept of supervenience to physicalism, non-reductionist physicalism became more popular.
Non-reductive physicalism is the idea that while mental states are physical they are not reducible to physical properties. Donald Davidson proposed anomalous monism as a non-reductive physicalism. Supervenience physicalism (also proposed by Donald Davidson) is a non-reductive physicalism, as mental events supervene (i.e., physical properties are identical to mental properties) on physical events rather than mental events reducing to physical events. For example if we accept supervenience physicalism, the pain someone would feel if electrocuted would supervene on the firing of their c-fibres. If we accept reductive physicalism, the pain would be those c-fibres firing.
* This view has evangelical proponents.
What drives the discussion other than the Bible (especially nowadays)? Brain science. From the Wikipedia article:
Within the field of neurobiology, there are many subdisciplines which are concerned with the relations between mental and physical states and processes:[62] Sensory neurophysiologyinvestigates the relation between the processes of perception and stimulation.[63] Cognitive neuroscience studies the correlations between mental processes and neural processes.[63]Neuropsychology describes the dependence of mental faculties on specific anatomical regions of the brain.[63] Lastly, evolutionary biology studies the origins and development of the human nervous system and, in as much as this is the basis of the mind, also describes the ontogenetic and phylogenetic development of mental phenomena beginning from their most primitive stages.[61]
The methodological breakthroughs of the neurosciences, in particular the introduction of high-tech neuroimaging procedures, has propelled scientists toward the elaboration of increasingly ambitious research programs: one of the main goals is to describe and comprehend the neural processes which correspond to mental functions. . . .
So which is it? If all truth derives from God, general and special revelation need to meet. This is what I want us to think about. And one more wildcard in this: does the Bible have any clear view on where/how the “soul” (inner part) originates? One of the views commonly discussed in theology books is traducianism, the notion that human parents create BOTH material and immaterial parts when they have children. If that is the case (and I’m not assuming it is), is physicalism (of any variety) the right way to go? If so, how do we deal with the distinction of immaterial part and physical flesh?
Comments
21 Responses to “Biblical Anthropology and the Mind-Body Debate, Part 1”
Leave a Reply
Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.
The mind-body connection is such a fascinating thing to study. To the interested, here’s a link to an article I read called “Is the Brain a Digital Computer?” by John R. Searle: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.comp.html which raises some good ideas.
Dr. Heiser I have a question about Luke 23:43. Some have suggested that the correct punctuation should be rearranged so that the clause with the word today is separate from the statement of being in Paradise (thus “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in Paradise.”) As an expert in biblical languages and grammar could you confirm this? And, if true, would that still support the argument of instant existence upon death outside the body (I realize the argument doesn’t hinge upon this verse but I’m just curious as to how, if true, would the punctuation difference change the meaning? Jesus would then be saying that at some point in the future (not necessarily “today”) you will be with me in Paradise (is Paradise here Abraham’s bosom or the earthly restoration of the kingdom? If a future thing is being referred to then I was thinking (possibly incorrectly) that it couldn’t be used to support the “as soon as you die your immaterial being is with me”…again, I know this is established elsewhere (Paul, etc.). Just wanted to know either way, thanks!
A problem for dualists is related to conservation of energy (Daniel Dennett talks about this in _Consciousness Explained_): if the “soul” is to influence and control the body, it must introduce energy into the nervous system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, this energy must eventually end up as heat. Has anybody every put a person in a calorimeter to determine if the heat they emit is exactly equal to the energy of the food they consume, or is there an extra source of energy from the “soul”?
The converse of that is the question of why thought (or prayer) consumes glucose from the bloodstream. If the “mind” or “soul” is capable of conscious thought without the body (e.g. after death), then why is the body burning glucose while merely thinking? How is it that mere chemistry, such as a general anaesthetic can affect the consciousness?
Neuroscience is proceeding apace: it is now possible to determine from a brain scan if and when a stimulus becomes accessible to conscious awareness (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dehaene09/dehaene09_index.html).
Very interesting, Michael. Maybe I’m missing something – but you posed the question:
“does the Bible have any clear view on where/how the “soul” (inner part) originates? ”
I think it does – or at least hints at it vaguely. In the scriptures where it is declared that He knew us from the foundation of the world. I don’t have those scriptures to hand…
but…
If He knew us from the foundation of the world, then that would mean we existed in some form before being physically born into these bodies/vessels we now inhabit.
Again – maybe I’m missing something, or not understanding…but it seems to me that we existed in a spiritual form (for lack of better term!) before we inhabited these physical bodies here on earth.
This begs the question to me — how come we inhabit these bodies here on earth? What happened before the foundation of the world or AT the foundation of the world? Is the foundation of the world BEFORE creation as we know it (I’m thinking this is so)? What went wrong? Did WE do something wrong (and just have no memory of it)?
