The Carpenter's Journal

I’m hardwired with a need  to understand things.

So, I had to figure out what this word meant that I’d heard people throwing around for over sixty years. It shouldn’t have been a big deal, I guess. If you ask anybody, they’ll tell what a soul is. 

Even my mother used to tell us, “take care of your body…it houses the soul.” And, in my college Psychology textbook, I can still  remember some kind of loose definition confirming its existence in a vague religious context, yet nestled neatly somewhere within the complex structure of the human psyche. 

But it couldn’t be seen, of course…

Merriam Webster’s full definition is every bit as puzzling:  “The immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.”

Still, I was pretty sure it was in there somewhere.

However, things just weren’t adding up when I was learning to read and understand the Bible inductively, so I knew I was going to have to deal with its meaning. It seemed that the beginning was a good place to start—the account of God’s very personal and hands on creation of the first man in Gen.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 [soul].”

This sentence revealed two indisputable facts about the makeup of the created man:

1. After being fashioned out of the elements of the Earth, the man was given, by his Creator, the breath of life. The flesh of the body (which would include the brain) had first been formed.  Not until it was animated by the Creator could it function and produce conscious thought.  
2. The Hebrew word נְשָׁמָה [neshamah; breath] appears to be the animating force of life.  

And, in context, Solomon’s book of Ecclesiastes confirms that the Lord takes back human breath:

“…then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the breath will return to God who gave it.”  [vs. 12:7]

[רוּחַ: (rû’-ôck  breath, wind, spirit]

I could only conclude that the first created man became a soul. Neither grammar nor context gave me any reason to assume that he received one. If I apply basic cake logic to this theological quandary, the truth becomes clear:

I can’t be a soul and have one too.

[(נֶפֶשׁ (nê’-phêsh) being, living being, person, soul]. 

On the other hand, I was in no hurry to part with my soul.  After all, I understood it to be a very relevant part of my existence.

So I kept reading.

In the texts of the Old Testament alone, the Hebrew word translated as “soul” [נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh) was used over seven-hundred times.  And a quick software search for the Greek equivalent ψυχή (psū-kāy’) used in the New Testament epistles and narratives reveals it was used two-hundred and sixty-three times. This parallel definiton was also the choice of the Hebrew scribes who translated their Scriptures into Greek [the Septuagint] over a hundred years before Christ was born.

[ψυχή (psū-kāy’) self, inner life, one’s inmost being, (physical) life, that which has life, living creature, person, human being]

So what did the recurrent usage of this term suggest to me as an inductive reader?

First and foremost, it was imperative that I be able to grasp its meaning in the context of every instance it was used.  For example, consider the words used in  Gen. 35:18, documenting the death of Rachel:

 “It came about as her soul was departing (for she died), that she named him Ben- oni; but his father called him Benjamin.”

If I read this sentence with a preconceived understanding that a soul is something unseen within me that leaves my body upon death, then I’m likely to apply that particular understanding to its meaning. But I’d be hard pressed to try to square this idea with some of the texts of the Messianic Psalms. These were words out of King David’s mouth, prophesying the future miracle of Jesus Christ’s resurrection from death:

“I have set the Lord continually before me. Because He is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. Therefore, my heart is gland and my glory rejoices. My flesh also shall dwell securely, for you shall not abandon my soul to Sheol, nor shall You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.” [Psa. 16:8-10] [my emphasis]

The ancient Hebrew understanding of “Sheol” was the underworld—the place of the dead. The tomb. If David [or any other Biblical authors] understood the human soul to be something that departed from the body upon death, then why would he also have regarded it as something that the Lord would never leave discarded in the tomb—even using it interchangeably with “flesh?”

He didn’t. He saw the human soul not as a part of someone, but rather as the sum of someone.

If I have the Biblical understanding of a soul embedded in my mind, I can clearly understand what was happening to Rachel. As her life was departing from her, she gave her son a name.

So, my hope is the same as what David’s was for himself. If I die before Christ returns, my soul–that is, everything that remains of me, shall also dwell in the grave and undergo decay.

But, just like my Firstborn Brother’s flesh, it’ll dwell safely.

He will not abandon it.

While I’ve always understood this passage to be taken in the context of hope and encouragement, I was often confused as to what that hope actually was.

“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.” [1Thes. 4:13]

This is a remarkable preface by the apostle Paul who, through a revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ, continued to expand on some relevant details concerning an event that had been prophesied about more than once in the Old Testament Jewish writings.

Could it have been that some of the brethren in the Church at Thessalonica had never heard of [or had forgotten] what the Jews commonly understood concerning the coming resurrection of the righteous dead predicted in Daniel 12:2? Other New Testament authors were obviously alluding to this prophesy in the book of Daniel. [see: John 11:24, Acts 24:15].

Now grieving for the dead would have been an appropriate gesture considering the state of finality it brought with it, that is, unless they actually had something to look forward to—like being brought to life again.

It’s obvious that Paul was recounting to the reader an event that had already been predicted by Jewish prophesy. But it was also evident that he was attempting to lay to rest any apprehension a First Century New Covenant saint might have had about it. That is to say, there should be no cause for anxiety concerning the fate of the dead, because they’d live again in the future:

“For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep In Jesus.” [IThes. 4:14] [my emphasis]

It seems to me that the reason for Christ’s resurrection was being stressed here. God raised Jesus. The righteous dead who belong to Him would follow suit.

