The blog of Dr Glenn Andrew Peoples on Theology, Philosophy, and Social Issues

Of proof texts and ghosts: The Bible and the mind-body question, part 2


Does the Bible actually teach that souls live on when the body dies? Short story: no.

In part 1 of this series I looked at what the Bible does say about the mind-body question. You should read that before you read this post. In short, in Scripture there’s a fairly clear portrait of human beings as physical and mortal, returning to the earth when we die, and depending on the resurrection of the dead for any future life beyond the grave. The familiar view of human beings as immaterial souls that inhabit physical bodies and live on when the body dies is not one supported in the Bible.

But is it really that simple? The evidence we saw last time was surprisingly clear, but still, some Christian readers of Scripture are resistant to this message. There are some passages in the Bible – although not many – that seem to some Christians to suppose that actually human beings do not die when their bodies die, but they actually live on in non-material form. Their souls don’t die. Some passages of the Bible, some people think, teach dualism because they teach that the soul outlives the body.

Right at the outset the suggestion should jar in the mind of anyone familiar with the material that we looked at in part one. To say that the self – the soul – doesn’t die and instead it survives death and goes somewhere else, is simply not compatible with the vast majority of the biblical witness. Leroy Edwin Froom had it right when he described the situation like this:

To a whole army, as it were, of explicit witnesses, has been opposed a rear-guard action of a few seemingly dubious passages, which are by some invested with a meaning wholly foreign to the general tenor not only of the specific book of which they are a part but, more than that, of the New Testament as a whole—and even beyond that, of the Old Testament testimony as well. Yet some would, by such debatable passages, seek not only to counterbalance but even to outweigh hundreds of other explicit texts.

It is as if to contend that, on the scales, a pound outweighs a ton.1

My suspicion is that the proof texts used to support this view stand out and are so memorable precisely because they are so few in number and so different with what Scripture generally says (and they are all very different from each other). But nonetheless, many Christians think that they present a picture of human nature that is fundamentally different from the one we saw in part one, so let’s look at these passages now. I’ll do this in two parts.

In my estimation there are eight verses or passages in the Bible that could sensibly be used in this way, and they are also the most commonly used proof texts for dualism. They are (in order of appearance):

  • 1 Samuel 28 (Saul, the witch of Endor and Samuel)
  • Ecclesiastes 12:7 (The spirit shall return to God.)
  • Matthew 17 (Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration)
  • Luke 16:19-31 (The story of the rich man and Lazarus)
  • Luke 23:43 (The thief on the cross)
  • 2 Corinthians 5:8 (away from the body and at home with the Lord)
  • Philippians 1:23 (I want to depart and be with Christ)
  • Revelation 6:9 (Souls under the altar)

Four of these, I think (Ecclesiastes 12:7, Matthew 17, Luke 23:43, Philippians 1:23), can be addressed fairly easily. Two of them (Luke 16:19-31 and 2 Corinthians 5:8) are understandable as arguments for dualism but still, on inspection, are not effective arguments for dualism at all. Two of them, however (1 Samuel 28 and Revelation 9:6), warrant more serious consideration and yet still have plausible explanations that are compatible with the wider biblical portrait of human nature and death that we saw in part one. I’ll look at the first group of verses in this post, and then I’ll look at the more involved examples in part three.

As an introductory comment, let me anticipate a possible criticism: “Oh come on Glenn, this is just an exercise in explaining away passages of the Bible that you don’t agree with.” But of course, the very purpose of this blog entry is to address some evidence that some people is inconsistent with the observations that I made in part 1. So of course this whole blog post will consist of me explaining “away” evidence: Explaining why the evidence does not really conflict with my thesis after all.

Let’s get started.

Ecclesiastes 12:7

The argument from Ecclesiastes 12:7 is easily the most straightforward to respond to. In this familiar text, the writer talks about death, saying that “the dust shall return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.” Since the spirit is said to return to God, and since the dualist (or at least, the dualist who uses this argument) believes that the word “spirit” returns to the immaterial undying self, this saying in Ecclesiastes 12:7, so the argument goes, means that even though the dust returns to the earth, the person lives on as a spirit, going to God (presumably in heaven, where God is).

