{"id":17787,"date":"2025-01-06T04:30:00","date_gmt":"2025-01-06T09:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/?p=17787"},"modified":"2025-01-06T11:05:05","modified_gmt":"2025-01-06T16:05:05","slug":"the-embodied-person-why-i-am-my-body-not-just-my-soul","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/article\/concise\/the-embodied-person-why-i-am-my-body-not-just-my-soul\/","title":{"rendered":"The Embodied Person: Why I Am My Body, Not Just My Soul"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Theological anthropology focuses on the doctrine of humanity and explores such topics as the nature and origin of human beings and the image of God. Historically, much discussion has been dedicated to the soul, or immaterial aspect of human nature, with little or no attention given to the body, or material aspect.<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-1\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-1\">[1]<\/a><\/sup> This essay proposes that the proper state of human beings is embodiment and seeks to rectify some of the historical and (even) contemporary oversight of embodiment. It will pursue this thesis\u2014which I will call the \u201cembodied person\u201d view\u2014by some close interaction with a contemporary theologian, Joshua Farris, and his fine work <em>An Introduction to Theological Anthropology<\/em>.<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-2\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-2\">[2]<\/a><\/sup> Both of us hold that humans are composed of soul and body but we emphasize different aspects of that dualist human constitution: Farris, the immaterial; I, the material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">1. This oversight is due in large measure to the devasting impact of Gnosticism on Christian theology.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br><br><br>2. Joshua R. Farris, <em>An Introduction to Theological Anthropology: Humans, Both Creaturely and Divine<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020).<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Farris\u2019 View: The Soul Has Priority over the Body<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>For various reasons, Farris holds to a form of dualism that prioritizes the soul.<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-4\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-4\">[3]<\/a><\/sup> As he discusses the question \u201cWhat am I?\u201d Farris articulates a view of human nature that at its core is an immaterial substance.<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-5\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-5\">[4]<\/a><\/sup> In support, he cites Solomon\u2019s description of death\u2014\u201cthe dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit [<em>ruah<\/em>] returns to God who gave it\u201d (Eccl. 12:7)\u2014and notes that the description \u201cpresupposes this understanding that humans are soul body compounds.\u201d He understands the \u201cdust\u201d to refer to the body, he takes the \u201cspirit\u201d or \u201cbreath\u201d [<em>ruah<\/em>] to refer to \u201cthe life that is given . . . to the body to make it alive,\u201d and he identifies the \u201cbreath\u201d with the soul.<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-6\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-6\">[5]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">3. For example, he appeals to the simplicity argument of Stewart Goetz, \u201cModal Dualism: A Critique,\u201d in Kevin Corcoran, ed., <em>Soul, Body, and Survival: Essays on the Metaphysics of Human Persons<\/em> (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001), 89-104. Farris buttresses his view by appealing to the \u201ccommonsense understanding of humans:\u201d \u201csouls (or immaterial spirits) seem to be the common belief\u201d among all people everywhere. . . . \u201cWe are inclined to believe that we are distinct from our bodies . . . to believe in something like a soul prior to any tutoring, and this has been the case throughout most of history for most people in most parts of the world\u201d (Farris, <em>Introduction to Theological Anthropology,<\/em> 21).<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>4. Farris, <em>Introduction to Theological Anthropology<\/em>, 20.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>5. Farris, <em>Introduction to Theological Anthropology<\/em>, 20. I concur with his first two points (dust = body, spirit\/breath = the enlivening principle) but disagree with his identification of breath with the soul. If all living things possess the breath of life (Gen 1:30; 7:22), then do all living things (e.g., dogs and giraffes) have souls?<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Farris continues with other biblical support for the priority of the soul in his version of dualism. He appeals to biblical passages in which a soul or a spirit is said to do some action, which leads him to draw the conclusion that the soul or spirit, which is distinct in some way from the body, is the essential aspect of human existence. For example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Luke 1:46: Mary said, \u201cMy soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.\u201d Farris explains that Mary \u201cis referring \u201cto the whole self (in the sense of a merism: by referring to the whole self through its parts), yet she seems to be referring to the subject of her own actions not reducible to the parts therein and not captured by the whole of the parts that she has. Instead, she is referring to some subject that has desires, emotions, thoughts, inclinations, volitional states, and the like. She is neither her body nor the parts of her body. She is, arguably, something other than her body, or at least something higher than the body she inhabits.\u201d<sup><a href=\"#post-17787-footnote-7\" id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-7\">[6]<\/a><\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>6. Farris, <em>Introduction to Theological Anthropology<\/em>, 22-23.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Psalm 42:11: Why are you cast down, O my soul, and why are you in turmoil within me? Hope in God; for I shall again praise him, my salvation and my God.