Note: This paper was written for college- hence the Works Cited includes course resources not publicly available. Originally titled: “At The Center, God.”

The atheistic conception of the world by necessity bases its understanding of a hypothetical spiritual (or mental) death on its understanding of physical death. This understanding of death as cessation of persistence, even of existence, has pervaded the world over the past two centuries, coming to be unconsciously accepted even by the church. Christians with this preconception, however, have difficulty with the Biblical depiction of a hell as simultaneously death and continued conscious existence (Berkhof 359-360; Rom. 6:23). Modernity’s anthropocentric view informs their assumptions, making it hard to refute annihilationism, a Biblically untenable doctrine (Gentry, 11-Resurrection, 1:14:00, 12-Heaven, 0:00; Berkhof 340-341). The problem here starts with the anthropocentricity of the definition of death. The Biblical definition of life and death is theocentric, based upon God’s ordering of the world, spiritual rather than material in its origin.

Death is the inversion of life. Calling it a cessation is incomplete; death is a state, as life is a state. The word can be used for the event of cessation, the transition between states, but this is in reference to the end-product, a derivative definition whose opposite is ‘birth’ or ‘resurrection’, not life. As a concept, death is the opposite of life, the other half of a mutually exclusive binary. To be alive necessitates not being dead; to be dead necessitates not being alive. Berkhof’s discussion of the nature of physical death in the Bible reaches towards this point: all three definitions involve the replacement of life by death. First is physical life replaced by physical death; second is animal life replaced by animal death; third is incarnated life replaced by physical death (in conjunction with the possibility of revealed spiritual death or disincarnate life, depending upon regeneration) (Berkhof 333). Death and life are two halves of a binary, two mutually exclusive states, death the inverse of the originative life.

Life is more fundamental than death as righteousness is more fundamental than sin, and thus an understanding of life must be foundational to understanding death rather than the opposite (Augustine, 90). Life, however, was not first physical. Witness the first words of Scripture: “In the beginning, God…” (Gen. 1:1). “God is spirit,” and so life, being derived from a reflection of His life, is first spiritual, secondarily physical (John 4:24). In other words, life and death must be defined not by man’s experience of them but by their relation to God- that the first is His nature and the second His judgement (Ez. 7:3). Physical life and death can then be defined by transposing the spiritual definition to a physical setting, with appropriate modifications. Thus, Christians may remain theocentric, not anthropocentric, consistently with the Scriptures, defining death by life and the physical by the spiritual (White, 52:42).

Spiritual life, as granted by God to His angels and to His image at their creation in imitation of His own life, is ‘agency to do good.’ This definition has three proofs. First, the proof of example declares the practical efficacy of the definition, that when the spiritual life of all beings is assessed, the line drawn by this definition precisely aligns with the line drawn by Scripture. Thus, Adam, the regenerate and glorified Christian, the angels, and God, all whom Scripture identifies as alive, possess moral agency to do good (Gen. 1:31; Ez. 36:26; Matt. 19:29; Is. 6:2-3; Gen. 2:7; Westminster, A. 73, 90; Reymond, 798-799; Mathison 164). Conversely, the unregenerate man, the fully damned, and the demons are all manifestly incapable of good deeds or desires (Ps. 53:1; Canons, Article 1; Mathison 59). While the proof may seem facile (and is insufficient if unaccompanied), the anthropocentric, modern definition of death as ‘cessation’ does not fulfil this test; the capability of the ‘dead’ to engage in evil choices gives it the lie (Mathison 59).

Second, the proof by modification of common ground uses the obvious minimum meaning of ‘life’ in common parlance as ‘that which allows movement’. As noted above, however, souls dead under Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:1 are still capable of movement and thought, as are the damned to whom the wages of sin are being actively paid, and thus the Biblical definition cannot precisely conform to this minimum (Ex. 8:15; Rom. 6:23; Berkhof 359). The challenge, then is to find how the definition of ‘spiritual life’ and (consequently) ‘spiritual death’ must differ from the minimum given in order to fulfil their purpose (as physical death already involves incapability of action). In this case, the nature of the activity of the spiritually dead provides the answer: all actions taken by the spiritually dead are sinful, turned away from God (Mathison 164). Thus, ‘agency to do good’ is a fitting definition of life, being a minimal deviation from the established baseline of the word to fit its Biblical use (as the Bible does not use words to mean what they do not mean).

Third and finally, the proof by fruit points to the established relationship between righteousness and life, sin and death, in Scripture. That righteousness leads to life is a central principle of Scripture. Isaiah 1:19, Psalm 119:40, Proverbs 10:16, and Romans 5:18 (among a myriad others) all lead to an inescapable conclusion: the fruit of righteousness is life. By inversion, then, and by direct testimony of Romans 6:23, is proved also the principle that “The wages of sin [are] death.” Indeed, it was by the introduction of sin- righteousness’s binary opposite- that death, life’s binary opposite, entered the world (Berkhof 333). Thus, to define life as ‘agency to do good’ at least provides a qualitative description of it, a definition which recognizes its essential origin and fruit- for as life is produced by righteousness, so it also produces righteousness (Eph. 2:10; Ja. 2:17).

