EQ 62:3 (1990), 241-251
Vern A. Hannah
Death, Immortality and
Resurrection: A Response to John
Yates, 'The Origin of the Soul'
Mr. Hannah, who is Academic Dean and Professor of Biblical
Literature and Theology in the Canadian Nazarene College in
Winnipeg, takes a further look at the question of the nature of the
soul in relation to biblical teaching.
I should like to respond to the fascinating article by John C. Yates
(EQ 61:1 (1989), 121-140), 'The Origin of the Soul: New Light on
an Old Question'. The aim of this response is not to oppose his
perspective but rather to draw out some ofthe ramifications of his
views for a biblical view of immortality and resurrection.
The basic orientation of Mr. Yates is philosophical!theological.
The basic orientation of the present response is biblical!
theological. It is widely agreed among biblical theologians today
that the traditional Christian understanding of a body/soul
dualism is no longer a tenable position to hold. It is obvious from
Mr. Yates' article that traditional philosophical and theological
approaches to the issue are likewise resting on shaky ground.
Specifically, the older views ofTraducianism (the 'soul' is passed
on from parent to child) and Creationism (each 'soul' is created
ex nihilo by God and joined to the new organism) are shown by
Yates to be seriously flawed. Neither view is tenable from a
biblical or a philosophical perspective.
Yates argues for an 'emergentist view' of the soul's origin.
Using certain modern materialist and evolutionary theories of the
emergence of 'mind' as a point of reference, he suggests his own
version of the emergence of the soul in the human organism.
Citing specifically the Christian philosopher William Hasker's
views as catalytic,l Yates argues for 'a new form ofgenerationism'
1
w. Hasker, 'The Souls of Beasts and Men', Religious Studies, 10, 1974,256-277;
'Emergentism', Religious Studies, 18, 1982,273-488. Hasker uses the example
of a magnet producing its magnetic field as being analogous to the organism
generating 'its conscious field'.
242
The Evangelical Quarterly
which sees the 'soul' as emerging from 'complex arrangements of
organic molecules [which] generate mental fields over and above
matter itsel'2
... Only in man does the central nervous system possess a degree of
complexity sufficiently developed to produce a 'soul-field' with the
highest mental capacities of self-consciousness, abstract thought and
linguistic ability . . . . The particular value of this position is that it
affirms the existence of mental forces transcending material processes
but does not claim that, in the ordinmy course of events, these mental
phenomena can exist apart from the brain mechanisms that generate
them. I am proposing that the immensely complicated configuration
... which compose the functioning cerebral cortex in man creates a
new level of existence (the mind) which possesses genuinely novel
properties compared with the levels below it.:~
Yates goes on to point out that 'the "energy" responsible for the
existence of mind comes from the central nervous sytem; but this
"energy" is not to be identified with the mind itself whose composition is best described by the vague term "spiritual".'4
This is certainly an intriguing and attractive concept of the
'soul'. Yates refers to this view as 'minimal dualism' which is
compatible with development in a context of human and divine
interrelationships. Furthermore, the vfew is compatible with
certain forms of evolution and 'it does not contradict the unitary
anthropological emphasis of the Bible.'5 Simply put, in Yates'
view the soul emerges out of the human organism and is not an
additinn to the body from without. 6
The crucial issue in this view of the soul is what happens upon
the death of the human organism. Traditional Christianity has
assumed the soul to be intrinsically immortal. The soul simply
continues to exist after the body dies. Resurrection is the reuniting of the 'never-dying soul' with a newly-created body. This
kind of dualism is recognized by most biblical theologians today
as being foreign to the biblical perspective. Oscar Cullmann has
"' Yates, 135.
Yates, 136.
Yates, 136.
5 Yates, 137.
(; A recent book related to Yates' concept of ,fields' is Eugene Fontinell, Self, God
and Immortalitp: AJamesian Investigation (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 1986). Fontinell investigates the idea of immortality vis-a-vis William
James' concept of the self in its evolving 'fields' of relationships.