\u201d Farris comments, \u201cThe psalmist is assuming some distinction between self or soul and body. The psalmist does not reflect on or speak directly to the body or the parts of the body, as if they can respond. Rather, he communicates with his soul or self in an attempt to bring about some causal change in the emotional states he is experiencing.\u201d<sup><a href=\"#post-17787-footnote-8\" id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-8\">[7]<\/a><\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br><br>7. Farris, <em>Introduction to Theological Anthropology<\/em>, 23.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>He adds two other biblical passages that use the word \u201cspirit\u201d (pneuma):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Luke 23:46 (Jesus crying out and citing Psalm 31:5): \u201cFather, into your hands I commit my spirit.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Acts 7:59 (Stephen crying out): \u201cLord Jesus, receive my spirit.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Farris concludes: \u201cConceptually, these and other NT passages point us in the direction of personal persistence after somatic [i.e., bodily] death.\u201d<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-9\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-9\">[8]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">8. Farris, <em>Introduction to Theological Anthropology<\/em>, 23.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Problems with Farris\u2019 View<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The passages Farris cites, however, can readily be rendered from the first-person perspective, such that these verses would not support the priority of the soul over the body. In fact, if the soul\/spirit in these texts is understood as the acting subject, then these passages fit better with an embodied person view:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Luke 1:46-47: Mary said, \u201cI magnify the Lord and rejoice in God my Savior.\u201d This rendition is certainly less poetic, but it is metaphysically true if Mary is the acting subject in all her offerings of praise to God (see later discussion).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Luke 23:46 (Jesus crying out): \u201cFather, I yield my life into your hands.\u201d This rendition is clearly not a citation from Psalm 31:5, but it is metaphysically true if Jesus is the acting subject in all his obedient actions directed toward the Father (see later discussion).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>As for Farris\u2019 interpretation that these passages \u201cpoint us in the direction of personal persistence after somatic death,\u201d indeed they express hope in post-mortem existence.<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-10\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-10\">[9]<\/a><\/sup> But is this existence that of a soul or spirit or is it the existence of a disembodied person? I will return to this question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">9. Farris, <em>Introduction to Theological Anthropology<\/em>, 23.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Specifically, if one marshals biblical passages in this fashion, making much of the word \u201csoul\u201d or \u201cspirit\u201d as that which continues after death, what should one make of the following affirmations?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Philippians 1:21\u201324: \u201cFor to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor 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.\u201d For the Christian to die and be with Christ is gain and is far better than continuing in this earthly existence, but Paul uses the first-person singular (\u201cI\u201d) and not the words \u201csoul\u201d (\u201cto die is gain for my soul\u201d) or \u201cspirit\u201d (\u201cmy desire is for my spirit to depart and be with Christ\u201d).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>2 Corinthians 5:6\u20138: \u201cSo we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.\u201d The Christian prefers being absent from the body and being with the Lord, but Paul uses the first-person plural (\u201cwe\u201d) and not the words \u201csoul\u201d or \u201cspirit\u201d (\u201cour soul\/spirit would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord\u201d).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Accordingly, Farris\u2019 variety of dualism gives priority to the human soul as the primary constituent of human nature, but it is not an airtight position.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">My View: Human Beings as \u201cEmbodied Persons\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Contrary to Farris, I propose an \u201cembodied person\u201d view grounded on the thesis that the proper state of human existence is embodiment. I can say that \u201cI am my body,\u201d because I rely on my bodily composition for my very existence between my conception and my death. I cannot say \u201cI am <em>only <\/em>my body\u201d or \u201cI am <em>identical <\/em>with my body.\u201d<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-11\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-11\">[10]<\/a><\/sup> Moreover, my \u201cembodied person\u201d view maintains that during this earthly existence, I have a basic and direct experience of myself as an embodied person. I believe that \u201cI am my body\u201d in the following way:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">10. The affirmation is not \u201cI am <em>only<\/em> my body\u201d (I hope we all would disagree with that statement), nor is the affirmation \u201cI am <em>identical with<\/em> my body\u201d (which the constitutional view of human nature rightly denies). I do not affirm (reductive, or non-reductive) physicalism, nor do I affirm the identity thesis of I and my body. Both views have their problems.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The way I feel about my embodiedness significantly conditions the way I feel about the world.