This is an argument that collapses even under the briefest inspection. The meaning of “spirit” that this argument presupposes is simply mistaken, for one thing. We saw in part 1 that the “spirit” that creatures have to make them alive and which they must surrender at death is synonymous with the “breath of life,” something had in common by all animals. There is little doubt that the author of Ecclesiastes 12:7 had Genesis 2:7 in mind when he wrote it: God made the first man from the dust and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Here, things are reversed. Notice the word “return” and the phrase “as it was.” The dust will go back to where it was, in the earth. The spirit or breath of life will be reclaimed by God. This is not a progression to the next stage of life, but an undoing. It is an irony that one of the proof texts used by some to show that we live on after death as spiritual beings was evidently written not to affirm survival, but to emphatically deny it. I have written in more detail about this passage over at Afterlife.

Matthew 17 – Moses and Elijah

The appearance of Moses and Elijah on the mountain with Jesus is said by some people to demonstrate that non-material souls remain alive while the body is dead, and hence a dualistic view of human beings must be true. After all, Moses and Elijah were dead, and yet here they are on the mountain. Surely we are seeing a clear-cut case of ghosts. How can non-material souls survive the death of the body unless they exist?

In order to assess this argument, we need to know how it is supposed to work. Although it is not typically spelled out with any clarity, I think it is supposed to work like this:

1) Moses and Elijah were miraculously present with Jesus on a mountain in the first century AD.
2) The only possible way that Moses and Elijah could have been miraculously present with Jesus on a mountain in the first century AD (given that they died many centuries earlier) is for their immaterial souls to have been present on a mountain with Jesus in the first century AD.
3) Therefore the immaterial souls of Moses and Elijah were present were present with Jesus on a mountain in the first century AD.

From which it seems obvious that:

4) Therefore immaterial souls of human beings exist.

The argument appears to be logically valid: Once you grant the premises 1) and 2), the conclusion 3) follows, as does 4). However, it is only a sound argument if premises 1) and 2) are both true, and it is only a persuasive argument if 1) and 2) are clearly true.

As soon as the argument is laid out clearly, it starts to falter. The simple fact is that there is no good reason to think that 2) is true, and 1) appears not to accord with Matthew 17 itself. Let’s start with 2).

Why suppose that the only way for Moses and Elijah to be miraculously present on the mountain in the first century AD is for their immaterial souls to be present? Why could this not have been a bodily appearance? It is hardly a natural event, after all, it is a one-off miraculous event.

Why suppose that the only way for Moses and Elijah to be miraculously present on the mountain in the first century AD is for their immaterial souls to be present? Why could this not have been a bodily appearance? It is hardly a natural event, after all, it is a one-off miraculous event. Why is the explanation that Moses and Elijah were brought back from the dead via a temporary resurrection so clearly impossible, while the explanation that their immaterial souls were present so plausible? Indeed, the description of the event would match a physical appearance far better than the presence of an immaterial soul. What does an immaterial soul look like? Can it appear to be talking? Does it even have a mouth? Presumably even a person who thinks that these were immaterial souls would have to maintain that, for the benefit of the viewer, they were made to look as though they were physically present (otherwise nobody would have known that they were present at all). 2), then, is a rather gratuitous assumption.

More important, however, is the fact that 1) is, according to the narrative in Matthew 17, not true. Moses and Elijah were not miraculously present on the mountain. “But the disciples saw them!” Yes they did, but remember that this was a vision. If you rely solely on the New International Version then you might not have realised this. However in any fairly literal version, Matthew records Jesus as saying “Tell nobody the vision (horama) until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.” Horama is the standard Greek word for a “vision,” something that is seen but is not actually present.

According to the text of Matthew’s Gospel, and the words of Jesus in particular, Moses and Elijah were not actually present, but what the disciples saw was really a vision.

According to the text of Matthew’s Gospel, and the words of Jesus in particular, Moses and Elijah were not actually present, but rather were seen in a vision. The NIV conceals this by reading “tell nobody what you have seen.” “What you have seen” gives the impression that this is a verb (namely the past tense of “see”), so Jesus is simply talking about something they have seen. Of course this is something that the disciples saw, but the Greek makes it clear what they saw: A vision. Horama appears on a few other occasions in the New Testament. For example when Peter was praying on the rooftop in Acts 10, we was shown a vision (horama, Acts 10:17) in which a sheet was lowered down from heaven, filled with all different kinds of animal). Nobody thinks that this passage tells us that the writer believed that there are animals living up in the sky, in a sheet. If anyone tried to make that argument, the reply would be obvious: The animals weren’t actually there, it was a vision.

