Episode 56 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Dr. Glenn Peoples joins me to discuss Christology, philosophy of mind and the crucifixion of Christ. Was God the Son alive and conscious while the man, Jesus, lay dead and unconscious in the tomb? Or did the Godman die both as man and as God? And can either of these views be considered orthodox?
Showing posts with label Physicalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Physicalism. Show all posts
Friday, August 26, 2011
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Episode 47: The Day God Died
Episode 47 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! Joel B. Green joins me to discuss the view of the soul known as "physicalism" and its implications when it comes to the nature of Jesus Christ.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Coming Soon: Interview with Joel B. Green
Friday, October 22, 2010
Episode 16: Soul Meets Body
Episode 16 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Dr. Glenn Peoples in part 2 of our discussion concerning Christian physicalism, challenging him with a number of biblical passages which seem to contradict his position. This second interview spanned 2 hours, so I've split it up into two parts, this being the second. See episode 15 for the first part.
Episode 15: Soul Man
Episode 15 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Dr. Glenn Peoples in part 2 of our discussion concerning Christian physicalism, challenging him with a number of biblical passages which seem to contradict his position. This second interview spanned 2 hours, so I've split it up into two parts, this being the first. See episode 16 for the second part.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Episode 12: Let's Get Physical
Episode 12 of the Theopologetics Podcast is now available! In this episode I interview Glenn Peoples, creator of the Say Hello to My Little Friend blog and podcast, discussing Christian physicalism, the view that man is not comprised of both a physical body and an immaterial soul, but of body only.
In this first of two interviews on the subject, we talk about physicalism in history, the modern evangelical response to physicalism, the biblical basis for physicalism and the metaphysical objection to it. In a future episode I’ll interview Glenn a second time, devoting the entire episode to biblical objections to his position, so email me at theopologetics@hotmail.com if you would like me to include your challenge to physicalism in the second interview.
In this first of two interviews on the subject, we talk about physicalism in history, the modern evangelical response to physicalism, the biblical basis for physicalism and the metaphysical objection to it. In a future episode I’ll interview Glenn a second time, devoting the entire episode to biblical objections to his position, so email me at theopologetics@hotmail.com if you would like me to include your challenge to physicalism in the second interview.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Coming Soon: Interview with Glenn Peoples
If you, like me, had hoped for a more in-depth examination of this view, look forward to this upcoming episode of the Theopologetics Podcast in which Dr. Peoples will tell us why he thinks the Bible supports his view, and not the one most of us hold. Stay tuned!
Friday, April 30, 2010
O LORD What is Man? Absent from the Body (It's Not What You Think)
In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote that "while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord" and that we "prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:6-8). Most assume this is a reference to the "intermediate state" in which, upon dying, the disembodied spirits of saints go to be with God in heaven, awaiting the resurrection. John Gill, for example, explained it this way:
Excuse the lengthy introduction and allow me to explain why.
ABSENT FROM THE BODY
Here is the passage in question:
Now, on the surface, these verses do seem to suggest that we are courageous in the face of death, knowing that at death our spirits reside with the Lord in heaven, "absent from the body." A couple of other interesting statements in this chapter seem to lend support to this interpretation. In verse 3 Paul says that upon being given our resurrection bodies, we "will not be found naked." In verse 4 he says we "do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life." Why, the traditionalist might ask, does Paul use imagery like this if we can't, in fact, be "naked" and "unclothed?"
I'll come back to that question later. First, however, we need to take a closer, more careful look at this passage, extending further back into the previous chapter.
AFFLICTED IN EVERY WAY -- 4:8-13
About halfway into chapter 4, Paul begins to speak of preaching the gospel with courage in the face of death. He writes,
Paul and the Apostles faced immense persecution and even impending death for the gospel they preached. In what does Paul say they were "always carrying about...the dying of Jesus?" ἐν τῷ σώματι, or "in the body." And in case "in the body" isn't clear enough, he goes on to define it as "in our mortal flesh." This will become important when we get to the passage in question.
HE WILL RAISE US ALSO WITH JESUS -- 4:14
But why, one might ask, does Paul want to live out the death of Jesus in his body? What faith does Paul have that leads him to face death at every turn in order to advance the gospel? He tells us in verse 14:
Paul exhibited courage in the face of death because he knew that just as Jesus rose from the grave, so too would he rise from the dead. What was Paul's faith and hope in the face of affliction? The resurrection body. This is the context of Paul's curious words later in his letter.
OUR INNER MAN IS BEING RENEWED -- 4:15-16
At this point, Paul speaks of something very interesting, saying,
What is our "inner man?" If in the next chapter Paul likens the body unto a house (which he does), and if the decaying body is here called our "outer man," doesn't it stand to reason that our "inner man" is our soul, inhabiting the body? No, I don't think that's a warranted assumption.
The Greek word "inner" here is ἔσωθεν (esothen) and is never connected with a soul inhabiting the body. Rather, it is used metaphorically to speak of a man's true, inward motives, desires, nature or condition. Consider how this word is used elsewhere:
While the "inner man" might be a reference to one's soul, there's no justification for reading that into the text. These uses of the word ἔσωθεν make it clear that all that's intended by the word is a reference to one's inward desires and thoughts. False prophets aren't inhabited by the spirits of hungry wolves. Rather, their thoughts and motives inwardly are contrary to their outer appearances. The hypocritical Pharisees appeared to be pure on the outside, but were in fact unclean in their heart, in their inner desires.
Consider a similar Greek phrase rendered "inner man" which uses the word ἔσω (eso) and which appears in a couple of other places:
We see again no suggested reference to a man's soul. There is no warrant for reading that into the text here. The "inner man" is where a born again follower of Christ's love for God and for others originates, yes. But there is no hint of an ethereal soul here. Instead, he equates the "inner man" with the "heart" to the Ephesians, and with the "mind" to the Romans. He speaks of the "inner man" being empowered in order that Christ would dwell in our hearts through faith. He also describes the result of being empowered by the Holy Spirit in the "inner man" as being able to "comprehend" and "know" the love of Christ.
This is important, because while some would attribute desire and godliness (or lack thereof) to one's spirit/soul, these passages seem to connect the "inner man" more with comprehension and understanding. Notice that to the Romans Paul likens his "inner man" to his "mind." He uses the same Greek word as is found later in his letter where he urges the Romans to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2). And the word "renewing" here is the same Greek word used in 2 Corinthians 4:16 (the passage we're examining) where Paul writes that "our inner man is being renewed day by day."
The link, then, does not appear to be between the "inner man" and one's soul. Instead, the link appears to be between the "inner man" and one's mind. The Greek word for mind is νοῦς (nous), and it refers to one's intellectual faculty for perceiving, for understanding, for judging, for determining, for reasoning, for considering. After His resurrection, He appeared to the disciples and "opened their minds [νοῦς] to understand the Scriptures" (Luke 24:45). The word is believed to be the root of the Greek word γινώσκω (ginosko) which means "to learn" or "to come to know." One's "mind" doesn't just feel, it understands, it judges, it discerns.
Coming back to these verses in 2 Corinthians 4, here's the point. Paul's contrast does not appear to be between one's body and one's spirit, but between one's body and one's knowledge, one's understanding, one's faith. The body is decaying away, but we are being "transformed by the renewing of our mind," growing in our knowledge of and trust in Christ. While some attribute these faculties to the soul, there's no justification for doing so.
