Christianity and Psychology

Introduction by Gordon

I want to take this opportunity to introduce the co-author of this article (the longer and most important part) and to say a few things about the subject myself.  Gary and his wife, Gail, have recently moved from Connecticut to Phoenix to assume the roles of evangelist and women’s ministry leader for one of our four Regions.  Prior to moving, Gary had been taking graduate courses at the highly regarded Gordon-Conwell Seminary in the Boston area, and has already been accepted as a student at the Phoenix branch of Fuller Theological Seminary.  While a student at Gordon-Conwell, Gary wrote a research paper regarding the ultimate impossibility of integrating Psychology with biblical teaching.  The following article by him is essentially the same paper, with a different title and a few edits to make it more understandable for the average reader.

I concur with Gary that Christian Counseling has a valid place in Christianity, but has often been assigned a role that places more emphasis on the validity of psychology than on the Bible.  Of course, among believers, this reality is so subtle that it is not generally perceived.  That fact makes it all the more likely to yield some damaging effects.  Through the years, I have had a number of friends in the church who were counselors, with various types and levels of training.  In helping individuals work through deeper problems, they have often been very helpful.  But I do believe that disciples need a better understanding of the limitations of professional or even Christian counseling, and some of the inherent dangers involved when viewing it the wrong way.  Thus, I invite you to read Gary’s material, after which I will have a few observations in a related area that I believe tie into what he says in an important way.  Enjoy the read!

The Integration of Christianity and Psychology

by Gary Sciascia

In recent generations the influence of modern psychology has successfully worked its way into virtually all significant areas of western civilization. From sports, to education, to business, to romance, to music, and even to the church, its ever-increasing sway extends. Much more than a fad or passing fancy, psychology has become ensconced as a permanent cultural fixture. In the words of Johnson and Jones, “It should come as no surprise then to learn that Christian thinkers have also thought deeply about “psychology,” psychology understood as the rigorous attempt to understand human character and behavior, one grounded in philosophical reflection and examination of the “data” of human experience.”[1] The focus of this article is to analyze the issues in the amalgamation of psychology and theology in what has come to be known in some circles as integration.

What is integration? As mentioned above, the popularity and acceptance of psychology has proliferated in our culture, and many now even in Christian circles turn to psychology for answers to many of life’s emotional and mental woes. This can create a tension between the values traditionally held by the Church taken from the Bible, and principles held by those in the field of psychology. Integration, then, is the attempt to blend or mesh these two approaches to life together. As one former American Psychological Association president espoused:

We simply take for granted the truth of revelation found in scripture… [We] also take for granted the essential correctness of what is held, on experimental or clinical grounds, by students of physiology, psychology, and psychiatry. If these two belief systems are both true, we ask what possibilities are conceptually available for accommodating them to one another.[2]

A Brief Biblical Overview

A good question is: what does the Bible have to say about psychology? The answer to that is largely dependent upon one’s point of view. One perspective may point to the fact that the Bible does not refer directly to the field of psychology at all, while another may see the Bible as being replete with passages on mankind’s psychological wellbeing. Passages such as Proverbs 20:5  “The purposes of a man’s heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out,” talk about the need for people to dig deep within themselves to gain a greater self-awareness. Both perspectives can live in harmony so long as the Bible is not twisted or subverted in some way.

The science of psychology need not be discarded simply because it is not specifically referred to in scripture. Indeed, seeing oneself more clearly and getting in touch with deeper motives and understanding one’s own past better can yield tremendous benefits in the area of emotional well-being. But in God’s Kingdom, the use of psychology must be brought under total submission and subservience to God’s Word before this can be accomplished. Far too often, however, psychology, psychologists, and even “Christian” psychologists do not submit so readily. And so the concept of the integration of psychology and Christianity can be fraught with difficulties. Several of these are discussed below.

Ever-Changing Views

Like other sciences, psychology is continually changing. What was very much in vogue just twenty-five years ago on the psychological scene may now be seen as archaic. But are these changes really bringing about quantifiable improvements in the human condition? Few would argue with the results that enhancements in medical science have produced over the last 150 years. Yet based on the current emotional state of our society, it would be difficult to say that modern psychology as a science is producing greater results today than at any other point in time in the modern era. Henry Fairlie put it well: “If we do not acknowledge that the inclination to sin is part of our natures, then why has all our tinkering with ourselves over the centuries, all our sociologies and psychologies and psychoanalyses, reforms and experiments and therapies, not made our lives more virtuous and more happy than they are?”[3] Fairlie continues, “…neither will we pretend that our evil is the result of some maladjustment in our psychologies or our societies, only to find that when the next adjustment has been made we remain as evil as before.”[4] If psychology has fallen far short of being a panacea for man’s emotional maladies, can it cure spiritual ones?

