12 June 2024
In English translations of the Bible, the Hebrew word nephesh is translated as "soul" most of the time. It's not always necessary to chase down the etymology of a word to understand the concept. However, this time I recommend it; thus, the link. Don't feel obliged to read every word there, just scan over it. It refers largely to the idea that some person is breathing, thus, alive in this world.
You quickly understand that the term is typical of Hebrew in being very imprecise. Western minds don't like that. Still, there it is: It is difficult to translate in some contexts because the term is used for a fuzzy concept.
One thing that the Hebrew people shared with their neighbors in the Ancient Near East is a broad sense of humility about the limits of human understanding of divinity. The literature across that part of the world during the Bronze Age portrays a reluctance to affirm things that humans cannot know, cannot really understand. Far, far too many western religious scholars just do not get that. Worse is that so very many western religious leaders are frankly hostile to the idea.
For theologians and their academic associates, it is simply wrong to even suppose that we could come up with a theory of where the soul comes from. The concept of the soul was never precise in the Hebrew text, nor in the Hebrew thinking that is expressed through the New Testament. Does it not occur to anyone that it's just a modeling concept? Never is the soul actually identified, nor is it discussed in any precise way. I'll warn you that the vast majority of people who use the word "soul" have the wrong idea about it.
So, the question of how/when humans get souls is barking up the wrong tree. It's seeking an answer to the wrong question. The Hebrew concept refers to the existence of someone who is alive, as opposed to dead. To suggest that a dead body's soul has departed is not meant to be a clinical statement. It is meant to remind you that living persons have fleshly desires and needs, while dead ones will quickly become a health threat if not dealt with properly, not to mention obligations to God for reverence in dealing with it.
Thus, it's silly to imagine that only the Elect have souls, or that souls are eternal. I've said before that saying the Elect have spirits is about as precise as we can get. The terms "soul" and "spirit" are not interchangeable. The non-elect still have souls. The whole point of referring to a soul is that you have to deal with people, and they are not exactly animals. A soul is a human being; you cannot kill them with the same level of impunity as you could when killing most animals.
I don't want to encourage nit-picking over terminology, but we have a big problem with a whole lot of Scriptural terms being misused by folks who have no clue what the Bible really says. In casual conversation, you can play along, but when someone begins discussing such terms seriously, you'll need to distance yourself from the common usage.
And this brings up another point I'll address in tomorrow's post.
Comments
Jay DiNitto
Interesting that nephesh is a feminine-gendered noun, and God is masculine.
"Far, far too many western religious scholars just do not get that. Worse is that so very many western religious leaders are frankly hostile to the idea."
I don't think describing (real) Christianity as agnostic is a bad idea, despite the baggage that comes with the term. Christianity is simply not agnostic about everything about God. And either way, it's not so much about how much we know about God or what we could necessarily agree with others on what we know, but rather how strongly we bother to commit to Him.
This document is public domain; spread the message.