A HOUSE NOT MADE WITH HANDS -- 4:17-5:1
Paul goes on, saying,
Now, I've included the first verse of chapter 5 with the end of chapter 4. After all, in the original there were no chapters, just one continuous letter. Paul says that in the midst of affliction, our mind is being renewed day after day as we focus our attention on the eternal and not the temporary. He goes on to give an example of this contrast which gives us hope in the midst of suffering: the resurrection.
Remember that back in verse 14 of chapter 4, Paul says that knowledge of his future resurrection encourages him to suffer for Jesus. After explaining that our minds are being renewed in the midst of affliction by looking toward the eternal rather than the temporary, chapter 5 begins with Paul returning to the resurrection. That which is visible and temporary is our "earthly tent," our "mortal flesh" as he called it back in verse 14 of chapter 4. In contrast, that which is yet unseen but eternal, is our future "house not made with hands," our resurrection bodies.
James Burton Coffman wrote, "Paul made tents with his hands; but the glorious resurrection body is far above and beyond anything that human hands might contrive" (Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5". "Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament"). A. R. Fausset wrote, "This "house" can only be the resurrection body, in contrast to the "earthly house of the tabernacle," our present body" (Jamieson, Robert; A.R. Fausset; and David Brown. "Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5."). Chuck Smith wrote, "The mansion that the Lord is talking about is the new body He's got for me. I'm living in this tent, but one day I'm going to move into a mansion" (Smith, Chuck. "2 Corinthians 5." The Word for Today.).
It should be noted, too, that the Greek word for "house" in this verse is οἰκία (oikia), and doesn't just mean a building of some sort. It refers to an inhabited dwelling, one's home. This will prove important shortly. In the meantime, the point is that beginning in the middle of chapter 4 and extending now into chapter 5, the context is the contrast between two homes: our current, mortal body and our future resurrection body.
CLOTHED WITH OUR DWELLING FROM HEAVEN -- 5:2-4
Paul continues with this contrast, saying,
The contrast which Paul began back in verse 14 of chapter 4 is the same contrast he's giving here; the context hasn't changed from the contrast between the mortal body and the resurrection body. We groan in our mortal bodies longing for what? Our resurrection bodies. But Paul adds an analogy into the mix, likening the body not just to a house but to clothes, saying that having put it on we "will not be found naked."
Now, some take the language in these verses as supporting the notion that the human spirit becomes disembodied at death, "naked" as it were. However, it is worth noting that Paul never says we will be "naked." Quite the contrary; he says we won't be "naked." Furthermore, he explicitly says that our hope is not to be "unclothed," but rather it is to be "clothed" with our immortal, resurrection bodies.
Why even use this language, then, if being "naked" and "unclothed" were not something to be expected prior to the resurrection? Well, first we should ask, does "naked" and "unclothed" refer to being disembodied in the first place? It's interesting that the analogy of clothing is only applied to the resurrection body, and not our current body. In other words, there is no indication from the text that we are not already "naked." In fact, the word "naked" here is γυμνός (gymnos) and Paul uses it in his first letter to this congregation in likening the present body to a seed. He had previously written to them,
Notice Paul likens the present, mortal body which is buried unto a "naked" grain. We know it's the body, not the spirit, which he likens unto a "naked" seed because he then says it is "sown a perishable body" and "sown a natural body" (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). He says that God gives this "naked" grain a body unique to it. This would seem to suggest that in our present bodies we are "naked" now, insofar as we are not yet clothed by our glorified, resurrection bodies. This may be what Paul has in mind here in his second letter when he says that upon donning our future bodies, we will no longer be "naked" and "unclothed."
On the other hand, if the language of being "naked" and "unclothed" does mean to be disembodied, I believe its presence here is precisely because it is not to be expected. Paul's readers were Greeks and struggled with belief in the resurrection, instead believing in the "immortality of the soul ... that after death the soul escaped from the body to be absorbed into the divine or continue a shadowy existence in the underworld" (Donald Guthrie, The New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1071, quoted by Coffman). Paul's readers came from a background which taught that upon death we would be "naked" and "unclothed," and it seems to me Paul is telling them, "No! We won't be naked! We won't be unclothed!"
Regardless, the point is there is no indication here that Paul is saying our disembodied spirits will be with God in heaven after the death of the body. He never says that will happen, and continuing with his ongoing contrast between the mortal body and the resurrection body, he says our hope is to be clothed upon by our immortal, glorified bodies.
PREPARED FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE -- 5:5-7
Having just gone to great lengths--beginning even earlier than this chapter, as we've seen--to explain that our hope is in the resurrection, Paul tells us this:
Paul says God prepared us for a purpose and gave us the Spirit as a pledge. What is the purpose for which we have been prepared? The resurrection, as Paul has made clear! And we have the Spirit as a pledge, or promise, that this will happen! Paul tells us that this promise of the resurrection gives us courage while "at home in the body" as we walk by faith and not by sight, harkening back to the end of the previous chapter where we're told our minds are renewed as we focus on the unseen, eternal things. The context is still the resurrection, hope in which gives courage in the midst of suffering.
Now, two things are worth pointing out in the original Greek here. First, earlier when discussing verses 8 through 13 in chapter 4, I pointed out that Paul says we are carrying out the death of Jesus "in the body," ἐν τῷ σώματι. He uses the phrase twice, and then calls it specifically "our mortal flesh." Here, Paul uses the same phrase, ἐν τῷ σώματι. Those who insist the upcoming verse is proof of the intermediate state claim that reading "in the body" as "in this body," one's current body specifically, is unjustified. Yet, it is Paul who tells us that's precisely what he has in mind when he uses the phrase ἐν τῷ σώματι, which he earlied called "our mortal flesh."
At this point, one might object saying that just as Paul had said that we carry about the death of Jesus ἐν τῷ σώματι, he also says the life of Jesus will be manifested ἐν τῷ σώματι. If one understands the manifesting of the life of Jesus as referring to the resurrection, then ἐν τῷ σώματι would appear to be a reference to just one body, mortal prior to the resurrection, made immortal thereafter. This is certainly true, but at the same time he speaks of two bodies in this chapter: a body which will be torn down--our mortal body--and another body from God which we will put on in the resurrection.
The testimony of Scripture is that yes, the body that is buried is raised unto glorification. Yet, it is transformed in such a way that it can be legitimately called a different body. In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul says that in the resurrection God "gives [us] a body" and that "if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:35-44). In the same way, Paul says here that there are two "houses;" the current mortal body and the future immortal body. So when the life of Jesus is manifested ἐν τῷ σώματι ("in the body"), it is transformed from the "earthly tent" to the "building from God."
Second, recall that Paul earlier contrasts the mortal body and the resurrection body by likening them to "dwellings" or "homes" using the Greek word οἰκία. Here, "at home" is the Greek verb ἐνδημέω (endemeo) which means to "dwell in one's own country" or "stay at home." And "absent" is the verb ἐκδημέω (ekdemeo) which means "to be or live abroad;" that is, away from home. If Paul's contrast earlier is between two "homes," it follows that his contrast here between being "at home" and "away from home" is a contrast between the same two states: the mortal body and the resurrection body. This body and that body. While "at home" in this body we are "away from home" in the future body with the Lord.
WE PREFER TO BE ABSENT FROM THE BODY -- 5:8
This brings us to the verse in question:
At the beginning I said that on the surface this verse does seem to suggest that upon death we are disembodied in heaven with the Lord. But now that we've walked through the passage in its context, it no longer seems to support that notion. Recall that
As I've said, I am still on the fence when it comes to physicalism. Scripture may, in fact, teach that humans are comprised both of a physical body and a non-physical spirit or soul which is disembodied at death and goes to dwell with God in heaven awaiting the resurrection. This passage does not rule that out, but neither does it teach that. The "intermediate state" is utterly foreign to this text, wherein Paul is merely reaffirming the hope he expressed in the previous chapter, that though the "home" that is our present body will one day be "torn down," when we are "away from home" in the present body we will be "at home" in our "building from God," the immortal, glorified, resurrection body.