In the psychological world, the schools of thought are many. The founding fathers of modern psychology (e.g., Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, B.F. Skinner, and Carl Rogers) all held varying perspectives on man’s psychological ailments, and they proffered equally varying treatments. A therapist will diagnose and treat a particular dysfunction based on the model under which he or she was trained. And since psychology is far from being unified, there are no universally accepted standards of treatment. Further, psychology in general tends to resist the notion of absolutes stemming from a moral standard. The Bible, on the other hand, abounds with moral absolutes. B.F. Skinner asserts:

“We say that there is something ‘morally wrong’ about a totalitarian state, a gambling enterprise, uncontrolled piecework wages, the sale of harmful drugs or undue personal influence, not because of any absolute set of values, but because all these things have aversive consequences”[5]

So something is morally right to Skinner if it has pleasant consequences, and something is morally wrong that has negative consequences. Morality is not determined by any given moral code or standard.

Such varied, ever-shifting views stand in antithesis to scripture, which never changes. It must be conceded that although the Bible itself does not change, individual’s views about the Bible can and frequently do. Nevertheless, we attempt to adhere to the principle of sola scriptura (the Bible only) and aspire to mold our views to fit try to fit the biblical standard. A corresponding attempt cannot be made in the realm of psychology because of the lack of a set of standard principles and absolute authority.

The Question of Authority

Another issue of essential importance in the question of integration is the issue of authority. Jesus said in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” No version of integration can work so long as any authority (or master) other than God’s Word is vying for preeminence. Only one can truly serve as the standard. An open-arms acceptance of psychology threatens the premise of sola scriptura in the church. This issue of authority has two faces. One, as mentioned above is the question of what will serve as the church’s confessional guide.

A related issue becomes the question of human authority. Traditionally, and scripturally, human authority in the church resides with elders, deacons, evangelists and the like. It is a problem when a Christian confers too much reliance or authority to any man (or woman), even a church leader (over and above scripture). And it is not the goal of any decent counselor to garner power for, or dependence upon him/herself. Nevertheless, our culture has been guilty of vesting a frightening amount of authority to the therapist.  Richard Ganz couches the problem in these terms:

Unfortunately, too many people don’t understand that counseling derives from a worldview. Instead, they think of counseling as the tool that one person (the expert) applies to another person who has psychological problems. … The psychotherapist, or counselor, is seen as a kind of “super-mechanic” who locates psychological shorts and disconnections, using his technical expertise to correct the malfunctions. He is the one who, by progressive feats of wizardry, demonstrates a technical mastery of the mind.[6] 

In the blending of Christianity and psychology, it is not difficult to see that there can be challenges inherent in dealing with the shepherding of people’s troubled souls when divergent approaches are being employed. Increasingly, these questions and many more like them are not being dealt with thoroughly in the church, or worse yet, are being altogether avoided in places where psychology is being embraced.

Secular psychologists and therapists cannot be expected to hold to the authority of the Bible because they do not accept its truth. But it is possible for even spiritually-minded psychologists to be torn between the teaching of scripture and how they have been trained. If the Christian psychologist is at all confused about what the ultimate authority is, it can result in very dangerous outcomes in the church. Ganz again weighs in: “Many Christian psychologists believe that the therapies based on a secular mind-set are not only valuable, but indispensable. In truth, what has taken place is not integration but substitution, the substitution of secular psychology for the Word of God.”[7] David Fitch has also noted this tendency: “… many evangelicals give enormous authority to modern therapeutic practice in their lives. We see it as science and good medicine.”[8] Whenever and wherever scripture is being replaced with psychology or any other discipline, the church will be in crisis.

Inevitably, there are bound to be similar truths found in dissimilar disciplines. There is nothing wrong with the discovery and practice of common truth. If psychologists make use of the front door to enter a house, it does not mean that Christians must climb in through the window. Wherever truth is uncovered and correctly applied by psychology, it can (and frequently does) coexist happily in the church if it does not undermine the Bible as the authority. Nevertheless, having the occasional truth in common is not the same as having a common standard. And for Christians dabbling in psychology, the issue of which standard will reign supreme runs a high risk of becoming clouded.

