jeffersonvann

Matthew 10:28 is a watershed text. It serves as a rope, and on either side of the rope is a group of well-meaning Christians tugging over the issue of human nature and destiny. On the one side are those who teach innate immortality. These draw support from Matthew 10:28a, where Jesus compares the body, which can be killed by other men, to the soul, which cannot. This side of the debate believes that “in death, the body only dies; but the soul lives on uninterruptedly, and is immortal.”

On the other side of the rope are conditionalists. We tend to emphasize Matthew 10:28b, where Jesus speaks of God being able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna hell. We reason that anything that can be destroyed is not by nature immortal. We do not believe that “Matt. 10:28 presupposes a sharp division between body and soul in which the ‘soul’ is the more important, immortal part.” We see that presupposition as reading into the text of Matthew 10:28a a dualistic view of the nature of humanity which is not reflected in the rest of Scripture, and essentially denies the reality of death.

In a recent article on this text, David Burge summarized a conditionalist approach:
1. The Bible affirms that death is a real event which affects the whole person.
2. In hell, the lost will suffer complete destruction; no part of them will survive.
3. Jesus is teaching that the first death is only temporary. The resurrection will reverse it.
4. Jesus is teaching about the nature of God here, not the nature of man. Believers should fear God, not human persecutors.

Psuché in Matthew

If our brothers with the innate immortality view are right, Jesus is affirming something about the nature of humanity in Matthew 10:28a. He is teaching that there is a part of every human being that God has made indestructible. This is the soul. One way of assessing the validity of that interpretation is to cross-reference each occurrence of the word soul (psuché in Greek) as it appears in Matthew’s Gospel. This should help us grasp how Matthew understood the term – whether or not he understood it as an immortal part of every human being.

2:20

The first occurrence of psuché in Matthew comes from the mouth of the Angel of the Lord. He tells Joseph that it is safe to return to Israel from Egypt because those who sought Jesus’ life are dead. The word the angel uses for life is psuché. It is clear that the angel is speaking about Herod’s desire to kill Jesus, to prevent him from challenging the authority of the Herodian dynasty. There is absolutely no way to read into this statement any affirmation of human immortality. Perhaps this is the reason that the translators of many versions render the term psuché as life in this passage. Matthew is using the word psuché as the Old Testament usually does: as a reference to the life of the whole person.

6:25

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses the term psuché to talk about human appetites. He tells his disciples not to worry about their psuché: “what you will eat or what you will drink.” This is a significant text in the debate for two reasons: 1) these are the words of Jesus, so they reflect how Jesus used the term psuché; 2) Jesus also used the word body (sōma) in the same verse.
Crucial to the innate immortality position is the assumption that body and soul are contrasting terms. Yet, in this passage body and soul are not contrasted. Both body and soul are terms which imply the earthly, fleshly appetites. The body is concerned with what it will wear, and the soul is concerned with its next meal. Clearly Jesus is not teaching that what one eats and drinks is more important than what one wears. He is not contrasting the soul with the body. Both soul and body are used here to refer to earthly, fleshly appetites of the whole person. Nor is Jesus downplaying the importance of these human needs. He is merely teaching that the kingdom of God is more important. That is what believers should concern themselves over.

10:39

Another significant use of psuché by Matthew occurs just eleven verses after 10:28. This is within the most immediate context. The situation and audience is the same: Jesus is preparing the twelve disciples for the mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The threat is the same: believers are risking their lives if they proclaim the gospel. They will find that even the members of their own households will turn against them. To be a true believer is to face the sword and take up one’s cross.

Yet, Jesus is not telling his disciples that it is only their bodies that are threatened. He is actually encouraging them to surrender their souls to be killed. He tells them “If you cling to your life, you will lose it; but if you give up your life for me, you will find it” (NLT). Once again, the word life in that passage refers to the present life of the whole person, not an immaterial essence that survives death. But that term, life, is a translation of the same Greek word, psuché. If Jesus had meant to affirm that the soul is an immortal part of the human being that cannot die, why did he use the very same word to refer to the human life, which, by definition is mortal and in threat of dying? What is more, he is using the same term in the same message to the same audience.

