Job 32:18"For I am full of words; The spirit within me compels me"
and
Job 34:14"If He should set His heart on it, If He should gather to Himself His Spirit and His breath,"
There is a clear distinction between spirit and breath. Breath is not meant here because the spirit of man is capable of thought and perception.
Psalm 146:4"His spirit departs, he returns to his earth; In that very day his plans perish."
Man's spirit leaves the body at the point of death.
Ecclesiastes 12:7"Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it."
Upon his death, the spirit of man returns to God.
Daniel 7:15 "I, Daniel, was grieved in my spirit within my body, and the visions of my head troubled me."
Only intelligent things can experience emotion. "Breath" can't experience emotion.
Isaiah 26:9"my spirit within me seeks"
"Breath" can't seek anything.
Mark 2:8"But immediately, when Jesus perceived in His spirit that they reasoned thus within themselves, He said to them, "Why do you reason about these things in your hearts?"
Jesus' spirit had perception - so it can't be "breath."
I Corinth 2:11 "What man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is in him?"
Knowledge is attributed to the human spirit.
Ephesians 4:23 "and be renewed in the spirit of your mind,"
This verse suggests that we not only renew our minds but our spirits as well. Can "breath" be renewed?
Matthew 27:50"And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit."
Can breath be "yielded up?"
Luke 23 :46 "And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, "into Your hands I commit My spirit."
Did the Father hold Jesus' breath in His hands?
Acts 7:59 As Stephen was being stoned, he cried out, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."
and in Hebrews 12:22,23 "the spirits of just men made perfect."
Can "breath" be made perfect?
IS THE SOUL THE SAME AS THE SPIRIT?
Man's immaterial side is
given several different names in Scripture. It has been called
the "spirit," "soul," "mind," "heart, "inner parts," etc. of man.
The names should not be viewed as referring to separate
entities but as descriptions of different functions or
relationships which man's immaterial side has. Thus, "spirit" and "soul" should not be viewed as separate entities, although
there is somewhat of a distinction between them, and as describing higher and lower functions and the relationship of man's immaterial side to God and the world.
Indeed, spirit and soul are used interchangeably in various passages:
Isaiah 26:9 - "With my soul I have desired You in the night, Yes, by my spirit within me I will seek You early;"
and
Luke 1:46,47)"And Mary said: "My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior…"
I Thess. 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
The fact that the words "soul" and "spirit" are listed side by side in this verse should not be viewed in a "substantial sense" but in a "functional sense."
After all, does
Deut. 6:5"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength"
or
Mark 12:30"And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength."
mean that man is made up of five parts or entities: Heart, soul, mind, strength and understanding? That man's spirit and soul refer to his immaterial side can be seen from the following points:
1. Man's soul/spirit can be
viewed as being separate from his body.
(Eccl. 12:7; Isa. 10:18; Matt. 10:28; I Cor. 5:5)
2. Death is said to occur
when man's spirit/soul leaves the body.
(Gen. 35:18; I Kings 17:21,22; Eccl. 12:7; James
2:26)
3. Man's soul/spirit is the seat of his intellect.
(Prov. 23:7, 29:11; Mark 2:8; I Cor. 2:11; 14:15; Acts 4:2;
Phil. 1:7,27; Heb. 12:3)
4. Man's soul/spirit is the seat of his will.
(Ex. 35:21; Ps. 103:1; Matt. 26:41; Eph. 6:6)
5. Man's soul/spirit is the seat of his emotions.
(Gen. 26:35, 41:8; Ps. 42:1-6; II Cor. 2:13 cf. Matt 26:38;
Mark 8:12; Luke 1:46,47, 2:35; Acts 4:32, 17:16, 18:25; Eph.
6:6; II Peter 2:8)
6. Man's soul/spirit is the
place of inner worship.
(Ps. 51:10,17, 103:1, 146:1; Luke 1:46,47 cf. Matt. 22:37;
John 4:24; Romans 1:9; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 12:22-24; Rev. 6:9)
RESPONSES TO WATCHTOWER "PROOF TEXTS"
Introduction:
The Scriptures speak of man as having two sides, i.e., two levels of reality. Man cannot simply be reduced to being either wholly material or immaterial. He is both, and the Christian Church has always viewed man as being comprised of two sides.
If the Biblical authors did not believe that man had an immaterial side, they would not have used such terms as "soul," which would indicate this to the hearer of their day. Thus the mere presence of such terms in the Bible as "soul" reveals the absurdity of those who claim that the authors did not believe that man had an immaterial side, or soul. It only stands to reason that if the authors did not believe that there was more to man than just his body, they would not have used these exact words in the cultural context which would directly refer to man's immaterial and immortal side.
The Watchtower says:
Genesis 2:7: "Man IS a soul"
Jehovah's Witnesses restrict the meaning of the word "soul" to "physical life" because this is probably what it meant when it was used by Moses to refer to the immaterial life principle within animals (Gen. 1:20) or man (Gen. 2:7). Because the word "soul" in Genesis 2:7 probably means "living being," the Witnesses then pronounce that this is the ONLY definition of soul which is allowed. Whenever other passages are presented where the context demands another definition of the word "soul," they lay these passages aside and retreat to Genesis 2:7. As long as they fail to understand the progressive character of Biblical revelation and the resulting deepening of understanding of words and concepts, they will be forever stuck in Gen. 2:7. Their resistance to the idea that what the word "soul" meant to Moses was probably not what it meant to David or Paul is based on their subconscious assumption that the Bible is ONE book that was written at ONE time.
Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 "The dead know nothing."
