Division between soul and spirit

by M.J. 82 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Hellrider

  I think my head is gonna explode.

  Ha ha, yes. But this is an extremely useful thread. I mean, which better subject to start with, when discussing with a JW (this issue also goes to the core of the 144K-thing, the two classes, "great crowd", eternal life on earth, etc). You can discuss the trinity up and down forever with a JW (or anyone else) without getting anywhere. But on this issue, you can actually get somewhere (if you have the extreme patience and masochistic tendencies that would make you wanna have a Bible-discussion with a JW, that is...).

  Jesus was actually lampooning the Sadducees right to their faces in Luke 20:38 by telling them, "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; for all live to Him".

  Actually, I`m not sure about this one. On the one hand, yes, Jesus is definitely a believer in the survival of the "soul" (or the "something") that survives the body at death. But I`m not so sure that this is the point in this passage, because of the expression "for all live to him". Isn`t that a way of saying "well, they live to god, even though they`re dead, because everything is possible to God" (as in...living in his "memory" - awaiting the ressurection, and that it is the future ressurection which is what Jesus wants to highlight in this passage)? Could it be that the JWs are right in (what would be) their explanation on this passage?

  Thanks for your explanation on Matthew 10, Narkissos.
• 

  M.J.

  Matt 10:28. I brought that one up to a JW recently. He really struggled with it. But I helped him get through it. He basically ended up saying that it means that one can kill your body, but this is temporary since your figurative "life" is secure in Jehovah's memory. So then "soul" here yet again violates the WTS meaning, even by this explanation. Now, it means "future prospect for life restoration, secured by Jehovah's memory bank."
• 

  Leolaia

  Matthew 10:28, in my opinion, has in view the punishment of Gehenna following the resurrection and judgment. This follows the usual schema in Jewish apocalypses, in which the present world is ended in the theophany of the Day of the Lord/Judgment Day, the dead are raised, assembled together and judged into two dichotomous groups, with the righteous inheriting eternal life and the impious sent to Gehenna or some form of punishment. This would account for the language referring to souls and bodies, because it is punishment AFTER the restoration of the person as a living soul (i.e. with individuated life), embodied in a renewed body of some sort. So men can kill the body but do not destroy (in the first sense of the verb) the soul because God has the power to preserve the soul (the embodied person) through resurrection. At the same time, through eschatological judgment, God also has the power to lose (in the second sense of the verb) the soul to Gehenna, where it would be confined for punishment forever (in the eschatology of Matthew). Note again in 5:29-30, it is the body (soma) that is cast into Gehenna because, again, this occurs AFTER the resurrection.
• 

  M.J.

  But I`m not so sure that this is the point in this passage, because of the expression "for all live to him". Isn`t that a way of saying "well, they live to god, even though they`re dead, because everything is possible to God" (as in...living in his "memory" - awaiting the ressurection, and that it is the future ressurection which is what Jesus wants to highlight in this passage)? Could it be that the JWs are right in (what would be) their explanation on this passage?

  Well remember that soul survival and resurrection are a "package deal"...they go hand-in-hand. The very concept of a resurrection naturally followed the belief that the essence of a person survived in sheol and could be brought to life on earth again. The Pharisees & Essenes promoted the predominate 1st century Jewish view that the soul was fully conscious in the intermediate state (time between death and resurrection), in "Abraham's bosom" / "paradise" and very much alive. So when Jesus says this, he's talking straight to the Sadducees who reject the entire concept--soul survival and resurrection. Jesus obviously contradicts them entirely by stating that the ancients indeed live--and this is by God's design.
• 

  Leolaia

  M.J.....I agree with your overall post, I just want to quibble about the term "soul survival" which has Platonic overtones. Many Jews were of course influenced by Plato (as Josephus, Philo, the author of Wisdom, etc.) certainly were, but not all were Hellenized to the extent that the notion of the resurrection itself depends on it. The latter owes more to non-Platonic Persian religion, which was also the source of the overall apocalyptic scenario (involving a dualist division of humanity in eschatological judgment); note that the notion of a resurrection is expressed clearly for the first time in Daniel, which is a work that stridently rejects Hellenism. The native Hebrew concept of the afterlife had the survival of something from a person, even if a pale glimmer, which may be realized as a spirit (= as one of the Rephaim, as a "god", etc.), but this is not a notion that owes anything to Platonic soul survival. So for many, the notion of resurrection went with a notion of soul survival, while for others a more somatic view of the resurrection may have been in view (i.e. of restoring the former body and reanimating it with an individuated spirit). I would defininely say that what all forms of resurrection belief had in common was the idea that something of the person survived death that could be restored by God, whether it was the body (as emphasized in 2 Maccabees), a shade, or a more fully-fledged soul which doesn't depend on the body to be alive.
• 

