Man’s Constitution As A Physical-Spiritual Unity

By Robert Gonzales, Jr.

Robert Gonzales, Jr. is the academic dean of Reformed Baptist Seminary (www.rbseminary.org) in Easley, South Carolina, where he also serves as a pastor of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church. He also serves as an adjunct professor for Midwest Center for Theological Studies. He has an M.A. in theology and a Ph.D. in Old Testament Interpretation from Bob Jones University.

When we speak of the “constitution” of human nature, we are asking the question, “Of what substance is man made?” The Genesis creation account tells us that God “formed man from the dust of the ground” (2:7). But surely, man is much more than a handful of dust. This fact presents us with a challenge. In view of the complexity of our humanity, how shall we define its “substance” or “substances”?

A Survey Of Major Views Of Man’s Constitution

Although it is sometimes challenging to distinguish the various views concerning man’s constitution,[1] we can generally categorize them under three headings: the Trichotomy view, the Dichotomy view, and the Monistic view. As the names indicate, the first view sees man as basically consisting of three parts, the second view of two parts, and the third view of one part.

1. The Trichotomy View

The theological term “trichotomy” literally means, “cut into three parts.” Thus, the trichotomist views man’s constitution as existing in three parts, namely, body, soul, and spirit. This position actually has its roots in Greek philosophy. Many Greeks held a dualistic view of reality in which mind and matter were inherently incompatible. Mind belonged to the invisible world and was essentially good. Matter belonged to the visible world and was essentially evil. Since the two are completely incompatible, there must be a third substance to act as a mediator. Thus, some Greek philosophers taught that a third substance called “spirit” united man’s body and soul.[2]

Although they may have been influenced by Greek philosophy to some degree, the early trichotomists of the Christian church sought to support their position primarily from Scripture. They would appeal to passages like Heb. 4:12, which seems to make a distinction between “soul” and “spirit.” Or they would cite 1 Thess. 5:23, where Paul prays that God will preserve the “whole spirit, and soul, and body” of believers. Expanding on this distinction, trichotomists often will argue that the “spirit” is the element that truly distinguishes man from animals. The “spirit” is the faculty of “God-consciousness” which is regenerated at conversion.[3]

Among the early church fathers, it appears that Irenaeus, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa held this view.[4] In more recent times, it has been defended by the OT scholar Franz Delitzsch,[5] by Gleason Archer,[6] and more popularly by the Scofield Reference Bible,[7] by Watchman Nee,[8] and by Bill Gothard.[9]

2. The Dichotomy View

The dichotomy view “divides” man’s constitution into two distinct parts: “body and soul” or “body and spirit.” Advocates of this position point out that the terms “soul” and “spirit” are often used interchangeably in the Bible. They also argue that a proper interpretation of passages like Heb. 4:12 and 1 Thess. 5:23 does not support the trichotomist position.

The dichotomist view has probably been the most common view throughout church history, especially since the Council of Constantinople in 381.[10]The major creeds of the Reformation support this idea.[11] Augustine,[12] John Calvin,[13] Charles Hodge,[14] Louis Berkhof,[15] John Murray,[16] and Robert Reymond are all advocates of the dichotomist position.[17]

Some dichotomists seem to identify the person exclusively with the soul or spirit; whereas the body is simply the house of the soul and is not essential to the person’s identity.[18] However, most conservative dichotomists maintain an essential unity between the body and soul. For example, Louis Berkhof asserts, “The prevailing representation of the nature of man in Scripture is clearly dichotomic.” But then he immediately qualifies that statement by adding, “The Bible teaches us to view the nature of man as a unity, not a duality.”[19]

3. The Monistic View

According to the Monistic view, the Bible does not divide men into different constituent parts. Man, it is argues, is indivisible. Advocates of this view assert that the terms “body,” “soul,” and “spirit” are just different ways of describing the whole man. Those who hold this position usually emphasize man’s physical nature and deny any conscious human existence apart from the body. For example, one advocate writes, “Man is a unity, and [this] unity is the body as a complex of parts, drawing their life and activity from a breath soul, which has no existence apart from the body.”[20]

Monism has become more popular among liberal and neo-orthodox theologians, such as H. Wheeler Robinson,[21] John A. T. Robinson,[22] and Emil Brunner.[23] It has also been the view of Jehovah’s Witnesses[24] and Seventh-Day Adventists.[25] Some have asserted that the Reformed theologian G. C. Berkhouwer held this position.[26]

A Biblical View Of Man’s Constitution

Of the three views, I believe that dichotomy is overall the most consistent with Scripture. However, I also believe that the other positions raise valid concerns. For example, advocates of trichotomy often are concerned to distinguish men from animals. Certainly this is a valid concern. Advocates of the monistic view are concerned that we view man’s body, and not just his soul, as an essential part of his humanity. This also is valid. But the problem with both the trichotomy and monistic views is their tendency to ignore or reject the overall teaching of Scripture. Therefore, as we attempt to develop a biblical view of man’s constitution, we must seek to do justice to all the teaching of Scripture.

