EXCURSUS on Humanity’s Tripartite Nature

 

EXCURSUS on Humanity’s Tripartite Nature

       The controversy over dichotomy versus trichotomy in man’s original creation is age-old, that is,are spirit and soul distinct? In answering this question, we must not be distracted by the nature of fallenman, which is quite another question. This issue is significant to our understanding of the nature ofspiritual death and of regeneration. Most dichotomists ignore this. Let us clarify the issues.

 

       Explicit evidence for trichotomy. Paul’s most explicit statement is in 1 Thessalonians 5:23: “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely, and may your spirit and soul andbody be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” CharlesHodge dismissed its significance by saying that Paul “only uses a periphrasis for the whole man.”11This is possible, but we must consider other evidence that in Paul’s mind, soul (psuchç) and spirit(pneuma) are distinct since we twice see a contrast between the adjectives derived from these two nouns, psuchikos and pneumatikos:

 

For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which

is in him? . . . But a natural (psuchikos) man does not accept the things of the Spirit

of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because

they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual (pneumatikos) appraises all

things, yet he himself is appraised by no one (1 Cor. 2:11-15).

 

        The development of Paul’s logic confirms the reality of the distinction in his mind. Speaking of theprocess of revelation in 2:10-13, he compared the role of the Holy Spirit in searching God’s mind to thehuman spirit, which searches man’s mind. This implies a correspondence between the two in therevelation process. Then in 2:14 he described the unregenerate man as merely soulish (psuchikos),not only devoid of the Spirit of God, but deficient in the realm of the human spirit as well. Paul set thespiritual (pneumatikos) man in total contrast in 2:15. He clearly used these two adjectives in marked contrast. Although Lewis and Demarest12 made the most serious attempt to refute trichotomy, they notonly miss the implications of this passage but totally skip reference to the similar passage in 15:35-49:

 

It is sown a natural (psuchikos) body, it is raised a spiritual (pneumatikos) body. If

there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, “The first

man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However,the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual (1 Cor. 15:44-46).

 

      The flow of logic of this passage is important for the full implications of the distinction between thetwo adjectives, but certainly pneumakikos and psuchikos are distinct in Paul’s mind and not synonymous.After contrasting the different kinds of physical flesh of various kinds of bodies in 15:35-39, hecontrasted the distinct types of celestial bodies (earth, sun, moon, and stars). This brings him in 15:44-46 to characterizing our present bodies as psuchikos soma and resurrection bodies as pneumatikos soma. Although there is some connection between our present bodies and our resurrection bodies just

as a seed connects with the plant (vv. 42-44), Paul markedly contrasts the two. Thus it is clear inPaul’s Spirit-guided mind the distinction between the soulish nature of our present bodies is in strongcontrast with the spiritual nature of resurrection bodies, and therefore soul and spirit are distinct.

 

       Most significantly, the impact of Hebrew 4:12 is minimized by dichotomists.

“For the word ofGod is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as thedivision of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts andintentions of the heart.”

      The usually dependable Henry Alford wrote, “The logos pierces to thedividing, not of the psuche from the pneuma, but of the psuche itself and of the pneuma itself;”

However, he erred here in not observing the anarthrous use of both nouns in the Greek, by insertingthem in the English. The BAG lexicon gave the force of merismos as “division, separation,” renderingthe clause, “to the separation of soul and spirit, i.e., so as to separate soul and spirit Hb. 4:12."

 

        Two other significant passages are usually omitted from discussion. J. B. Heard,linked together James 3:15 and Jude 19: “Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven, but is earthly,unspiritual (psuchikç), demonic” (Jas. 3:15, TNIV); “These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts (psuchikoi), and do not have the Spirit” (Jude 19, TNIV).