OBJECTIONS?
If after reading through the text with me and carefully considering my exegesis you disagree, and still insist "absent from the body" here is a reference to disembodiment in the intermediate state, please feel free to explain why in a comment or email me. I am aware of maybe a couple of objections to my exegesis, and will post them in a follow-up to this in a few days. However, it is possible that I've missed something, and I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong.
The interval between death, and the resurrection, is a state of absence from the body, during which time the soul is disembodied, and exists in a separate state; not in a state of inactivity and sleep, for that would not be desirable, but of happiness and glory, enjoying the presence of God, and praising of him, believing and waiting for the resurrection of the body, when both will be united together again; and after that there will be no more absence, neither from the body, nor from the Lord. (Gill, John. "Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:8". "The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible")
On the surface, the text does seem to suggest something along these lines. Upon digging more deeply, however, I have concluded that this is not the case, and that Paul is instead speaking of the resurrection itself. I'll explain why shortly, but first some background into what prompted me to write this.
THE VIEW FROM THE FENCE
A month or so ago, in "The View from the Fence," I blogged that I had recently shifted, from being firmly in the camp of the traditional Christian view that humans are comprised of both body and "spirit" or "soul," to precariously perched atop the fence between that view and an extreme minority view within the Church. That view, called "physicalism" (among a couple of other labels), holds that man has no soul separate from his body which resides with God in heaven after death. Instead, when the body dies, the man ceases to exist until the resurrection.
I remain on the fence, yet unconvinced of physicalism. However, I recently left my friend, Dee Dee Warren, host of The Preterist Podcast and owner of The Preterist Blog, with the impression that I had become convinced. She is currently reading (among other things) Facts and Theories as to a Future State by F.W. Grant, in which the author addresses physicalism and attempts to refute it. She posted an excerpt in which the author attempts to refute the physicalist's opinion that when Paul says we "prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord" in 2 Corinthians 5, he is not speaking of being disembodied in heaven, awaiting the resurrection, but is instead speaking of being absent from this body, present in our resurrection body.
Dee Dee had posted this excerpt at my request. I had spoken with her on the phone not long before, expressing my discomfort at the prospect of accepting a view held by a tiny minority of the Church for nearly 2,000 years, asking her for resources that might support the traditional view. Unfortunately, after reading the author's argument, I was left dissatisifed and unconvinced, and I jumped at the opportunity to explain why. I jumped so quickly, in fact, that it led Dee Dee to respond as follows:
THE VIEW FROM THE FENCE
A month or so ago, in "The View from the Fence," I blogged that I had recently shifted, from being firmly in the camp of the traditional Christian view that humans are comprised of both body and "spirit" or "soul," to precariously perched atop the fence between that view and an extreme minority view within the Church. That view, called "physicalism" (among a couple of other labels), holds that man has no soul separate from his body which resides with God in heaven after death. Instead, when the body dies, the man ceases to exist until the resurrection.
I remain on the fence, yet unconvinced of physicalism. However, I recently left my friend, Dee Dee Warren, host of The Preterist Podcast and owner of The Preterist Blog, with the impression that I had become convinced. She is currently reading (among other things) Facts and Theories as to a Future State by F.W. Grant, in which the author addresses physicalism and attempts to refute it. She posted an excerpt in which the author attempts to refute the physicalist's opinion that when Paul says we "prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord" in 2 Corinthians 5, he is not speaking of being disembodied in heaven, awaiting the resurrection, but is instead speaking of being absent from this body, present in our resurrection body.
Dee Dee had posted this excerpt at my request. I had spoken with her on the phone not long before, expressing my discomfort at the prospect of accepting a view held by a tiny minority of the Church for nearly 2,000 years, asking her for resources that might support the traditional view. Unfortunately, after reading the author's argument, I was left dissatisifed and unconvinced, and I jumped at the opportunity to explain why. I jumped so quickly, in fact, that it led Dee Dee to respond as follows:
You are coming across as already having your mind made up...I am concerned that you don’t have a healthly enough dose of supsicion with the zeal with which you attacked his statements. That took me a bit aback quite honestly. A very short period of time elapsed between my post and your response, and you were on it like a piranha on a corndog.
I love the analogy, incidentally. I explained in turn that no, I honestly have not made my mind up about physicalism, but that I am convinced that this particular passage in 2 Corinthians 5 is irrelevant. That it doesn't speak of the so-called "intermediate state" in which we reside in heaven, disembodied, awaiting the resurrection. The traditional view may, in fact, be correct, but I think its historically misinterpreted this passage.
Excuse the lengthy introduction and allow me to explain why.
ABSENT FROM THE BODY
Here is the passage in question:
6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord--7 for we walk by faith, not by sight--8 we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8, emphasis mine)
Now, on the surface, these verses do seem to suggest that we are courageous in the face of death, knowing that at death our spirits reside with the Lord in heaven, "absent from the body." A couple of other interesting statements in this chapter seem to lend support to this interpretation. In verse 3 Paul says that upon being given our resurrection bodies, we "will not be found naked." In verse 4 he says we "do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life." Why, the traditionalist might ask, does Paul use imagery like this if we can't, in fact, be "naked" and "unclothed?"
I'll come back to that question later. First, however, we need to take a closer, more careful look at this passage, extending further back into the previous chapter.
AFFLICTED IN EVERY WAY -- 4:8-13
About halfway into chapter 4, Paul begins to speak of preaching the gospel with courage in the face of death. He writes,
8 we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death works in us, but life in you. 13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I SPOKE," we also believe, therefore we also speak (2 Corinthians 4:8-13, emphasis mine)
Paul and the Apostles faced immense persecution and even impending death for the gospel they preached. In what does Paul say they were "always carrying about...the dying of Jesus?" ἐν τῷ σώματι, or "in the body." And in case "in the body" isn't clear enough, he goes on to define it as "in our mortal flesh." This will become important when we get to the passage in question.
HE WILL RAISE US ALSO WITH JESUS -- 4:14
But why, one might ask, does Paul want to live out the death of Jesus in his body? What faith does Paul have that leads him to face death at every turn in order to advance the gospel? He tells us in verse 14:
14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you (2 Corinthians 4:14, emphasis mine)
Paul exhibited courage in the face of death because he knew that just as Jesus rose from the grave, so too would he rise from the dead. What was Paul's faith and hope in the face of affliction? The resurrection body. This is the context of Paul's curious words later in his letter.
OUR INNER MAN IS BEING RENEWED -- 4:15-16
At this point, Paul speaks of something very interesting, saying,
15 For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace which is spreading to more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory of God. 16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. (2 Corinthians 4:15-16, emphasis mine)
What is our "inner man?" If in the next chapter Paul likens the body unto a house (which he does), and if the decaying body is here called our "outer man," doesn't it stand to reason that our "inner man" is our soul, inhabiting the body? No, I don't think that's a warranted assumption.