So in short: Even if Moses and Elijah were actually present, that fact would say nothing about mind-body dualism. After all, it was a miracle, and the miraculous presence of the immaterial souls of these two men is hardly the obvious explanation, as opposed to them being alive again. Secondly and more importantly, the presence of Moses and Elijah does not need to be explained at all, because they were not present. This was a vision, according to the very passage in question. It is a vision with a message that has clear emphasis in Matthew’s Gospel. In Matthew 5 Jesus declared that he had come to fulfil the Law and the Prophets, and now in Matthew 17 we have a vision of Moses (representing the law) and Elijah (representing the prophets) conversing with Jesus, who was the fulfilment of them both. This was a visionary depiction of Jesus’ teaching about himself.

Today you will be with me in Paradise

One of the most frequently cited passages used to show that dualism is the biblical view of human beings is Luke 23:43. In this account, not supplied by Matthew, Mark or John, Jesus tells the criminal who is crucified with him: “Assuredly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

There is a legitimate question about punctuation in this verse. As readers may know, early New Testament manuscripts had no punctuation at all. Greek scholar E. W. Bullinger has argued that the comma ought to be placed after the word “today / this day” (semeron), so that the saying would read: “Assuredly I tell you this day, you will be with me in paradise.” All I will say here about this proposal is that its critics tend not to take it seriously enough or to grapple with all of the relevant evidence. Some of that evidence is addressed in my blog: “Luke 23:43 and Soul Sleep” as well as in the comments thread, where a number of criticisms of Bullinger’s thesis were quickly seen to be ill-thought-out. Bullinger’s claim, based on evidence, is that the word semeron generally belongs with the preceding verb (that verb here being lego, “I say”). As a rule, he is correct. However there is a much more prevalent pattern in the New Testament of using “Assuredly I say to you” (amen lego soi) as an introduction to what the speaker wishes to say, which in this case would mean that what Luke wanted to recount Jesus as saying is “Today you will be with me in paradise.” Although the question of punctuation is a legitimate one to raise, any solution that relies on Bullinger’s argument will be highly tenuous.

But there is really no need to rely on such arguments. It is certainly true that the traditional interpretation is plausible on the basis of no more than what is said in Luke 23:43. That day, Jesus and the thief would be in paradise. But if the majority of what the biblical writers say about death gives us a reason to look for another interpretation, it is not far off. Was Jesus speaking to the thief about metaphysical realities, measurable from an outsider’s perspective – or was he speaking to a person who was undergoing an experience, so that his words would make sense in light of that experience? Suppose he was doing the latter: Not telling the man what would happen from an outsider’s perspective as he looked on, but rather what he was about to experience.

If the thief really did die without surviving as a disembodied soul, only to be resurrected thousands or millions of years later into paradise, what would we expect him to personally experience? Certainly not a long, long wait in the dark. Instead we would expect an experience of closing his eyes in agony, followed immediately by opening them again at the resurrection. It is hard for me not to agree with Peter Van Inwagen (in a quote that I have used before in this way):

The words of Jesus are, obviously, supposed to be what The Book of Common Prayer calls “comfortable words.” Let me ask a question in somewhat the same spirit as the question I asked a moment ago. Imagine that the Good Thief dies in agony; “the next thing he knows,” as the idiom has it, he is in Paradise. He presently discovers that over three thousand years have passed since he died. Was he deceived? Was it somehow wrong of Jesus to say to him, “Today you shall be with me in Paradise”? If so, what should Jesus have said? Should he have said, “After the general resurrection, which will occur after an indefinite period that only the Father knows, you shall be with me in Paradise – but it will seem to you as if no time has passed”? Are there not circumstances in which taking extreme care to frame one’s statements in words that express only the strict and literal truth is unsatisfactory from a pastoral point of view? And are there not, in fact, circumstances in which taking extreme care to frame one’s statements in words that express only the strict and literal truth can impede communication? (I know that a certain large structure in Manhattan is a terminal and not a station; nevertheless, I don’t generally call it Grand Central Terminal, because that’s not what most people call it. And from my calling it Grand Central Station you cannot infer that I believe that it’s a station rather than a terminal.) In any case, to suppose that Jesus and the Good Thief would have attached much importance to the distinction between the strict and the lax interpretations of Jesus’ words – the strict being the one insisted on by those who are treating these words as proof text, and the lax being the one I’m pushing – seems to me to attribute an analytical cast of mind to two first-century Jews (in their extreme agony, let us remember) that is probably unwarranted.2

What do you think Jesus should have said, if soul sleep were true?