Combine that with just after creation (when Yah created man) – and Yah tells Adam and Eve to REplenish the earth. That seems to indicate to me that something (the earth? us?) existed before Creation as is written about in Genesis…and it seems to indicate that He decided to wipe the slate clean and start over because something went wrong. Perhaps this has something to do with hasatan’s rebellion (which happened, to my understanding) before Creation as we know it? And hasatan went after man in the new Creation? Were we somehow involved? Or did we do something else?
I may be off base, and if so – please correct me!
I was reading an article yesterday that touched on the fact that the ground and the shining one (lucifer/satan) were cursed as a result of sin…and that Adam and Eve were not actually cursed. It hit me that we’ve been told they were cursed, when it seems to me now (after re-reading that text), that their intended purpose on earth remained but NOW included sorrow (atsav) as a result of the transgression/sin, whereas before it did not include sorrow… So, their purpose remained the same, but now with sorrow and frustration.
So, if I’m understanding it correctly, Adam and Eve had a purpose to replenish the earth and ‘expand’ the Garden — – but AFTER sin their purpose remained the same (to replenish with offspring and expand the garden – till the ground, etc), but now it would be infused with sorrow and great frustration (atsav).
I wonder if I’m understanding all this!! Forgive me if I’m not able to state is so well — I’m not a scholar:).
YHWH bless and keep you brother. I hope you will reply – as the Holy Spirit leads.
@Lisa: That God knew us before we were formed in the womb certainly speaks to foreknowledge of our lives/existence, but it doesn’t help us distinguish between the views of the origin of the soul. For example, creationism has God creating each soul independent of the body, and then adding it to the body at some point – yes, God could foreknow he was going to do that and what that life would be/do. Traducianism has the parents creating both body and soul through childbirth – and yes, God could foreknow what your parents would produce long before they produced it. Origen’s view (a minority view) says that all the souls that would ever be were produced ahead of time in one shot as it were, and then God matches them with a body – and yes, God could foreknow which soul would be matched with what body.
My point: Jeremiah 1:5 doesn’t prove or disprove any of the above options.
(Note: people like to use Origen’s view as some sort of Christian reincarnation statement; it is hardly that; those people have likely never read what Origen says, and confuse the pre-existence of souls with reincarnation, where a soul inhabits different bodies in succession. That isn’t what he’s saying).
Your other confusions arise in part from trying to make Genesis 1 a logical sequence that conforms to what we’d expect as modern people. Also, “replenish” is only a problem because it is the word the KJV uses. The Hebrew word here (ml’) can mean “fill” or “refill” – in this context, “fill” would be the point, so there is no need to posit a prior creation (this is another gap theorist argument — not saying the replier is a gpa theorist — for those reading the comments). We don’t base biblical theology on KJV translations.
lastly, why can’t a curse involve the same purpose? Is there a rule against that? They were certainly cursed, their tasks were now burdensome and Eve’s pain was multiplied (and did you notice “multipled”? that means Eve would have had some pain in childbearing before the fall, but not as much).
Jonathan Molina:
Concerning Luke 23:43, that is an argument that the Watchtower makes to reject the understanding that one (a believer) would go straight to heaven (or paradise in Abraham’s bosom during the 3 days/nights) after death.
Don’t know about the manuscript variants of Luke 23 nor the Greek grammar, but when did Jesus in any of the 4 gospel say: “Truly Truly, I tell you today…..”. I’ll do a search tonight, but I have never seen that before. Logically speaking, it doesn;t make sense to say “…I tell you today..” (No duh your telling me today Lord!).
I *Think* the correct understanding of this passage is that *that* day the thief would go with Christ to Paradise (at that time it was in Abraham’s bosom at the center of the earth) and then after Chrit’s ressurection, he (along with all believer’s in Abraham’s bosom at that time) would go with Christ to heaven. Supposedly, now, when a believer dies, that person’s spirit goes straight to heaven (since Christ already paid for sins and resurrected).
Thanks blop! Yes, I remember that the JWs argue this (for the record I am NOT a JW) but I couldn’t remember where I had heard that viewpoint.
@blop2008:
I’m not sure why we would want to take cosmic-geographical terms and plot them on the earth (location of Abraham’s bosom!). I doubt whether that, or any other afterlife place term, ever had latitude and longitude.
Mike,
It’s not concrete, it’s abstract terminology. It wouldn’t be on the earth, it would possibly be at the center of the earth (abstact), that is, at the heart / core of the earth.