Accountability and Responsibility

Another area that is highly problematic in the consideration of integration falls under the arena of personal accountability and responsibility. Sound biblical theology understands the concept and impact of sin. According to the Bible, sin lies at the heart and soul of virtually all of mankind’s problems. In true Christianity, the better one can understand his own sin, his need for repentance, and the saving grace of an all-powerful God, the better he is able to grow and mature spiritually. This is not the case in a large percentage of psychological models. In the Freudian model – the basis for much of modern psychology – taking personal responsibility has often been a foreign concept. Ganz elaborates: “It [the Freudian approach to psychology] affirms a concept that sinful human beings universally hold dear – they are not responsible for their actions. Someone else is to blame.”[9] 

In our society, such subjects as sin, guilt, and shame are not politically correct topics of discussion. They are, in fact, to be avoided at all costs. While they certainly can be undesirable primary motivators in life, they do have their place and can be very appropriate responses to moral failure. But dealing with sin is never easy, and there are no simple shortcuts. Looking for psychological solutions can often be more palatable than looking for spiritual ones. And seeing oneself as a victim can be much more agreeable than taking ownership. Again, Ganz is accurate: “Applying psychology is much easier because the sinful nature of man is far more ready to be coddled than confronted.”[10]

Human Nature

Much of psychology teaches that we are either basically good or tabula rasa – a blank slate – neither good nor bad. The pathway to a better life is not found by looking out but looking within. If we will but take an introspective journey back to our pasts we can make sense of our lives and affect the necessary repairs. In the psychological world, this is usually done without God.

Once again, this flies in the face of biblically sound doctrine. First, the Bible is clear that sin renders us incapable of doing or being good or righteous in and of ourselves. In Romans 7:18, the apostle Paul teaches: “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.” Apart from God, humans are hopelessly incapable of good. In the Old Testament, Jeremiah 17:9 says that, “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” According to Jeremiah, a person could spend an entire lifetime psychoanalyzing their own heart yet never fully comprehend it.

So, according to scripture, the solutions to life’s fundamental problems are not found from looking within but searching without. The truth lies outside of self and must be sought after. In John 14: 6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Truth does not exist within the individual; the individual must go to Jesus to find it. A Christian, then, is never “discovered” but “created” by God and set free from sin as he “holds to the teaching of Jesus” – John 8:31-32.

Conclusion

Such a large percentage of the world’s population experiences difficulties like anxiety, addiction, broken families, depression, etc., that it is understandable why people turn to psychology for remedy. But in a society where the Christian fabric is being slowly eaten away and fewer turn to God for solutions, these maladies are only likely to increase. But psychology will never fill the God-shaped hole that each person has in his soul. As St. Augustine once said, “Thou hast made us for thyself, and our hearts are restless until we find their rest in thee.”[11] 

Of course, not all of the goals and methods of psychology are anti-Christian. Understanding oneself better and getting in touch with emotional truths and understanding how issues and events from the past can affect the present are all worthwhile endeavors. As appropriate, they can even be encouraged in the church. But that is very different from integrating psychology into the church in such a way that the two lines of thought compete with one another. Nothing, not even the traditions of the church, should be in competition with scripture. The meshing of these two very different belief systems on a macro scale will never work because one is dynamic (ever-changing), while the other is static (never-changing). One has no established authority, while the other is completely ruled by an embraced authority. One resists the thought of taking personal responsibility for sin, while the other insists on it. One asserts that introspection will yield truth, while the other sees truth as coming from a source external to the individual.  While individual professional counselors may not exemplify all of these strong tendencies, it must be repeated that to one degree or another, all of us are conditioned by our training and experiences.  Thus, these potential tendencies must be kept in mind, and one’s approach to counseling must remain in a state of being evaluated by self and by other mature biblically grounded persons to ensure that biblical truths reign supreme.

2 Corinthians 6:14-15 teaches that Christians are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers because light cannot have fellowship with darkness. This of course applies to any sort of binding relationship (e.g., romantic, business, etc.) between the believer and the unbeliever. The dilemma of integration is similar. It seeks to yoke two very dissimilar interests, and the paths these interests take to achieve their goal. Again, Ganz weighs in: “Often well-intended “Christian psychologists” have welcomed into their counseling rooms methodologies and perspectives that have at their root a denial of God.”[12] 

Thus the integration of psychology and Christianity is fraught with pitfalls. Instead of a blending, what often takes place is a giving away on one side and a plundering on the other. On the giving side is the theology of Christ’s church and on the stealing side is psychology. Taking theological concepts and dressing them up in psychological terminology does not mean that integration has been successful.

