Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
In reaction to the claim by some scholars that sōma in the NT, especially in Paul, has a ‘holistic’ meaning, according to which the term refers to the whole person under some aspect, and not the physical body, or form, R. H. Gundry has argued for a return to a wholly physical understanding of sōma. Gundry argues that the presence of anthropological dualism in the NT speaks against the holistic understanding of soma. He adduces a number of passages in support of his contention that there is anthropological dualism in the NT and concludes by saying that the ultimate source of anthropological dualism in the NT is the OT, and not Greek thought.
1 Weiss, J., Der erste Korimherbrief (Meyer 5; 9th ed.; Gottingen, 1910) 160–161Google Scholar; Schmidt, T., Der Leib Christi (Leipzig, 1919) 5–6Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (2 vols.; London, 1952–1955) Vol. I, pp. 194–196Google Scholar; Robinson, J. A. T., The Body (SBT 5, London, 1952), 28Google Scholar; Stacey, W. D., The Pauline View of Man (London, 1956) 190; cf. also E. Schweizer, TDNT, 7.1060–66.Google Scholar
2 Gundry, R. H., Sōma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge, 1976), 29–80, 110–16, 135–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Ibid., 117–34, 148, n. 2.
4 Hill, D., Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings (Cambridge, 1967), 285Google Scholar.
5 Cf. Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Black's NT Commentaries: London, 1968), 123.Google Scholar
6 See Best, E., One Body in Christ (London, 1955) 208Google Scholarcontra D. E. H. Whiteley (The Theology of Saint Paul, Philadelphia [1965] 38) who thinks that ‘spirit’ here may refer to thought or intention.
7 Pace Gundry, R. H., Sōma, 113.Google Scholar
8 Bailey, R. E., Life after Death: A New Testament Study in the Relation of Body and Soul (unpublished Ph.D. thesis: Edinburgh, 1962) 202Google Scholar: cf. Schnackenburg, R. ‘Man Before God: Toward a Biblical View of Man’, in Man Before God: Toward a Theology of Man (New York, 1966), 1–6.Google Scholar
9 I. H. Marshall, ‘Uncomfortable Words. VI. “Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10.28 R.S.V.)’, Exp. Tim. 81 (1970), 276–80.
10 Ibid. 277.
11 So E. Schweizer, TDNT, 9. 646; Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke (The New International Greek Testament Commentary: Exeter, 1978), 513.Google Scholar
12 Gundry, R. H., Sōma, 114, n. 3.Google Scholar
13 E. Schweizer, TDNT, 6. 394; cf. Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium (2 vols. Freiburg/Basel/Vienna, 1976–1977) Vol. 2, p. 392Google Scholar: ‘Der “willige Geist” (Psalm 51, 14) ist Gottes dem Menschen verliehener Geist, welcher der angefochtenen menschlichen Schwachheit enthilft.’
14 Cf. Anderson, A. A., Psalms I and II (NCB: London, 1972), Vol. I, p. 399.Google Scholar
15 Cf. Gundry, R. H., Sōma, 110.Google Scholar
16 Anderson, A. A., Psalms, Vol. I, p. 399.Google Scholar
17 Sand, A., Der Begriff ‘Fleisch’ in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen (Biblische Untersuchungen 2: Regensburg, 1967), 143–145Google Scholar; cf. Bailey, R. E. (Life after Death, 205Google Scholar) who understands ‘flesh’ as referring to man as a sinner, and ‘spirit’ as referring to man as ‘indwelt by the Spirit of Christ’.
18 J. Cambier, ‘La Chair et l'Esprit en I Cor. V. 5’, NTS 15 (1969), 228–29.
19 Ibid.
20 Thiselton, A. C., ‘The Meaning of σ⋯ρξ in I Corinthians 5.5’ SJT 26 (1973), 215Google Scholar. For the holistic understanding of pneuma here, see also E. Schweizer (TDNT, 7. 435 n. 691) who says, ‘Certainly it (i.e. pneuma) is not just the human soul, for Paul never reckons with the salvation of a mere soul…’; D. Hill, (Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, 285) who says, ‘Here pneuma refers to the real self, the real person’.
21 R. Jewett, Paul's Anthropological Terms (Leiden, 1971) 189: ‘The references to the spirit of the sinner which was to be saved by the destruction of the flesh (I Cor. 5.5b) and to Paul's spirit which was active in the Corinthian congregation even during Paul's physical absence must both be understood as the divine spirit apportioned to Christian persons’.