7 Oscar Cullmann, Immortalitp and Resurrection: Four Essays by O. Cullmann,
H. WolfSon, et al., K. Sendahl (ed.) (New York, Macmillan Co., 1965), 18.
B Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, Harper Torchbooks edition (New York,
Harper {j,o Row, 1959), 154.
:1
4
Death, Immortality and Resurrection
243
criticized this traditional view, holding that it is essentially a
fundamental denial of death. 7 Similarly, BarthB and Thielicke9
clearly reject a fundamental dualism of body/soul in the
traditional sense and hold that resurrection of the dead is the
Christian hope of immortality. It is obvious that more recent views
seems to take death much more seriously and at the same time
. affirm the true significance of resurrection as the answer to the
problem of death. 10
One of the major concerns Yates has with Hasker's concept of
the 'emerging soul' is that its merely physical base would mean
the soul's dissolution upon the death of the body.ll Yates' solution
to this problem is to appeal to Karl Rahner's belief that 'all things
whether material or immaterial owe their origin and continued
existence to God ... '12 This view is certainly compatible with the
scriptural teaching that ultimately God (through the Son)
'upholds all things by his word of power' (Heb. 1:3---cf. Col.
1:17). According to Yates, therefore, 'this property of selftranscendence cannot be ascribed to secondary causes considered
in themselves, but is an ability given to them by God under the
influx of his power as prImary cause. '13 In other words, God
enables the human organism to generate its 'soul-field'.
But what happens at death? Yates' answer is
that at the point of brain death, the point at which the soul faces nonexistence, God exerts an effect identical to that normally produced by
the nervous system. That is, one survives physical death because the
ongoing generation of the 'soul-field' is now to be attributed to God
rather than to the body.14
Yates does not speculate on any particulars regarding this
transition of sustaining 'energy'.
This view at once raises difficulties and possibilities. The major
difficulty would appear to be our understanding of death. Does
death really occur for the 'soul'? Is there any hiatus between the
9
10
11
12
1:i
14
Helmut Thielicke, Death and Life. Trans. by E. H. Schroeder (Philadelphia,
Fortress Press, 1970), 198.
A corollary to the issue before us is the idea of ' conditional immortality' and
the meaning of hell. See on this John w. Wenham, The Goodness of God
(London, Intervarsity Press, 1974), 27-41; Edward Wm. Fudge, The Fi"e
That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of Final Punishment
(Fallbrook, California, Verdict Publications, 1982). See also Themelios, 11,
#2 Gan. 1986), for three articles which, while rt:jecting the immortality of the
soul, stop short of endorsing conditional immortality.
Yates, 135.
Yates, 138.
Yates, 138.
Yates, 139.
244
The Evangelical Quarterly
transference of sustaining 'energies' from the body to God's
sustaining power? It appears from Yates' description (i.e., that
'the soul faces non-existence') that no break occurs at all. Does the
soul only 'face' non existence, or does it in fact momentarily (or
longer) become non-existent? This is a crucial question for our
understanding of three related areas: the meaning of death, the
meaning of immortality, and the meaning of resurrection.
The Meaning of Death
The Bible is clear that death occurs because of sin (Gen. 2:17;
3:19; Ezk. 18:20; Rom. 5:12; 6:23; 8:6; 1 Cor. 15:17-22). But what
does death mean? For the traditional body/soul dualist death
occurs only for the body. The soul is immortal and continues (as
the true self) to exist in independence of the body. But where is
the biblical warrant for this view? And can death really be
considered much of a consequence at all?
Advocates of the traditional dualistic understanding frequently
describe death as a two-fold separation; first, separation of the
soul from the body, with only the latter ceasing to live; second, the
separation of the soul from God, known as 'the second death'
(Rev. 2:11; 20:14; ct Mt. 10:28), with the soul not ceasing to exist.