The Greek word "inner" here is ἔσωθεν (esothen) and is never connected with a soul inhabiting the body. Rather, it is used metaphorically to speak of a man's true, inward motives, desires, nature or condition. Consider how this word is used elsewhere:
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly [ἔσωθεν] are ravenous wolves. (Matthew 7:15)
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside [ἔσωθεν] they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. (Matthew 23:25; see also Luke 11:39-40)
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside [ἔσωθεν] they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27)
So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly [ἔσωθεν] you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matthew 23:28)
21 For from within [ἔσωθεν], out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within [ἔσωθεν] and defile the man. (Mark 7:21-23)
While the "inner man" might be a reference to one's soul, there's no justification for reading that into the text. These uses of the word ἔσωθεν make it clear that all that's intended by the word is a reference to one's inward desires and thoughts. False prophets aren't inhabited by the spirits of hungry wolves. Rather, their thoughts and motives inwardly are contrary to their outer appearances. The hypocritical Pharisees appeared to be pure on the outside, but were in fact unclean in their heart, in their inner desires.
Consider a similar Greek phrase rendered "inner man" which uses the word ἔσω (eso) and which appears in a couple of other places:
21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner [ἔσω] man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. (Romans 7:21-23, emphasis mine)
14 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father...16 that He would grant you...to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner [ἔσω] man, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God. (Ephesians 3:14-19)
We see again no suggested reference to a man's soul. There is no warrant for reading that into the text here. The "inner man" is where a born again follower of Christ's love for God and for others originates, yes. But there is no hint of an ethereal soul here. Instead, he equates the "inner man" with the "heart" to the Ephesians, and with the "mind" to the Romans. He speaks of the "inner man" being empowered in order that Christ would dwell in our hearts through faith. He also describes the result of being empowered by the Holy Spirit in the "inner man" as being able to "comprehend" and "know" the love of Christ.
This is important, because while some would attribute desire and godliness (or lack thereof) to one's spirit/soul, these passages seem to connect the "inner man" more with comprehension and understanding. Notice that to the Romans Paul likens his "inner man" to his "mind." He uses the same Greek word as is found later in his letter where he urges the Romans to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:2). And the word "renewing" here is the same Greek word used in 2 Corinthians 4:16 (the passage we're examining) where Paul writes that "our inner man is being renewed day by day."
The link, then, does not appear to be between the "inner man" and one's soul. Instead, the link appears to be between the "inner man" and one's mind. The Greek word for mind is νοῦς (nous), and it refers to one's intellectual faculty for perceiving, for understanding, for judging, for determining, for reasoning, for considering. After His resurrection, He appeared to the disciples and "opened their minds [νοῦς] to understand the Scriptures" (Luke 24:45). The word is believed to be the root of the Greek word γινώσκω (ginosko) which means "to learn" or "to come to know." One's "mind" doesn't just feel, it understands, it judges, it discerns.
Coming back to these verses in 2 Corinthians 4, here's the point. Paul's contrast does not appear to be between one's body and one's spirit, but between one's body and one's knowledge, one's understanding, one's faith. The body is decaying away, but we are being "transformed by the renewing of our mind," growing in our knowledge of and trust in Christ. While some attribute these faculties to the soul, there's no justification for doing so.
A HOUSE NOT MADE WITH HANDS -- 4:17-5:1
Paul goes on, saying,
17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. 1 For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. (2 Corinthians 4:17-5:1)
Now, I've included the first verse of chapter 5 with the end of chapter 4. After all, in the original there were no chapters, just one continuous letter. Paul says that in the midst of affliction, our mind is being renewed day after day as we focus our attention on the eternal and not the temporary. He goes on to give an example of this contrast which gives us hope in the midst of suffering: the resurrection.
Remember that back in verse 14 of chapter 4, Paul says that knowledge of his future resurrection encourages him to suffer for Jesus. After explaining that our minds are being renewed in the midst of affliction by looking toward the eternal rather than the temporary, chapter 5 begins with Paul returning to the resurrection. That which is visible and temporary is our "earthly tent," our "mortal flesh" as he called it back in verse 14 of chapter 4. In contrast, that which is yet unseen but eternal, is our future "house not made with hands," our resurrection bodies.
James Burton Coffman wrote, "Paul made tents with his hands; but the glorious resurrection body is far above and beyond anything that human hands might contrive" (Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5". "Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament"). A. R. Fausset wrote, "This "house" can only be the resurrection body, in contrast to the "earthly house of the tabernacle," our present body" (Jamieson, Robert; A.R. Fausset; and David Brown. "Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5."). Chuck Smith wrote, "The mansion that the Lord is talking about is the new body He's got for me. I'm living in this tent, but one day I'm going to move into a mansion" (Smith, Chuck. "2 Corinthians 5." The Word for Today.).
It should be noted, too, that the Greek word for "house" in this verse is οἰκία (oikia), and doesn't just mean a building of some sort. It refers to an inhabited dwelling, one's home. This will prove important shortly. In the meantime, the point is that beginning in the middle of chapter 4 and extending now into chapter 5, the context is the contrast between two homes: our current, mortal body and our future resurrection body.
CLOTHED WITH OUR DWELLING FROM HEAVEN -- 5:2-4
Paul continues with this contrast, saying,
2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. (2 Corinthians 5:2-4)
The contrast which Paul began back in verse 14 of chapter 4 is the same contrast he's giving here; the context hasn't changed from the contrast between the mortal body and the resurrection body. We groan in our mortal bodies longing for what? Our resurrection bodies. But Paul adds an analogy into the mix, likening the body not just to a house but to clothes, saying that having put it on we "will not be found naked."
Now, some take the language in these verses as supporting the notion that the human spirit becomes disembodied at death, "naked" as it were. However, it is worth noting that Paul never says we will be "naked." Quite the contrary; he says we won't be "naked." Furthermore, he explicitly says that our hope is not to be "unclothed," but rather it is to be "clothed" with our immortal, resurrection bodies.
Why even use this language, then, if being "naked" and "unclothed" were not something to be expected prior to the resurrection? Well, first we should ask, does "naked" and "unclothed" refer to being disembodied in the first place? It's interesting that the analogy of clothing is only applied to the resurrection body, and not our current body. In other words, there is no indication from the text that we are not already "naked." In fact, the word "naked" here is γυμνός (gymnos) and Paul uses it in his first letter to this congregation in likening the present body to a seed. He had previously written to them,
35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" 36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare [γυμνός] grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. (1 Corinthians 15:35-38)
Notice Paul likens the present, mortal body which is buried unto a "naked" grain. We know it's the body, not the spirit, which he likens unto a "naked" seed because he then says it is "sown a perishable body" and "sown a natural body" (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). He says that God gives this "naked" grain a body unique to it. This would seem to suggest that in our present bodies we are "naked" now, insofar as we are not yet clothed by our glorified, resurrection bodies. This may be what Paul has in mind here in his second letter when he says that upon donning our future bodies, we will no longer be "naked" and "unclothed."
On the other hand, if the language of being "naked" and "unclothed" does mean to be disembodied, I believe its presence here is precisely because it is not to be expected. Paul's readers were Greeks and struggled with belief in the resurrection, instead believing in the "immortality of the soul ... that after death the soul escaped from the body to be absorbed into the divine or continue a shadowy existence in the underworld" (Donald Guthrie, The New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 1071, quoted by Coffman). Paul's readers came from a background which taught that upon death we would be "naked" and "unclothed," and it seems to me Paul is telling them, "No! We won't be naked! We won't be unclothed!"
Regardless, the point is there is no indication here that Paul is saying our disembodied spirits will be with God in heaven after the death of the body. He never says that will happen, and continuing with his ongoing contrast between the mortal body and the resurrection body, he says our hope is to be clothed upon by our immortal, glorified bodies.