1. Man As Body And Soul

The Bible uses a number of words to describe man’s constitution. Some of these words have a clearly physical meaning or are phenomenal in nature, such as “flesh” and “body.” Other terms are clearly non-physical or non-phenomenal, such as “spirit,” “heart,” and “mind.” Let’s briefly consider these perspectives.

Man Viewed From The Physical Perspective

The primary OT word for man’s material aspect is בָּשָׂר (“flesh”). This word may refer literally to man’s body in part (Gen. 2:21; Exod. 28:42) or in whole (Lev. 15:16; 17:16; 19:28; Num. 8:7; Psa. 16:9),[27] metaphorically to frailty (Psa. 56:4; 78:39; Isa. 31:3; 40:6; Jer. 17:5),[28] or to sensitivity (Ezek. 11:19; 36:26). Generally, in the OT בָּשָׂר is not used for the unregenerate nature, as is the corresponding Greek term for “flesh” [σαρξ] in the NT.[29]

The common NT words for man’s material aspect are σαρξ (“flesh”) and σῶμα, (“body”). The word σαρξ may refer to the soft tissue of man’s physical body (Luke 24:39; John 6:61-66; 1 Cor. 15:39). In other cases, it refers to man’s entire body (2 Cor. 4:11; 7:1; Gal. 4:14, 15; Eph. 5:29). Like בָּשָׂר, σαρξ can sometimes refer to “weakness,” as when Jesus says, “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:11). Unlike בָּשָׂר, σαρξ is used, especially by Paul, to refer to ethical weakness, whether reigning sin or remaining sin (Rom. 7:18, 25; 8:3-7, 12-14; Gal. 5:16; Col. 3:18). The word σῶμα, most often refers to man’s physical body as a whole (Matt. 5:29, 30; 10:28; John 2:21; Rom. 1:24; 4:19; 1 Cor. 6:13, 15, 18-20; 2Cor. 5:5, 8; Phil. 3:21; James 2:26). It can also refer metaphorically to the church as an organic body of members (Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 12:12-25; Eph. 2:16; 4:4; 4:16; 5:31).

The bottom line is that in describing man the Bible employs terminology that is clearly physical or material in nature. Therefore, we must conclude that man’s constitution is physical or material. But if we stop here, we will have only half the picture. The Bible also views man from another perspective.

Man Viewed From The Spiritual Perspective

The major OT terms for man’s immaterial aspects include רוּחַ(“spirit”) and לֵב(“heart” or “mind”). The term “spirit” [רוּחַ] refers primarily to man’s life-force or animating principle (Gen. 6:17, 7:15; 45:27; Job 15:30; 27:3; Psa. 104:29; 114:29; 135:17). The term “heart” [לֵב] can be used for the physical organ that pumps blood (1 Sam. 25:37; 2 Kings 9:24). But its primary usage is for the seat of man’s intellect (Gen. 6:5; Deut. 29:4; 1 Kings 3:12; Eccl. 2:1; Song 5:2; Isa. 44:19), his volitional powers (Deut. 2:20; Judg. 9:3; 1 Chron. 22:19; Psa. 37:4; Eccl. 8:11), or his moral capacity (Job 27:6; Psa. 32:11; 51:12; 1 Sam. 13:14; 24:6; 2 Sam. 24:10; 2 Kings. 20:3).[30]

You may be wondering why I have not referred to the Hebrew term נֶפֶשׁ, which is usually translated “soul.” Actually, נֶפֶשׁ is primarily used for the whole man--body and soul--as a personal entity (see below). In fact, sometimes נֶפֶשׁis used to designate the corpse of a dead person (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:6; 19:13; Hag. 2:13). Rarely ever does נֶפֶשׁ refer solely to man’s immaterial side.[31]

When we come to the NT, the key words for man from a non-physical perspective include ψυχη (“soul”), πνευμα (“spirit”), and καρδια (“heart”). Unlike the Hebrew word נֶפֶשׁ, ψυχη can refer to immaterial qualities that are distinct from the body (Matt. 11:29; Phil. 1:27; Mark 14:34). Indeed, sometimes the word is used to refer to man as a living entity apart from his body (Matt. 10:28; Rev. 6:9). The term pneuma can refer to man’s inward disposition (1 Cor. 4:21; Eph. 4:23; 1 Pet. 3:4) or the seat of his mind, will, or emotions (Mark 2:8; Luke 1:47; Acts 17:16; 19:21). Sometimes πνευμα is used in juxtaposition with “body” in order to distinguish man’s immaterial nature (2 Cor. 7:1; James 2:26). In a few instances, πνευμα, like ψυχη, can refer to a living entity that does not have a body (Luke 23:46; 24:29; Acts 7:59; Heb. 12:23). Finally, the primarily meaning for the Greek word καρδια is the seat of man’s mind, will, or emotions (Mark 12:30; Luke 21:14; Acts 2:26; Rom. 2:15; 9:2; 2 Cor. 4:6; 9:7; Eph. 1:18).