<sup><a href=\"#post-17787-footnote-12\" id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-12\">[11]<\/a><\/sup><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>I am who I am principally in virtue of the fact that I have the body I have<sup><a href=\"#post-17787-footnote-13\" id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-13\">[12]<\/a><\/sup><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If I had a different body\u2014 say, that of my spouse or that of my best friend\u2014 I would be a different person altogether.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Without this body I do not exist, and I am myself as my body.<sup><a href=\"#post-17787-footnote-14\" id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-14\">[13]<\/a><\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">11. James B. Nelson, <em>Body Theology<\/em> (Louisville, KY: Westminster\/John Knox Press, 1992). <\/h6>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br><br>12. Justin E. H. Smith, \u201cIntroduction,\u201d in <em>Embodiment: A History<\/em>, ed. Justin E. H. Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 2.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>13. Vladimir Iljine, quoted without bibliographic detail in Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendel, <em>I Am My Body: A Theology of Embodiment<\/em>, trans. John Bowden (New York: Continuum, 1995), 2. For further discussion see Gregg R. Allison, <em>Embodied: Living as Whole People in a Fractured World<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2021), ch. 1.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Furthermore, I intuit that every other person who has ever existed, exists now, and will ever exist is an embodied person, perceives him\/herself as an embodied person, and can reflect on what it means to be an embodied person. Finally, and foundationally, I believe that persons, not natures, act, make decisions, believe, rebel, and more. Souls do not worship; persons do (Luke 1:46: Mary is the acting subject in all her offerings of praise to God). Spirits do not exercise a will, persons do (Luke 23:46: Jesus is the acting subject in all his obedient actions directed toward the Father). This conviction puts me at odds with Farris\u2019 prioritization of the immaterial aspect of human beings, a view that holds that souls hope and spirits obey. From my perspective, Christian persons hope in the Lord and obey his Word.<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-15\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-15\">[14]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br>14. To be fair, Farris comes close to affirming a constitutive role for the human body (in the following citation, one can substitute \u201csouls\u201d for \u201cminds\u201d and \u201cbodies\u201d for \u201cbrains\u201d): \u201chuman minds are, somehow, functionally (in a strong sense) dependent on their brains. . . . In fact, our mental experience is severely affected by our bodies and brains. . . . [For example,] when we experience a blow to the head, there is an obvious effect on our state of awareness\u201d (Farris, <em>Introduction to Theological Anthropology<\/em>, 62). Given the findings of neuroscience, a much stronger case can be made for the constitutive role for the body than the one that appeals to traumatic brain injuries and focuses instead on the bio-neurological fact that human minds\/mental events are intimately tied to bodies\/brains.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Returning, then, to the issue of personal persistence after somatic death\/post-mortem existence, I offer two alternatives:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>this earthly existence is not all there is, but human life extends beyond the grave\/death<br><br>and<br><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>there is a soul (immaterial aspect, spirit) that persists after death and is immortal<sup><a href=\"#post-17787-footnote-16\" id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-16\">[15]<\/a><\/sup><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>15. This option can be grounded on the philosophical view of the immortality of the soul (a well-established historical position expressed, for example, by Plato in <em>Phaedo<\/em>), or (from a more contemporary consideration), Kant\u2019s postulate of pure practical reason: based on the obligation of the perfection of one\u2019s self\u2014the obligation to become morally perfect\u2014belief in the immortality of the soul is a necessary postulate.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>I affirm (1) that human life extends beyond the grave\/after death, <em>not<\/em> as immortal souls, <em>but<\/em> as disembodied persons who await the return of Jesus Christ and an accompanying return to full human existence\/complete redemption that consist of re-embodiment, that is, the resurrection of the body. Souls do not worship the Lord and rest from their labors in the intermediate state. Souls do not worship or rest; <em>persons<\/em> do, or, in this case, disembodied persons worship and rest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Again, this \u201cembodied person\u201d view is grounded on the thesis that the proper state of human existence is embodiment. As a thought experiment, I offer some temporal considerations. A human being will live something like:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>82 years of embodied personal existence, which begins at birth and ends at death at which I as an embodied person no longer exist in an earthly existence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>500 years of disembodied personal existence, which begins at death, persists in the intermediate state, and ends at the return of Jesus Christ (this is not a prophecy!) and the accompanying event of re-embodiment, the resurrection of one\u2019s body.<sup><a href=\"#post-17787-footnote-17\" id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-17\">[16]<\/a><\/sup><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>An eternity of years of (re-)embodied\/resurrected embodied personal existence, which begins at the return of Jesus Christ and the accompanying event of re-embodiment (the resurrection of one\u2019s body) and never ends.