The Book of Ecclesiastes, which was written by Solomon, reflects the negative outlook of a person who did not have God in his life. Being the son of David, he had a great inheritance in the Lord but he didn't stick with it. Thus, much of what we read by Solomon reflects his worldly viewpoints:
Verse 5 "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."
If this verse is literal and true, then the last part contradicts Matthew 16:27 which says that the dead WILL be rewarded. Thus, the Jehovah's Witnesses would never be able to come back to earth if there was no such thing as a "reward for the dead."
Go back to verse 2 of Eccl. ch. 9 and ask the Witness if he will receive the same fate whether righteous or wicked. The answer is NO. To repeat, this book and chapter expresses a faithless, secular viewpoint of a fallen man - not God's viewpoint.
Verse 6 "Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun."
The reason the dead are unaware of what is now happening "under the sun" is not because they are unconscious, but rather it is due to the fact that the dead are in a different realm (Sheol). So their relationship with this world, which is "under the sun," is cut off.
Does the phrase "know nothing" mean "unconscious?" II Samuel 15:11 "And with Absalom went two hundred men out of Jerusalem, that were called; and they went in their simplicity, and they knew not any thing."
I Corinthians 15:45
"And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
Not in I Samuel 20:39which says: "But the lad knew not any thing: only Jonathan and David knew the matter."
Christ becoming "a life-giving spirit" had reference to His resurrection when His spirit was placed back into His body once again. The contrast between Adam and Christ, in this context, is a contrast in the kind of body each received. If the second half of the verse means that Christ did not have a body, then the first half means that Adam did not have one either. Adam becoming a "soul" had reference to his creation when God breathed into Adam's completed but inactive, dead body and it became alive. This verse is not a contrast between the material and immaterial.
THE WORD "DESTROY"
The words "destroy," "perish" or "lost" (Gr. apollumi) do not mean annihilation. It means "to render useless," "ruin" and "loss of well-being"; NOT loss of being, as the Witnesses proclaim.
That the Greek word "apollumi" cannot mean non-existence is clear from the way it is consistently used in the New Testament. Examples:
Matthew 10:6 - "But go rather to the lost ("apollumi") sheep of the house of Israel."
Luke 5:37 "And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish ("apollumi").
Luke 15: 4,6 "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost ("apollumi"), until he find it? 6: And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost ("apollumi")."
Luke 15:24 "For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost ("apollumi"), and is found."
Luke 19:10 "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost."
John 6:27 "Labour not for the meat which perisheth ("apollumi"), but for that meat
which endureth unto everlasting life..."
John 10:28 "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish ("apollumi"), neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
II Corinth. 4:3 "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost ("apollumi"):"
I Peter 1:7 "That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth ("apollumi")..."
In every above instance where the Greek word "apollumi" is found in the New Testament, something other than annihilation is being described.
Interestingly, there is NO word in either the Hebrew or Greek language that means "non-existent." There was no such concept in both their cultural and religious structures.
EVIDENCE FROM THE
There is overwhelming testimony among the early church fathers that they accepted death as being the separation of man's body and the soul.
EARLY CHURCH FATHERS
For example, in Tertullian's work, A Treatise on the Soul, he refutes many of the Greek and pagan concepts regarding the nature of the soul and its continued existence. There was a clear demarcation between the theology of the early church and the Greek philosophers in this matter, and the Watchtower has not made this known to its followers.
The Watchtower habitually ignores any historical evidence contrary to their views. According to them, one cannot hope to find any reliable information from church history or secular records. While negating the value of historical statements that are at odds with their views, they will turn around and quote from those that support their views, thereby following a double standard.
QUOTES AND MISQUOTES
In the 1985 Edition of the Watchtower Society's book, "Reasoning From the Scriptures", the Society offered these quotes from scholars on the subject of the "soul." It is to be noted that the Society omitted some very revealing information found in the same sections of their own quotes:
"Reasoning… " Page 377: "The Hebrew term for soul, nephesh, was used by Moses.....signifying an "animated being' and applicable equally to non human beings.....New Testament usage of 'psyche' (soul) was comparable to 'nephesh.'- The New Encyclopedia Brittanica (1976), Macropedia, Vol. 15, p.152
RESPONSE:Page 152 of the Encyclopedia also says, "The Hebrews used the term [nephesh to apply to the entire personality but reserved the concept "ruach" (spirit) to denote a principle of life, "mind," and occasionally "heart." 'Nephesh' was often used as if it were the seat of appetite, emotion, and passion, and conjoined with "heart,' was held to encompass intellect, will and feeling. Jesus' complete dualistic demarcation between flesh and "spirit" was quite evident."
"Reasoning…..p. 379":
(#1)"The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature.....
RESPONSE to #1: (From p.454 of
the Encyclopedia) - Column One – says: "The doctrine of the soul as a substance made for union with the body, yet subsistent in itself,
rational, incorporeal, simple and immortal, was far different from the teaching of the early Greek philosophers. Plato and Aristotle seem to have had little direct influence in the formation of such a concept; when their doctrine was adduced (presented), it was usually subject to criticism. Neoplatonism received less attention than one might expect. In the first Christian centuries, the Fathers were concerned with establishing a concept in accord with the Christian doctrine of immortality as well as of the Incarnation."
(#2)"His [Augustine's] doctrine.....owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism." New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452,454
RESPONSE to #2: (From p. 454 of
the Encyclopedia) Column Two: The quoted statement at the end referring to Augustine and Neoplatonism really ends with a comma and not a period! The rest of the sentence should read:
"…..yet was much more strikingly Christian in approach and content. His thought begins with man created by God as a whole, a rational substance composed of body and soul. The incorporeality of the soul is something difficult to prove to those who are slow of wit - as is evident from his controversies over the question - but it is something of which he was wholly convinced."