Is the human soul mortal or immortal?

Killing means "taking life." For this reason alone, we never, and can never, speak of killing life. Killing the body, by itself means destroying the life of the body. Thus the soul is looked at as possessing a life of its own, just as the body does. The soul, then, is a living thing, which, when the body dies, does not die. It is not only a living but an immortal soul.

The immortality of the soul is plainly revealed in scripture. God breathed into Adam's nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul (Gen. 2:7), which is quite different from anything said of a mere animal. The Lord, when showing the Sadducees that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, added "for all live unto [or 'for'] him (Luke 20:38), though as to the body they may have died.

The immortality of the soul is not affirmed in Scripture, in just those words, but the truth of it is clearly taught in Scripture, making our belief in it as certain as if it had been.

Man in Scripture is spoken of as having a soul and being a soul. The context proves in which way the word is used. For instance, we read, “All the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were three score and ten” (Gen. 46:27), meaning seventy persons. We use the word in common language when we say that a certain vessel foundered at sea and every soul perished.

That the soul is distinct from the body is clearly seen in Matthew 10:28, which tells us that man can kill the body and not the soul, that God alone is able to destroy both body and soul in hell. Note, too, the word kill is applied to the body and not to the soul, whilst the word destroy is applied to both body and soul. But destroy does not mean to kill—it does not mean annihilation, but the thing destroyed ceasing to exist for the purpose for which it was made. For instance, the same word is used in the following passages: “Found My sheep which was lost” (Luke 15:6). If the sheep had been annihilated it could not have been found. Again: “The bottles shall perish” (Luke 5:37), that is, the new wine should burst the old bottles, and they were rendered useless for the purpose for which they were made. Again “The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2 Peter 3:6). The world certainly was not annihilated.

Then again the question is often discussed, “Is the soul immortal?” and there is no verse in the Bible that affirms it in just those words, though Matthew 10:28, mentioned above, asserts it in other words. Clearly, however, the Scriptures take for granted that the soul exists for ever, and in that sense is immortal. But, says the objector, does not 1 Timothy 6:16 tell us that God “only has immortality”? Yes, that is so, God only has immortality inherently, it belongs to Him in His nature. J. N. Darby has a fine sentence in this connection: “It is God in the abstraction of His essence, in the proper immutability of His being, in the rights of His majesty, veiled to all men” (Synopsis, Vol. V p. 158). But this does not and cannot hinder God from conferring immortality, that is, conferring life that is for ever, as His gift and sustainment. If this passage is pressed, “Who only has immortality,” as some press it, it would perforce make the angels mortal, and deny to the believer the gift of eternal life. It would prove too much. God would be left in absolute solitude.

Whilst Scripture in so many words does not affirm that the soul is immortal, it certainly does not affirm that it is mortal. We can point to passages that declare that the body is mortal, but there is none that declares the soul to be mortal. Man is able to kill the body because it is mortal; but he cannot kill the soul, and Scripture is careful not to suggest that God will kill the soul, but uses the word “destroy,” which, as we have seen, does not mean annihilation.

In Scripture the adjectives "mortal" and "immortal" are applied to man's body, and we do not find the phrase "immortal soul." Yet it is quite clear that the soul, or spiritual part of man, survives death. Our Lord said, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul" (Matt. 10:28). He used here a word of strong force, meaning "to kill utterly or entirely." A feeble man may easily thus kill the body of another, but the soul is immortal and eludes him. The Lord added, "fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell," and here He changed the word and used another, which means, "to mar or ruin, as regards the purpose for which a thing exists." It is the word used for perish in John 3:16, and for the perishing of the bottles in Matthew 9:17. It is also used in Matthew 27:20, when we read of the leaders persuading the multitude "that they should ask Barabbas and destroy Jesus." A very clear proof this, that destruction does not mean annihilation.

