Scriptural Meaning of the Word Soul.
A STRANGE and quite unwarrantable use of this idea of personality or selfhood of the term soul has been made in favor of its separate existence from the body, on which depends its present immortality. It is based on such texts as 2 Peter 1:14. The argument may be stated as follows:— Peter said: “Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle.” The identity or selfhood is found in the pronoun my. The personality represented by my possesses and dwells in a tabernacle, which is the body. Therefore my represents the soul which dwells in the body as a temporary abode or tabernacle, and of course lives on independent of its temporary dwelling-place when it leaves it. This has been used by men of ability and education; and therefore many have thought it quite irresistible. But it is the merest sophistry, without any weight as an argument. By this method of reasoning it may be proved that there are several personalities in one man. And the form of expression may be varied indefinitely. Thus: You say, my body; and it is the soul that speaks, showing that there is a conscious, intelligent entity independent of the body. And again you say, my soul; and it is the body which speaks, showing that the body is a conscious, intelligent entity independent of the soul. No, says the objector, man may have two intelligent entities; but the body is not one—it is the spirit. Very good, but we have not exhausted the list of illustrations. When Mary said, “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour,” Luke 1:46, 47, then her body must have spoken, proving that the body is an intelligent entity independent of the soul and spirit. Again, the pronoun your expresses in the second person exactly what my expresses in the first person. And when Paul prayed that “your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” it proves that there is an intelligent entity in man which possesses a body, a soul, and a spirit, and of course may exist independent of all of them. But what is it? Is this undefined entity immortal? It must be; for one of the strongest evidences offered for the immortality of the soul is that it possesses the body, saying “my tabernacle.” The truth is that the man may speak of all his parts, whatever those parts may be, or whatever their nature, and use the possessive; and he who endeavors to prove from this that any part of man can live as an intelligent entity separate from the body, is guilty of using unpardonable sophistry. But the question is asked, “Is not man a compound being?” Yes; you may call him a compound being, or a complex being; we admit that he is, and so is everything else that has a being. But we shall adopt and adhere to the language of the question; man is a being; he is not beings. A single man has but a single entity. We ask our opponents on this doctrine to produce one text of Scripture from which it may be inferred that there are two personalities in one man. Prof. Bush (and others) claims that soul applied to man, is synonymous with life; that life is the primary and true meaning of the word soul. We have shown that this is not true, for soul (neh-phesh) is applied to a dead man even as it is applied to a living man. But it is not applied to life in the vegetable kingdom; it refers to animal life only. But admitting that Prof. Bush’s statement is correct, our conclusion is still the correct one. For the life of man is not an entity separate from and independent of man, but is a quality or condition of man. Deprived of life he is still a man— “a dead man.” This is an expression of Scripture; but who ever heard of personality—of manhood—being ascribed to the life of a man after the death of the body? Where is the text of Scripture which will warrant such an application or such an idea? We are willing to go still further in our admission: Man is a compound being, composed of body, soul, and spirit,—the word soul being used in a secondary sense,—but he is not a perfect or complete being when these component parts are separated. A man destitute of breath, or life—“the breath of life”—is a man minus animation, thought, volition, and all power of action. The life is not the man, but it is a condition of man necessary to the exercise of any power, and to the enjoyment of any good. From this fact some have hastily, but without reason, inferred that life means happiness. They do not like to admit that life means merely animated existence. Thus Prof. Bush only gives expression to a very common idea when he says, “There is a superadded sense of enjoyment, which is frequently to be recognized in the use of the word life, both in the Old Testament and the New.” The expression, “superadded sense,” is not accurate. It is not any sense of life, whatever. It must be evident to every one that that which is superadded to life cannot be inherent in life. Happiness is no more a sense or meaning of the term life, than is misery. In this present state of mixed good and evil, both are conditions of life. And it is a part of the every-day experience of the majority of the human race, that misery is quite as likely to be connected with life as is happiness. The greatest boon ever conferred upon or promised to man, is life. The opposite, death, is the greatest curse, the penalty of the transgression of the divine law. God is called “the living God,” or the God of life. He has, throughout the Scriptures, shown the high estimate he places upon life. In it are stored all the possibilities of good and of happiness. It is true that happiness is inseparably connected with life, for without life there is no happiness. And it is equally true that misery is inseparably connected with life; for without life there is no misery. But it is not equally true that life is inseparably connected with happiness. There cannot be happiness without life; there may be life without happiness. Happiness may indeed be “superadded” to life, but happiness is not a necessary condition of life. Miserable life is possible as well as happy life. Nothing more can be needed to show that happiness is not a synonym of life; that life does not mean happiness. It means simply animated existence, other circumstances determining the conditions—the happiness or misery—of the existence. But “God is love,” and his tender mercies are over all his works. He has wisely and mercifully determined that they only shall live forever who are fitted to enjoy life; who are proved to be worthy of the great boon. There are those who prove themselves “unworthy of eternal life,” who, being unreconciled to the ways of God, cannot be happy, and they will return to their original condition,—to a state of non-entity,—be destroyed. What better could be done in their case?