Having defined spiritual life as ‘agency to do good’, death may be defined by finding the definition’s binary opposite, its precise inverse. Spiritual death is therefore ‘incapability to do good.’ Once again, this definition satisfies all three proofs given for the definition of spiritual life (as it must, being in essence a part of that definition) by matching Biblical use, rising with necessary modification from common use of the term, and following established Biblical patterns of generation. Note that in spiritual terms choice and action are morally identical, as action is a choice (Matt. 5:27-28). The apparent difference observed in the world of incarnate man rises from distinguishing between the choice to choose and the choice to carry that choice out physically. Both are choices, differentiated only as any two choices are differentiated: by circumstances and results.

This definition of ‘spiritual life’ and ‘spiritual death’ provides an overarching but not general definition for life. All definitions of life can be derived by analogy or transposition from this definition, but it will not serve as a definition sufficient for all uses without such transformation. The life of a lamb is not encompassed by this definition, but as will be seen, that life’s definition does find its root in this definition. Similarly, the use of ‘death’ to reference the transition from a state of life to a state of death does not fall within this definition’s boundaries, but it is clearly derivative of it, just as the use of ‘marriage’ to refer to the marriage ceremony is clearly derivative of its definition as that which the ceremony initiates. With both cases, the term’s second use only makes sense if the first use already exists to originate and explain it. The foundational nature of the originative definition here offered ultimately rises from its nature as the Biblical definition, the definition used by God to explain the world and its true nature. As all instances of ‘life’ are derived by analogy and transposition from God, so too all uses of life’s linguistic symbol, ‘life’, find their definition by analogy and transposition from His definition.

This being the case, the definitions of ‘physical life’ and ‘physical death’ can be found by two means: first, the definition of ‘spiritual life’ can be transposed (and then inverted); second, the definition of ‘spiritual death’ can be transposed (and inverted). The first process is the sounder of the two, because it defines life first and death second, in accordance with the established generation, but the second can be used, even when only partially completed, to reinforce the first.

The process of transposing the spiritual’s definition to the physical follows a similar pattern to the transposition of God’s communicable attributes and is in fact a sub-category thereof. As Berkhof notes, “None of the attributes of God are incommunicable in the sense that there is no trace of them in man, and none of them are communicable in the sense that they are found in man as they are found in God” (Reymond, 164). With this in mind, the communication of these attributes has two aspects: first, the similarity between their Divine and creaturely instances, and second, the dissimilarity. This communication of attributes is not unique to man. According to Paul, the attributes of God, “namely, his eternal power and divine nature,” are clearly seen “from the creation of the world,” in creation both animate and inanimate (Rom. 1:20). Among these attributes, a part of His divine nature, two are today of particular relevance. One, the example, is logic; the other, the subject, is life. Both of these are found first in God and then, similarly and dissimilarly, in His spiritual and physical creation (though always the communication is a reflection, not a copy; the Divine and the creaturely natures are fundamentally different, so that man’s logic and life are reflections of His logic and life, not iterations).

The first transposition of the process is from Creator to creature. The definition of ‘spiritual life’ given above incorporates this transposition already in its generalization from God to all spiritual beings, but its nature must be demonstrated in order to prove the applicability of the second transposition and prove the parallel between logic and life in this relationship. For logic, the first transposition happens as follows: God’s mind has order, and thus the minds of His creatures, in proportion to their harmony with Him, have order (Clark, 128). Here the similarity is exemplified, but the logic of man and the logic of God have differences (differences which Clark fails to acknowledge). Man’s logic, even apart from the degrading influence of sin, is limited in three ways: first, it is imitative rather than original (God’s logic is not only original but originative); second, it proceeds within time; third, in connection with the second, it is limited in breadth (that is, human logic conceives of ideas in sequence, rather than as a united whole, as threads rather than a tapestry). The third, admittedly, can be mitigated by external aids, but to assert humans have other than finite knowledge would be absurd; in mankind His omniscience is reflected by a finite scientia (Reymond, 163).

The Divine attribute of life is reflected similarly in man (as spirit). Man, like God, was created with the capacity to act righteously (Westminster, A. 92). Insofar as is taught, angels too have this capacity, as did the demons before their fall (Luk. 10:18; Rev. 9:1). The same limitation, however, which was given to the attribute of logic must be given to the attribute of life. Man’s life is dependent; God’s life is independent. God’s aseity is not shared by His creation in any aspect, and life particularly is no exception. Indeed, the definition of God’s life can, with some reservation, be collapsed to ‘capacity for choice,’ as His choices are definitional of morality, not subordinate or to be judged. Further, the creature’s life is finite in breadth and capable (due to the capability of sin) of death, unlike God’s nature (the Incarnation is thus shown a yet greater miracle).