Van Inwagen raises a good question, one for dualist readers of Scripture to consider: What do you think Jesus should have said, if soul sleep were true? “You are about to be dead for a long time, but when you wake up in the resurrection it will seem like today, and you will be in Paradise”? Under the circumstances, a brief conversation between two men in agony during their slow execution, where Jesus offers comfort and assurance to his fellow sufferer, this would hardly have served the pastoral purpose. Instead, comforting the man by telling him what he was about to experience as immediate seems entirely appropriate. Aside from a wilfully incredulous response of “Well, I wouldn’t have said that!” it is difficult to see how the dualist argument can gain much traction or commend itself as the only possible view that is compatible with the words of Jesus here.

The fact that Jesus (or perhaps somebody paraphrasing Jesus) used the word “paradise” (paradeisos in Luke’s Gospel) itself counts against the thought that this is a reference to a disembodied intermediate state. As I have discussed elsewhere, paradise is a thoroughly earth-bound term, referring to a restored, ideal creation rather than to an intermediate state without the body.

To depart and be with Christ

Philippians 1 contains St Paul’s famous proclamation that “to live is Christ, to die is gain.” But it also mentions departing and being with Christ. Verses 19-26 read as follows:

Yes, and I will rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, as it is my eager expectation and hope that I will not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honoured in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labour for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again.

Some thoughtful dualists who notice Paul’s various references to being “with Christ” or with the Lord pause at this point. Elsewhere when Paul speaks explicitly of the time and means by which those who have died will be with the Lord, in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, it is at the time of the resurrection when “we will always be with the Lord” (v 17). And yet, on one reading of Philippians 1, Paul is expressing the desire to be with Christ in an intermediate state while his body is dead. Given this view of what Paul is saying, Hawthorne (who holds this view) says that “No completely satisfactory resolution to the problem posed by these seemingly contradictory views has as yet been given, and perhaps none can be given.”3

One solution is suggested by E. W. Bullinger, noting that the word for “depart” here, analuo, only occurs twice in the New Testament, and the other instance is Luke 12:36 where it refers to a master who will “return” home after being away at a wedding. His proposal for Paul’s meaning is: “I desire the return [of Christ] and to be with Christ, which is far better.”

Analuo, to loosen again with the idea of coming back to the same place (used of a ship returning home from a foreign part) hence to return, depart and return. Used in the Lxx of returning from a feast (occ. Phil. i.23, where it is unto the return of Christ, for only then and thus shall we be with him, 1 Thes. Iv.17.4

Bullinger’s thesis is certainly a possibility. However, analuo is often used simply to denote a departure. A number of commentators note that the word was used to refer to breaking camp and moving on, or a ship raising its anchor and sailing off. So the meaning of “depart” does loom large. St Paul actually uses the noun of this word, analusis, from when we directly get “analysis,” i.e. breaking something down to its smallest bits, in 2 Timothy 4:6, “I am already being poured out like a drink offering, the time of my departure (analusis) is at hand.”

And here is the key to understanding Paul’s expression in Philippians 1:23. On both instances he is referring to his death as an analusis (first he uses the verb, then the noun), and in both contexts he talks about being with the Lord afterwards. But in 2 Timothy he explains in more detail:

For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.

In 2 Timothy Paul also speaks about being with the Lord after his analusis, but not at the time of his departure – simply at some time after, “on that day” when the Lord rewards all his people.

This brings consistency to Paul’s thinking elsewhere when he speaks of our future hope entirely in terms of the return of Christ and the resurrection. It also means that my understanding of Philippians 1:23 is like my understanding of Luke 23:43. It speaks of what one will experience after death, but not of the mechanics of how one will get there. They are both quite consistent with death as a state of oblivion between now and the resurrection, so that there is no experience of time for the “sleeper.”