22 J. Cambier, ‘La Chair et l'Esprit en [Cor. V. 5’, 230–3].
23 Thiselton, A. C., ‘The Meaning of σ⋯ρξ in I Cor. 5.5’, 227.Google Scholar
24 Bruce, F. F., I and II Corinthians (NCB: London, 1971), 55.Google Scholar
25 Jewett, R., Paul's Anthropological Terms, 184–185.Google Scholar
26 Gundry, R. H., Sōma, 145, n. 2.Google Scholar
27 R. H. Gundry, ibid.
28 R. H. Gundry, ibid., 116, 144.
29 Ibid., 116.
30 Reicke, B., The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism (Copenhagen, 1946), 99.Google Scholar
31 Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge, 1957) s.v. p. 681Google Scholar; cf. also Burton, E. D., Spirit, Soul and Flesh (Chicago, 1918), 204Google Scholar: ‘…the basis of the antithesis between sarx and pneuma is the idea of corporeality and incorporeality.’
32 See Dalton, W. J., Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits (Rome, 1965), 125–126.Google Scholar
33 See Selwyn, E. G. (The First Epistle of St Peter, London [1946] 197Google Scholar) who says that the NT makes no distinction between the resurrection of Christ's soul and that of his body.
34 Cf. Schelkle, K. H. (Die Petrusbriefe, Der Judasbrief, Herders XIII, 2: Freiburg/Basel/Wien, [1961] 103–104Google Scholar) who says that pneuma here refers to the divine nature of Christ.
35 Kelly, J. N. D., A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of jude (London, 1969), 151Google Scholar; cf. Dalton, W. J., Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits, 124–134Google Scholar; cf. also the comment of Beare, F. W. (The First Epistle of Peter, Oxford, 1958 2 [first edition 1947], 143)Google Scholar: ‘His death took place in the sphere of “the flesh”, the earthly, temporal existence; His Resurrection took place in the sphere of ‘the spirit”, the eternal, the indestructible, the heavenly. This does not imply any rejection of the thought of a bodily resurrection but rather that the body in which He is “made alive” is itself “spiritual”; cf. also Goppelt, L. (Der Erste Petrusbrief, Göttingen [1978] 245Google Scholar) who says that ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’ here ‘bezeichnen nicht wie für die griechische Tradition Bestandteile des Menschen, auch nicht Existenzbereiche, sondern primar Existenzweisen’.
36 Cf. Cranfield, C. E. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (2 vols.; ICC: Edinburgh, 1975–1979), Vol. I, p. 60Google Scholar; Dalton, W. J., Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits, 129Google Scholar; Jeremias, J. (in Jeremias, J. und Strobel, A., Die Briefe an Timotheusund Titus. Der Brief an die Hebräer; NT Deutsch 9, Göttingen [1975] 28Google Scholar) who defines sarx here as ‘die irdische Existenz Jesu’; E. Schweizer, TDNT, 7. 126–27. The expression κατ⋯ 
⋯γιωσ⋯νης in the same verse is best taken as referring to the Holy Spirit (see Cranfield, C. E. B., Romans, Vol. I, pp. 62–64Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Black's NT Commentaries, London, 1962 2 [19571]), 19)Google Scholar.
37 Cf. Schweizer, E. (TDNT, 7. 137Google Scholar) who says that ‘in the flesh’ means ‘in the earthly sphere’; Dibelius, M. and Conzelmann, H., The Pastoral Epistles (Philadelphia, 1972) 61–62Google Scholar; Kelly, J. N. D., A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus (London, 1963), 90–91Google Scholar.
38 Cf. Gundry, R. H., Sōma, 144.Google Scholar
39 Cf. Jeremias, J., Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus, 27–29Google Scholar; Stanley, D. M., Christ's Resurrection in Pauline Soteriology (Analecta Biblica 13; Rome, 1961), 236–239.Google Scholar