The second transposition is from spiritual to physical (or material). In logic’s transposition, the change is from logic as the principle of a mind to logic as the principle of the organization of the non-conscious. God created a world of order, whether that order be of physics or of narrative, of numbers or of typology, as is consistent with His nature (Clark, vii-viii). Logic’s incarnation into the physical, therefore, is that two plus two equals four, that brain chemistry functions according to consistent rules, that cleansing is so fitting a symbol of baptism, and that all creation cannot but witness to its Creator (Potter; Luk. 19:40; Rom. 1:20). Logic’s incarnation is its role as the ordering principle of reality.

The transposition of spiritual life into the physical follows a similar process of incarnation, save that the word is yet more accurate. Physical life is the life of man’s body and of the animals. How does this alter the definition, though? The essential difference between the two states is moral capability. A rock cannot sin, but it can fall. A corpse cannot sin, but it can rot. The physical is on its own capable of movement but not choice. As a result, the physical is natively amoral. Incarnate man only seems to offer a counterexample; the capacity for choice in mankind is a function of the spiritual, of the heart (Deut. 15:9; 1 Kings 15:3). In transposing to the physical, then, life and death lose their moral components, though not, as will be seen, their moral basis. To live physically is to have agency, the ability to act or move as an entity; to die physically is to be incapable of action.

While incomplete, this definition will provide the limits and pattern of a proper definition. In truth, physical life cannot be separated from spiritual life; physical things simply lack the capacity for choice essential to distinguishing animate from inanimate. It is so that in Scripture, life and death are the province of three creaturely categories only: spiritual beings, incarnate spirits (mankind), and beings with approximations of spirits (animals, as per the term nephesh indicating a similarity but not an identity with the life of man) (Todhunter). If the spirit is alive, the choices may be good; if it is dead, they will be evil. That the moral root of physical life is not removed, that physical life is still destroyed by the presence of sin, rests upon this entwining of spiritual with physical life. It is because spiritual life is integral to physical life that when sin causes the death of the spirit that the physical follows suit, albeit not immediately (Rom. 5:12; Matt. 5:45). Similarly, the final resurrection of the physical body of each man will be followed either by eternal (physical) life founded on His righteousness or by eternal death, implicitly physical, founded upon the sinner’s deeds (Gentry, 11-Resurrection, 1:40; Is. 66:24).

Spiritual death is thus ‘incapability to choose good;’ physical death is ‘incapability to do.’ These definitions were generated by relationship with spiritual life and physical life, but their relationship also mirrors that of ‘spiritual life’ to ‘physical life,’ as has already been implicitly shown, allowing for a direct transposition. Spiritual death lost its moral component (though it retained a connection to the spiritual and thus to the spiritual’s moral basis). Physical death is thus the echo of spiritual death- in man, of his first father’s sin and of his own, in animal kind, of its head’s sin (Rom. 5:12, 8:21-22). Other definitions and uses of the word proceed from the same original, whether by transposition or analogy.

Christians must forsake the humanist definitions modern culture inculcates, not the least in their understanding individual eschatology (Gentry, 01-Intro, 14:00). God’s people must define the world by His terms, placing Him at the center of their worldview, not man. The Biblical definition of ‘life’ and ‘death’ begins with understanding the nature of spiritual life and death in relation to the life of God and the death which is His judgement upon sin. Thus, the Biblical definition of spiritual life is ‘agency to do good,’ of spiritual death, ‘incapability to do good,’ of physical life, ‘agency to do (with a spiritual element to provide choice),’ of physical death, ‘incapability to do.’ This Biblical understanding should prevail in the Christian over the modern interpretation, so that he may truly obey the Divine mandate that all things be brought to worship before Him (Mathison 193-194).

God bless.

Works Cited

Augustine. Augustine: Confessions. Translated and edited by Albert Outler. University of Pennsylvania, 2023, <https://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/hum100/augustinconf.pdf>. Accessed 12 March 2024.

Berkhof, Louis. Manual of Christian Doctrine. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965.

Clark, Gordon. Logic. Second Edition, Trinity Foundation, 1988.

Gentry, K. 01-Intro & Philosophy of History. W——– College, 2024.

_____, _. 11-Resurrection. W——– College, 2024.

_____, _. 12-Heaven, Hell, & Earth. W——– College, 2024.

Mathison, Keith A. Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope. P&R Publishing Company, 1999.

Potter, Colson. Implication of Anathema: On Baptismal Symbolism (Full). Creational Story, 2023, <https://creationalstory.com/implication-of-anathema-on-baptismal-symbolism-full/>.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Second edition, Zondervan Academic, 1998.

The Bible. ESV Study Bible, Crossway, 2016.

The Canons of Dort. CRCNA.org, <https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort>. Accessed 12 March 2024.

Todhunter, Michael. “Do Plants and Leaves Die?” Answers in Genesis, 2019, <https://answersingenesis.org/biology/plants/do-leaves-die/>. Accessed 12 March 2024.

Westminster Divines. The Westminster Larger Catechism. WestminsterStandard.org, <https://thewestminsterstandard.org/westminster-larger-catechism/>.  Accessed 12 March 2024.

White, James. “Open Lines, Mormon call in” Lets.church, February 2024, <https://lets.church/media/4PCCQFmXMwjsLmU1DfdHYa>. Accessed 12 March 2024.