When Christian counselors try to integrate biblical principles with modern psychology, they run into trouble. Many end up redefining biblical terms to bring them into harmony with psychology. For instance, Gary Sweeten redefines the theological term sanctification to mean “mortifying the flesh and developing our new self or our personal self.” Sanctification (theological) becomes the “development of our personal selves” (psychological).[13]  Once unchristian terminology is accepted, unchristian theology is the next logical step. When theology is compromised and replaced with the teachings of psychology, then the bride (the church) is something significantly less than what God designed her to be for the groom (Christ).

Final Words of Caution

This article is in no way meant to discourage individual disciples of Jesus struggling with emotional and/or psychological problems from seeking professional help as appropriate. So long as a disciple does not confuse or otherwise diminish the place of God’s word, counseling can be extremely beneficial. But I would suggest that seeing a secular psychologist must be done with a degree of caution – it can become a very slippery slope for reasons enumerated in this article. It is good for believers to understand some of the potential pitfalls before seeking help. Having said that, many have benefited from counseling where spiritual convictions are not compromised. And there are excellent Psychologists that are disciples of Jesus. Getting advice before seeing a professional from several mature Christians who understand your situation will always be a wise thing to do.

Psychology, Psychologists and the Church

by Gordon Ferguson 

In spite of the limitations and potential downsides of viewing psychology wrongly, good counseling can be a highly valuable addition to Christian service.  But several cautions are important in helping us view psychology and Psychologists correctly − and in helping them view themselves correctly. One of the most needed cautions is that counseling individual disciples and leading groups of disciples are two quite different things.  Applying principles used in counseling individuals to working with groups is fraught with very serious challenges and can be downright dangerous.  The goal of good counseling is to help people mature.  Another way of saying that is that they are being helped to become self-starters, learning to make good choices and to accept full responsibility for those choices.  That is also the goal of good parenting.  However, seeing our children mature into making good choices and accepting full responsibility for those choices is a pretty long and tedious process.  Demanding that they do it at any juncture before their training is reasonably completed will inevitably lead to some dire consequences.

Christian Psychologists must have the patience on an individual basis to help people grow into this type of maturity.  However, some appear at times to believe that ministry decisions for an entire group should be based on all of the members essentially being self-starters already − which does not square with reality.  Such an approach does not recognize the need many members have for very specific directive leadership while they are being trained into more mature states.  This training process (as with our own offspring) should include structure, expectations and accountability.  We usually have no trouble understanding the need for this type training for our own children, but some counselors tend strongly toward an impractical idealism in working with God’s children as a group − as a spiritual family.  Any counselor who shies away from the exercise of definitive authority in the church, and from the elements of structure, expectations and accountability (all done biblically, of course), is moving in a wrong direction.

We have two considerations when evaluating what the Psychologist/counselor brings to the table in terms of their views of how ministry groups should be led: how do they view themselves in what they are actually qualified to offer, and how do the rest of us view their opinions?  I realize that the problem is most often in how we view a professional’s abilities in realms outside the scope of their training.  We tend to attach more relevance to their views in areas outside their expertise than most of them do themselves (thankfully).  Any person in a profession that is highly regarded may be in a position to promote invalid assumptions regarding other fields.  We often see recognized experts in one field being used to promote a product or service in a totally different field, simply because they are admired and trusted for their expertise in their own field. I’m old enough to remember doctors in white coats advertising certain brands of cigarettes on TV.  (Let’s hope that practice dates back to the days of black and white TV’s!)

However, even though the problem is often in how we view the professional, I must say that I have encountered professionally trained counselors who did not have a sober estimate of themselves with regard to their limitations in the understanding of church leadership principles.  To be perfectly clear, they extrapolated valid principles of counseling individuals into applications that are invalid in working with groups, and did so with a certainty that overly influenced other disciples in a negative manner.  This situation calls for a better understanding of the limitations that professional counselors may have in the realm of group leadership.  One, their training and/or experience is much greater in the counseling field than in the field of church leadership − unless they are actually trained and experienced in both fields, as is the case in a few instances of which I am aware.  Frankly, I have often found the input of business and educational professionals more on target regarding leading groups than the input of counselors, because the former types are trained and experienced in group leadership whereas those in the latter group are trained and experienced primarily in working with individuals.