PREPARED FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE -- 5:5-7
Having just gone to great lengths--beginning even earlier than this chapter, as we've seen--to explain that our hope is in the resurrection, Paul tells us this:
5 Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. 6 Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord-- 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight-- (2 Corinthians 5:5-7, emphasis mine)
Paul says God prepared us for a purpose and gave us the Spirit as a pledge. What is the purpose for which we have been prepared? The resurrection, as Paul has made clear! And we have the Spirit as a pledge, or promise, that this will happen! Paul tells us that this promise of the resurrection gives us courage while "at home in the body" as we walk by faith and not by sight, harkening back to the end of the previous chapter where we're told our minds are renewed as we focus on the unseen, eternal things. The context is still the resurrection, hope in which gives courage in the midst of suffering.
Now, two things are worth pointing out in the original Greek here. First, earlier when discussing verses 8 through 13 in chapter 4, I pointed out that Paul says we are carrying out the death of Jesus "in the body," ἐν τῷ σώματι. He uses the phrase twice, and then calls it specifically "our mortal flesh." Here, Paul uses the same phrase, ἐν τῷ σώματι. Those who insist the upcoming verse is proof of the intermediate state claim that reading "in the body" as "in this body," one's current body specifically, is unjustified. Yet, it is Paul who tells us that's precisely what he has in mind when he uses the phrase ἐν τῷ σώματι, which he earlied called "our mortal flesh."
At this point, one might object saying that just as Paul had said that we carry about the death of Jesus ἐν τῷ σώματι, he also says the life of Jesus will be manifested ἐν τῷ σώματι. If one understands the manifesting of the life of Jesus as referring to the resurrection, then ἐν τῷ σώματι would appear to be a reference to just one body, mortal prior to the resurrection, made immortal thereafter. This is certainly true, but at the same time he speaks of two bodies in this chapter: a body which will be torn down--our mortal body--and another body from God which we will put on in the resurrection.
The testimony of Scripture is that yes, the body that is buried is raised unto glorification. Yet, it is transformed in such a way that it can be legitimately called a different body. In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul says that in the resurrection God "gives [us] a body" and that "if there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:35-44). In the same way, Paul says here that there are two "houses;" the current mortal body and the future immortal body. So when the life of Jesus is manifested ἐν τῷ σώματι ("in the body"), it is transformed from the "earthly tent" to the "building from God."
Second, recall that Paul earlier contrasts the mortal body and the resurrection body by likening them to "dwellings" or "homes" using the Greek word οἰκία. Here, "at home" is the Greek verb ἐνδημέω (endemeo) which means to "dwell in one's own country" or "stay at home." And "absent" is the verb ἐκδημέω (ekdemeo) which means "to be or live abroad;" that is, away from home. If Paul's contrast earlier is between two "homes," it follows that his contrast here between being "at home" and "away from home" is a contrast between the same two states: the mortal body and the resurrection body. This body and that body. While "at home" in this body we are "away from home" in the future body with the Lord.
WE PREFER TO BE ABSENT FROM THE BODY -- 5:8
This brings us to the verse in question:
8 we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:8)
At the beginning I said that on the surface this verse does seem to suggest that upon death we are disembodied in heaven with the Lord. But now that we've walked through the passage in its context, it no longer seems to support that notion. Recall that
- In the previous chapter Paul begins to explain that we carry about the death of Jesus in our bodies, ἐν τῷ σώματι, which he calls "our mortal flesh."
- He says we do so because we know that just as Jesus rose from the dead, so too will we.
- In transitioning into this chapter, he says that through affliction our minds are renewed as we look not toward the visible, temporary things but the unseen, eternal things, knowing that though our current bodies will die, our resurrection bodies await us.
- To begin this chapter he contrasts our current bodies and resurrection bodies by likening them unto "homes." He then likens only the resurrection body unto clothing, specifically saying we will not be "naked" or "unclothed" but will be "clothed upon" by resurrection bodies.
- He says the very purpose for which we are prepared is the resurrection, and that the Spirit is our guarantee that we will rise and put on our resurrection bodies.
- He says this promise gives us courage while "at home" ἐν τῷ σώματι, "in the body" which earlier he called "our mortal flesh," using verbs harkening back to the analogy of "homes" with which he began the chapter.
As I've said, I am still on the fence when it comes to physicalism. Scripture may, in fact, teach that humans are comprised both of a physical body and a non-physical spirit or soul which is disembodied at death and goes to dwell with God in heaven awaiting the resurrection. This passage does not rule that out, but neither does it teach that. The "intermediate state" is utterly foreign to this text, wherein Paul is merely reaffirming the hope he expressed in the previous chapter, that though the "home" that is our present body will one day be "torn down," when we are "away from home" in the present body we will be "at home" in our "building from God," the immortal, glorified, resurrection body.
OBJECTIONS?
If after reading through the text with me and carefully considering my exegesis you disagree, and still insist "absent from the body" here is a reference to disembodiment in the intermediate state, please feel free to explain why in a comment or email me. I am aware of maybe a couple of objections to my exegesis, and will post them in a follow-up to this in a few days. However, it is possible that I've missed something, and I'm open to the possibility I'm wrong.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The View from the Fence: A Dichotomist's Journey to Uncertainty
As recently as a week ago, I held firmly and confidently to an understanding of the nature of man held by the vast majority of Christians throughout the history of the Church. Over the course of the past week or so, however, things have changed. I know sit atop the fence between this view and one seemingly held by very few Christians, and I thought I'd share with you my journey to the top of that fence and the view I now have therefrom. Additionally, I'll use this to introduce a new series, "O LORD What is Man?" (from Psalm 144:3).
Not all of my readers are as engaged in debates within the blogosphere as I am, and will be unfamiliar with some of the terms I'll use throughout this series. As such, let me start be defining some of these terms. I was once asked in a Bible study when I was going to start blogging in English. Well, I won't begin today. Instead, I'll give you a dictionary so you can speak the language yourself.
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
"Anthropology," philosophically and theologically speaking, is "the study of the nature and essence of humankind." In a systematic theology, it is included alongside discussions of bibliology, theology proper and the like. For example, in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, part one is "The Doctrine of the Word of God" (bibliology), part two is "The Doctrine of God" (theology proper), and part three is "The Doctrine of Man" (anthropology). Our goal as Christians when it comes to anthropology is to understand what the Bible says about what it is to be human.
"Dichotomy," anthropologically speaking, is "The view that man is made up of two parts (body and soul/spirit)," as explained by Wayne Grudem. He writes that "spirit" and "soul" are "used interchangeably in Scripture to talk about the immaterial part of man, the part that lives on after our bodies die" (Systematic Theology, p. 472). Some philosophers also use the word "Dualism" to describe this view, and though I don't particularly object to its use, many do (as I've discovered), and so I will stick with their preferred term, dichotomy.
The dichotomy view of human nature is most commonly contrasted with "trichotomy." Grudem writes, "Some people believe that in addition to 'body' and 'soul' we have a third part, a 'spirit' that most directly relates to God." They would say that "a man's soul includes his intellect, his emotions and his will...a man's spirit is a higher faculty in man that comes alive when a person becomes a Christian" (p. 472). Throughout the history of the Church, the vast majority of Christians have held to one of these two views.