40 Gundry, R. H., Sōma, 116.Google Scholar
41 Dalton, W. J., Christ's Proclamation to the Spirits, 274.Google Scholar
42 So W. J. Dalton, ibid.
43 This is evident from the following considerations: (a) As far as ‘body’ (basar) in Psalm 16.9 is concerned, it is unlikely that it refers to the body in the grave, as suggested by the LXX and Acts 2.26 (‘my flesh will dwell in hope’). The OT expression ‘to dwell in safety’ 
is always used of the living (see Deut. 33.12; Jer. 23.6; 33.16). There is no example in the OT of this expression being used of the dead (see. F. Brown, S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. p. 105, where all the examples refer to the living), (b) The parallelism in v. 10 suggests that 
(=‘me’, RSV) and 
(‘thy godly one’) are related and probably have the same reference. This means that 
(‘me’) should be understood to mean the whole person. In other words, the first part of v. 10 is saying, ‘For thou dost not give me up to Sheol.’ (c) The use of Sheol and Pit need not imply that here we are dealing with a situation after death. Both terms are often only graphic descriptions of a place of death-like danger from which God rescues a person (cf. Psalms 18.6; 30.3; 71.20; 86.13; 88.4–7; Jonah 2.1, etc.).
44 Cf. Haenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford, 1971) 181Google Scholar; A. Schmitt, ‘Psalm 16.8–11 als Zeugnis der Auferstehung in der Apostelgeschichte’, BZ 17 (1973) 229–48. On Acts 2.25–28 as a whole see also Rese, M. (‘Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen in den Reden der Apostelgeschichte’, in Kremer, J. (ed.), Les Actes des Apôtres: Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium XLVIII, Louvain, [1979] 61–79Google Scholar) – though he does not deal with the question of anthropological dualism in the passage.
45 Gundry, R. H., Sōma, 113Google Scholar, cf. Wikenhauser, A., Die Apostelgeschichte (Regensburg, 1961), 45Google Scholar.
46 See Spicq, C., L'Épître ayx Hébreux (2 vols; Paris, 1952–1953), Vol. I, p. 52f.Google Scholar; Festugière, A. J., L'ideal religieux des Grecs el l'Evangile (Paris, 1932), 212–217.Google Scholar
47 Lang, G. H., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1951), 82f.Google Scholar
48 Hughes, P. E., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, 1977) 165Google Scholar; cf. Bruce, F. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1964), 82.Google Scholar
49 See Gundry, R. H., Sōma, 111.Google Scholar
50 For a summary of proposed solutions, see Hendriksen, W., I and II Thessahnians (London, 1972) 146–150Google Scholar, Rigaux, B.Saint Paul: Les Epîtres aux Thessabniciens (Paris, 1956) 595–601Google Scholar; Best, E., A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (Black's NT Commentaries: London, 1972) 243–244Google Scholar; Kümmel, W. G., Man in the New Testament (2nd ed., London, 1963), 44–45Google Scholar; Jewett, R., Paul's Anthropological Terms (Leiden, 1971), 175–183.Google Scholar
51 So e.g. Festugière, A. M., ‘La trichotomie de I Thess. 5.23 et la philosophie grecque’, RSR 20 (1930), 385–415.Google Scholar
52 Even in Phil. 1.27 (where Paul exhorts the Philippian community to stand firm ⋯ν ⋯ν⋯ πνε⋯ματι μιᾷ ψνχῇ) pneuma and psychē are not distinguished but used synonymously. The terms are parallel and refer to the same thing i.e. the ideal of church unity. The expression seems to be an example of synonymous parallelism used for rhetorical purposes (cf. Schweizer, E., TDNT, 9. 649)Google Scholar.
53 So Masson, C., ‘Sur I Thes. V. 23: Note d'anthropologie paulinienne’, RTP 33 (1945) 97–102Google Scholar; van Stempvoort, P. A., ‘Eine stilistische Lösung einer alten Schwierigkeit in I Thess. V. 23’, NTS 7 (1961) 262–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. also Hendriksen, W., I and II Thessalonians, 141, 150.Google Scholar
54 Masson, C., ‘Sur I Th. V. 23 …’, 97–102.Google Scholar
55 See van Stempvoort, P. A., ‘Eine stilistische Lösung …’, 262–265Google Scholar.
54 Ibid., 265: ‘Und der Gott des Friedens heilige euch gänzlich und in alien Teilen. Sowohl Seele als Leib sei beim Kommen unseres Herrn Jesu Christi untadelig bewahrt.’