So although it is popular to use these four passages: Ecclesiastes 12:7, Matthew 17, Luke 23:43 and Philippians 1:23, as though they were only compatible with a dualistic view of human nature where the immaterial soul lives on after the body dies, this impression is only superficial. None of these passages requires dualism, all of them are compatible with dualism, and in truth, while some of them have nothing in particular to say about the mind-body question, one of them appears to be more supportive of a materialist view of human beings (Ecclesiastes 12:7, which depicts a reversal of the creation of man), and another of them (Philippians 1:23) bears strong similarities to another of St Paul’s writings where his comments are more compatible with “soul sleep” than with the release of the soul into the presence of God at death.

In part 3 we’ll look at the more involved passages that are sometimes used to demonstrate that mind-body dualism is biblical: 1 Samuel 28 (Saul, the witch of Endor and Samuel), Luke 16:19-31 (The story of the rich man and Lazarus), 2 Corinthians 5:8 (away from the body and at home with the Lord) and Revelation 6:9 (Souls under the altar).

Glenn Peoples

  1. Leroy Edwin Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers (Washington, DC: Review and Herald, 1959), Volume 1, 366. []
  2. Peter Van Inwagen, “Dualism and Materialism: Athens and Jerusalem?” Faith and Philosophy 12:4 (1995), 484. []
  3. G. F. Hawthorne, Philippians, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 43 (Dallas: Word, 2004), 59. []
  4. E. W. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1895), 644 []


Jerry Walls and the Unequal Distribution of Grace


Divine commands, double standards and the objection from abhorrent commands


  1. Jeff Burton

    Glenn, thanks for this clear exposition of materialism. I am not yet persuaded, but yours is the best case I’ve see yet. I have a few questions for you:

    1. How would you interpret near death experiences? I predict you would be sympathetic to naturalists accounts of them as illusions produced by a dying brain. But maybe I should let you speak for yourself.

    2. How do you respond to the “continuity problem”? Meaning, if we cease to exist when we die, what exactly is being resurrected? Many treatments in fiction, of course, with the most recent being the movie “The Prestige.”

    3. 2 Corinthians 12:2 – Do you interpret Paul’s agnosticism about “in the body or out of the body” as a confession of ignorance about this particular event, or as evidence of a wider ignorance about this entire question?

  2. Nathan


    It’s worth reading Glenn’s previous writings related to the questions you ask:

    Cheers, Nathan.

  3. Hi Jeff. Nathan beat me to it! I’ve offered some detailed comments on Paul’s experience that you refer to at the link he posted.

    The question of continuity between death and resurrection is fairly involved, but I’ve done my best to tackle it succinctly here:

    As for Near Death Experiences, the short answer is that I don’t think they are what they purport to be. Some are obviously just fraudulent, but a number of them are sincerely believed, and my best explanation is that they are false beliefs and sensations created by extreme physical conditions. I’m gathering some books and articles on the subject in preparation for a podcast about NDEs.

  4. Nick

    I would think if physicalism were true it would have a possible problem when it comes to identity. If one is just a physical being at death and after decay any mental faculties of the person a completely gone, therefore so is ones personal identity. There is no memories, no intellect, no ‘self’ awareness. All has totally gone. This is where dualism appears to have no difficulty that I can see. The person in continues to exist. There is loss of identity. Even if the resurrection seemed to be just an instant of time for the person this would make as I see no difference. If I take a perfectly functional computer grind it to powder and then re-make it there is no chance that the same data will be loaded on it. Whatever was on it before hand has been lost. so, I see a problem here if the full spectrum of human faculties are ‘physically’ gone and a person is only ‘physical’ then so are they at death and decay. So, I would be interested in what one thinks about this.

    As for NDE I think there are some interesting things about these experiences. If people are only ‘physical’ then NDE would seem to be impossible to some extent. Is not a person limited to the confinements of their skull? No amount of trauma is going to change this. From what I read about NDE people relate that they can see themselves from outside their body, have clear reasoned thinking, I think the fact they can ‘think’ is itself an interesting fact, and remember. How many really clear and vidid dreams have you as a reader had? I mean as if you were awake and cognisant. I do wonder how a physicality would count for the fact blind people have them. If the optical/visual side of the brain does not work, how do they see? They report seeing procedures, items, colours, themselves, people, hear their conversations and can describe them accurately later. A seeing person who has memories of themselves in a mirror could easily create some type of story when the body is experiencing trauma, but a blind person has very limited data to do this I would think off hand.
    I wonder what data there is about deaf people. Do they hear? Pam Renalds (an american singer) was blindfolded, ears plugged for her brain surgery and was about to relate many confirmed facts about what was said in theatre, and medical procedures done to her. So I think this going to be a topic of controversy for years to come. Another final point I would add is that if the brain is under pressure at death and is failing why do these people have very clear and cognisant experiences, would they not be bizarre, jumbled, not really relatable to the physical world, like those of people on strong medication or illicit drugs? Also what do different cultures report about these events, are there patterns that are repeated worldwide. I would be interested to hear someones comments about these points.