However, there is another view, one which I did not know until recently was held by any genuine Bible-believing Christians. Called "physicalism," "materialism" or "monism"--but only insofar as it pertains to human nature--this view holds that "man cannot exist at all apart from a physical body, and therefore there can be no separate existence for any 'soul' after the body dies (although this view can allow for the resurrection of the whole person at some future time)" (Grudem, p. 472). Theological novice that I am, though I was aware that Jehovah's Witnesses believed in something called "soul sleep," I was dumbfounded when I discovered that some Christians hold this view.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS
Dichotomists and trichotomists certainly disagree in a number of ways, but in my mind they stand together in opposition to physicalists in affirming an immaterial aspect of human nature. If one were to envision two camps within the Church separated by a fence, I was until very recently firmly on the dichotomist's side of that fence, blissfully unaware of the physicalist camp on the other side. For example, in "The Bible and the Dead: Do Ghosts Exist?" I wrote, "When a man dies, he goes to a place where the dead are utterly separate from the living, awaiting the final resurrection and judgment throne of God." Speaking of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, I continued,
Now, I was aware of non-Christians, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who held to a position called "soul sleep," but I really didn't know that there were any genuine Christians who did. And I was utterly ignorant that those who hold to this position don't believe man has any immaterial aspect to their existence at all (the "soul" or "spirit"). Thus, during the course of my 8-years-or-so-long Christian walk, I had lived in a comfy-cozy bubble thinking that man's "spirit" remaining conscious in Sheol after death was simply the Christian view. Ignorance is bliss.
SAY HELLO TO GLENN PEOPLES
This was three weeks ago, and I had just begun listening to a podcast called "Say Hello to My Little Friend." I was very impressed by some of what I heard, and as Dee Dee Warren has noted, the host's New Zealand accent makes his arguments seem all the more compelling. I first enjoyed an episode in which he, Glenn Peoples, played a recording of a sermon he had recently given on preterism. Another episode--well, three of them actually--discussed Alvin Plantinga and presuppositional apologetics, a presentation which greatly edified me.
At some point, I learned of the physicalist view Glenn holds, and two days after my "ghost post" I wrote this:
For some reason, it hadn't struck me yet. Here I had assumed that all Christians recognized that humans have immaterial spirits which remain conscious after death. And yet, Glenn's arguments in other areas seemed so well reasoned, so biblically sound. The seeming inconsistency hadn't struck me, and I intially thought nothing of it. But then, about a week later, Glenn wrote a post at a blog at which I write as a guest author, at which point my world began to be rocked.
IN SEARCH OF THE SOUL
Glenn's post was called, "Philosophy of Mind and the Hyperpreterist Controversy," in which he explained that if his physicalist position is correct, it adds to the weight of the evidence opposing the heresy of hyperpreterism. For better or for worse, it sparked a firestorm of a debate, but not about hyperpreterism. Other guest authors and I immediately began questioning the validity of his view from a biblical perspective. I'll get back to that in a moment, but I bring it up because it was this post and the ensuing debate that led me to begin to listen to his five-part podcast series called, "In Search of the Soul."
In the first four episodes in the series, Glenn refutes some of the philosophical reasons people insist that humans have an immaterial spirit that lives on after death. These episodes are not for everybody; I spoke on the phone today with one fellow blogger and podcaster, who shall go unnamed, who confessed that these episodes went over his or her head. I, however, thoroughly enjoyed them, and was impressed by Glenn's reasoning. I said as much early on in the debate that resulted from his post.
In the fifth episode, he discusses what the Bible has to say when it comes to anthropology. It was this episode to which I had really looked forward. As I said in the debate,
But by the time I pressed play on my Zune to listen to this final episode in the series, something was beginning to dawn on me. Despite the heated debate which followed Glenn's post, very little compelling biblical evidence against his view had been presented. I was still holding on to a few passages which seemed difficult to explain from a physicalist's point of view, but nothing like what one would expect to be found in the Bible in order for the dichotomy view to be so ubiquitous within the Church. As I said in the debate after listening to the episode,
HOLY COW TIPPING
You see, I'm not a big fan of Christian "holy cows." Otherwise known as a "sacred cow," a holy cow is "an object or practice which is considered immune from criticism, especially unreasonably so." In my short "career" as a Christian, I've seen a number of holy cows. These cherished beliefs are held uncritically by masses of Christians, and when these beliefs are challenged, the challenger is often met with disdain and disgust rather than with a reasoned argument.
I think the God of the Bible calls us to a higher standard. In human flesh He said to the woman at the well, "true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). As such, I've endeavored to make absolutely certain that my world view is deeply rooted in Scripture, rather than held to simply because of tradition. That's not to say I'm immune from HCS (Holy Cow Syndrome); I'm certain that there are positions I hold today uncritically. Nevertheless, I've aimed for something better, and as a result, I've changed my position in a number of areas because the Bible was my leading me somewhere different.
So as it began to dawn on me that there seemed to be no strong positive biblical case to be made for the view I had held, that humans were comprised of both a material nature and an immaterial one which survived death, I started hearing alarm bells--or rather, cow bells. I could not in good conscience hold a position without warrant. I refuse to worship a holy cow. As I said to Glenn in the debate,
THE VIEW FROM THE FENCE
Having taken my seat atop the fence, I can tell you that the view is daunting. My transition to preterism was a bit scary; after all, it almost goes without saying that if you talk to a Christian about the end times, you're going to hear about how the rapture is around the corner, immediately following which the world will experience a great tribulation involving the antichrist and so on and so forth. In other words, preterism is most definitely the minority position.
But I think I'd be accurate in saying that the percentage of Christians who hold the physicalist position is considerably smaller than that of preterists. To someone who values the work of the proverbial giants of the past upon whose shoulders I stand, the thought of adopting a position that goes so contrary to theirs is almost anathema. Nevertheless, as I said, I refuse to worship a holy cow.
Making things worse, faced with the vertigo resulting from the thought of parting ways with the majority of Christians throughout history, the view from the fence seems to offer little solace for the formerly certain dichotomist. Instead of a serious treatment of the arguments the physicalist has to offer in favor of his position, what I saw was, basically, schoolyard bullying. I wholeheartedly agreed with Glenn when I read these words:
Eventually, the "constant stream of attacks" became too much for Glenn to handle. One of the dichotomists debating him said, "I guess this means you can’t from a reasoned approach make sense of what the text explicitly states coupled with the view you are attempting to foist upon the readers." My heart sank when I read those words, and I was less than surprised when I saw Glenn quote those words in signing off from the debate.
THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
I could relate to Glenn's decision to bow out from the debate; I would have given up much sooner, I think. And then, in his absence, I tried to play the role of the devil's advocate, putting myself in the shoes of the physicalist, answering the objections my formerly-fellow dichotomists were stating. My brief walk in those shoes was jarring for two reasons.
First, what I discovered was that once one puts aside one's presupposition that humans have an immaterial spirit, one discovers that biblical passages thought to reference it no longer seem so obviously in favor of the dichotomist's position. That's not to say that physicalism seems obvious from the text; that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that in virtually every case, where the dichotomist clearly sees his position leaping from the text of Scripture, once one views those texts from a less biased position, one discovers that they are hardly the proof-texts they are thought to be. We'll get to these later as part of this series.
Second, in response to my meager attempts to present the physicalist argument, what I got was not serious attempts to address the position I was advocating, but circular arguments, bald assertions, unwarranted assumptions and an overall dismissive attitude. Arguably worse than that, I became the recipient of more subtle versions of the same kinds of attacks that caused Glenn to bow out of the debate. It was implied I was quoting from strange translation (I always quoted from the NASB). At one point I was told I was "not making any sense" and "straining credulity."