It appears obvious from this traditional view that death, as it is
normally understood, refers only to the physical body. Death, in
any fundamental sense, is therefore redefined as continued
existence in separation from God. Such a radical re-definition of
death is in fact a denial of death-a definition, no doubt, which
the 'subtle serpent' of Genesis three would find most appealing!
The Bible takes death much more seriously than traditional
dualist exegesis would allow. The solemn sentence upon
humankind, 'You are dust, and to dust you shall return' (Gen.
3:19), underlines this. The expulsion from the Garden and 'the
tree of life' (Gen. 3), the generally pessimistic view of sheol
throughout the OT, especially in the Wisdom writings, and the
lack of any clear and consistent support in either Testament for an
anthropological dualism of a Platonic sort ought, at least, serve as
a caution against a ready acceptance of a view which assumes
there is something naturally intrinsic in human nature which
death cannot touch. Besides, the NT presents death as 'the last
enemy' (1 Cor. 15:26) not the liberator of 'a never dying soul'. As
Oscar Cullmann put it, 'death is the destruction of all life created
by God. Therefore it is death and not the body which must be
conquered by the resurrection. '15
15
Cullrnann, Immortality, 19.
Death, Immortality and Resurrection
245
It would seem, therefore, that the simple but profound
meaning of death is extinction of life, a definition which takes
terms like 'perish' (1 Cor. 15:18; In. 3:16) and 'destruction' (Mt.
10:28; 2 Thes. 1:9) most seriously. Death is loss of being, not
merely a loss of well-being. As indicated earlier in this essay,
Yates does not seem to allow for a serious view of death. In his
view it appears merely as a transition. This matter will be considered again in the conclusion of this essay.
The Meaning and Ground of Inunortality
The term immortality comes from the Greek, athanasia, meaning
'deathlessness', and hence, unending existence, or exemption
from death. This term occurs three times in the NT and is usually
rendered simply 'immortality' (1 Cor. 15:53,54; 1 Tim. 6:16). A
related word is aphtharsia, sometimes rendered 'immortality' or
'incorruption' (Rom. 2:7; 2 Tim. 2:10; 1 Cor. 15:53, 54). The
adjective form, 'immortal' or 'incorruptible', occurs in Rom. 1:23
and 1 Tim. 1:17. There is no counterpart to these terms in the
Hebrew OT canon.
Nowhere in either Testament is the idea of immortality
attributed as a natural quality or right of humankind. Rather, we
are told that 'God alone has immortality' (1 Tim. 6:16). The same
idea may be inferred fromJohn, chapter one, where the logos is
the creator, source and bearer of life (zoe). The symbol of ' the tree
of life' in Genesis surely indicates that immortality is only
potential to humankind. Furthermore, immortality is to be sought
(Rom. 2:7) and 'put on' (1 Cor. 15:53). It is, as 'eternal life', the
gift of God (Rom. 6:23) to be inherited (Mt. 19:29) by knOWing
God an. 17:3) through Christ an. 14:19, 17:2; Rom. 6:23). In
Paul's view immortality is tied solely to the resurrection ofJesus (1
Cor. 15) as the ground and pledge of the believer's hope.
It should be apparent then that the ground of immortality is
soteriological and not anthropological. As P. T. Forsyth said, 'a
sure belief in immortality does not rest where philosophy puts it,
but where religion puts it. It is not founded on the nature of the
psychic organism, but on its relation to Another. '16 This is
essentially what is meant in 2 Timothy 1:10: ' ... Christ Jesus
[has] abolished death and brought life and immortality to light
through the gospel.' This of course is clearly a conditionalist
1(;
S. Mikolaski, ed. The Creative Theology of P. T. Forsyth (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1969), 249. Forsyth's full treatment ofthis appears in his
This Life and the Next (London: Independent Press, 1918).
