Let me start by apologizing for the
long delay in submitting this, I am reminded by this of the work
involved in writing, and that it takes a strong force of something
pushing me to get it onto paper and edited and submitted. But
eventually, my shame at leaving this hanging has been pushing at me.
The first issue in this section is how
to write coherently and in good faith towards a position that I at
least have been taught to see as dangerous. As mentioned above,
Gnostics were strong on dualism as they saw those who could be saved
as bodies with a spark of the divine that would eventually be allowed
to return to the Pleroma (Fullness). In some ways this seems similar
to many Christians thinking on the matter. Those of us who think
that way tend to regard the body as lesser, and that we can have our perfect
souls saved to go to the spiritual paradise of heaven.
However, this is not the orthodox
doctrine, where we believe in Resurrection. While our bodies are not
perfect today, they will be made anew as spiritual bodies like the
Post-Resurrection Christ. So, even if we do subscribe to a
separation of body and soul in dualism, we are not as the Gnostics
wanted to do, discarding our evil and corrupted flesh for the
holiness of spirit. In some ways this digression may prejudice my
later discussion, but this point must made clearly. This world and
all flesh are the creation of God, and as such were created holy, even if we
are all tainted with sin. This tainting with sin extend to all parts
of creation, even our souls and it is only by the grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ that any of us may be saved.
There is simply a great deal of
biblical text that refers to the body in two parts, at least. The
most important reference as far as this discussion goes is Genesis
2:7, but I'm going to quote a little more, just because I want to.
GE 2:4 This is the account of the
heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth
and the heavens-- [5] and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on
the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD
God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the
ground, [6] but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole
surface of the ground-- [7] the LORD God formed the man from the dust
of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and
the man became a living being. (NIV)
This is the beginning of the second
account of creation, as we can see here the point of this story is Man and not the plants etc. However, that is
not an essential part of this discussion, what we see clearly here,
is God made a body, but it did not live until he breathed into it.
Now, I am not a Hebrew scholar, so I am not going to start this
argument over words for soul, as that is in the next section which
finds this an important passage as well. However, as many see this,
the body was not complete until God's breath. But going on:
GE 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed
out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of
the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them;
and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
[20] So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air
and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was
found. [21] So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep;
and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed
up the place with flesh. [22] Then the LORD God made a woman from the
rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. (NIV)
As before, God formed beasts of the
field and birds of the air from the ground, but no mention of breath.
God made them live without this component being mentioned. Now, I
believe that this is an intentional statement, though there is also
no breath for the woman, so maybe this is a bit more difficult to puzzle out then. But we see there is no suitable companion, that
is not the same stuff, as the man, perhaps this means the breath or
soul was divided as the flesh was divided and her own soul was made
in her from that piece as well. I realize I may have walked onto a minefield here, or even onto an argument for the other side.
Well moving on, as to other arguments
about the dual nature of mankind, some would bring in primitive
anthropology where many cultures have customs concerning sneezing,
and the fear of the soul flying out. There are the near death
experiences that have been hear over the years, where the body lies
nearly dead on the table, and the soul seems to roam free and see
things. Or finally, one might speak of Heaven, which is clearly the
issue that defines this most clearly.
Many people here have seen a dead
body, and there is clearly something missing. No amount of effort
can bring a person back to life without the will of God making it so,
though we seem to have gotten fairly good at holding onto life for a
long time sometimes.
How do we deal then with the issue of life
after death? Most of the Revelation of John discusses a vision of
Heaven, where we see countless throngs of the saints awaiting the
final triumph of Christ and the resurrection on the Earth. If these
are not souls, what are they? We see Jesus comfort the thief on the
cross with him:
LK 23:42 Then he said, "Jesus,
remember me when you come into your kingdom. "
LK 23:43 Jesus answered him, "I
tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
The issue of note for me here, is the
today. This implies very strongly that there is some intermediate
state between death and the resurrection. His body is here, so how
can he be in paradise except if his soul departs in death.
Well, I
believe I have cover this topic in enough depth for this section, as my goal isn't an exhaustive argument but rather a sort of brief thought on the subject.
If
anyone is reading this, please feel free to comment. I will be
following this with a discussion on the Monistic view of a whole
person body-soul indivisible.