So, conditionalists cannot accept the interpretation of Matthew 10:28a that insists that soul and body are separate anthropological entities, one of which is indestructible and the other is destructible. That interpretation contradicts what Jesus says in the four most important contexts of Matthew 10:28a. It requires that Matthew 10:28b be reread: anything that is indestructible cannot be destroyed, even by God. Therefore the innate immortality view insists that Jesus is talking about the perpetual torture of human souls, not their destruction. It requires that the same term be translated “life,” in 2:20 and 10:39, because the idea of an immortal soul cannot fit those texts. It also downplays the strong connection that the soul has with the body, as seen in 6:25.

11:29

Expanding the contextual boundaries a bit further, we find Jesus promising rest for the souls of those who take his yoke upon themselves. Jesus could not have been referring to merely the immaterial essences of the disciples, because in the previous verse he had said the same thing without using the word psuché: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Here Jesus uses the term psuché the same way as he did in the previous passages in Matthew: as a synonym for the whole person. It parallels the pronoun “you.”

12:18

In the next chapter, Matthew quotes Isaiah 42:1-3, which definitely does refer to an immortal soul. Unfortunately for the innate immortality view, that immortal soul is God’s soul. The text cannot prove anything about human souls. But in this text as well, the best way to understand God’s use of the word soul is as a parallel to the “I” in the same verse.

16:25-26

In chapter 16, Jesus repeats the same admonition that he gave his disciples in 10:39. Jesus is about to go to the cross, and he urges his disciples to deny themselves, take up their crosses, and follow him. If they try to save their lives (by rejecting him) they will lose their lives. If they lose their lives (by being killed along with him) they will find them.

Here a rather peculiar thing happens. The word psuché appears in this passage four times: twice in v.25, and twice in v.26. Many of the modern translations render it as life in v. 25, and soul in v. 26. Apparently, the only reason for doing so is that v. 26, taken out of its context, could be used to contrast the soul with the body. In its context, however, v. 26 is saying the same thing that Jesus has said before: personal safety is not worth rejecting him.

20:28

In chapter 20, Jesus uses the term psuché referring to himself. He said that he came “to give his life as a ransom for many.” Again, the best translation for the term psuché is the English word life. It is clear that Jesus is referring to his impending death at Calvary. By his physical death on the cross, Jesus drank from the cup that led to atonement for the sins of the world. By dying that death, Jesus gave his “soul.” If the soul of every human being is immortal, then Jesus’ soul could not die. But if Jesus’ soul could not die, how could he give it as the world’s ransom?

22:37

In chapter 22, Jesus quotes from the Old Testament again. He had been asked which is the greatest commandment. He replied that it involved loving the Lord with all one’s heart, soul, and mind. Despite the fact that this text is a favorite of preachers due to its built-in three points, it is best to see “heart, soul and mind” as an example of hendiatrys. Jesus is emphasizing complete devotion to God. He is not teaching anthropology. Any of the three terms in this verse could have been used alone to convey the idea of complete devotion. Together they maximize the same emphasis.

26:38

The final example of psuché in Matthew’s Gospel is a quote from Jesus to his disciples at Gethsemane. He is in agony as he prays in the garden, knowing that his death is immanent. He explains to the disciples that his soul is “very sorrowful, even to death” and asks them to remain there with him and “watch.” It is clear from Matthew’s description of the event that Jesus’ body was also sorrowing. In fact, Matthew had said the same thing of the whole Jesus in v.37: “he began to be sorrowful and troubled.” So, once again, Matthew is using the term psuché as a parallel to a pronoun.

The Lucan Parallel

Luke 12:4 offers a synoptic view of the same statement as Matthew 10:28. Luke has Jesus saying “do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do.” Luke does not even mention the psuché, thus avoids the perception of dualism, perhaps because he was writing to a Gentile audience who would have been more prone to dualistic thought. His emphasis was the same as that of Matthew. He was encouraging commitment to God rather than fear of man. The death that the persecutors threaten is a real death, but it is merely a temporary one. The cost of rejecting Christ is permanent destruction in Gehenna at the final judgment.

