And do
not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him
who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
Given the understanding of ‘soul’ which I believe to
be biblical, it is less than straightforward to see it in this verse. The same
is true, however, of the common understanding of ‘soul’ also. If we interpret
the verse according to our strictest interpretations of the word, both views
are proved wrong.
Just as man can kill the body, God can kill both soul
and body. To say that ‘destroy’ does
not mean the same as ‘kill’ is, I
believe, to read one’s preconceptions into the text. For a start, the plain
reading of Jesus’ statement is ‘do not fear the person who can do a certain
thing against the body, but fear the Person who can do this same thing to both body and soul.’ The change
of emphasis is upon what is being harmed (the object noun) not the harming
itself (the verb).
Secondly, the word used for ‘destroy’ comes from the Greek word ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi). The same verb is used in the
exact same form earlier in Matthew’s Gospel.
Now
when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a
dream, saying, ‘Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and
stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to
destroy Him (Matthew 2:13)
No other understanding of the word can be taken than
‘kill’ – in the same sense as ‘do not
fear those who kill the body’.
I believe that this undermines the opinion that ‘destroy’ is not a synonym for ‘kill’ in Matthew 10:28. It seems to me
to be the most natural reading of the word within the phrase. Thus, whatever
the ‘soul’ is, it can be killed by
God. Furthermore, the statement made by Jesus – in order to carry any power –
would suggest that God will kill ‘both
body and soul’ if certain conditions aren’t met.
It should surely therefore be conceded that, whatever
difficulties this verse presents to my interpretation of it, it equally causes
problems to those who hold that man has an immortal soul.
Consider verse 39 of the same chapter:
He
who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My
sake will find it.
Jesus has neither changed location nor context since
verse twenty eight. It is part of the same message He was giving to His
disciples. Both verses also seem to be saying similar things regarding God’s
judgement. Though the similarities between the verses seem somewhat evident,
they are not helped by the translators’ choice of using two different English
words to represent one Greek word.
And
do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul [psuché].
But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul [psuché] and body
in hell.
He
who finds his life [psuché] will lose it, and he who loses his life [psuché]
for My sake will find it.
To the English reader, ‘soul’ and ‘life’ can mean
very different things but Matthew used the same word, which, given that it is
used in the same speech and context, ought to mean the same thing on both
occasions. If, in verse twenty eight, ‘soul’
refers to an immaterial and immortal component of man, why would it not mean
the same in verse thirty nine? Therefore, not only can the ‘immortal’ be killed
by God (v28), we are also advised to somehow ‘lose’ our immaterial and immortal
self if we wish to find it again (v39).
It is therefore my contention that neither verse makes
sense if we interpret psuché as a
separate immaterial component of man. But I must also recognise that psuché cannot refer to the physical life
here either. I do believe that this is its core meaning in the Greek Scriptures
as a whole. 1st Corinthians 15:45 uses psuché
to translate NEPHESH in Genesis 2:7.
However, there are many figurative uses of NEPHESH
in the Old Testament (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:3; 26:16;
30:2,6,10) so there is no reason that psuché
would not be the same in the New Testament.
There is something that man cannot destroy but God
can. There is something that we can purposely ‘lose’ today in order to ‘gain’
it tomorrow (and vice versa). What is it? Hope? Character? Self-worth? ‘Life’
as God intends it to be in the resurrection? A brief look at every occurrence
of psuché in Matthew’s gospel opens a
very feasible avenue of thought that permits psuché to mean ‘life’.
As argued before, we have no problems with using the
word ‘heart’ outside of its strictest meaning. We take a definite physical
human organ and allow its name to represent intangible emotions, and in the
process we make its figurative definition difficult to encapsulate. If a
hollow, pump-like organ of blood circulation can be used to describe our
deepest feelings for someone, then did the Greeks (or Jews) not have the right
to take the name applied to the entire
living being and allow its scope to broaden?
I do not know what the ‘soul’ specifically means in Matthew 10. But I believe I get the
gist. Man can cause my body to stop functioning but man will not have the final
say on my judgment. If I lose what I wish to gain today, I will gain what I
wish to gain in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment