Do Human Beings Have an Immortal Soul?

I have a question regarding the common expression “immortal soul.” I am not convinced that this phrase accurately reflects biblical teaching. It seems to me that the idea may owe more to Greek philosophical thought—particularly that of Plato—than to Scripture itself. For example, 1 Timothy 6:16 states that God alone possesses immortality, which would appear to exclude human beings from being immortal by nature. Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 15:53, immortality is described as something the redeemed will “put on” in the future, suggesting that it is not a present human possession. I am also concerned that many Christians may not have carefully examined the biblical usage of terms such as “immortality,” “soul,” and “spirit.” It appears to me that the “soul” may simply refer to the life of the body, while the “spirit” belongs to a different category altogether. In that sense, soul and spirit should not be treated as synonyms.

There are those known as “conditionalists” who argue for the eventual annihilation of the wicked. The gentleman asking this question does not appear to be in this category, but he repeats a charge familiar to their theology.

Conditionalists frequently suggest that Bible students believing in the concept of eternal consciousness have been influenced by Plato and other Greek philosophers. On this basis, they contend that there can be no eternal, conscious punishment for the wicked.

This sort of guilt-by-association accusation is without merit. Such an accusation is condescending and does not give credit to others who have examined the issue and drawn different conclusions. The gentleman who argued this case likely would not appreciate the suggestion that his denial of the immortality of the soul has been influenced by the Watchtower Witness sect. Nevertheless, let’s consider several important points.

Only God Has Underived Immortality

When Paul declared that “only God has immortality” (1 Tim. 6:16), it is commonly understood by responsible Bible scholars that the passage addresses an immortality that is underived, that is, independent from any other source. Paul spoke of an immortality that is intrinsic to the very being of God. See my commentary, Before I Die (182; cf. Thayer 1958, 13).

This phrase, therefore, would not negate the concept, as taught in other passages, that man possesses an immortality that was imparted to him as a part of the original creation.

Soul immortality appears to be one aspect of the blessing of being created “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:26-27). This idea may later be suggested when Solomon states that God “has set eternity in their heart” (Eccl. 3:11; cf. Longman 1998, 119).

Does 1 Corinthians 15:53 Refer to the Body or the Soul?

First Corinthians 15:53 speaks of the nature of the future resurrected body, not the essence of the “soul” or the “spirit” within man (Jas. 2:26).

If the soul of man is only the biological life resident in the body, as some argue, then one man can destroy another man’s soul. But Christ plainly stated otherwise (Mt. 10:28). Men do murder each other frequently, but they cannot destroy the soul.

False Accusations

The suggestion that “most of us have not given much time to a study” of terms such as “soul” and “immortality” rests on a premise that is neither accurate nor substantiated. Many, including this writer, have studied this topic in considerable detail and have drawn conclusions that differ from those under review. Such accusations suggest an arrogant tone and are not dignified expressions of intellectual inquiry.

Important Study Skill: Recognize the Flexibility of Words

This gentleman’s position fails to account for the fact that words convey a variety of meanings and that context is the final determinant of a word’s meaning. This, if I may respectfully say so, is a major fallacy in the question under examination.

While it is true that “soul” sometimes refers to “life” (as appears to be the case in Acts 20:10), it is also true that the term can be used for the non-material element within a person (Mt. 10:28; Rev. 20:4).

Another Unwarranted Accusation

While “spirit” generally refers to the intellectual, emotional, and morally sensitive element of a person that “grieves” and “knows” (Dan. 7:15; 1 Cor. 2:11), on occasion it refers to a certain aspect of existence common to both humans and animals (Eccl. 3:21).

To generalize, therefore, and contend that the terms “soul” and “spirit” may never refer to the same entity within human beings does not represent a sustainable case. I have dealt with this matter in some detail in my book, The Bible & Science (chapter 10, “The Bible and Modern Psychology,” 103ff).

The terms “soul” and “spirit” can be used synonymously, referring to the same aspect of a person (cf. Jn. 12:27; 13:21), though this is not always the case.

Does Man Have an Incorruptible Spirit?

In his first epistle, Peter implies that the human “spirit” is “incorruptible” (1 Pet. 3:4). Why would a person need “incorruptible” apparel for a “corruptible” spirit? Thus, the human spirit, by deduction, is suggested as being incorruptible.

This appears to be confirmed by Paul’s interchangeable usage of athanasia (“immortal”) and aphtharsia (“incorruptible”) in his discourse concerning the resurrected body (see 1 Cor. 15:42, 50, 53-54).

The Inward Man Is Eternal

In his second Corinthian letter, Paul speaks of the “outward” man and the “inward” man (2 Cor. 4:16). These two expressions contrast the body with the soul.

But in the same context, the apostle distinguishes between that which is temporal and that which is “eternal.” The implication clearly suggests that the “inward man” (i.e., the soul) is eternal. By this, he doesn’t mean that a man’s soul has existed forever. Rather, from the commencement of its creation, the soul partakes of the nature of an everlasting entity (cf. 2 Cor. 5:1; 2 Thess. 2:16).

In his scholarly book, Immortality, Loraine Boettner, prominent Presbyterian theologian, defined “immortality” as “the eternal, continuous, conscious existence of the soul after the death of the body.” He then argued the case on these bases:

the common funeral practices of mankind, across a wide diversity of religions, since the dawn of history;
a necessary premise for the vindication of the moral order of humankind;
the incompleteness of human existence on earth;
the high degree of probability from analogies in nature;
an innate “instinct” of rational human beings;
biblical teaching—in both Old and New Testaments;
the wholesome benefits that result from the belief in immortality (1956, 59-88).

The collective effect of his case is compelling.

In conclusion, we are persuaded that the argument presented by this gentleman is not sound, notwithstanding his good intentions.

For collateral reading, I highly recommend Wick Broomall’s article, “Immortality,” in the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary (2003, 834-836).

[Note: the annihilation-of-the-wicked theory was argued recently by F. LaGard Smith in his seriously flawed volume, After Life.]