Objection:
Ecclesiastes 12:7 proves that there is a conscious, immortal entity that leaves the body at death. (See also Ecclesiastes 3:21).
Answer:
Ecclesiastes 12:7 reads, “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” This text speaks of the dissolution of man at death. We cannot accept the belief that this “spirit” is a conscious entity that is released at death and soars away because:
- If this “spirit” is a conscious entity when it “returns” to God, it was conscious when it came from God. The construction of the text demands this, for it gives us the specific statement that the dust returns to the earth “as it was,” and unless otherwise stated, it would follow that the spirit returns as it was. In fact, for the believer in immortal souls to declare that the “spirit” needed lodgment within the so-called shell of the body to possess consciousness would be to surrender the whole argument. Now, the Bible teaches the pre-existence of Christ before He was born in Bethlehem. But the view stated in the objection before us would demand the astounding conclusion that all the members of the human family, as spirits, had an existence before they were born on this earth. That makes good Mormon theology, with its unseen world of spirits waiting for human bodies to find abodes on this earth. But it is to be doubted whether any orthodox Christian could bring himself to accept this view.
- If the “spirit” that returns to God is a conscious entity, and thus the real man, all men, good or bad, go to God at death. Are all to have the same destination? If it is said that the wicked go to God simply to receive judgment, we would reply that the Bible states definitely that the judgment is still a future event. (See Matthew 25:31-46; Revelation 22:12).
- We read of man’s creation: “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” Job 33:4. Job thus describes his state of being alive: “All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils.” Job 27:3. The act of dying is outlined in these words: “If he [God] set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.” Job 34:14, 15. The spirit returns because it came from God and because God gathers it to Himself.
The whole cycle suggests nowhere a conscious entity exercising free will to go to God. On the contrary, the Bible declares that God gathers “unto himself his spirit.” If this returning spirit is the real man, then we would be forced to believe that certain pagan religions are right when they teach that man is but a manifestation of the Divine Spirit and, at death, is absorbed again into that one great Spirit. We cannot accept this pagan view, which means that we cannot accept the theory outlined in the objection based on Ecclesiastes 12:7.
The answer to this objection is also an answer to the objection based on Ecclesiastes 3:21, which reads as follows: “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” Because this text says that man’s spirit goes upward and the beast’s downward at death, we are supposed to conclude that man, in contrast to the beast, has an immortal soul, or spirit, that soars heavenward at death.
But such reasoning requires that all men go “upward” to heaven at death. We have always understood that those who believe in the immortality of the soul teach that the wicked go “downward” to hell at death. This text proves more than they wish it to confirm. If Solomon teaches that the “spirit of man” means an immortal entity, the real man, then he is teaching that all men will be saved. But that doctrine, called universalism, has ever been considered by both Protestants and Catholics as rank heresy.
Furthermore, to reason that this text proves man’s immortality because it seems to contrast the “spirit of man” with the “spirit of the beast” is to make Solomon contradict himself. In the immediately preceding verses, he explicitly states that there is no difference between man and beast regarding their destination at death. “For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.” Ecclesiates 3:19, 20.
Solomon says that “they have all one breath.” The Hebrew word here, translated as “breath,” is ruach. The term “spirit” that is used twice in the twenty-first verse–“the spirit of man,” “the spirit of the beast”–is also from this same Hebrew word ruach.
The objector may now remark that Solomon is therefore contradicting himself. In verses 19 and 20, he argues that “a man hath no preeminence above a beast,” and then in verse 21, he declares that man’s spirit goes upward, in contrast to the beast’s, which proves that man does have a preeminence. But whenever, in Scripture, there is an apparent contradiction, we need to look a little deeper and, perhaps, compare the King James Version with other translations–of course, always diligently comparing it with the KJV to approve context and intent. In the American Standard Version, widely known as the Revised Version, verse 21 reads, “Who knows the spirit of man, whether it goes upward, and the spirit of the beast, whether it goes downward to the earth?”
This translation of Solomon’s words in verse 21 permits complete harmony with what he has declared in the preceding verses. And with this question in verse 21 placed in the setting of the preceding verses, it is evident that Solomon does not intend the reader to understand that there is any difference in the destination of the spirit (ruach) of man and beast. His question simply constitutes a challenge to anyone to provide proof, if he can, that there is a difference in their destination.
And why should there be any difference? All life comes from God, whether that life is displayed in man or the humblest animal. That is sound Christian doctrine. At death, life, which is a gift from God, returns to God. That follows logically from the preceding statement. Where believers in the immortal soul doctrine find themselves in perplexity is that they define the word “spirit” (ruach) when it is used concerning man as an immortal entity, the real man; but when the word “spirit” (ruach) is used concerning beasts, they are content to define it abstractly as the principle of life, the breath of life. They must make this arbitrary distinction in definition, or else one of two dilemmas confronts them: (1) Either man and beasts both have within them an immortal entity, (2) or neither man nor beasts are possessed of such an entity.
We find no necessity of making arbitrary differences in the definition of a word. We see in such a passage as Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 a simple statement that life from God is given to all, man and beasts, and that life returns to God at death. We do not need to invent different definitions for “spirit” (ruach) to preserve a clear distinction between man and beasts. We believe that man was made in “the image of God,” which the beasts were not. We believe that man has a moral nature, which the beasts have not. We believe that man may have communion with God, which the beasts cannot. We believe that man will answer at a final judgment day for all his deeds, which the beasts will not. Finally, we believe that man may ultimately be translated to dwell with God on a new earth, which the beasts will not. But we believe this is possible for man, not because of an immortal entity within him, but because of a resurrection from the dead.