What Matthew 10:28a Does Not Imply

Having surveyed every use of psuché in Matthew, and looked at the only synoptic parallel passage, we are now prepared to infer from our text what it does not imply. It does not imply an obvious contrast between two parts of the human person. In every text investigated, the psuché is used of the whole person, not one of many parts. In many of the texts, the soul’s loss is inextricably linked to the death of the body. In the most immediate context – Matthew 10:28b – both body and soul are destroyed together at the final punishment of the wicked. Thus, 10:28a could not be implying the innate immortality of the soul. Also, the only significant thing this text implies about the intermediate state is that it is just that – intermediate. It does not imply consciousness. It is a state of death, albeit a temporary death.

What Matthew 10:28a Does Imply

Conditionalists are not prepared to concede that body and soul are two distinct parts of a human, nor that the soul is by nature immortal. But that does not mean that conditionalists refuse to take Matthew 10:28a seriously. We believe that freed from the shackles of platonic dualism this text is better able to convey the original intentions of both Christ and Matthew. They encourage believers to be more concerned about doing God’s will than cautious about how others might respond to their devotion. They also remind us that although death is real, it is not permanent. Between Matthew 28a and 28b there is space and time for the dead to be raised by God’s power at Christ’s return. For believers, this is cause for celebration.

In revealing the essence of humanity, the Bible has presented humans as beings which share a common unity (ancestry in Adam and responsibility before God), but also diversity (male and female). These truths are revealed in the book of Genesis, which has provided a good foundation for an understanding of humanity. It may hold the key to understanding another kind of diversity as well: ethnic and racial distinctions.

For the purposes of this study, racial distinctions are those physical characteristics which can be used to identify someone: such as bone structure, facial characteristics, and skin color. Racial distinctions are hereditary, and appear to change slowly. Ethnic distinctions are those social characteristics that identify someone as having been reared in (or adjusted to) a particular culture. Ethnic distinctions are environmental, and are constantly changing. Some ethnic communities are closely identified with certain races, while others are not. Taken together, both racial and ethnic differences are reminders of a fundamental fact of human nature: humans are ethnic beings.

The reason for this fact that all human beings have an ethnic identity may be revealed in Genesis.

Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the LORD said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the LORD dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the LORD confused the language of all the earth. And from there the LORD dispersed them over the face of all the earth.1

The creature God created appears to have had a remarkable unity until this time in history. That unity probably was a racial one as well. This can be seen from the fact that God chose to place an identifying mark upon Cain to protect him from future vengeance.2 So, if racial distinctions were passed on through Adam, one would expect Cain’s appearance to be already distinct enough that such a mark would be unnecessary.

Perhaps the transformation that God caused at Babel was more than a simple change of languages. It might have been the beginning point for racial distinctions as well. If that were so, the communities that eventually emerged from the scattering at Babel would be based on linguistic and racial distinctions. Cultural differences would evolve from these separated communities.

Jenkins suggests that that the Babel story is given to answer at least two questions: “1) Where did the variety of languages come from? and 2) How did man disperse and populate the world.”3 Perhaps the answer to a third question, “What is the origin of ethnic identity” may be found here also. What is certain is that at some point in human history the human species has diverged into a number of distinct ethnic groups.

From One Ethnic Identity to Many

The king James version follows the textual tradition which added the word haimatos (blood)4 to Acts 17:26. Thus the KJV reads “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” This rendering accents the fact that the human race has an origin in one bloodline. Most modern translations reject the word haimatos as an editorial addition, and translate something like “And he made from one man every nation.”5 But the word “man” is not in the text. It might just as easily be translated “And he made from one nation every nation.”

The word for nation in that text is ethnos, which is the generic word for ethnic groups as well as political groups. The apostle Paul was of one ethnic group (Jews) and he was speaking to the Athenians, who were of another ethnic group (Greeks). His statement recognized the ethnic distinctions between the two groups, while at the same time appealing to a common origin.

