Drew
Member
There are times in his letters when Paul uses expressions that suggest he believes in “anthropological dualism” – the notion that the human person is constituted by both a body and a soul, the former being the “container” for the latter, with the latter bearing of consciousness. This idea that human beings have immaterial souls which bear consciousness is deeply ingrained in western 21st century evangelicalism. However, I suggest it is not a Biblical view. The purpose of this post is to “explain” why Paul might use terminology suggestive of dualism even if he does not really ascribe to such a model of the human person.
Consider this text from the end of 2 Corinthians 4:
16Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. 17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.
If all we had were this text, we could easily imagine that Paul identifies the “outer man” (v16) with the body which is decaying (v16), is visible (v18), and is temporary (v18). By contrast, the “inner man” could be taken to represent the soul which is being renewed (v16), is unseen (v18), and will last forever (v18).
Paul continues with the same general picture at the beginning of the next chapter:
For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.
As the material in bold suggests, this text could easily be seen as re-enforcing a dualism wherein the “real person” is a soul that inhabits a “tent” of a body.
Why would Paul use such dualistic terminology if he does not believe it accurately describes the constitution of the human person? Answer: Paul understands that some of his readers are heavily Hellenized, and therefore bring a dualistic worldview to the table, and he wants to appeal to them in terms they can understand, even though he, as a typical Jew, does not ascribe to such a position himself.
In this respect, it should be noted that the material from chapter 4, verses 16 to 18, is widely acknowledged as echoing Platonic ideas – it was Plato who asserted that the visible world we all inhabit is populated by impermanent stuff of a “lesser” order than permament “pure forms” that exist in an unseen realm.
Paul is essentially speaking to his Hellenized readers using a worldview with which they can identify.
Some readers, no doubt, will be uncomfortable with my assertion that Paul adopts a dualistic stance that is fundamentally incorrect simply in order to appeal to a particular readership (I am claiming that the “objective” truth about the nature of the human person is the Jewish, monistic model). My response is that it is simply naïve to expect every single statement in the Bible to be a propositional assertion that needs to be read as true in a direct, literal sense. This is not how the Bible is written – as just one example, we have Job expressing the belief that “when you die, that’s it”. We know that this is simply not the case. So the view that all statements in the Bible are “objectively true” simply does not work. This makes things more complicated and difficult, but that is the hand we have been dealt.
Consider this text from the end of 2 Corinthians 4:
16Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day. 17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, 18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.
If all we had were this text, we could easily imagine that Paul identifies the “outer man” (v16) with the body which is decaying (v16), is visible (v18), and is temporary (v18). By contrast, the “inner man” could be taken to represent the soul which is being renewed (v16), is unseen (v18), and will last forever (v18).
Paul continues with the same general picture at the beginning of the next chapter:
For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.
As the material in bold suggests, this text could easily be seen as re-enforcing a dualism wherein the “real person” is a soul that inhabits a “tent” of a body.
Why would Paul use such dualistic terminology if he does not believe it accurately describes the constitution of the human person? Answer: Paul understands that some of his readers are heavily Hellenized, and therefore bring a dualistic worldview to the table, and he wants to appeal to them in terms they can understand, even though he, as a typical Jew, does not ascribe to such a position himself.
In this respect, it should be noted that the material from chapter 4, verses 16 to 18, is widely acknowledged as echoing Platonic ideas – it was Plato who asserted that the visible world we all inhabit is populated by impermanent stuff of a “lesser” order than permament “pure forms” that exist in an unseen realm.
Paul is essentially speaking to his Hellenized readers using a worldview with which they can identify.
Some readers, no doubt, will be uncomfortable with my assertion that Paul adopts a dualistic stance that is fundamentally incorrect simply in order to appeal to a particular readership (I am claiming that the “objective” truth about the nature of the human person is the Jewish, monistic model). My response is that it is simply naïve to expect every single statement in the Bible to be a propositional assertion that needs to be read as true in a direct, literal sense. This is not how the Bible is written – as just one example, we have Job expressing the belief that “when you die, that’s it”. We know that this is simply not the case. So the view that all statements in the Bible are “objectively true” simply does not work. This makes things more complicated and difficult, but that is the hand we have been dealt.