Two, their counseling of disciples with emotional problems can give them an unbalanced view of what is going on in the church or with the leadership practices of a given leader.  They can be overly influenced to improperly assume that the feelings or experiences of a few provide an accurate barometer to the feelings or experiences of the majority.  I used to meet regularly with a counselor friend (whose practice was made up mostly of disciples) just for the purpose of answering questions and clarifying issues in order to help him gain and maintain a balanced picture of what was and was not true regarding the church overall.  He needed that decompression and clarification help, as do all counselors whose practice includes members of his church.  Otherwise, unwarranted assumptions are certain to be made.  If any of us hear mainly one side of any story, we are going to find it difficult to maintain a balanced view of that story without some help.  That is the human tendency, and we must all be aware of that tendency if we are in the people business in any capacity.  If we have learned anything from the upheavals in our movement of churches in the past four years, it is that those who reacted most strongly to ministry mistakes usually have other life issues that caused them to overreact to those mistakes.  This is not said to minimize the mistakes, for some were serious and seriously sinful, but focusing only on mistakes made without also looking at the good done is a very unbiblical approach.

Another challenge for the professional counselor in gaining and maintaining an accurate view of how church leadership should function is in realizing the differences of how he must approach helping individuals and how group leadership should be approached.  The counselor usually only hears from the one being counseled and usually can only exert influence on that person.  This means that the counseling is pretty much confined to helping the counselee deal with his or her situation according to their perspective of the situation, regardless of how accurate that perspective is or whether their outside life circumstances have any hope of being changed.  This reality ties in to what I mentioned earlier about the counselor’s goal of helping the counselee become a self-starter, with all that this term implies.  If nothing of their circumstances can be changed, they still have to learn to cope successfully in the midst of those circumstances.

On the other hand, church leadership may well have the opportunity to deal directly with other persons involved in the counselee’s life and with any particular situation promoting the problems that led to the need for counseling in the first place.  What should be obvious is the limitation the counselor normally has in helping people, which limitation the church leader probably does not have.  Therefore, if the counselor assumes that groups should be dealt with in the same way that he is limited to dealing with individuals, he is going to espouse some opinions that sound far more valid than they are.

Personally, I think input from many types of sources can be helpful.  But if input from a professional in one field is weighed too strongly in application to another field, poor results will undoubted ensue.  And given all that Gary has noted in his excellent and insightful article, we simply must recognize our tendency to overvalue the opinions of those in esteemed professions in fields outside their own.  To sum it up, expertise in the arena of psychology does not directly translate to expertise in the field of ministry leadership.  While their input can be helpful in ministry issues, any tendency to think they know more about group leadership than those trained and experienced in it is a huge mistake with potentially huge negative consequences.  And any tendency they have to exert their influence in the direction of being critical of church leadership, whether in subtle or blatant ways, is potentially divisive.  May God help us all to recognize our limitations and to remain humble when offering input in any area outside our own area of training, experience and expertise!

In writing my part of this article, I realize the potential of offending some counselors.  Since I have a number of counselor friends whom I esteem highly and whose work I appreciate greatly, that is obviously not my intention.  But as the old saying goes, if the shoe fits anyone, they need to wear it.  Through the years, I have written many things in a straightforward manner about what disciples should be and should not be, and what church leaders should be and should not be.  None of it was intended to be critical, but rather to point out potential problems and dangers.  However, in spite of intentions, some disciples have been offended, as have some leaders.  The question always is why some have been offended.  Is it due to what has been said or the manner in which it has been said?  If stated in the wrong way, I am always anxious to repent.  But if people are offended by the truth, I just say “Bingo.”  A nerve has been hit that needed to be hit, in order to get things out into the light and dealt with biblically.

It is past time that the issue of psychology and the influence of Psychologists and counselors needs to be addressed.  I appreciate Gary’s highly insightful article, and I appreciate the opportunity to add my own perspective.  My prayer is that we will all give more thought and discussion to this area.  Professional counseling and professional counselors have much to offer that we need in the church, but as with all good things, if they are viewed and used improperly, they also have the potential for producing negative effects.  With God’s help, let’s make sure the positive is fully utilized and the negative fully eliminated.

—Gary Sciascia and Gordon Ferguson (December 2007)

What Happens When We Die?

Introduction

Probably all religious people have questions about what happens when we die.  Many of them believe that we cease to exist at death until the resurrection at the end of time.  Some of the people in this category believe this doctrine simply through a basic ignorance of what the Bible teaches about the subject. Others who believe the soul cessation doctrine are a part of groups with specific teachings designed to substantiate their views.  Among these groups are the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and others.

Perhaps more pertinent to many of us is the idea that we go directly to heaven when we die.  Certainly Paul talked about dying and being with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8), but does that really mean that we go to heaven at death?  If so, this would mean that we would return at the resurrection to be re-united with our body (changed into a spiritual body), and then face Judgment.  That would seem a rather strange sequence of events, and perhaps a bit anticlimactic.  Of course, the issue is not what seems good or bad to us, but rather what the Bible actually teaches.  The purpose of this study is to determine in somewhat of a comprehensive manner what the Bible does teach about the subject of what happens immediately at our death.