It would happen because Christ proved that it can happen!

But to say that this sentence implies that Jesus will bring these righteous dead [in some disembodied form?] with Him “from Heaven” patently contradicts the following two verses:

“For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.” [IThes. 4:15-16] [my emphasis]

In this sentence, the Greek phrase, oi νεκροὶ, is translated as “the dead.” It’s recorded as a Masculine Nominative Plural noun, intended to define more than one person. On the other hand, if those which are to be raised were merely bodies, they’d be defined with a Neuter Nominative Plural noun.

Paul didn’t consider the “dead in Christ” to be just bodies, but rather, brothers and sisters “asleep in Christ.”

More importantly, the Greek adverb οὕτως, meaning “thus, so, in the same manner,” and translated in the NASB Version as “even so” in vs. 4:14, would suggest that Paul regards this future event in the same light as the miracle of Christ being raised from the dead.

Those who had fallen asleep shall be raised in the same manner as Jesus was.

Literally translated, 1Thes. 4:13 would read: “For if we believe that Jesus died and was raised, In the same manner also, God shall bring [or lead] with Him [that is, Jesus] those who fell asleep through Jesus.” Jesus shall descend from the heaven and the dead will first rise from that state—that is, before they and those “alive and remaining” are to be “taken up” into the clouds to meet and be always with the Lord.

Paul is describing, in some detail, the sequence of events connected to the only anticipated return of Jesus Christ to the Earth ever mentioned in the texts of the New Testament. Nothing here suggests that the Lord and those who shall meet him in the “air” will embark on a journey beyond the stratosphere.

However, an interesting ancient Palestinian tradition might explain why Christ’s people are portrayed as going up to meet Him before He arrives. At that time, and in that culture, when a person of prominence was approaching a destination, it was considered to be a gesture of respect to send representatives out to meet him on his journey who would accompany him the rest of the way.

Nothing is more reassuring to me than the apostle Paul’s deeply held conviction that the irrefutable hope of God’s people is secure in Christ’s love, regardless of whether they’re living or dead:

“But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For Iam convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which Is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” [Rom. 8:37-39]

I’ve never been a reader. I hated it.

In grade school, my twin brother was always in the first reading group. I was lucky if I was in the second. While I did graduate from college, studying was always a struggle due in part to my undeveloped reading skills.

But I didn’t care, because I wanted to work with my hands.

When I was twenty-one, I accepted God’s offer of “salvation,” and, like so many others who had done so, continued to live as I saw fit. I had no concern for my destiny since I already had a ticket to Heaven. I’d heard this every time I went to church, that is, as often as it was convenient to do so.

It was as if I had a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card in my back pocket.

But a number of years ago, something inconvenient happened, or at least that’s the way I originally perceived it. I became hungry for God’s word, but I couldn’t seem to get full. A switch had been turned on in me and I wanted to read or hear about anything that anybody had to say about God, the Bible and Jesus Christ. I couldn’t understand why since I thought that I already knew everything I needed to know on these subjects.

My unexplained religious zeal led me to regular attendance in men’s congregational Bible studies and close fellowship with others sharing common interests. I was amazed to find that adult men actually got together and discussed what the Scriptures said—and enjoyed it. I learned many truths from others who had studied much longer than me.

But some of my questions remained unanswered.

I became increasingly bewildered that some passages of Scripture seemed quite significant in their contexts but were never examined to any detail, much less discussed. I also discovered that there were always doctrinal boundaries that were never to be crossed or challenged.

I wondered…if the integrity of sound doctrine was never tested, could it really be said to exist?

Was this a practical approach to understanding something so important? I instinctively knew that there was a more realistic method to apply to the study process, but I couldn’t put my finger on it.

The concept seemed too simple the day a friend explained the inductive study process to me

First and foremost, eliminate (at least temporarily) any doctrinal biases or premises which are held in the mind. Another way of saying this is to employ Scriptural exegesis. That is to say, bring nothing INTO the interpretive process, only interpret based on what can be taken OUT FROM the text. Then do what should come naturally:

1. Make observations about who was writing to whom and when.
2. Notice where something’s written from, and for what reason.
3. Look for key phrases, contrasts and comparisons. [see: Common threads are common]

4. Note expressions of time and verb tenses. [Past, Present, Future, etc.]
5. Try to list any basic themes or lists present in the text.

Only then should any attempt be made to interpret the passage, always considering the context.

This process is not just a Biblical one. It’s an effective learning tool for anyone wanting to accurately understand text. It transforms the reader into a level of confidence and understanding that cannot be otherwise achieved.

The key to the inductive process is the presence of other committed members of the Body of Christ in weekly study meetings. I’ve come to understand passages of Scripture that used to make no sense to me at all, due in part to the effective participation of other men.

The story of God’s redemptive plan for men and women to share Christ’s inheritance in the His kingdom is very visible to me now. But if I want to inherit with Christ, I have to endure in His sufferings.

That’s something I learned through inductive study.

Words mean things.