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">16. Another important foundation of my \u201cembodied person\u201d view is the condition of Christians in the intermediate state: \u201cImportantly, this state of disembodiment is abnormal for human beings created as embodied image bearers of God. This disembodiment is so aberrant that Paul shutters in horror at the thought of such an existence . . . (2 Cor. 5:1\u20134). Using the metaphors of nakedness and being unclothed, Paul underscores how wrong human disembodiment is\u201d (Allison, <em>Embodied<\/em>, 248). Thus, to determine the \u201ctrue essence\u201d of human existence by appeal to the immaterial condition of humans in the intermediate state is wrongheaded. For further discussion, see Allison, <em>Embodied<\/em>, 247-49.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>The proper state of human existence is embodiment, a position that is determined by Scripture (Gen 1:26\u201328) and personal\/human experience and confirmed by the resurrection of the body. Should my personal\/human experience believe that I am primarily a soul or hold to the philosophical idea of the immortality of the soul, that idea is corrected by Scripture, which insists that embodied existence is the proper state and re-embodied existence is the true hope and <em>telos<\/em> of human beings. To clarify, the idea that there is a soul (immaterial aspect, spirit) that persists after death and that is immortal is fine as a commonsense simplification of the truth that humans will exist in a disembodied state, but it falls short of a full articulation of the biblical truth of eternal embodied existence.<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-18\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-18\">[17]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br><br><br><br>17. What, then, is the soul in my framework? In one sense, in the intermediate state, the soul is that aspect of human nature that persists as the disembodied person, who obviously lacks the other aspect of human nature, that is, the body. Accordingly, the soul is that substance that possesses powers and capacities distinct from a material substance and that is able to persist (through divine sustaining) during the intermediate state. In another sense, in the intermediate state, the soul is not\/does not become the person. This is not to deny the idea of a core or fundamental identity that is the heart or soul or spirit of a person, as long as one maintains that the acting subject is the person him\/herself and not some essential feature\u2014the soul or spirit\u2014that acts for or in place of the person him\/herself.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>By contrast, Farris maintains \u201cNaturally, we are inclined to believe that we are distinct from our bodies.\u201d<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-19\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-19\">[18]<\/a><\/sup> He supports this inclination in the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>18. Farris, <em>Introduction to Theological Anthropology<\/em>, 21.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>When a person reflects on his or her hands or feet, the person naturally distinguishes the self from his or her hands and feet. Hands and feet are distinct objects of consciousness that are nonidentifiable with me, nor do they essentially constitute who I am. Who I am is made up of something else fundamentally and essentially. I am a mind or a soul, for I could lose my feet and hands and still I would remain the same person. In fact, I could lose several parts of my body and remain the selfsame person. Taking this in mind with the fact that there is no physical object with which I identify, I have reason to consider the possibility that I am something other than my body.<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-20\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-20\">[19]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>19. Farris, <em>Introduction to Theological Anthropology<\/em>, 22.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>I disagree with Farris. The loss of hands and feet, to use his examples, would profoundly alter the person I was before the loss. Famous women artists such as Frieda Khalo (1907-1954) and Georgia O\u2019Keefe (1887\u20131986) would have been significantly different painters with significantly different life stories, careers, and influence if they had lost their hands. Famous hockey players such as Jacques Plante (1929\u20131986) and Gordie Howe (1928\u20132016) would have been significantly different hockey players with significantly different life stories, careers, and influence if they had lost their feet. Of course, I agree that numerically, all four would have remained identical to the persons they were before the loss; they would have been the selfsame persons. But on all the metrics used to assess personal flourishing\u2014happiness, productivity, trauma, emotions, accomplishments, engagement or withdrawal, meaningful existence\u2014they would have been significantly different people.<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-21\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-21\">[20]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">20. These metrics of human flourishing are curated from websites such as <a href=\"https:\/\/www.flourishingmetrics.com\/flourishing-model\">Flourish Model | Flourishing Metrics<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/hfh.fas.harvard.edu\/measuring-flourishing\">Our Flourishing Measure | The Human Flourishing Program<\/a> (from The Human Flourishing Program at Harvard\u2019s Institute for Quantitative Social Science).<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Practical Implications<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>I underscore two practical advantages of my \u201cembodied person\u201d view over that of Farris. The first provides help for our perception of embodiment and its impact on sickness and injury. Farris\u2019 statement (cited above) \u201cthe fact that there is no physical object with which I identify\u201d is misleading. Of course I identify with my physical body. I can colloquially state \u201cmy lungs have cancer\u201d or \u201cmy heart had an attack,\u201d but the reality is \u201cI have cancer\u201d and \u201cI had a heart attack.