246
The Evangelical Quarterly
perspective. But it is not incompatible with Yates' view that the
'soul-field' can continue only as its sustaining energy is transferred from the human organism to God. As the hymnwriter put it:
' ... Other refuge have I none;
Hangs my helpless soul on thee ... '
This, then, brings us to consider the meaning and significance of
resurrection.
The Meaning and Significance of Resurrection
The idea of resurrection from the dead is predominantly a NT
idea. While it is alluded to in the OT17 and somewhat more
clearly in the intertestamental period, it is presented as fundamental to Christian thought in the NT. The two principal terms
for resurrection in the NT are anastasis and egeiro. The former
means 'a standing or rising up', while the latter means 'to raise or
. rouse up'. Both terms are used ofJesus' resurrection and also that
of believers. Since both terms occur numerous times (as any
Greek lexicon will show) a listing of references here will not be
necessary. Forms of both terms occur in an apparently synonymous manner in the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians and
elsewhere in the NT. They appear, therefore, to be almost
identical in meaning. 18
If either the resurrection of Jesus or the resurrection of his followers were removed from NT teaching the whole gospel
message would be gutted. That the resurrection of Jesus carries
incredible soteriological significance is obvious both from the
earliest preaching (kerygma) in Acts, and from the writings of
Paul and others. It is the conviction of the current writer that
modern Christians do not begin to give the idea of resurrection
the significance it deserves in our theological reflections. Modern
Christians certainly do not emphasize it on anywhere near the
scale that the NT itself does.
The locus classicus on resurrection in the NT is 1 Corinthians,
chapter fifteen. It is obvious from Paul's teaching here that the
human hope of resurrection is based clearly upon the resurrection
of Christ which was instrumental in dealing effectively with the
consequences of sin and death. The following emphases in 1 Cor.
15 bear this out:
17
111
The clearest reference to resurrection in the OT is Dn. 12:2. Other references
which imply it are Is. 26:19; Job 19:25-27; Ps. 16:10 and 49:14-15.
See C. F. Evans, Resurrection and the NIM' Testament. Studies in Biblical
Theology,. 2nd series, #12 (London: SCM Press, 1970), 20ft:
Death, Immortality and Resurrection
247
1. Christ died for our sins and was raised Cvv. 3-4). The 'gospel' is
preached in these very terms Cvv. 1-2) and is the basis of their being
'saved' Cv. 2).
2. If Christ is not raised they are still in their sins Cv. 17).
3. If Christ is not raised those who have died believing in him have
'perished' Cv. 18).
4. Christ, being raised, is the 'firstfiuits' of a greater harvest to come
Cvv.
20-23).
5. Death comes through Adam-resurrection comes through Christ
Cvv. 21-22; ct: v. 45).
6. Because of Christ's resurrection victory over death is assured Cvv.
24-28; 54-57).
Paul clearly says here that the resurrection of Jesus from the
dead is that which brings salvation and that not merely as a hope
for this present life Cv. 19), but salvation for the future which
means release from death unto deathlessness Cathanasia) , vv.
53-54. Therefore the implication of this strong soteriological
emphasis seems plain: immortality is not a quality intrinsic to
man's nature, but rather, that which has been won for him by
Christ. In other words, resurrection brings immortality,19 and
Christ has brought resurrection Cc 1 Pet. 1:3-5; Rom. 4:25; 5:10;
6:23; 2 Tim. 1:10; In. 14:19). The soteriological and eschatological factors cannot be separated from Paul's treatment of
resurrection. 20
But what does resurrection mean? And when does it occur? The
NT is not unequivocal on either question. What can be said with
certainty respecting the meaning of resurrection is that it does not
mean resuscitation as was probably the case of several recorded
raisings in the Gospels by Jesus On. 11; Mk. 5; Lk. 7; etc.). The
resurrection ofJesus, and ultimately of all are 'in him', can only be
described as a transforming re-creation to a new somatic existence
over which death has no power. That this seems to be an apt
description appears from the series of contrasts which Paul makes
between the pre-resurrection and post-resurrection states in 1
Corinthians fifteen. In response to the question, 'How.are the dead
raised?' Cv. 35) Paul first makes three fundamental points:
(1) What is sown does not come to life unless it dies Cv. 36);
19
'It is a case of resuITection to immortality or immortality through resurrec-
20
tion. To deny resurrection is to deny immortality ... '-Murray J. Hams,
Raised Imm01"tal: Resurrection and ImmorTality in the New Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 233.