1.—Does death, in Ezekiel 18:20 , where the words are, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die,” mean extinction?—No; neither there nor anywhere else, where it is used in Scripture. Annihilationists say that the judgment of sin is the death of the soul. But Scripture never so speaks. Nor does it speak of the death of the body. It is the man who dies, not his body or his soul. The word in Ezekiel 18:20 , is the person—the individual—not the father for the son, but the person who sins, he shall die. The word “soul” is so used in 1 Peter 3:20; 4:19. 2.—What do the words, “shall not see life,” in John 3:36 , mean?—If he never sees life, must he not be exterminated? Existence and life are not synonymous. All have the former—saint and sinner alike; only the former have “life,” as the word is here and elsewhere used. (See John 17:3; Rom. 6:23) Eternal life is the possession of the believer now, and in the future. The unbeliever “hath not life” (1 John 5:12 ) now; and of him it is said that he “shall not see life” hereafter. Yet he exists without it, as we know. That he shall continue to exist while never seeing it, is equally sure, as the closing words of the verse, “The wrath of God abides on him,” solemnly tell. Wrath cannot “abide” upon a nonentity. Endless existence is common to all men and angels; eternal life is the present possession of believers only (John 5:24 ). Immortality, which applies to a condition of life in the future, they look for (Rom. 2:7), and will “put on”, (1 Cor. 15:53 ) at the coming of the Lord. 3—How was the word spoken to Adam, in Genesis 2:17, “Thou shalt surely die,” fulfilled? — Not by natural death, for he lived 930 years. Nor was it “extinction of his being,” as Annihilationists say, for neither “in the day” Adam ate of the tree did his being become extinct, nor is it now. Nor did the promise of redemption suspend or postpone the sentence. When Adam sinned, the threatened death came upon him that day. His near relationship to God was broken. He was severed from His presence by sin; such is death in its deepest sense (see Eph. 2:1; 4:18 ). Yet he existed, as sinners still exist “without God”; so Rom. 5:12-13, clearly tells us. And if, while now without life in Christ, fallen angels and sinful men exist, so, in the disembodied and the eternal states; they shall exist, as Scripture fully shows (see 2 Pet. 2:4; Rev. 20:10; Luke 16:23 ; Rev. 20:15).

It is well to remark, that not only do the two systems of destructionism and universalism denounce each other as utterly unscriptural, but there are two parties among Destructionists. One holds death to be death, and the end of man as of a beast. They are consistent, at any rate; for if we cease to exist, we cease to exist. But then, if scripture be owned at all, we read "after this the judgment"; and so the other party bring them up again, though saying death is ceasing to exist, and then destroy them gradually in the fire: though, as I have said what for, it is hard to tell if they have only animal life; or who is raised, is hard to tell if they have ceased to exist. But there is the judgment after death; that is, they have not ceased to exist at all. The soul is a distinct thing; it survives the body: "All live unto him."

The soul's immortality involves no such consequence as men becoming angels, demons, or any other order of beings; on the contrary, it is the basis of personal identity, when the resurrection arrives, the soul lasting unchanged through the various stages of man's existence — living, dead, and risen — makes him to be the same being. If the soul perishes at death, it is not the same person, but two different men, even if the absolutely same materials were used. We have already seen that the passage cited from Eccles. 3:19-21, to prove a dissolution of man's whole being into dust, really teaches, in the spiritual part of his being, a contrast with the beasts; for man's spirit goes upward. The Gospel, too, brings life as well as incorruption to light. Dead saints do not lose life eternal any more than their spirits; they await the Lord's coming again to raise their bodies.

But the text before us will not bend to any of these criticisms. If soul be life merely, those who kill the body destroy it. Such a phrase moreover as "killing life" does not, and could not, exist at all, as I have before said: because "killing" is in itself "taking life," and you could not speak of taking the life of the life. "Life to come," or the believer's life, psuche does not mean; another word, zoe, is invariably used for it. And the contrast between suspension of life for the present and utter destruction of it is not what the passage makes, but between a killing which affects the body only, and the destruction which will overtake both body and soul in hell. I am only repeating here what I have said before, and what Mr. Hudson, destructionist as he is, has said before me. Proof is conclusive, that when man dies his soul is not touched by it. If it is conscious is another thing, and presently to be examined. And what destruction of body and soul in hell is, I do not inquire yet. Suffice it just now, that when we put off the body at death, the soul still lives.†

But the text before us will not bend to any of these criticisms. If soul be life merely, those who kill the body destroy it. Such a phrase moreover as "killing life" does not, and could not, exist at all, as I have before said: because "killing" is in itself "taking life," and you could not speak of taking the life of the life. "Life to come," or the believer's life, psuche does not mean; another word, we, is invariably used for it. And the contrast between suspension of life for the present and utter destruction of it is not what the passage makes, but between a killing which affects the body only, and the destruction which will overtake both body and soul in hell. I am only repeating here what I have said before, and what Mr. Hudson, destructionist as he is, has said before me. Proof is conclusive, that when man dies his soul is not touched by it. If it is conscious is another thing, and presently to be examined. And what destruction of body and soul in hell is, I do not inquire yet. Suffice it just now, that when we put off the body at death, the soul still lives.*