57 Cf. Best, E., First and Second Thessalonians, 243.Google Scholar
58 Morris, L., The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, 1959), 181.Google Scholar
59 von Dobschütz, E., Die Thessalonicher-Briefe (Meyer, 7th edition, Göttingen, 1909) 229Google Scholar; Frame, J. E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St Paul to the Thessalonians (ICC: Edinburgh, 1912), 211.Google Scholar
60 Cf. Neil, W., The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians (New York, 1950), 133.Google Scholar
61 Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, Vol. I, p. 202.Google Scholar
62 Cf. Barrett, C. K., A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Black's NT Commentaries: London, 1973), 308–309Google Scholar; E. Schweizer (TDNT, 7. 1060) who says, ‘To be sure, Paul can adopt the idea that man is able to make a heavenly ascent outside the body’; cf. also ibid., 1043.
63 See Dunn, J. D. G. (in Brown, C. (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (henceforward NIDNTT), 3 vols., Exeter, 1975–1978, Vol. 3, p. 694) who answers in the negative.Google Scholar
64 Isaacs, M. E., The Concept of Spirit (London, 1976), 71, n. 10.Google Scholar
65 Pace Dunn, J. D. G., NIDNTT, III, 694.Google Scholar
66 Dalman, G., Jesus-Joshua (London, 1929) 220Google Scholar; cf. also Herodotus II, 89, τεαταîος γεν⋯σθαι, ‘to be four days dead’; see further Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to John (2 vols, New York, 1966–1970), Vol. I, p. 424Google Scholar; Str. B. II 544.
67 See, however, Lagrange, M.-J. (L'Évangile selon Saint Jean, Paris. [1948] 307Google Scholar) who doubts whether this belief existed in the time of Jesus.
68 Gundry, R. H., Sōma, 113.Google Scholar
69 Cf. Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke, 523–524Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., TDNT, 9. 638Google Scholar; Harder, G., NIDNTT, III, 683.Google Scholar
70 Pace Gundry, R. H. (Sōma, 121Google Scholar) who seeks rather unconvincingly to identify them. We should note that the OT did not concern itself with the question of the relationship between the nephesh/ruah which leaves the dying person, and the shades (rephaim) in Sheol. Pace Gundry, we shall have to be content with saying that the OT does not give an answer to this question for the simple reason that it never posed the question.
71 So e.g. Psalms 16.9–10; 49.16; 86.13; 30.4; 89.49; Prov. 23.14; I Sam. 2.6.
72 Cf. Anderson, A. A., Psalms, Vol. I, p. 146Google Scholar; Barth, C., Die Erretung vom Tode in den individuellen Klage-und Dank-liedern des Alien Testaments (Zürich, 1947) 154Google Scholar, Kraus, H.-J., Psalmen (Vol. I, Neukirchen, 1960) 125–126Google Scholar; Martin-Achard, R., From Death to Life (Edinburgh, 1960), 151Google Scholar; Wächter, L., Der Tod im AT (Stuttgart, 1967), 195fGoogle Scholar; Tromp, N. J., Primitive Conceptions of Death and the Netherworld in the Old Testament (Rome, 1969), 198.Google Scholar
73 See e.g. Cratylus 400 b-c where Plato says that the idea of the soul being something incarcerated in the body as in a prison was Orphic.
74 See Phaedo 66B; 114C, 67D; Phaedrus 249.
75 For details of all this, see Osei-Bonsu, J., Soul and Body in Life after Death: An Examination of the New Testament Evidence with Some Reference to Patristic Exegesis (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Aberdeen, 1980)Google Scholar.
76 Mattill, A. J., Luke and the Last Things (Dillsboro, North Carolina, 1979), 27–31Google Scholar; Grensted, L. W., ‘The Use of Enoch in St Luke 16.19–31’, Exp. Times 26 (1914–1915), 333–334Google Scholar; Standen, A. O., ‘The Parable of Dives and Lazarus, and Enoch 22’, Exp. Times 33 (1921–1922), 523Google Scholar; Aalen, S., ‘St Luke's Gospel and the Last Chapters of I Enoch’, NTS 13 (1966–1967), 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. also Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke, 637.Google Scholar
77 Cf. Glasson, T. F., Greek Influence in Jewish Eschatology (London, 1961), 5fGoogle Scholar. Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism (2 vols., London/Philadelphia, 1974)Google Scholar. Also, as Paul's confrontation with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts 17.18) makes clear, Greek ideas were current during the NT period.
78 Cf. also the view of Hoffmann, P. (Die Toten in Chrisms, Münster [1966] 58–80Google Scholar, 321–47) that OT anthropology is monistic and that NT dualism derives from Hellenistic influence.