D. E. Whiteley, The TheologJl of St. Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972),
248--249, states: 'Eschatology, anthropology, and soteriology are closely
inte~ven .... The eschatological hope of the Christian is founded upon a
soteriological basis.'
248
The Evangelical Quarterly
(2) What is sown is not the body which is to be (v. 37);
(3) God gives it a body ... (v. 38).
He then states several key contrasts in somatic existence as
follows:
Post-resurrection
Pre-resurrection
(vv. 42; 50)
imperishable
perishable
(v. 43)
glory
dishonour
(v. 43)
power
weakness
spiritual
(v. 44)
psychical (soulish)
(vv.47-48)
of heaven
of dust
immortal
(v. 53)
mortal
What seems to be the dominant note in all this is the victory
over death (through Christ-v. 57) which God effects through the
change (v. 51; c Phil. 3:21) of resurrection. In the context, then,
this 'change' can very appropriately be called a transforming recreation which 'swallows' (v. 54) up death 'at the last trumpet' (v.
52).21
Conclusion
The scope of this essay has allowed only summary treatment of
the several facets of our topic chosen for discussion. However,
some tentative conclusions may be drawn. First, Yates' description
of the 'soul' emerging out of the human organism seems very
credible indeed. It is a far more satisfactory anthropological
perspective than the sharp dualism which is characteristic of
historic Christianity. His view also denies that there is anything
innate in man which can survive death on its own. In this he is at
one with the biblical view as expounded by the majority of
twentieth-century biblical scholars and theologians.
The problem arises over what I would call his interventionist
perspective-i.e., that at the point where the personfaces braindeath God intervenes and sustains the 'soul-field'. But this
appears merely to be a transition of sustained life. How can it be
called death in any fundamental sense? It is possible, of course,
that this is precisely that is meant by John 11:26, 'whoever lives
and believes in me shall never die', or John 3:36, 'He who believes
in the Son has eternal life' (italics inserted) (c In. 5:24; 1 In.
3:14). However, if these verses are interpreted as a realized
eschatology which exempts the believer from actual death they
21
The question of resurrection---change for living believers at the time of the
par'ouBia cannot be discussed here.
Death, Imrrwrtality and Resurrection
249
would appear to contradict other Johannine teachings which
point to life only at the 'last day' On. 5:28-29; 6:39-40; 11:25).
References such asJn. 11:26 and 1Jn. 3:14, etc., probably should
be considered, therefore, as non-permanent death. They would
then be compatible with Paul's concept of death as 'sleep' (1 Cor.
15:18, 20, 51; 1 Thes. 4:15-16) and with death as the 'last enemy'
to be destroyed by resurrection power (1 Cor. 15:26).