One dichotomist said to me that he was "positive the Dead Kennedy’s couldn’t get anyone to buy that, but there it is for all to see." For those as un-hip as I am, former Dead Kennedys member Jello Biafra apparently wrote a song called, "Those Dumb Punk Kids (Will Buy Anything)." The reference, then, must suggest that only "dumb punk kids" would "buy" the arguments I was making. Later, when I said I would try and dig up a physicalist's response to a difficult passage, the same dichotomist wrote, "Get ‘em, Chubby Checker," implying in advance that I was on a mission to twist the biblical text.
PRECARIOUSLY PERCHED
So, for someone who very recently firmly held to the dichotomy view of biblical anthropology, what is the view like from atop the fence between it and physicalism? Well, suffice it to say that my perch is a precarious one. Believe me, I want to believe what the majority of the Church has believed for the better part of two thousand years. I want to believe that every human is comprised of both a material body and an immaterial spirit that lives on in Sheol when the body dies.
But, like I said, I am not a fan of holy cows. My brief foray in the debate over biblical anthropology has left me unsatisfied with the majority view. If you were to ask me what evidence from Scripture I could marshal in defense of the dichotomy view, I'd with a certain amount of discomfort be able to proffer very little. On the other hand, if you were to ask me how the physicalist can explain any one of the typical arguments leveled against it, I suspect that it is likely I could capably give a defense.
On the other hand, the discomfort is tempered by a certain amount of excitement. Not long ago members of my then small group confessed that they found it somewhat difficult to do their Bible reading every week. I suggested that they look for controversy in the text, as that tends to get me interested. Well, this topic is fraught with controversy.
It is with some excitement, then, that I peer down precariously into the camps between which I am perched. I look forward to investigating this issue without presuming one position or the other. I have been freed from my bondage to a holy cow, and if I end up reaffirming the dichotomy view, it will be for the right reasons. On the other hand, if the Scripture leads me to adopt physicalism, I will be worshiping the Father in Truth. My request is that you, my readers, keep an open mind as we look at how the Bible answers the question, "O LORD What is Man?"
Not all of my readers are as engaged in debates within the blogosphere as I am, and will be unfamiliar with some of the terms I'll use throughout this series. As such, let me start be defining some of these terms. I was once asked in a Bible study when I was going to start blogging in English. Well, I won't begin today. Instead, I'll give you a dictionary so you can speak the language yourself.
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
"Anthropology," philosophically and theologically speaking, is "the study of the nature and essence of humankind." In a systematic theology, it is included alongside discussions of bibliology, theology proper and the like. For example, in Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, part one is "The Doctrine of the Word of God" (bibliology), part two is "The Doctrine of God" (theology proper), and part three is "The Doctrine of Man" (anthropology). Our goal as Christians when it comes to anthropology is to understand what the Bible says about what it is to be human.
"Dichotomy," anthropologically speaking, is "The view that man is made up of two parts (body and soul/spirit)," as explained by Wayne Grudem. He writes that "spirit" and "soul" are "used interchangeably in Scripture to talk about the immaterial part of man, the part that lives on after our bodies die" (Systematic Theology, p. 472). Some philosophers also use the word "Dualism" to describe this view, and though I don't particularly object to its use, many do (as I've discovered), and so I will stick with their preferred term, dichotomy.
The dichotomy view of human nature is most commonly contrasted with "trichotomy." Grudem writes, "Some people believe that in addition to 'body' and 'soul' we have a third part, a 'spirit' that most directly relates to God." They would say that "a man's soul includes his intellect, his emotions and his will...a man's spirit is a higher faculty in man that comes alive when a person becomes a Christian" (p. 472). Throughout the history of the Church, the vast majority of Christians have held to one of these two views.
However, there is another view, one which I did not know until recently was held by any genuine Bible-believing Christians. Called "physicalism," "materialism" or "monism"--but only insofar as it pertains to human nature--this view holds that "man cannot exist at all apart from a physical body, and therefore there can be no separate existence for any 'soul' after the body dies (although this view can allow for the resurrection of the whole person at some future time)" (Grudem, p. 472). Theological novice that I am, though I was aware that Jehovah's Witnesses believed in something called "soul sleep," I was dumbfounded when I discovered that some Christians hold this view.
IGNORANCE IS BLISS
Dichotomists and trichotomists certainly disagree in a number of ways, but in my mind they stand together in opposition to physicalists in affirming an immaterial aspect of human nature. If one were to envision two camps within the Church separated by a fence, I was until very recently firmly on the dichotomist's side of that fence, blissfully unaware of the physicalist camp on the other side. For example, in "The Bible and the Dead: Do Ghosts Exist?" I wrote, "When a man dies, he goes to a place where the dead are utterly separate from the living, awaiting the final resurrection and judgment throne of God." Speaking of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, I continued,
Jesus' parables were meant to reveal truth to His disciples, and if the pictures He painted were not rooted in reality, then how could one be assured of the truth of that which He intended to reveal? Therefore, we should probably assume that the story told is an accurate picture of the state of the dead.
Now, I was aware of non-Christians, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who held to a position called "soul sleep," but I really didn't know that there were any genuine Christians who did. And I was utterly ignorant that those who hold to this position don't believe man has any immaterial aspect to their existence at all (the "soul" or "spirit"). Thus, during the course of my 8-years-or-so-long Christian walk, I had lived in a comfy-cozy bubble thinking that man's "spirit" remaining conscious in Sheol after death was simply the Christian view. Ignorance is bliss.
SAY HELLO TO GLENN PEOPLES
This was three weeks ago, and I had just begun listening to a podcast called "Say Hello to My Little Friend." I was very impressed by some of what I heard, and as Dee Dee Warren has noted, the host's New Zealand accent makes his arguments seem all the more compelling. I first enjoyed an episode in which he, Glenn Peoples, played a recording of a sermon he had recently given on preterism. Another episode--well, three of them actually--discussed Alvin Plantinga and presuppositional apologetics, a presentation which greatly edified me.
At some point, I learned of the physicalist view Glenn holds, and two days after my "ghost post" I wrote this:
The Preterist Podcast recently turned me on to an awesome podcast called "Say Hello to my Little Friend," otherwise known as the "Beretta Cast" (and corresponding blog). As a disclaimer, I don't agree with everything I've come across at the blog; for example, I don't believe in "soul sleep," but rather that the immortal spirit is in some sense conscious in Sheol awaiting the resurrection--primarily because I don't believe Jesus' parables were rooted in fantasy. Nevertheless, I've enjoyed what I've listened to so far.
For some reason, it hadn't struck me yet. Here I had assumed that all Christians recognized that humans have immaterial spirits which remain conscious after death. And yet, Glenn's arguments in other areas seemed so well reasoned, so biblically sound. The seeming inconsistency hadn't struck me, and I intially thought nothing of it. But then, about a week later, Glenn wrote a post at a blog at which I write as a guest author, at which point my world began to be rocked.
IN SEARCH OF THE SOUL
Glenn's post was called, "Philosophy of Mind and the Hyperpreterist Controversy," in which he explained that if his physicalist position is correct, it adds to the weight of the evidence opposing the heresy of hyperpreterism. For better or for worse, it sparked a firestorm of a debate, but not about hyperpreterism. Other guest authors and I immediately began questioning the validity of his view from a biblical perspective. I'll get back to that in a moment, but I bring it up because it was this post and the ensuing debate that led me to begin to listen to his five-part podcast series called, "In Search of the Soul."
In the first four episodes in the series, Glenn refutes some of the philosophical reasons people insist that humans have an immaterial spirit that lives on after death. These episodes are not for everybody; I spoke on the phone today with one fellow blogger and podcaster, who shall go unnamed, who confessed that these episodes went over his or her head. I, however, thoroughly enjoyed them, and was impressed by Glenn's reasoning. I said as much early on in the debate that resulted from his post.