    I would also like to ask Glenn in ‘physicalism’ what is regenerated? Perhaps you have talked about his before hand.

  5. Hi Nick. Obviously the purpose of this series (especially part 1) is to show that a materialist view of human beings is a biblical view. If I’ve made the case, then any problem of continuity will be an objection to the teaching of the Bible.

    I do discuss the problem of continuity in the podcast series, In Search of the Soul, in the link that provided in the comment right before yours. As for your comment about dreams, I’m not blind or deaf, so here’s an answer straight from the horse’s mouth:

  6. Jim

    Glenn, did you write Part 3? It’s not in the links below the article. Good stuff so far 🙂

  7. Thanks Jim – no, I haven’t done part three, but I haven’t forgotten. 🙂

    • Peter

      Hi Glenn. Great stuff! I can’t find Part 3. Did you finish the final part? Peter

  8. David hillary

    Isn’t Phil 1 read most naturally as departure meaning to live and continue with his ministry rather than die?

  9. Jim

    Hi David
    The way I see Phil 1 making most sense is Paul explaining that the gospel is advanced whether he lives (because he can physically encourage, evangelise and preach), or whether he dies (since his imprisonment was emboldening others to spread the gospel, how much more his death for the sake of the gospel). He knows deep down that living is the better option, but what he actually wants is the return of Christ before his death – which is better by far than the other two. 1:23 is more of a side comment in parenthesis.

    The Greek with a literal interlinear is as follows:
    sunecomai de ek twn thn epiyumian
    I-am-pressed yet out of the two, the desire
    ecwn eiv to analusai kai sun cristw
    having unto the return and with Christ
    einai pollw gar mallon kreisson
    to-be, much for rather better
    A translation without the dualist preconceptions is as follows:

    Yet I am being pressed out of the two, having the desire unto the return and together with Christ to be, for it rather is much better (Phil, 1:23).

    The Greek is used elsewhere to support this emphasis and tallies with the notion that Paul wasn’t wishing death upon himself in order to enjoy ‘disembodied bliss’, but more that Christ’s return in his lifetime was his real heart’s desire.

  10. greg wood

    good afternoon from Oklahoma was curious if you have done part 3 yet I was most interested on your take of rev 6:9, souls under the table. Trust your day is going well

  11. Michael Taylor


    I wonder if anyone has brought up Luke 24:37-39. It seems as if both Jesus and the disciples took the existence of “ghosts” or “spirits” (depending upon translation) as a given. It’s Jesus’ material solidity (flesh and bones) that is offered as the proof that he wasn’t a ghost. Why even provide the proof in the first place if there are no such thing as ghosts?

    And doesn’t this text accord with the near universal albeit anecdotal evidence for the belief in immaterial spirits that survive death? I don’t think its plausible to hand wave that all away as superstition.

    I sense that you are skeptical of the paranormal/supernatural in general. But I don’t think the biblical writers were; rather they seemed to have taken it for granted. Yet I think that you’ve made the case that they were physicalists too. How to put belief in ghosts, demons, etc together with no concept of a non-material soul?

    • Hi Michael

      “And doesn’t this text accord with the near universal albeit anecdotal evidence for the belief in immaterial spirits that survive death? I don’t think its plausible to hand wave that all away as superstition.”

      Yes, it does accord with that belief. It’s premature and uncharitable, of course, to talk about “hand waving” before you’ve waited for my answer.

      Even a materialist might see something that spooks him and makes him say “eeek, a ghost!” But then if the situation is explained to him, he’ll calm down and come back to his senses. Trying to hang a case on an instance like this, when there is such a mass of biblical evidence pointing the other way, seems to me to be the opposite of good practice when it comes to biblical interpretation. Remember that the disciples believed in angels and demons, which were both referred to as pneuma in Greek. The point is, they didn’t think it was a flesh and blood person.

      “I sense that you are skeptical of the paranormal/supernatural in general.”