The Purpose of Ethnic Identities

God’s intention for the existence of these ethnic identities is to preserve them throughout eternity under the lordship of Christ. That can be inferred from Rev. 7:9, where John says “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.” John uses four terms, and each implies ethnic distinctions. It is clear that eternity is not intended to eradicate ethnic distinctions, but will celebrate them. These distinctions, which cause a great deal of turmoil, hatred and violence in this fallen world, will be enjoyed passionately in the restored world.

In Revelation, the Lamb is the king of the ethnic groups.6 All ethnic groups will come and worship him.7 Satan will be banished to the bottomless pit so that he will be unable to deceive the ethnic groups any longer.8 The ethnic groups will walk in the light of the Lamb himself.9 The ethnic groups will bring their glory and honor into the new Jerusalem.10 Each ethnic group will receive healing and life from the tree of life.

No Favorites

Jesus was born into a human context, so he has an ethnic identity as well. He had a conversation once with a woman who was a Samaritan. She was from another ethnic group. As soon as she perceived that Jesus was “a prophet” she immediately called to attention a distinction between Jews and Samaritans: “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.”12

Jesus’ reply to her tells us how seriously we should take ethnic distinctions when it comes to our relationship to God:

“Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:21-24).

For the Samaritans, worship of God was defined by ethic considerations: it had to take place on Mt. Gerazim. For the Jews, worship had to take place at the temple, which was in Jerusalem. Jesus spoke of a time when worship did not have to do with ethnic externals. God was going to reach out to all ethnic groups and call them to himself equally through the Gospel.

Salvation is “from the Jews” in the sense that the message of salvation by grace originated in the Old testament. Also, it was through the Jewish ethnic group that Christ came. But that does not imply that God favors any particular ethnic group – not even the Jews. He wishes to redeem the entire human race, and that includes people from every race and culture. Christ’s death put an end to the hostility that had separated the ethnic groups:

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (Ephesians 2:14-16).

So, when Jesus gave his marching orders for his disciples to convert the world to the Christian faith, he told them to make disciples of panta ta ethné: every ethnic group.13 The good news is for everybody. This is also why the apostle Paul got very angry when false teaches came to the churches he established and taught them that they had to be more Jewish to please God.14 Paul said that those teachers — who taught a kind of ethnocentricity — were ruled by the flesh, not the Holy Spirit.15 Many today are deceived into believing that they have to become more Jewish in order to be more spiritual. Nothing could be further from the truth.

God Hates Racism

Racism is a special kind of hatred that exists because of ignorance and fear. God does not endorse any kind of hatred. God loves the entire human species and wants to show that love to everyone for eternity. Our differences may have begun as a result of God’s judgment upon humanity at Babel. But the end result of those differences is the greater glory of God. His majesty will be enhanced by the great diversity of those who stand before the throne and the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands. Christians of diverse ethnic groups should unite under Christ their king and worship and serve together. We do not need to preserve our ethnic unity when we assemble in Christ’s name. Christ’s authority supersedes all other authorities. He is the King of kings and Lord of lords.16

In our modern society, ethnic diversity is celebrated. Churches who intentionally seek to win all the people in their communities to Christ – regardless of race or ethnic origin – are noticed. These are the kinds of churches that the general population will take seriously. Churches have an opportunity to model the kind of unity in Christ that we claim will be ours for eternity. We do not have to wait until Christ returns to begin doing that.

______________________________________

1 Genesis 11:1-9

2 Genesis 4:15. This mark was not a racial distinction. It was given only to Cain, not his descendents. Also, the human race as we know it today is completely descended from Noah, who was a descendant of Seth, not Cain.

3 Everett Jenkins, The Creation: Secular, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, And Muslim Perspectives (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 2003), 170.

4 Gk. Haimatos is the genitive of haima.

5 ESV.

6 Rev. 15:3.

7 Rev. 15:4.

8 Rev. 20:3.

9 Rev. 21:23-24.

10 Rev. 21:25.

11 Rev. 22:2.

12 Matt. 28:19.

13 Gal. 1:6; 2:16; 3:8, 13-14, 28; 4:9, 20, 25-26; 6:15.

14 Gal. 3:3; 4:23, 29; 5:13-21, 24; 6:8, 12.

15 John 4:20.

16 1 Tim. 6:15; Rev. 17:14; 19:16.