  Hellrider

  Well remember that soul survival and resurrection are a "package deal"...they go hand-in-hand. The very concept of a resurrection naturally followed the belief that the essence of a person survived in sheol and could be brought to life on earth again. The Pharisees & Essenes promoted the predominate 1st century Jewish view that the soul was fully conscious in the intermediate state (time between death and resurrection), in "Abraham's bosom" / "paradise" and very much alive.

  Oh, I agree. But what I`m not so sure of, is this exact passage also refers to the "something" that lives on after death, or if it refers to Gods (almighty) power...that even though a person is dead, that God in his almighty...ness...could even just assure the future ressurected state of the individual because he "remembers every detail". It is the "for all live to him"-part of that passage that made me think that this might be the case on that exact passage. It`s important to remember that there are varying views on this, even within each text, they`re not even all just "one text", but texts scrambled together, in which parts are written by other people than the one who wrote the largest part of it.

  So when Jesus says this, he's talking straight to the Sadducees who reject the entire concept--soul survival and resurrection

  I agree, but I was just wondering if he here solely focuses on a rebuttal of their disbelief concerning the ressurection. I don`t know, though. I guess I`m just being overcautious not to just take the opposite view of the JWs, "just because".
• 

  M.J.

  This would account for the language referring to souls and bodies, because it is punishment AFTER the restoration of the person as a living soul (i.e. with individuated life), embodied in a renewed body of some sort.

  Yes, this was my understanding. At final judgement.

  So men can kill the body but do not destroy (in the first sense of the verb) the soul because God has the power to preserve the soul (the embodied person) through resurrection.

  Okay so what is meant by "soul" here? "embodied person"? So then it means, "men can kill the body but not destroy the person entirely...for God will preserve the person in the end?" So in your opinion the point is not to make a soul-body distinction, but to point to the final eschatalogical result?

  not all were Hellenized to the extent that the notion of the resurrection itself depends on it

  OK I see how you take issue with my statement that "soul survival" and resurrection being a package deal. I meant to mention that resurrection depended on the "essence" of a person surviving in sheol (in some form or other), not necessarily the full-blown concept of a "living soul".
• 

  M.J.

  Oh, I agree. But what I`m not so sure of, is this exact passage also refers to the "something" that lives on after death, or if it refers to Gods (almighty) power...that even though a person is dead, that God in his almighty...ness...could even just assure the future ressurected state of the individual because he "remembers every detail". It is the "for all live to him"-part of that passage that made me think that this might be the case on that exact passage. It`s important to remember that there are varying views on this, even within each text, they`re not even all just "one text", but texts scrambled together, in which parts are written by other people than the one who wrote the largest part of it.

  Sure, there are alternate views to the text when you take it out of the historical context. But taken in context, one gains more of an appreciation of the implications involved. There was no concept of resurrection by recreation based on God's memory at the time. It's well attested that resurrection meant that something personal surved the death of the body, to be restored later on. Jesus sided with the predominant Pharisee view on this one without qualification.
• 

  Leolaia

  could even just assure the future ressurected state of the individual because he "remembers every detail".

  Here we have the Society's own invented concept of resurrection.....er, rather, recreation, as involving God's memory in making a duplicate of the original. Since this concept is entirely foreign to the actual beliefs of resurrection and the afterlife in the first century AD, there is no reason to worry about it being a possible meaning of the text under consideration ... because it isn't.
• 

  Hellrider

  Here we have the Society's own invented concept of resurrection.....er, rather, recreation, as involving God's memory in making a duplicate of the original

  LoL, yes I know. I guess what I was asking is whether or not the jews were unsure about the soul (whether it existed or not) but still believed in the ressurection...so that just to cover their butts on this, they threw in some passages (and I believed this passage to may have been one of those) that meant to say "look, whether there`s a soul or not, there will be a ressurection", and it was the "for all are alive to God" that confused me. But I guess I was wrong. Thanks to MJ and Leo for clearing that one up.