The Bible defines the soul as the mind, will, and emotions. The Bible also tells us that as a baby up to and through the time He was a man Jesus had to learn and grow. He didn’t know everything as a man. He had a finite and limited mind. This was His human soul. This is the soul that would die as He was nailed to the cross. The Bible is pretty clear that Jesus died for sinners. As God, Jesus didn’t have to learn and grow. He was infinite in wisdom and knowledge. This is His Divine soul. This is what entered His new body when He was resurrected. The finite human soul has perished. The Divine soul lives forever.
Michael, this has always been a mystery to me and I doubt I will ever understood it. If it is true, even, and I’m no authority on the subject.
Michael,
You do realize that what you are saying (particularly that which I emphasized in bold) is neither consistent with the Athanasian Creed nor the Definition of Chalcedon?
So?
Psyche - Life, breath, soul, person.
The context below is referring to person (human).
Were these two souls switched on and off? Did Jesus respond to life through soul switch A or B? What was it that made the decision between soul A and soul B if the soul is “the mind, will, and emotions”?
S.
“The Lord is in his Temple. Let all the earth be silent before Him!”
This sounds like a mantra Madame Blavatsky would repeat to silence her opponents.
So, indeed.
I point out that your position contradicts the creeds of Ecumenical Councils as a caution to both you and anyone else reading this thread, because such an opinion is in conflict with the established dogma of the Church universal for 16 centuries.
There just might be some valid reasons why the Church has stood behind the Ecumenical Creeds, and it would be arrogant for us to simply brush off the established dogma of the vast majority of Christendom with a “So?” attitude.
This verse does not lend any support to your claim in the opening post that the human soul of Jesus is no more.
As taught by the ecumenical creeds, Jesus is fully God and fully man. He is a Divine Person of a Divine nature who took upon himself a human nature by hypostatic union.
If he no longer has a human soul (as postulated in your initial post), then he is no longer a man.
Well said.
131 Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.
2 Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child.
3 Let Israel hope in the Lord from henceforth and for ever.
10 Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
11 "The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector.
Cole, I’d be interested to see where specifically (chapter and verse, as they say) the soul is defined as “mind, will & emotions” in scripture. I’ve heard and read a lot of preachers who teach this, but after doing my own studying, I have to say I believe they’re mistaken. My dogs have their own minds (for sure!), will (definitely!), and emotions (just watch them when “daddy” comes home from work!) According to scripture though, they also ARE souls (not possess souls as we often say). The mind, will and emotions are all functions of the physical body – there’s nothing particularly spiritual about them. The spirit part came from the breath of God.
I did a search for the soul in scripture before I became a universalist. I was amazed to learn that scripture never tells us the human soul is immortal. In fact, the same Hebrew word is used of the life of animals as is used of the life of men. This word, nephesh, to the Hebrews (to whom the books of the Old Testament (or TANACH) were written), meant a living being, all inclusive – or so I’m told. This particular verse seems to verify that interpretation:
Adam was not GIVEN a soul; he BECAME one when God breathed into his nostrils. So the soul only becomes a soul when life from God animates the body. We could say “breath,” though this particular word (ruach) isn’t used in Gen 2:7. It is used in Ecclesiastes though:
If we want to segregate out any part of man, it would seem the spirit (ruach) would be the best candidate. The body (integral to the soul) returns to the earth and becomes dust. Jesus, however, rose bodily from the grave (from among the dead ones, literally). Unless you believe in a non-corporeal resurrection (which some do, but I do not), Jesus rose AS a living soul. God the Father is not a soul; He is spirit (meaning, for one thing, He has no body) and of course we can say the same of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was an incorporeal spirit also, until the Father prepared a body for Him. As He still has that body, He is still a living soul (as well as spirit of course).
The bible doesn’t tell us that Jesus had two souls and lost one to the grave. Jesus came as the prototypical human – the perfect and whole human as humans were always intended to be. He died as the representative of the entire race of Adam and in Himself put to death the race of Adam. When He rose, He rose as the “second Adam” and the head/source/headwater of a new race of humans – human beings who are indwelt by the Spirit of God, free from bondage to sin, and who live by the life of God.
Excellent post Cindy.
The implications of Christ having a body prepared for Him “before the foundation of the world” is immense. It shows that the body Christ has received, and offers, it the actual human body, and this one we have now is a secondary substitute until we earn our wings. It re-orders the events of creation around Christ’s soul-body:
“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” (John 1:3)
“For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” (Colossians 1:16, 17)
Christ’s body was not just a response to sin; sin was a response to Christ’s body! All of history, including Satan and the fall, is a response to Christ’s body. Everything in the universe is centered on Christ; “both in the heavens and on earth.”