In the fifth episode, he discusses what the Bible has to say when it comes to anthropology. It was this episode to which I had really looked forward. As I said in the debate,
I just finished your 4th episode and enjoyed it. I think you’re right that philosophical objections to physicalism fall flat. I suspect philosophical arguments against [the dichotomy view]...would likewise fall flat. They both seem plausible theories given the physical evidence, and ultimately we’ll need to go to Scripture to see which is valid. As such, I’m super excited to hear the 5th episode in your series. I appreciate how carefully you’ve handled the debate in the series thus far; I hope you continue to do so in the final one.
But by the time I pressed play on my Zune to listen to this final episode in the series, something was beginning to dawn on me. Despite the heated debate which followed Glenn's post, very little compelling biblical evidence against his view had been presented. I was still holding on to a few passages which seemed difficult to explain from a physicalist's point of view, but nothing like what one would expect to be found in the Bible in order for the dichotomy view to be so ubiquitous within the Church. As I said in the debate after listening to the episode,
what dawned on me as I was listening to episode 5 in a way that perhaps it didn’t before was that it seems to me to be terribly difficult to make a positive case for the [dichotomy view]...As I’ve said before in this thread, I think biblical evidence in support of the majority view is very scant.
HOLY COW TIPPING
You see, I'm not a big fan of Christian "holy cows." Otherwise known as a "sacred cow," a holy cow is "an object or practice which is considered immune from criticism, especially unreasonably so." In my short "career" as a Christian, I've seen a number of holy cows. These cherished beliefs are held uncritically by masses of Christians, and when these beliefs are challenged, the challenger is often met with disdain and disgust rather than with a reasoned argument.
I think the God of the Bible calls us to a higher standard. In human flesh He said to the woman at the well, "true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth" (John 4:23-24). As such, I've endeavored to make absolutely certain that my world view is deeply rooted in Scripture, rather than held to simply because of tradition. That's not to say I'm immune from HCS (Holy Cow Syndrome); I'm certain that there are positions I hold today uncritically. Nevertheless, I've aimed for something better, and as a result, I've changed my position in a number of areas because the Bible was my leading me somewhere different.
So as it began to dawn on me that there seemed to be no strong positive biblical case to be made for the view I had held, that humans were comprised of both a material nature and an immaterial one which survived death, I started hearing alarm bells--or rather, cow bells. I could not in good conscience hold a position without warrant. I refuse to worship a holy cow. As I said to Glenn in the debate,
I’m going to be honest with you. Early on in the episode I noticed I was increasingly drawing nearer to the proverbial fence, though not for any arguments you were giving. Rather, I think it was because something dawned on me before you said it–or at least before it registered that you had said it: had the biblical authors intended to communicate this view that the majority holds, they could have easily done so. And now, having finished listening, I’m squarely on the fence.
THE VIEW FROM THE FENCE
Having taken my seat atop the fence, I can tell you that the view is daunting. My transition to preterism was a bit scary; after all, it almost goes without saying that if you talk to a Christian about the end times, you're going to hear about how the rapture is around the corner, immediately following which the world will experience a great tribulation involving the antichrist and so on and so forth. In other words, preterism is most definitely the minority position.
But I think I'd be accurate in saying that the percentage of Christians who hold the physicalist position is considerably smaller than that of preterists. To someone who values the work of the proverbial giants of the past upon whose shoulders I stand, the thought of adopting a position that goes so contrary to theirs is almost anathema. Nevertheless, as I said, I refuse to worship a holy cow.
Making things worse, faced with the vertigo resulting from the thought of parting ways with the majority of Christians throughout history, the view from the fence seems to offer little solace for the formerly certain dichotomist. Instead of a serious treatment of the arguments the physicalist has to offer in favor of his position, what I saw was, basically, schoolyard bullying. I wholeheartedly agreed with Glenn when I read these words:
this is why it’s so hard to engage with you - this and your constant stream of attacks...It has been a very long time since I have encountered the kind of rudeness and lack of self control from someone who regards himself as a Christian.
Eventually, the "constant stream of attacks" became too much for Glenn to handle. One of the dichotomists debating him said, "I guess this means you can’t from a reasoned approach make sense of what the text explicitly states coupled with the view you are attempting to foist upon the readers." My heart sank when I read those words, and I was less than surprised when I saw Glenn quote those words in signing off from the debate.
THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
I could relate to Glenn's decision to bow out from the debate; I would have given up much sooner, I think. And then, in his absence, I tried to play the role of the devil's advocate, putting myself in the shoes of the physicalist, answering the objections my formerly-fellow dichotomists were stating. My brief walk in those shoes was jarring for two reasons.
First, what I discovered was that once one puts aside one's presupposition that humans have an immaterial spirit, one discovers that biblical passages thought to reference it no longer seem so obviously in favor of the dichotomist's position. That's not to say that physicalism seems obvious from the text; that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that in virtually every case, where the dichotomist clearly sees his position leaping from the text of Scripture, once one views those texts from a less biased position, one discovers that they are hardly the proof-texts they are thought to be. We'll get to these later as part of this series.
Second, in response to my meager attempts to present the physicalist argument, what I got was not serious attempts to address the position I was advocating, but circular arguments, bald assertions, unwarranted assumptions and an overall dismissive attitude. Arguably worse than that, I became the recipient of more subtle versions of the same kinds of attacks that caused Glenn to bow out of the debate. It was implied I was quoting from strange translation (I always quoted from the NASB). At one point I was told I was "not making any sense" and "straining credulity."
One dichotomist said to me that he was "positive the Dead Kennedy’s couldn’t get anyone to buy that, but there it is for all to see." For those as un-hip as I am, former Dead Kennedys member Jello Biafra apparently wrote a song called, "Those Dumb Punk Kids (Will Buy Anything)." The reference, then, must suggest that only "dumb punk kids" would "buy" the arguments I was making. Later, when I said I would try and dig up a physicalist's response to a difficult passage, the same dichotomist wrote, "Get ‘em, Chubby Checker," implying in advance that I was on a mission to twist the biblical text.
PRECARIOUSLY PERCHED
So, for someone who very recently firmly held to the dichotomy view of biblical anthropology, what is the view like from atop the fence between it and physicalism? Well, suffice it to say that my perch is a precarious one. Believe me, I want to believe what the majority of the Church has believed for the better part of two thousand years. I want to believe that every human is comprised of both a material body and an immaterial spirit that lives on in Sheol when the body dies.
But, like I said, I am not a fan of holy cows. My brief foray in the debate over biblical anthropology has left me unsatisfied with the majority view. If you were to ask me what evidence from Scripture I could marshal in defense of the dichotomy view, I'd with a certain amount of discomfort be able to proffer very little. On the other hand, if you were to ask me how the physicalist can explain any one of the typical arguments leveled against it, I suspect that it is likely I could capably give a defense.
On the other hand, the discomfort is tempered by a certain amount of excitement. Not long ago members of my then small group confessed that they found it somewhat difficult to do their Bible reading every week. I suggested that they look for controversy in the text, as that tends to get me interested. Well, this topic is fraught with controversy.
It is with some excitement, then, that I peer down precariously into the camps between which I am perched. I look forward to investigating this issue without presuming one position or the other. I have been freed from my bondage to a holy cow, and if I end up reaffirming the dichotomy view, it will be for the right reasons. On the other hand, if the Scripture leads me to adopt physicalism, I will be worshiping the Father in Truth. My request is that you, my readers, keep an open mind as we look at how the Bible answers the question, "O LORD What is Man?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)