\u201d We are implicated in our bodies, and the \u201cembodied person\u201d view aids us in wrestling with the consequences of our embodiment without locating sin in our bodies or identifying our bodies with sin but acknowledging that \u201cthe defects of the body are contracted by humanity as a consequence of the fall.\u201d<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-22\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-22\">[21]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">21. Matthew A. Lapine, <em>The Logic of the Body: Retrieving Theological Psychology<\/em> (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 262.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<p>Second, my \u201cembodied person\u201d view addresses the challenge of the persistence of identity that Farris offers as a problem for all materialistic (physicalist, non-reductive physicalist) views (of which my \u201cembodied person\u201d view is not an example): \u201cIntuitively, from my basic experience of the self, I am something distinct from my body by virtue of the persistent conditions of the self.\u201d<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-23\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-23\">[22]<\/a><\/sup> For Farris, <a id=\"post-17787-_Hlk172296916\"><\/a>this \u201csomething distinct from my body\u201d is one\u2019s soul, which he believes persists and thus maintains one\u2019s identity. For me, this \u201csomething distinct from my body\u201d is one\u2019s person, which I believe persists (as embodied in this earthly existence, as disembodied in the intermediate state, and as re-embodied after Christ\u2019s return) and thus maintains one\u2019s identity. After all, \u201cI am my body.\u201d As Federica Mathewes-Green offers, \u201cThe initial impression that we stand critically apart from our bodies was our first mistake. We are not merely passengers riding around in skintight racecars; we are our bodies. They embody us.\u201d<sup><a id=\"post-17787-footnote-ref-24\" href=\"#post-17787-footnote-24\">[23]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\">22. Farris, <em>Introduction to Theological Anthropology<\/em>, 32.<\/h6>\n\n\n\n<h6 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><br><br><br>23. Frederica Mathewes-Green, \u201cThe Subject Was Noses: What Happens When Academics Discover That We Have Bodies,\u201d <em>Books and Culture<\/em> (January\/February 1997): 14-16.<br><\/h6>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>What does Scripture say about the body and the soul? And what important conclusions can we reach about the fullness of who we are? <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":17790,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"none","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"What does Scripture say about the body and the soul? And what important conclusions can we reach about the fullness of who we are? ","_seopress_robots_index":"","inline_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[32,12,1967,38],"tags":[956,653,823,925,1280,301,1979,1595,1746],"scripture-reference":[],"post_folder":[],"ppma_author":[920],"class_list":["post-17787","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-article","category-concise","category-january-2025-theme","category-theme","tag-anthropology","tag-body","tag-christ","tag-evangelicals","tag-humanity","tag-image-of-god","tag-imago-dei","tag-protestant","tag-soul"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/Allison-embodiment-article-scaled-e1736123659802.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"publishpress_future_action":{"enabled":false,"date":"2026-01-13 11:46:48","action":"change-status","newStatus":"draft","terms":[],"taxonomy":"category","extraData":[]},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"authors":[{"term_id":920,"user_id":0,"is_guest":1,"slug":"gregg-allison","display_name":"Gregg Allison","avatar_url":{"url":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/gregg-allison.jpeg","url2x":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/gregg-allison.jpeg"},"author_category":"","job_title":"","church_city_state":"","last_name":"","first_name":"","church_site":"","user_url":"","description":"<b>Gregg R. Allison<\/b> is professor of Christian theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is secretary of the Evangelical Theological Society and a theological advisor for Harbor Network and Upstream Sending. He is author of five major works: <I>Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine<\/I> (Zondervan, 2011), <I>Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church<\/I> (Crossway, 2012), <I>Roman Catholic Theology and Practice: An Evangelical Assessment<\/I> (Crossway, 2014), <I>50 Core Truths of the Christian Faith: A Guide to Understanding and Teaching Theology<\/I> (Baker, 2018), and with Andreas K\u00f6stenberger, <I>The Holy Spirit<\/I> (B&amp;H Academic, 2020). He and his wife Nora live in Louisville, Kentucky, where they attend Sojourn Church Carlisle. They have three adult children and 11 grandchildren."}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17787","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17787"}],"version-history":[{"count":34,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17787\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17832,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17787\/revisions\/17832"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17790"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17787"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17787"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17787"},{"taxonomy":"scripture-reference","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/scripture-reference?post=17787"},{"taxonomy":"post_folder","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/post_folder?post=17787"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/christoverall.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=17787"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}