Those who mistakenly believe that the “sleep” of death (1 Corinthians 15:51) includes both body and spirit often come to this conclusion because of a limited knowledge biblically.  For example, a failure to understand the background purpose of the Book of Ecclesiastes leads to inaccurate conclusions about this subject.  The background is that the author is showing that “life under the sun” is meaningless, in contrast to life viewed with heaven’s perspective, which is meaningful.  Yet a cursory reading of the book can lead to confusion.

Note some of the statements in Ecclesiastes about the nature of man which seem to teach the “soul sleep” doctrine.  “Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth (3:21)?”  “For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten (9:5).”  If the passages are allowed to stand alone, without knowing the context of them, it would be natural to assume that man has no conscious existence apart from the body.  However, the whole of biblical teaching on the subject cannot be harmonized with this view, as even Ecclesiastes will show.  Consider the writer’s comments in chapter 12, as he is now moving to his conclusion – the necessity of gaining a spiritual perspective of life and not simply “life under the sun” (verses 12-13).  He writes: “and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (12:7).

Coming To Terms With Terms

The JW’s often go back to Genesis 2:7 in developing their doctrine, which reads:  “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” (King James Version).  They go on show that the same Hebrew word translated “soul” here (nephesh) is used in other places in reference to animals.  For example, Genesis 2:19 states:  “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.”  Here, creature is from nephesh.  So the JW argument is that man does not have a soul; he is a soul.

Of course, the Hebrew word nephesh, and the Greek equivalent, psuche, can be used simply to denote the animate life of God’s creatures.  But it can also be used to denote the inner being of man which is unique to him of all God’s creatures, and which survives the body at death.  In this usage, it refers to what the Bible also calls “spirit.”  Of course, spirit is another word with variations of meaning, but one clear meaning it connotes is the inner part of man made in God’s image.  God is spirit, and when Genesis 1:26 informs us that man was created in God’s image, it must of necessity refer to this nature.  Sometimes the terms soul and spirit are used interchangeably in the OT (Job 7:11; Isaiah 26:9), and twice in the NT, soul and spirit are differentiated (1 Thessalonians 5:34; Hebrews 4:12).  In the latter instance, the soul would refer simply to the animate life which all creatures share and the spirit would refer to the spiritual part of us made in God’s image.

We noted earlier that our spirit returns to God at death.  Zechariah 12:1 and Hebrews 12:9 inform us that God is the father of our spirits.  In the Hebrews passage, the writer contrasts our earthly fathers, from whom we receive our physical bodies through the act of procreation, and God, the father of our spirits.  Therefore, the part of us given directly by God that results in our being made in his image is the part that lives past our physical death.  As James 2:26 says, “the body without the spirit is dead.”  He does not say that the spirit without the body is dead.  When death occurs, the spirit simply leaves the body.  In this vein, note the wording of Genesis 35:18 in the New American Standard Version (which is literal in its use of the word “soul” here):  “And it came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.”  The more we understand about the nature of man, the more we see that he is primarily a soul who happens to live in a body, not a body who happens to have a soul.

Life After Death in the Old Testament

In the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE), the writer of the article “Death” had this to say:  “For we are influenced always more or less by the Greek, Platonic idea, that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal. Such an idea is utterly contrary to the Israelite consciousness, and is nowhere found in the Old Testament.”  This statement reflects a common sentiment, but is it really true?  I don’t think so, although the lack of a developed OT doctrine of life after death would not necessarily militate against the NT developing such a doctrine. Two other word usages are important to us at this juncture, the OT sheol and the Greek hades.  Sheol is most often translated “grave” in the NIV, and hades is often translated the same.  But other literal translations such as the NAS most often render both words as they are, in a transliterated state, simply out of the ambiguity involved.  Interestingly, another article in ISBE by another author, under the heading “Hades,” gives a different slant on the subject:

The Greek conception of Hades was that of a locality receiving into itself all the dead, but divided into two regions, one a place of torment, the other of blessedness. This conception should not be rashly transferred to the New Testament, for the latter stands not under the influence of Greek pagan belief, but gives a teaching and reflects a belief which model their idea of Hades upon the Old Testament through the Septuagint. The Old Testament Sheol, while formally resembling the Greek Hades in that it is the common receptacle of all the dead, differs from it, on the one hand, by the absence of a clearly defined division into two parts, and, on the other hand, by the emphasis placed on its association with death and the grave as abnormal facts following in the wake of sin. The Old Testament thus concentrates the partial light it throws on the state after death on the negative, undesirable side of the prospect apart from redemption.

Certainly the OT teaches life after death (Psalm 73:24), which could refer only to the resurrected state.  The Ecclesiastes 12:7 passage quoted earlier, along with Psalm 90:10 and its reference to our “flying away” when our lives end, seem to point in a different direction.  Therefore, while it certainly cannot be argued that the OT teaches clearly a doctrine of life immediately after death, the doctrine may be deduced from other vantage points.

One, an interesting phraseology is that used to describe death as being “gathered to his people.”  Note what Jacob said to his family when his death approached:  “Then he gave them these instructions: ‘I am about to be gathered to my people. Bury me with my fathers in the cave in the field of Ephron the Hittite’” (Genesis 49:29).  A few verses later, the record says:  “When Jacob had finished giving instructions to his sons, he drew his feet up into the bed, breathed his last and was gathered to his people” (Genesis 49:33).  In Genesis 50:5, Joseph equates being “gathered to his people” with simply dying.  The following verses inform us that Jacob’s body was embalmed for forty days, transported to Canaan, during which time an additional seven day period of mourning was observed, and finally buried.  Whatever else may be said, being gathered to one’s people was not simply a reference to the grave.  The more likely reference is to the intermediate state after physical death and before the Judgment Day.

Two, Psalm 16 is clearly a Messianic Psalm, and verses 8-11 are quoted in Acts 2:25-28.  Verses 26-27 read as follows:  “Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.”  The word “grave” here is from hades, and Jesus not seeing decay physically is different from being abandoned to hades.  When he died, his spirit did evidently go to hades while his body was in the tomb.  (The KJV confuses the issue with its translation “thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.”)  Likely 1 Peter 3:18-20 refers to this same event in Christ’s life, but the exact interpretation of it is more difficult to grasp.  This passage reads:

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, [19] through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison [20] who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built…

But what does 1 Peter 3 teach?  Two explanations seem most plausible.  First, Peter is saying that Jesus was put to death in the body but then raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit.  In fact, it was through the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ, (1 Peter 1:11) that Jesus once preached (in the person of Noah) to the wicked people before the flood. At the present time, however, these same disobedient people are in prison (the bad side of hades). Second, Jesus was put to death in the body but made alive in his spirit (or soul). While Jesus was in the Hadean spirit world, he made a proclamation of victory to that generation from Noah’s day who had been so flagrantly disobedient. (The word preached in verse 19 is from the Greek kerusso, meaning to herald or proclaim, and not from euaggelizomai, meaning to preach the gospel.) The lesson in this case was to show that God will always have the last word over even the worst persecutors! Given the context of the passage, the second view seems most likely to me, and although Jacoby once preferred the former (Life to the Full, 85-88), he now prefers the latter (Questions and Answers book, published in 2001).

Three, another OT event is alluded to in the NT, a very pertinent passage on the subject – Matthew 22:23-32.  Here Jesus was talking to the Sadducees about the resurrection.  It seems that this sect of Jews had a long-standing debate with the Pharisees about the resurrection.  Luke’s comment in Acts 23:8 succinctly shows the differences in the two beliefs:  “The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.”  The Pharisee’s view of the resurrection was flawed, since they thought that we would be resurrected simply in a body like the one we had and would carry on life much as it had been before.  No doubt they were constantly filled with consternation as they tried to answer the Sadducees about the woman with seven husbands.  They would have had no problem envisioning a man with seven wives, but never the opposite!

Jesus showed that both groups were wrong.  “Jesus replied, ‘You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. [30] At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. [31] But about the resurrection of the dead–have you not read what God said to you, [32] ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ He is not the God of the dead but of the living’” (Matthew 22:29-32).  His argument was based on the tense of a verb:  “I am the God…” rather than “I was the God…”  Had these patriarchs not been living in some form at the time, Jesus could not have used the present tense.  Of course, Jesus also taught in many passages the resurrection of the body at the last day, but he also taught that the spirit was alive after the body had died.

New Testament Considerations

Once we come to the NT, many passages show that physical death is not the end of the matter (although it is the end of our matter in a physical sense!).  Our soul or spirit definitely survives death.  Matthew 10:28 could hardly be plainer on this point:  “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”  Revelation 6:9-10, although found in a symbolic book, has something to say on the subject:  “When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. [10] They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?’”

