In the past two THOUGHTS I have declared that all human beings possess an immaterial soul and that the possession of the soul marks the beginning of life. These two truths are vital in determining the morality of the abortion issue. A question that needs to be answered though, is when does a person possess a soul. If the soul is present at conception, then abortion is the murder of a genuine human being. If, however, the soul becomes part of a person sometime after conception, then up until that point in time, what is in the womb of a woman is not a human being and there is a moral legitimacy to its abortion.
There are two significant problems in determining the time of the origin of the soul. As I stated in a previous THOUGHT, how can you detect by physical means a non-physical object. Ultrasounds can give a very detailed image of the child in the womb, but how do you take a picture of something that is invisible? It’s like trying to take a picture of air. Secondly, Scripture, which declares the existence of the soul in every person, does not specifically state in a singular sentence when that soul comes into being. However, there are certain statements in Scripture that reasonably declare the time of the soul’s origin.
Throughout time, there have been three prominent theories concerning the soul’s origin. The first, which has mostly been abandoned, at least in Christianity, is the Preexistence Theory. It posits that all souls were created in the beginning of creation or that they have existed eternally. At some time, either at conception or before birth, the soul enters the body. From a biblical standpoint, there is a huge problems with this belief. The created souls would be free from sin but Scripture states that all have sinned (Romans 3:23). The only way then that all of mankind would be sinners is that God created sinful souls, which contradicts Genesis 1:31.
The second theory is the Creation Theory. Advocates of this belief claim that each soul is created individually and directly by God and is embodied in the child in the womb either at conception or birth or sometime in between. This belief has the same problem explaining sin as does the Preexistence Theory and it also contradicts Genesis 2:2 that God ended His work of creation on the 7th day.
The third theory is known as the Traducian Theory. This theory states that when God created Adam, He created him with the ability to procreate. Adam’s procreative ability was not limited to creating a body, but also a soul. God created Adam with a sinless soul which is consistent with the nature of God and the declaration of Genesis 1:31. But Adam sinned before generating children and possessed a sin nature (his soul was defiled). He then reproduced after his kind, which agrees with Romans 5:12. Another witness to the validity of the Traducian Theory is the statement of David in Psalm 51:5 where he said that, “in sin did my mother conceive me.” The use of a personal pronoun indicates the conception of a whole person, including the immaterial soul.
Beginning in the 1980’s, DNA profiling allowed an accurate determination of one’s parentage. There no longer needs to be a question of one’s biological origin. The DNA of the child in the womb is complete at conception. It is neither added to or changed during the pregnancy of the mother. Likewise, the spiritual DNA of a person is complete at conception- the soul has been generated and the child in the womb is a genuine living human being. As such, the purposeful taking of its life is murder.
In the debate over abortion, a number of questions need to be answered in order to come to a proper conclusion concerning the morality of the procedure. At issue are such things as the autonomy of a woman over her own body, what is the beginning of life, and when does what is in the womb become a human being. In the previous THURSDAY’S THOUGHT, I contended that a person’s humanity is not determined by the ability, or inability to perform certain activities, but by the possession of an immaterial soul. The question that now needs to be addressed is do people actually possess a soul and, if so, when is it generated or how is it acquired.
Since the dawn of civilization, mankind has recognized the existence of something more than just the physical properties that constitute humanity. Greek philosophers, such as Plato, believed in an immaterial entity known as the pseuche or psyche. But longevity of belief does not necessarily confirm the reality of something. Proving the existence of a soul is next to impossible. Material objects can be identified by one’s senses, but how do you identify an immaterial object? In the end, I believe there are two reasons to believe in the existence of a soul. First, and foremost, the Bible declares that man possesses one. Second, it is the only thing that can explain any after death experience. Obviously, there will be some who reject the authority of Scripture as well as life after death. Space will not permit me to validate either of these two reasons here. Lord willing, I will deal with the issue of the soul and life after death in a future THURSDAY’S THOUGHT.