      I don’t know what this means. I don’t believe we have an immaterial soul. If that’s all you mean, then you’re right. But you’ll have to unpack what this “sense” of yours is telling you. Do you think it means I can’t believe in angels, or demons? If so, that doesn’t follow, as far as I can tell. But you can explain why it does, if you like (if that’s what you think).

    • Michael Taylor


      I didn’t intend to be uncharitable with the hand-wave comment as if you hadn’t thought this through. The “you” was more generic, as in one ought not to simply dismiss the experience of so many…not that you are in any way dismissing what, for lack of a better word, I’m calling the paranormal or supernatural.

      That said, what is your take on that passage? I’m with you when you say that the Bible everywhere else seems to teach physicalism and I agree that the odd text shouldn’t overthrow the rest of the evidence that points in the other direction.

      But supposing that this text does indirectly affirm the existence of ghosts, would that overthrow your view?

      I suppose it’s possible to assume that Jes was simply accommodating their ignorance as if what he really meant to say was something like, “Granting for the sake of argument that ghosts really exist, they wouldn’t have flesh and bones like I do. That’s why I’m not a ghost.”

      But it just doesn’t read like that to me. Jesus isn’t saying, “I’m not a ghost because there’s no such thing”; rather he seems to be saying, “I’m not a ghost because I have a body.”

      Can physicalism really handle that text? I’m not saying it can’t. I’m just saying I haven’t seen anyone deal with it yet.

      My apologies if I came across as tendentious.

    • Glenn

      No worries, Michael.

      If someone said, “look, a unicorn!” don’t you think it would be OK to say “But that horse doesn’t have a horn. A unicorn has a horn in the middle of its head.”

      I can imagine saying that. I probably would! But I don’t believe in unicorns.

    • Michael Taylor

      Hi Glenn,

      Not to belabor this too much, but I don’t hear too many unicorn stories. Ghost stories, on the other hand…well, they’re somewhat common where I live. The former seems clearly mythical to me, but I’m not so sure we can say that about ghosts, whatever they are (if they are).

      Some universities have departments of parapsychology and there is peer reviewed literature that deals with the paranormal, ghosts and all that. (I am aware that not everyone would consider this field actual science.)

      Yet, research (such that it is) is being done on ghosts, etc. But it must be the rare scientist who is actually looking for evidence of unicorns, or dragons, or centaurs for that matter.

      I know you’ve tackled the Witch of Endor objection. I find your explanation to be plausible. I wonder if you might add Luke 24:37-39 to your list of texts that might pose problems for physicalism.

      I’ll leave it at that.

      Thank you.

    • I should reiterate, too, Michael, that we can’t be certain what “spirit” means here. It might, for example, mean a demonic (or heavenly) being.

  12. Andrew Gray

    Hi Glenn, there are many of us here who would love to read what you have to say in the much anticipated part 3 that hasn’t been published yet. How about it?

    • Hi Andy – it’s planned. And has been for some time, haha. I really must write it.

  13. Jeff

    Hi Glenn. After searching for part 3, then reading through the comments of all those who asked for it (since 2015!) I am starting to wonder (I say this as a joke) if perhaps Luke 16:19-31 is too difficult to address! There are probably many people on the edge/up in the air who remain indecisive until they see a strong discussion of that text!

    • Jeff

      Also, Glenn, while I am not a physicalist (despite having strong sympathies and am somewhat persuaded) I think an argument could be built that Luke 16 is referring to the final state. Of course the obvious problem is that these events take place “in Hades”, and in Revelation “Hades” is thrown into the lake of fire, so it would seem that the Rich Man and Lazarus are not in the Lake of Fire. Yet I think it could be responded that since Hades ends up in the Lake of Fire, to be “in Hades” is not ultimately different from being “in” the Lake of Fire since both ultimately seem to overlap. I think this argument has some merit, especially when we consider that “Lake of Fire” is unique to Revelation, and to suggest that perhaps in Jesus’s teaching ministry he did not distinguish Hades and Lake of Fire, and so the Parable is desribing the resurrection of damnation (for the Rich Man). Since I am granting conditionalism, this would also mean that the Rich Man’s conscious suffering is a prelude to his eventual “second” demise. Any thoughts Glenn? What are other ways a physicalist can work through “people being alive after death in Hades” in Luke 16?

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén