Defenders Podcast: Doctrine of Man (Part 6): The Nature of Man – Biblical Data

Host: Dr. William Lane Craig
Date: June 25, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode of Defenders, Dr. William Lane Craig’s Sunday school series, examines the biblical data surrounding the nature of man, focusing on Old and New Testament anthropological terms. Dr. Craig delves deeply into how terms like “soul,” “spirit,” “body,” and “flesh” are used in scripture, critically interacts with recent theological trends (notably anthropological materialism and existentialism), and defends a traditional understanding of bodily and spiritual aspects of human existence as articulated by Paul in the New Testament. The discussion is enriched by scholarly debate, questions from attendees, and practical and theological implications for Christian doctrine and ethics.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Old Testament Anthropological Terms

[00:17–02:47]

• Primary Hebrew Terms:
  • Nephesh ("soul"): Not simply immaterial; can refer to dead bodies (Leviticus 21:11, Numbers 6:6).
  • Ruach ("spirit")
  • Bashar ("flesh")
• Fluid Usage:
  • These terms don’t make hard distinctions between body and soul.
  • Example: “Old King Cole was a merry old soul”—shows soul can mean “person” or even “body.”

“…the word nephesh or soul is actually used to refer to dead corpses…So nephesh, though the word for soul, can actually be used to refer to the physical body.”
– Dr. Craig [01:10]

2. New Testament Usage: Paul’s Letters and “Soma”

[02:47–16:10]

• Greek Terms:
  • Soma ("body")
  • Psyche ("soul")
• 20th Century Theological Trends:
  • Anthropological Materialism (e.g., Nancy Murphy): Identifies self solely with the body—no survival after death until resurrection.
  • Existentialist View (e.g., Rudolf Bultmann): Claims soma refers to “the self” or “I,” not the body.
• Robert Gundry’s Critique of Bultmann:
  • Gundry argues soma always refers to the physical body or the person with emphasis on the physical.
  • Interchangeable pronoun use (you/I) with soma doesn’t negate the physical reference; analogous to “she slapped his face” vs. “she slapped him.”
• Paul’s Passages Emphasizing Soma:
  • Romans 6:12–14, 16a – “Let not sin reign in your mortal bodies…do not yield your members to sin…” Physical emphasis.
  • 2 Corinthians 4:10–12 – “Carrying in the body the death of Jesus,” emphasis on physical persecution.
  • Ephesians 5:28–29 – Husbands should love wives “as their own bodies”/“no man ever hates his own flesh.”

“It seems to me that when you read those passages in which you have pronouns and soma used interchangeably, the emphasis is clearly on the physical aspects of human being, even the sexual aspects.”
– Dr. Craig [15:55]

3. Broader Pauline Usage: Further Evidence of Physical Emphasis

[16:27–27:50]

• 1 Corinthians 7:4 – Body in marital context, rules over one’s “own body.”
• Romans 1:24, 1 Corinthians 6:12–20 – Sexual immorality and dishonoring of “bodies,” very physical context.
• Romans 12:1–2 – “Present your bodies as a living sacrifice…be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” Dual physical and mental life dedication.
• 1 Corinthians 9:27 – “I pummel my body and subdue it,” physical discipline metaphor.
• Philippians 1:20, 1 Corinthians 13:3 – “Deliver my body to be burned,” contemplate martyrdom.
• Romans 8:11 – “He will give life to your mortal bodies,” future resurrection.

“Barring prior occurrence of the parousia or the second coming of Christ, the soma will die… but it will also be resurrected. That is its ultimate end, a major proof of its worth and necessity to the wholeness of human being…”
– Dr. Craig quoting Robert Gundry [26:22]

• Significance of Gundry’s Study:
  • Reasserts authentic first-century Jewish understanding.
  • Bultmann’s existentialism is a distortion—turns soma into the opposite of its biblical meaning.

“The notion of the soma as the I or the self in abstraction from the body is a perversion of its biblical meaning into virtually the opposite…”
– Dr. Craig [27:25]

4. Audience Q&A and Further Reflections

[28:00–38:27]

Intermediate State and Christian Materialism

[28:00–30:41]

• Question: How do materialists like Murphy handle passages such as “absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”? (2 Corinthians 5)
• Craig’s Response:
  • Materialists deny there’s any intermediate, conscious state after death.
• Question about Incarnation:
  • If humans “are bodies” only, does this mean in the Incarnation God became only a body? Would this imply an Apollinarian heresy?
  • Dr. Craig admits materialist accounts of Incarnation are unclear and problematic.

Soul-Body Interaction & Doctrinal Issues

[29:51–30:41]

• Reference to Peter van Inwagen, who argues soul-body interaction would violate conservation of energy; raises special issues for materialist views of the Incarnation.
• Craig: Materialists still must explain the union of the second person of the Trinity with a physical body.

Ethical/Marital Implications of “One Flesh”

[30:42–33:19]

• Question: “When you have sexual intercourse you become one flesh, like the Genesis account. Does this mean you’re married to a prostitute if you ‘become one flesh’?”
• Dr. Craig:
  • Paul doesn’t explicitly draw that conclusion; some argue it does imply permanent union, underlining the seriousness of sexual sin.
  • Cautions the practical consequences are serious.

“…it ought to make us redouble our efforts to avoid these sorts of sexual sins because the consequences are serious and could be utterly disastrous.”
– Dr. Craig [32:37]

Distinguishing Soma (Body) and Sarx (Flesh)

[33:20–36:01]

• Question: Is sarx (flesh) just a synonym with soma, or something more?
• Craig:
  • Sometimes synonymous, but sarx often has a morally negative connotation (“sins of the flesh”).
  • Not just biology, but also sinful inclinations; important not to conflate negative “flesh” with the inherently good body.

“…it’s important to understand this distinction, lest we think, when Paul condemns these sins of the flesh, that we think Christianity has a negative attitude toward the physical body, which it doesn’t.”
– Dr. Craig [35:39]

Telos and the Human Person

[36:01–37:29]

• Question: Does the Greek concept of telos (purpose/end) relate to this bodily discussion?
• Craig:
  • Our telos (goal) is conformity to Christ; this includes the body. Full humanity and sanctification embrace both soul and body.

“…whatever telos we have, it will include a physical component.”
– Dr. Craig [37:27]

5. Conclusion and Prayer

[37:29–38:27]

• Dr. Craig wraps up the discussion, emphasizing the importance of a balanced, biblically-rooted view of the human person—body and soul.
• Prayer for continued understanding and sanctification.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• “[T]he word nephesh or soul is actually used to refer to dead corpses…So nephesh, though the word for soul, can actually be used to refer to the physical body.”
  – Dr. Craig [01:10]

• “Gundry argues that soma is never used in the New Testament to denote the whole person in abstraction from the physical body. Rather, soma is used much more to denote the physical body itself or the person with special emphasis upon his physical body.”
  – Dr. Craig [07:45]

• “If I say she slapped his face… doesn’t mean the face is the whole person… his face restricts the meaning… to that part of him that she slapped.”
  – Dr. Craig (explaining Gundry’s analogy) [09:09]

• “In every case where these personal pronouns are used interchangeably with soma, the emphasis is on the physical life and the body of the person involved.”
  – Dr. Craig [15:42]

• “Paul is here talking about his physical body once again… the self or the ‘I’ is not something that can be burned up.”
  – Dr. Craig [20:48]

• “Gundry’s study, like a dash of cold water, brings us back to the authentic consciousness of a first century Jewish person. The notion of the soma as the I or the self in abstraction from the body is a perversion…”
  – Dr. Craig [27:19]

• “…materialists have to say there is no such [intermediate] state, literally.”
  – Dr. Craig [28:43]

• “…if we do not have immaterial souls, but we just are bodies, then wouldn’t that make the doctrine of the Incarnation imply that somehow God turned himself into a human being? Because that’s all Jesus is, is just the physical body.”
  – Dr. Craig [29:09]

• “It affirms the goodness of the physical body, the soma or flesh, in this neutral sense.”
  – Dr. Craig [35:47]

• “…our ultimate telos is conformity to the image of Christ… includes the physical body.”
  – Dr. Craig [37:27]

Important Timestamps

• 00:17–02:47 – Old Testament terms for man’s nature and their fluid application
• 02:47–08:05 – New Testament terms; survey of modern theological errors (materialism, existentialism)
• 08:05–16:24 – Detailed analysis of Paul’s use of “soma” and its physical meaning
• 16:27–27:50 – Additional Pauline passages establishing physicality of “soma”
• 28:00–30:41 – Q&A: Intermediate state, materialism, and the doctrine of Incarnation
• 30:42–33:19 – Q&A: “One flesh” in sexual ethics/marriage
• 33:20–36:01 – Q&A: Distinction of “soma” (body) and “sarx” (flesh)
• 36:01–37:29 – Q&A: The role of “telos” (purpose) in body/soul sanctification
• 37:29–38:27 – Conclusion and prayer

Summary

Dr. Craig’s exposition argues for the integral role of the physical body in biblical and Pauline anthropology, counters reductionist or existentialist theological trends, and underscores the ethical and theological implications of maintaining a robust, holistic view of humans as both physical and spiritual beings. The scriptural analysis rebuts attempts to divorce personhood or the “self” from the body, reinforcing that resurrection, sanctification, and even ethical conduct presuppose the value and destiny of the body in Christian thought. The session concludes with a Q&A that pushes the discussion into practical, philosophical, and theological territory, affirming the necessity of retaining both body and soul in Christian doctrine.