A popular meme states that life begins when a being takes its first breath. Genesis 2:7 is cited for biblical support. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” The “logical” reasoning is breath of life --> living, no breath --> just a compilation of cells. Since the child in the womb is not breathing, it cannot be a human life, and therefore is subject to an abortion. But the “logic” fails in numerous ways. First, while breathing may not occur in the normal fashion in the womb, babies do breathe. Oxygen and carbon dioxide are exchanged through the placenta of the mother. If this did not occur, the baby would die. Secondly, if breathing is the tell-tale sign of the existence of life, what is the condition of the person who suffers with sleep apnea when they momentarily stop breathing? Have they momentarily died? Third, Genesis 2:7 says nothing about Adam breathing. While it is reasonable to assume that Adam was not breathing before this act and began breathing on his own after it, the issue is not the activity of Adam but that of God breathing into Adam. What then constituted this “breath of life” that caused Adam to become a “living soul”?
Three Hebrew words are vital to the understanding of the teaching of this verse of Scripture. The first is the word neshamah, translated as breath. It is used 24 times in the OT. 2 uses in the Book of Job are instructive. In Job 26:4, Job responds to the criticism of Bildad with, “To whom hast thou uttered words? and whose spirit (neshamah) came from thee?” A few verses later Job continues, “All the while my breath (neshamah) is in me, and the spirit (ruach) of God is in my nostrils;” (Job 27:3). Bible translators could properly translate Genesis 2:7 as, “…God breathed into his nostrils the spirit of life…” It is interesting in the New Testament that James states that death occurs when the spirit leaves the body (James 2:26). Likewise, a person who has not been born again, who is spiritually dead in trespasses and sin (Ephesians 2:1) is devoid of the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9). The third word used above in Genesis 2:7 is the Hebrew word nephesh translated as “soul”. It is used at times synonymously with ruach (spirit) as in Job 7:11, “Therefore I will not refrain my mouth; I will speak in the anguish of my spirit (ruach); I will complain in the bitterness of my soul (nephesh).” What we learn from Genesis 2:7 then, is that Adam became a living being, possessing a soul, when God breathed into him the spirit of life. Life begins with the possession of a soul which ultimately generates the ability to breathe.
Human beings are not created in the same manner as Adam was. So, when does God impart the spirit of life that brings the possession of a soul forming a living human being? That question will need to wait to be answered until next week’s THOUGHT.
In the last couple of days since the Super Bowl, I have seen a number of memes critical of the amount of money spent by the group “He Gets Us” suggesting that if the group wanted to spend according to biblical admonitions, the money should have been spent on feeding the poor. Without question, Christians have a moral responsibility of aiding the poor (Galatians 2:10). But Christians also have the responsibility of reaching souls who are lost in sin with the gospel of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:19-20). At issue, then, is the question of the value of the immaterial and eternal soul versus the value of a material and temporal body. But before that issue can be settled, it is necessary to determine if an immaterial soul even exists.
Until recently, the existence of a person’s soul was unquestioned. Both Old Testament and New Testament saints, as well as most unbelievers, viewed the immaterial soul as a constitutional reality of mankind. But with the “advances” of medical technology, the idea of a separate facet of the soul has been discarded in favor of strict physicalism or wholistic monism. But how can the non-existence of an immaterial object be verified with the use of devices that measure material entities? I agree with J.P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae who conclude that monism, “…cannot be sustained by a careful exegesis of the biblical text. Holy Scripture clearly teaches some form of anthropological dualism.”[1]
What then, is the value of the soul in comparison to the physical part of mankind. Jesus indicates that the soul is superior in worth to the body in various portions of the New Testament. For example, He asks the question as to how a person is profited if he gains the whole world and yet loses his soul (Matthew 16:26, Mark 8:36-37). The difference in value is clearly declared in Matthew 6:25 where Jesus says, “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?” In the gospel of Luke, Jesus speaks of a rich man who was content in the luxury of his bodily comforts. The man’s thoughts were, “And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry.” (Luke 12:19). The text goes on to state that God calls the man a fool. Likewise, in the account of the rich man who entered hades with a lost soul, Jesus states that the man wanted his living brothers warned that they would not make the same mistake as he did (Luke 16:27-28). In all of these examples, there is not a problem with the expenditure of money on physical needs or even wants, but all declare the needs of the soul to far surpass the needs of the body.
Some of those who have posted the critical memes state that anyone supporting such an expenditure of money “have read the wrong book.” However, I wonder if those critics have read the whole book at all, or only selected portions that can be taken, outside the context, to support their position. Would Jesus have spent an exorbitant amount to save the soul of anyone? The answer is an absolute YES! The Apostle Paul writes, “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” (2 Corinthians 8:9) The context is spiritual riches for us, not physical.