It appears that in order to take resurrection seriously one must
also take death very seriously. Karl Barth stated that the 'man who
does not know wht death is does not know either what resurrection
is. '22 It seems obvious that the force of the NT teaching is on
resurrection as that re-creative and transforming act of God
which robs death of its victims. Resurrection, then, does not
preclude death; it overturns death. It reverses the grip of this last
enemy on the believer and raises him up to 'eternallife'.23
Both death and resurrection effect the total person. As Thielicke
puts it:
It follows that I dare not regard my death ... as something that no
longer strikes the real me, since I am immortal, but moves on
bypassing my soul. No, all of me goes down into death. Nothing gives
me the right to reject the totality of man, which the Scriptures
proclaim in connection with the disaster of death, and suddenly split
him into body and soul, into a perishable and an imperishable 1segment. But as a Christian I go down into this death with the
complete confidence that I cannot remain therein, since I am one
whom God has called by name and therefore I shall be called anew
on God's day. I am under the protection of the Resurrected One. I am
not immortal, but I await my own resurrection. M
Whether this resurrection occurs at some future parousia or
immediately after the death of each believer is unclear from
biblical data. 25 What appears quite certain from the overall thrust
ofNT teaching is that it is only 'the power ofthe resurrection' that
enables and ensures the believers' passing 'out of death' into life.
This is the great hope of the NT.
Postscript
The focus of this essay has deliberately been selective, with an
emphasis only on the question of the resurrection of 'the just'.
22
2:1
24
Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, 154.
The question of continuity between this life and the next cannot be discussed
here. See Hams, Rai..,ed Immortal, 148--149.
Thielicke, Death and Life, 198.
250
The Evangelical Quarterly
While Paul does not address the question of the resurrection of
'the unjust' this issue is quite clearly presented elsewhere in the
NT and it has been part of the historic faith of the Church for
centuries. It is therefore legitimate to touch upon the question of
the general post-mortem resurrection of all mankind, especially
since the position advocated in this essay has been that
resurrection ot immortality is a soteriological and not an
anthropological issue.
Certain NT references clearly state a resurrection unto condemnation. John's gospel (5:28-29) states that 'all who are in the
tombs' will hear the voice ofthe Son of Man, and will 'come forth,
those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those
who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.' Revelation,
chapter twenty (w. 11ff.) presents the picture ofthe 'great white
throne' judgment where 'the dead, great and small' are judged
according to the 'books', one of which is 'the book of life'. Those
whose names are not in 'the book oflife' are 'thrown into the lake
of fire' which is 'the second death'.26 It cannot be maintained,
therefore, that the NT teaching on resurrection pertains only to
the righteous however much the emphasis is onesided in favour of
this aspect.
How, then, is the resurrection of the unjust to be understood?
And how does Yates' view of God's intervention to sustain the
'soul-field' when the soul 'faces' death affect the unjust? The scope
of this essay does not allow extensive treatment of this issue but
nevertheless a suggestion may be made toward an answer.
If death is the cessation of life, the whole life Thielicke has
argued,27 then resurrection is the act of the sovereign God to recreate life and to overturn the power of death. This has to be true
for the resurrection of both the just and the unjust. Resurrection
for anyone is an act of God. The crucial difference, according to
NT teaching, is that some are resurrected to eternal life (in Christ)
and some are resurrected unto the crisis of judgment and
condemnation. It appears from the teaching of the Revelator (Rev.
20:11ff.) that the unjust are resurrected unto the judgment of 'the
second death'. What this means cannot be stated with certainty
but it could mean annihilation. When this occurs, whether
25
2(;
27
See Harris, Raised Immortal, 98-101, 140-141.
Other NT references implying a general resurrection include 1 Cor. 15:22;
possibly Mt. 25:31-46 and several occurrences in the NT of the phrase
'resurrection of the dead'.
Above, 13.
Death, lmrrwrtality and Resurrection
251
immediately after death, or after an indefinite period of time, is
not clear.28
One of the problems associated with the idea of the resurrection unto judgment is that God will re-create and sustain the
unjust in existence (for however long) in order that they may face
judgment. In this sense is judgment meant to be endless
punishing? or some sort of remedy? or a tragic consequence in a
moral order for those who finally refuse life in Christ? Surely not
the first possibility!
2H
Whether this tragic realily means 'everlasting punishment' in the sense of
annihilation, or everlasting punishing in the sense of eternal torment, or some
sort of purgatorial cleansing resulting in renewal and life, has been debated
in the church.