Just before he died on the cross, he said to one thief who was also near death:  “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).  The passage in Luke 16:19-31 about Lazarus and the rich man after their death gives us several basic truths about life after death in an intermediate state.  One, hades is comprised of two parts – the bad side and the good side.  We would assume that the good side is the paradise of which Jesus spoke to the thief, and the bad side may be the tartarus of 2 Peter 2:4 (“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell [tartarus], putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment.”)  Two, it is a place of conscious existence.  Three, once you die, you cannot go from one side to the other.  Four, a type of judgment at the point of is presupposed.  On the latter point, Hebrews 9:27 offers further elucidation:  “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.”  (It should be noted that some teach that Luke 16 is a parable.  If so, it would be an unusual one, in that names are used.  But even if it were, the truths taught would still be valid, for a parable takes an evident truth and gives it a further application.  Jesus never used an untruth to teach a truth.)

As Jesus was dying, he said:  “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke 23:46).  Similarly, it is said of Stephen:  “While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit’” (Acts 7:59).  The JW’s contend that the spirit of man is simply his breath, signifying his life, but the NT definitely counters this doctrine.  The spirit has the characteristic of being able to choose.  “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak” (Matthew 26:41).  The Holy Spirit can testify with our spirit:  “The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children” (Romans 8:16).  And, our spirit can know things:  “For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” (1 Corinthians 2:11).  Therefore, when men die, their spirits return to God, the Father of their spirits.

Acts 9:36-42 contains the story of the widow Dorcas, who was raised from the dead by Peter.  In verse 37, we read:  “About that time she became sick and died, and her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room.”  Then in verse 39, we find:  “Peter went with them, and when he arrived he was taken upstairs to the room. All the widows stood around him, crying and showing him the robes and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was still with them.”  Notice the last phrase.  Even though Dorcas’ body was right there in their midst, her friends were talking about the time when “she was still with them.”  In other words, her body was present but she was not, obviously a reference to the real her – the spirit.

Paul not only had much to say on our subject as he penned his epistles, but he recounted a personal experience that sheds further light.

    I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know–God knows. [3] And I know that this man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows– [4] was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell (2 Corinthians 12:2-4).

Paul was not sure whether he was in the body or out of it when this event occurred.  Therefore, it could have been either.  All he knew for sure is that he had seen and heard things that were not of this world.  The third heaven in Jewish thinking was the realm of God’s presence.  The first heaven was where the birds flew, earth’s atmosphere, and the second heaven was the abode of the stars.  Hence, Paul may be saying that he was caught up to (as far as – heos) the third heaven, but then into (eis) paradise.  This would mean that paradise is different than heaven, although certainly related and a wonderful place to be.

Consider next the Hebrew writer’s comments about the spirits of men:  “But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect” (Hebrews 12:22-23).  It seems clear that the reference here is to the righteous of the OT, who were ultimately cleansed by the death of Christ (see Hebrews 9:15).  Hebrews 11 ends with these words about the OT worthies:  “These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised.  God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect” (Hebrews 11:39-40).  From here, the writer goes on to talk about a “great cloud of witnesses” which surrounds us (12:1), which would likely include those just men made perfect.

Several other NT passages point to the survival of the spirit, the personality, when physical death occurs.

If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord (Romans 14:8).

For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. [22] If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! [23] I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far (Philippians 1:21-23).

Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. [7] We live by faith, not by sight. [8] We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6-8).

if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment (2 Peter 2:9).

In conclusion, the Bible does teach that man’s inner being does not die at his physical death.  (A related issue is whether the wicked do cease to exist after suffering adequately for their sins, but that is another study.  Douglas Jacoby and Tom Jones have both written articles taking this position, and they convinced me.)  It continues to exist in some state awaiting the final resurrection of the body, which in essence constitutes the re-uniting of the soul with a body, a spiritual body.  Just what that intermediate state is like, we are told little or nothing.  But for that matter, what are we really told about the final state of heaven?  I seriously doubt that the “streets of gold” and “gates of pearl” are quite it!  In one sense, life after death, whatever the state, is so unique to our physical realm that we will not understand much about it until we are there.  But let’s not allow our conclusions to be either uninformed biblically or reactionary.  The Greek teaching that life after death consisted only of the spirit traces back to their disdain of anything material.  The biblical teaching of life after death, first in the spirit, and finally in a spiritual body, is quite a different issue.  We cannot let our rejection of Greek philosophy on this point color our interpretation of the Bible itself.  The Greeks were part correct and part incorrect.  Let’s not throw out the truth when throwing out the error. With Paul, let us be confident that departing this body to be with Christ is very far better than anything this life has to offer!

—Gordon Ferguson (January 2000)