Departure and Return of the Soul.
We have now examined all those passages in which the word spirit is used in such a manner as to furnish what is claimed to be evidence of its uninterrupted consciousness after the death of the body. We have found them all easily explainable in harmony with other positive and literal declarations of the Scriptures that the dead know not any thing, that when a man's breath goeth forth and he returneth to his earth, his very thoughts perish, and that there is no wisdom nor knowledge nor device in the grave to which we go. And so far the unity of the Bible system of truth on this point is unimpaired, and the harmony of the testimony of the Scriptures is maintained. We will now examine those scriptures in which the term, soul, is supposed to be used in a manner to favor the popular view. The first of these is Gen. 35:18: “And it came to pass as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni.” This is adduced as evidence that the soul departs when the body dies, and lives on in an active conscious condition. Luther Lee remarks on this passage:— “Her body did not depart. Her brains did not depart. There was nothing which departed which could consistently be called her soul, only on the supposition that there is in man an immaterial spirit which leaves the body at death.” The Hebrew word here translated soul is nephesh, rendered in the Septuagint by psuche; and it is unnecessary to remind those who read the article on Soul and Spirit (REVIEW, May 14), that these words mean something besides body and brains. They often signify that which can be said to leave the body, as we shall presently see, rendering entirely uncalled for the supposition of an immaterial spirit which Mr. Lee makes such haste to adopt. One difficulty under which we labor in meeting the popular view is that its methods of argument and definitions of terms are not consistent with each other. Thus death is described in two ways. At one time it is claimed that there is no death; that the soul lives right on, and that the term death applies only to the dissolution of the body; at another, it is claimed that the meaning of the term death is simply the separation of the soul and the body. Let us compare these views with the phraseology of the text: “And it came to pass as her soul was in departing.” Now on the supposition that death means simply the separation of soul and body, this is equivalent to saying, “And it came to pass as she was dying.” Then the next sentence the inspired writer throws in is needless, thus: “And it came to pass as she was dying (for she died).” But on the supposition that there is no death, the expression is not correct, and should be changed to read, “And it came to pass as her soul was in departing (for she did not die).” The phraseology is peculiar, and is against the popular view. The expression, her soul was departing, was not of itself sufficiently full and definite; hence the clause is added, “for she died.” Therefore this latter declaration that she died, determines what is meant by the expression that “her soul was departing.” But no one would think of taking the expression “she died” to describe the departure of an immaterial conscious spirit. That is not, therefore, what is meant by the declaration that her soul was departing. What then did depart, and what is the plain, simple, import of the declaration? We call the reader's attention again to the criticism of Parkhurst, the lexicographer, on this passage:— “As a noun, nephesh hath been supposed to signify the spiritual part of man, or what we commonly call his soul. I must for myself confess that I can find no passage where it hath undoubtedly this meaning. Gen. 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21, 22; Ps. 16:10, seem fairest for this signification. But may not nephesh, in the three former passages, be most properly rendered breath, and in the last, a breathing or animal frame?” Thus, while Mr. Parkhurst admits that Gen. 35:18 is the fairest instance that can be found where nephesh could be supposed to mean the spiritual part of man, yet he will not so far hazard his reputation, as to give it that meaning in this or any other instance, declaring that here it may most properly be rendered “breath.” And this is in harmony with the account of man's creation, where it is seen that the imparting of the breath of life is what made Adam a living soul; and the loss of that breath, of course reduces man again to a state of death. 1 Kings 17:21, 22: “And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.” In the light of the foregoing criticism on Gen. 35:18, this text scarcely needs a passing remark. The same principle of interpretation applies to this as to the former. But one can hardly read such passages as this without noticing how at variance they read with the popular view. The child, as a whole, is the object with which the text deals. The child was dead. Something called the soul, which the child is spoken of as having in possession, had gone from him, which caused his death. This element, not the child itself, but what belonged to the child, as a living being, came into him again, and the child revived. But according to the immaterialist view, this passage should not read so at all. For that makes the soul to be the child proper; and the passage should read something like this: “And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah, and the child came and took possession of his body again, and the body revived.” This is the popular view. Mark the chasm between it and the scripture record. Verse 17 tells what had left the child and what it was therefore necessary for the child to recover before he could live again. “His sickness was so sore,” says the record, “that there was no breath left in him.” That was the trouble; the breath of life was gone from the child. And when Elijah comes to pray for his restoration, he asks, in the most natural manner possible, that the very thing that had left the child, and thereby caused his death, might come into him again, and cause him to live; and that was simply what verse 17 states, the breath of life. Thus in neither of these passages do we find any evidence of the existence of an immaterial immortal soul, which so confidently claims the throne of honor in the temple of modern orthodoxy.