The Apostle John records that is was necessary for Jesus to go out of his way and spend time with a Samaritan woman in order to confront her with the spiritual needs of her soul for salvation. (John 4:1-26) But the most convincing passage of Scripture concerning the extent to which God would spend for the saving of the soul is found in the familiar verse, John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” God the Father sent and Jesus Christ, the Son came in order that man might have eternal life, not an extension of physical life. The cost was crucifixion.
People may debate whether the expenditure of the great sum of money could have been spent on better means to reach people for Jesus Christ. I will leave that judgment to the Lord (Romans 14:10). But this I will declare, if it was it was necessary to spend even more money than what was spent on the Super Bowl ads for just one soul to come to Christ for eternal life, the money would have been well spent.
[1] Moreland, J.P. and Scott B. Rae, Body & Soul- Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics, (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2000) p. 23
Why do most people find it moral/ethical to kill a steer and immoral/unethical to kill an innocent human being? We rejoice if a steer is slaughtered because it means there’s steak for supper. We groan when we hear of the slaughtering of mankind. What makes one acceptable and the other not? Why do we emotionally respond differently to the same action? The answer is simple. Mankind possesses a distinct and greater quality of life than does the animal kingdom. From a biblical viewpoint, man was created in the image of God, the rest of creation was not.
For thousands of years of history this distinction has guided the actions of mankind. Unfortunately, in the last 75 years many human beings have justified acting inhumanely to certain other humans. Their justification rests in the belief that certain beings are not human beings. The belief is founded upon a definition of humanity as being capable of accomplishing various physical activities. For example, a popular statement is that embryos can be frozen and survive while babies can’t because embryos are not human. But is that a valid conclusion or even the only conclusion that explains the difference in activity?
In my younger days I participated in a couple of 10K and 5-mile races. While I was never the winner in any of them, I could accomplish running the entire distance in a respectable time without any significant wear and tear on my body. Having had two open-heart surgeries and having aged a couple of decades, the same would not be true today. I suppose (I am not willing to investigate) that if I tried to do the same as I did before, I would literally die. Using the rationale concerning embryos and babies above, I must not have been a human being in my younger days. Or maybe I was a human being then and somewhere along the line I ceased to be one.
In the course of living, the abilities of humans change, sometimes for good, and sometimes to our detriment. For example, in the first few years of my life, I was dependent upon my mother to prepare my food to nourish my body. In fact, from birth for a while, I was also dependent upon her actually getting the food into my mouth. In the course of time, I learned to feed myself and then even to prepare my own nourishment. Now, as I’m entering the final third of my life expectancy, my physical abilities are beginning to wane. It may be that at sometime in the future I will once again be dependent upon others to feed me. But despite all the changes in my abilities, both good and bad, my humanity has not changed.
Moreland and Rae write these appropriate words concerning Psalm 139:13-18. “The psalmist [David] reflects on the way in which God has intricately created him. He describes the process with vivid figures of speech such as being knit or woven together in the womb. He marvels at the skill of God in fashioning the details of his being in the secret place of the womb. The psalmist describes himself as an ‘unformed substance’ (v. 16 NRSV), translated by the primary lexicon for the Old Testament as ‘embryo.’ David sees the person who gives thanks and praise to God (vv. 13-16) as the same person who was skillfully woven together in the womb (v. 13) as the same person who is known by God inside and out (vv. 1-6). In other words, there is a continuity of personal identity from the earliest point of development to a mature adult.”*
Two important conclusions must be made concerning humanity. First, becoming a human being is not dependent upon being capable of certain physical abilities. I will contend that genuine humanity begins with the possession of an immaterial human soul, which is generated at conception (Lord willing, my next THURSDAY’S THOUGHT). Second, it is incumbent for human beings to act humanely to all human beings, both in and out of the womb.
* Moreland & Rae, Body & Soul, Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics, p. 232-233. The lexicon referenced is Brown, Driver & Briggs, Hebrew & English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 5th ed.
The Salina Bible Church is an independent, Bible-teaching church, located approximately 6 miles south of Apollo, PA at the intersection of routes 819 and 981.
(724) 697-5357
info@salinabible.org
Mailing Address:
Box 275
Salina, PA 15680
Physical Location:
4132 Route 819
Avonmore, PA 15618
Do NOT use this address
for mailing purposes.