This is all deduction from a few passages:
Matthew 12:40 (Jesus speaking: ……..heart of the earth)
Ephesians 4:9 (Paul speaking of Jesus……..lower regions, namely the earth)
Im not implying it is a physical geographic place, nor is heaven but we still point to heaven, upwards, don’t we? Hades is down below and heaven is up there.
@blop2008:
people thought Sheol / hell / hades was “down” because they practiced burial, and that’s where you put a corpse. If they put them on clefts of a mountain top, the thought would have been Sheol was “up”; none of this is rooted in real geography. It is born of experience applied abstractly to a non-terrestrial place or places. There’s no other way to describe the destiny of the dead than to apply the experience to where you believe God or the gods live (up) and where you bury people (down).
Mike,
I understand the ANE tought, and although biblical writers pronounce ANE thought in their writings, that’s not where we should formulate our conclusion. Back to scripture, Im referring to Biblical passages like the ones I quoted above. So if Christ spent 3 days/nights at the heart of the heart (even if it’s not physical geography) and he told the thief that he would be with him in paradise that day, deductively, it seems it would be there, at the center of the earth where, deductively once again, that would be hades (the home of the dead) with an apparent (deductive from Luke 16) a separation between righteous and non-righteous. When Christ resurrected, they eventually went up to heaven with him. Today when a believer dies, he/she goes to straight to heaven. Now it’s possible because Christ paid the price and resurrected and intercedes for us believers and sinners, so that in the Father’s presence everything is fine. This was not the case prior to Christ’ death and resurrection, agree?
What does Matthew and Ephesians say, *down*, no?
Correction:
“…3 days/nights at the heart of the earth”
@blop2008:
Christ spent three days in the grave (= “heart of the earth”). During that time, he also descended to that part of hell where the spirits are imprisoned (cf. the OT and later Jewish theology of where the original offending sons of God are imprisoned). This place, I would suggest, is not terrestrial (on planet), but is a cosmic geographical term. It was thought by ancients to be deep within the earth because it was considered to be the polar opposite of where God is (up – way up).
Mike:
Ok. Now what about Jonathan Molina’s question regarding the punctuation in Luke 23:43?
@blop2008: I can’t find this – ?
Mike, thanks so much for your reply. I hope you understood in my initial post, I was stating that I do NOT understand all this in a scholarly way (at all)…hence why I posted.
It seems to me that we lose much by only reading one version of the Bible. I wish I knew Hebrew (the older one – pictographs I think it’s called – would be really amazing to learn) so I could delve into the texts like you do. But alas, I’m in no position to learn it so I’ll have to rely on the Holy Spirit to show me some of the finer points in thought/reasoning that you speak about in your response to me. I have been investigating the difference between Hellenistic thinking and the Hebrew mindset….very different to each other!
Anyway, thanks again for your reply. I’m going to try and digest it now! lol
YHWH bless you brother!
@Lisa:
you’re welcome!
Many of the usual problems with traducianism have been solved. I’ve recently written an article refuting Turretin that might interest you:
http://www.light-after-darkness.org/forums/content.php?40-Turretin-on-Traducianism-Refuted
@Ken Hamrick: I’ll have a look; I’ll be returning to the mind-body thing this weekend.
@MSH I would have to contend with the part of Samuel actually being him. Because it says when she saw “samuel” that she saw an old man in a robe but does not say it is him or any real specific quality of the real person. Plus assuming I accept the premise that it was in fact Samuel, this brings up problems.
One, it would be admitting that witches have the power in themselves to raise “spirits”. Two, if God was the one raising Samuel “for His glory” as some commentaries put it, God would be violating His own law against associating with necromancers. Three if it was Samuel speaking, and speaking to the woman as she was the mediator. Samuel then would be breaking the commandments thus sinning after death and revoking any rights to “paradise”. Four, Samuel in life was a true prophet and spoke for the Lord, but this “spirit” could not have been one because in fact ALL the prophecies in which it spoke did NOT come to pass. In 2 Sam. 2:8 we find that one of Saul’s son’s lived and became king for a short time. If this “Samuel” was speaking the words of God, they ALL would have come to pass.
@blop I am not a JW, and I also take the view that the Greek doesn’t have comma’s. The fact you feel the statement “truly, truly, I tell you today…” to be logically ridiculous is not a valid argument against it. It would make Jesus a liar if we take the sentence the traditional way, because Christ did not defeat death for another three days. Thus being the first fruits of the dead (for example’s sake). As a side note, as far as I am aware “paradise” is always attributed to an earthly garden; namely Eden.
Saul identified him as Samuel.
Most translations says Saul “perceived” it to be Samuel because Saul had to ask the witch what SHE say not Saul. He could not have fully known, plus like I said, even if I accepted the premise, the prophecies were not all fulfilled.