Steve
And we are His body . . . interesting, Stef. I’ll have to cogitate on this – I’ve never heard it put quite this way and not sure what to think about it. It’s a viewpoint I hadn’t noticed. Thanks.
The basic premise of this insight was introduced to me through Paul Billheimer’s book: Destined for the Throne. If you have not read it, it is certainly worth the read. Here is a review:
See also this video: itbn.org/index/detail/ec/x1bXBlMzpJbs9wS8Io4_zB_IB-xeYOA1
Billheimer looks at the subject from the church’s perspective; whereas I have outlined the church (the bride of Christ) as the intention of the eternal body-soul of Christ: for all things, “both in the heavens and on earth”, were created through him, by him and for him. This was, and still is, God’s will and intention. This mystery has been slowly unfolded to us in the work and resurrection of Christ, and in the mandate of the church, and within our own personal experiences and struggles. There is nothing without meaning and purpose. All experiences are woven into God’s plan of reconciliation into the eternal body of Christ; which was put into place before creation.
Steve
What you have written seems to indicate that Jesus was two different persons: the one who lived here on earth, and the one who “was God”. If the soul is an entity separate from the body (a view of the Greek philosophers which has been absorbed into the church) then “two souls” = “two persons”.
Historically, this view was known as “Nestorianism”. Nestorius himself was removed from his position as Patriarch of Constantinople in 431 A.D. when he was condemned by the Council of Ephesus.
A visiting professor was lecturing, and in answer to some question, said - “I’m not much of an artist, but I can draw the human soul” It got my interest so I watched closely while he drew the following picture on a whiteboard. True story.
I don’t understand my own self. I don’t know how I actually function. When “I” decide to lift a finger, neuroscientists inform me my brain has decided to do this before “I” do. So who’s actually in charge. Me, or my brain? Am “I” a product of my brain too, or (as idealists would argue) is my brain a product of me?
Well then. Fortified and encouraged by a colossal ignorance about my own self, I will now speculate wildly about Christ’s self. To me, we will no more resolve this question than deciding if the last digit of pi is a 6 or a 7.
This was a very unusual time in the church. It is somewhat difficult to separate the genuine desire for doctrinal purity from the corrupt power-games that were evident. The exponents of each view, typically Nestorius and Cyril, were laying down their perceptions which would ultimately bind the church to one or the other doctrine. Nestorius was not the first to argue for an alternative explanation: “The Apollinarists admitted that Jesus had an ordinary body, but denied Him a human soul; the Divine nature took the place of the rational mind”. Augustine set the tone for what our contention would become: “Human affections were not out of place in Him in Whom there was really and truly a human body and a human soul.”
I am not personally inclined to put too much stock in the Ecumenical councils (the council of Ephesus was the third). I think christians may hold variable ideas without the threat of excommunication or anathema. Paidion’s view of the trinity was also condemned, and this itself is a travesty IMO. The second council of Ephesus, dealing with the same subject matter, was in less than 20 years from the first, and it is known to this day as the Robber Council (or the Gangster Synod).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Ephesus
This hostile christian conflict is a very good insight into the machinations which had befallen the church of the 4th and 5th centuries. A book discussing this is The Jesus Wars, by Philip Jenkins. The council ended in violent rage and a flogging which led to the death of at least one bishop. All in the name of purity? With such hostile reactions, one can quickly see that more than purity was at stake here. This was a grab for power. This is certainly a lesson for the church today IMO.
Steve
IF “soul” means “the real you” or your “mind, will, and emotions”, then who (or what part of the rich man) in Christ’s parable was talking to the rich man’s soul with the following words?
Did this man have two souls also? Or was the man simply talking to himself?
ψυχη (“soul”) in the New Testament means “self” and nothing more. Indeed at least one translation renders the sentence as follows:
An immaterial soul separate from the body, doesn’t make sense to me. Why would soulish events affect the body? For example, why would worry produce stomach ulcers? Or why would bodily events affect the soul? For example, why would aging cause the soul to lose (at least partially) its ability to remember?
Some people develop Altheimers disease as they age. The person’s “soul” certainly seems a lot different. At a later stage of the disease, Altheimers patients do not recognize their own spouse. Will the “soul” suddenly be restored to its former condition when the person dies? Why should it? Or does God restore everyone’s soul the moment they die?
To me it makes more sense to believe that each of us is a monistic entity. Every soul or self consists of a body and mind. When a person dies, both body and mind cease to exist. When Jesus and/or God raises the person up at the last day with an immortal body, he will possess a perfectly functioning body, including a perfectly functioning mind.