SOUL (נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883; ψυχή, G6034, meaning life or self, but implying a wide range of connotations).

1. OT usage. The OT is not a textbook on human psychology but its doctrine of man seems to involve this polarity: man is a unified being but his being is profoundly creative and complex. This profoundness about man’s being can only be understood by the use of a whole set of terms; hence, various dimensions of his being are pictured by such terms as “soul,” “spirit,” “heart,” and “mind.” Of these terms, “soul” seems to be the most basic.

a. Etymology and definition:BDB provides no less than ten different meanings of the term, and it is suggested that its origin is to be found in the Akkad. napasu meaning “to get breath,” “be broad,” “extended” or perhaps from the related term napistu meaning “life” but sometimes used as “soul,” “living being,” “person.” Linguistic parallels can be found in Arabic, Ethiopic, Phoenician and Syriac (s.v.). נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883, means, therefore, “soul,” “living being,” “life,” “self,” “person,” “desire,” “appetite,” “emotion” and “passion.” In some passages like Isaiah 5:14 and Psalm 105:18, the term conveys the idea of “neck” (cf. Porteus IDB, s.v.).

b. Hebrew psychology:The Eng. tr. of נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883, by the term “soul” has too often been misunderstood as teaching a bipartite (soul and body: dichotomy) or tripartite (body, soul and spirit: trichotomy) anthropology. Equally misleading is the interpretation which too radically separates soul from body as in the Gr. view of human nature. Porteous states it well when he says, “The Hebrew could not conceive of a disembodied נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883, though he could use נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883, with or without the adjective ‘dead,’ for corpse (e.g., Lev 19:28; Num 6:6)” (ibid). Or as R. B. Laurin has suggested, “To the Hebrew, man was not a ‘body’ and a ‘soul,’ but rather a ‘body-soul,’ a unity of vital power” (cf. BDT, s.v.). The most significant text is Genesis 2:7, “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Here God creates man (נֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה) by breathing into his nostrils the vital life-principle (נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים). The KJV rendering of the text is misleading, and the tr. “living being” seems more in line with the basic OT idea. It should be noted, however, that the Heb. phrase נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֑ה occurs in Genesis 1:20, 21, 24, 30 as referring to other forms of life, but the intensive construction of Genesis 2:7 still places man in a unique position from the rest of creation, even though OT terminology lacks technical precision. For this reason, the RSV tr. makes a distinction between man as נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֑ה, “living being,” and animals as נֶ֣פֶשׁ חַיָּ֑ה, “living creatures.” The point here is that Heb. psychology recognizes the profoundness of life; life is the mysterious reality which gives both man and animals being, but OT thought still underlines man’s distinctivenes. As such, נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883, can mean simply “life” as in Joshua 2:13; Judges 5:18; 2 Samuel 23:13-17; 1 Kings 19:4. Similarly the term may simply be the “self” as an expression of personality. Literally “my soul” (Gen 49:6; Num 23:10) may mean only “me”; “your soul” (Isa 43:4; 51:23) prob. means “you.” (Cf. Ps 25:13; 121:7.) The soul and its relationship to life are related to two other terms, “blood” and “spirit.” נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883, resides in the blood according to Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:11, 14; Deuteronomy 12:23. To describe the depths of man’s being as a feeling-thinking creature, the OT uses “spirit” and “heart” as synonyms for the soul as the seat of the appetites, emotions, desires, passions and intelligence. It may be possible to conceive of the “heart” (לֵב, H4213) as the cognitive, emotive faculty of man’s נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883; whereas the “spirit” (רוּחַ, H8120) refers to the creative “life-principle” of the נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883. Such distinctions are not consistently followed throughout the OT, and the generalized psychology of OT thought should prevent the student of the Bible from identifying Heb. psychology with any particular modern school of psychology. Biblical realism is concerned to describe man’s life in relationship to Yahweh not to provide esoteric speculation about the intrinsic nature of man and the world. (Cf. Gen 6:5, 6; 41:8; 42:21; 45:27; 49:6; Exod 4:14, 21; 35:21; Lev 19:17; 26:41; Num 5:14, 30; Deut 4:9, 29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13, 18; 13:3, 6; 26:16; 30:2, 6, 10; 2 Sam 3:21; Job 7:11; Ps 77:3, 6; Prov 4:23; Lam 2:11; 3:20).

c. Death and the soul:The most perplexing problem of OT anthropology and psychology is the relationship of the soul to death and the afterlife. This problem centers not only on the nature of the soul, but on the meaning and significance of the term שְׁאﯴל, H8619. Genesis 35:18 and 1 Kings 17:21, 22 speak of the נֶ֫פֶשׁ, H5883, as departing and/or returning. However, the crucial series of texts are those in which the OT writers indicate a fear of death and a fear of the loss of the self or soul through the experience of death. (Cf. Job 33:18-30; Pss 16:10; 30:3; 116:8; Isa 38:15-17.) What is essential to understanding the Heb. mind is the recognition that man is a unit: body-soul! The soul is not, therefore, unaffected by the experience of death. OT eschatology does indeed contain seminal elements of hope implying the more positive teaching of the NT, as can be seen in the OT phrase “slept with his fathers” (1 Kings 2:10; 11:21), in David’s confident attitude toward the death of his child (2 Sam 12:12-23) and Job’s hope for a resurrection (Job 19:20-29). It is this essential soul-body oneness that provides the uniqueness of the Biblical concept of the resurrection of the body as distinguished from the Gr. idea of the immortality of the soul.

2. NT usage. The NT concept of the soul is predicated upon this OT teaching.

a. The soul as the self:Like the OT the term ψυχή, G6034, can signify the oneness of man’s total being or the self (Luke 12:19; Acts 2:43; 3:23; Heb 4:12). In this sense, soul may be simply the person in his totality; however, ψυχή, G6034, does imply a transcendental reality that is in some cases independent of the body. This seems to be the force of Jesus’ statement, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (Matt 10:28). The most foolish mistake anyone can make is “to gain the whole world and forfeit his life” (Mark 8:34-38). It is this ψυχή, G6034, -self that is the primary object of redemption. (Cf. Heb 10:39; 13:17; James 1:21; 1 Pet 1:9, 22; 2:24.) While the frequency of this term is considerably less in the NT, the key passages indicate a significant development upon the OT view of the soul.

b. The psychology of the soul:In the NT, terms and concepts relating to the nature of man are equally imprecise. The general emphasis, like the OT, is upon man’s relationship to God through Jesus Christ as Lord of life. Man’s total being is redeemed by Christ (1 Thess 5:23). It is “souls” as persons who respond to the apostolic kerygma (Acts 2:41; 14:22). It should be noted that the NT does not make a clear distinction between ψυχή, G6034, and πνεύμα (spirit). 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12 are exceptions, and can best be understood not as affirming a trichotomous anthropology but as figures of speech, pointing either to the pervasive nature of salvation or the penetrating power of the word of God. To derive exact psychological descriptions from these two statements is pressing the non-technical language of Scripture too far. It is prob. more accurate to view the terms ψυχή, G6034, and πμεύμα as synonyms. For example John 10:15 speaks of Christ’s giving up His “ψυχή, G6034, for the sheep” while John 19:30 states that Jesus “gave up his πμεύμα to the Father.” Both Mark 10:45 and Matthew 20:28 indicate that it is the ψυχή, G6034, that Jesus gives as a ransom for man’s salvation. The emphasis in the NT psychologically turns more to the heart (καρδία, G2840) than the soul or spirit. If it is correct to identify the ψυχή, G6034, as man’s transcendental self, the life of which is indicated by πμεύμα, καρδία may then refer to that psychological center of man’s being in which resides man’s powers of thought, volition and emotion. Hence, it is the heart more than the soul to whom the NT writers ascribe the functions of thinking, willing and feeling. (Cf. Matt 13:15-19; Mark 7:19-22; Luke 6:45; John 12:40; Acts 2:37; 5:3, 4; Rom 10:6-10.) These impressions are further supported by the use and meaning of such terms as “mind” (νοῦς, G3808) and will (θέλημα, G2525).

c. Eschatology and the soul. It is impossible to isolate the discussion of the ψυχή, G6034, from the NT understanding of the intermediate state and the final state of all Christians which demands a resurrection of the body and a reunion of body and soul. The nature of the intermediate state is implied in Jesus’ statement in Matthew 10:28, but more specific is 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 in which Paul describes the Christian’s spiritual conflict over the possibility of remaining “clothed” but separate from Christ or being spiritually “naked,” but being in the presence of Christ. Both Christ and Paul imply that the soul or self can and does exist independently of the body although not in a normal manner. The intermediate state is, therefore, an abnormal condition in the relationship of soul and body. Consequently, what the Christian longs for is the resurrection of the body and transformation of the body at the Second Coming of Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:35-58 provides the clearest description of this problem. In this passage, ψυχικόν is contrasted with πνευματικόν: the “soulish” (ψυχικόν) body will be transformed into a “spiritual” (πνευματικόν) body. The metaphysics of this passage is extremely difficult, but Paul’s point seems to be that the essential nature of the resurrection body will be changed by the parousia (Second Coming). Revelation 6:9; 20:4 refer to “souls” waiting for the final eschaton: resurrection and kingdom. According to Revelation 20:1ff. both the righteous as well as the unrighteous will experience either a first or second resurrection respectively. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 presents an interesting insight into the nature of the intermediate state and the Second Coming. On the one hand dead Christians are described as being “asleep” with their bodies in the grave and separated from Christ (v. 13); while in v. 14 they are said to be “with him,” that is with Jesus in His state of exaltation. The passage implies as well the reunion of body and soul at the parousia: the body which is now in the grave will be reunited with the soul which is now with Christ at the Second Coming.

Bibliography H. W. Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man (1926); D. R. G. Owen, Body and Soul (1956); A. B. Come, Human Spirit and Holy Spirit (1959); G. C. Berkouwer, Man: The Image of God (1962); W. N. Pittenger, The Christian Understanding of Human Nature (1964); D. W. Mork, The Biblical Meaning of Man (1967); L. Verduin, Somewhat Less Than God (1970).