In summary, the Bible uses terminology to describe man from two different perspectives, i.e., from a physical perspective and from a non-physical or spiritual perspective. Furthermore, these aspects of man can be distinguished. Perhaps the clearest example is found in Jesus’ exhortation to his disciples, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28).[32] Thus, the Bible views man as “body and soul.”

2. Man As A Physical-Spiritual Unity

Although the Bible represents man from both a physical and a spiritual perspective, most often the emphasis of Scripture is on the person as a single entity. In other words, the Bible normally does not portray man as a being who is sometimes physical and sometimes spiritual. It normally does not present the physical side of man and the spiritual side of man as if they were two unrelated, unconnected substances. On the contrary, the Bible almost always portrays man as a unified entity who is both physical and spiritual simultaneously. For example, in an excellent article on the nature of man, John Murray concludes, “The biblical doctrine is then to the effect that there are two aspects to man.” Then he qualifies that statement by asserting, “These two entities form one organic unit without disharmony or conflict.”[33] In a separate article, Murray summarizes these balancing perspectives with the phrase “psychosomatic being,”[34] literally, a “soul-body being.” The point is that the Bible almost always portrays man as a unified physical-spiritual entity. This is supported by the following considerations:

First, as pointed out earlier, the Hebrew word נֶפֶשׁ (“soul”) almost always refers to the whole man, both body and soul (Gen. 2:7; 12:5; 14:21; 17:4; 46:18; Psa. 107:9; Prov. 25:25; 27:7; Jer. 31:25; 43:6). This is an important point to remember. For example, when Isa. 53:10 speaks of Jehovah making Christ’s נֶפֶשׁ an offering for sin, it is not just referring to his spiritual side. To the contrary, both soul and body were offered on the cross! When the Psalmist confidently asserts that “you will not leave my soul in Sheol” (Psa. 16:10), he is not referring primarily to the intermediate state. He is not talking about his “soul” going to heaven while his body remains in the grave. No, he is speaking of the resurrection. He is speaking of both body and soul being liberated from the grave. Thus, man as a נֶפֶשׁ is a viewed as a single, unified entity. In fact, sometimes the term נֶפֶשׁ can be translated as a personal pronoun. Instead of “my soul,” we can read “I.” Instead of “his soul,” we can read “he” (Gen. 34:3; Num. 23:10; Judg. 16:30; Job 30:25; Ezek. 33:6).[35]

Another way that the biblical writers stress the unity of man is by using a part of man to represent the whole. This is a literary device called synecdoche. For example, sometimes the word “flesh” is used to refer to the human nature, both body and soul. Thus, we are told in John 1:14 that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” In this case, the word “flesh” is not just referring to the physical body but to the totality of human nature. So too, when Moses commands the Israelites, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength” (Deut. 6:5), his point is not to divide man into different parts. Rather, each of those parts is being used to represent the whole man. In essence, Moses is saying, “You shall love God in the totality of your being.” Another good example of synecdoche is found in Prov. 6:16-18, which reads, “These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil.” Here Solomon refers to facial expressions, physical body parts, and inward attitudes. But he is not teaching that God hates these physical or non-physical aspects of man in the abstract. He is not saying, “Here is a man’s hand that hit a victim over the head with a baseball bat. God hates the hand,” as if the hand were separate from the person. No, the hand that sheds innocent blood represents the whole person. The proud facial expression represents the whole person. The evil-scheming heart represents the whole person. In this way, the Bible stresses the unity of man.

Third, the Bible stresses the unity of man when it continues to associate a person who has died with his dead body. Speaking to the women who came to Christ’s tomb, the angels said, “Come, see the place where the Lord lay” (Matt. 28:6). Jesus still was identified with his body, even though his soul was in heaven. In John 5:28-29, we read, “For the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear [Christ’s] voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” Even though their souls have been separated from their bodies by death, Jesus still associates the individual persons with their bodies which are in the grave: “all who are in the graves will hear His voice.” Thus, when a Christian family member dies, should we say, “He is with the Lord”? Or should we say, “He is in the grave”? From a biblical perspective, I believe it is correct to say both. As John Murray notes, “So what is laid in the grave is still integral to the person who died. In and during death the person is identified with the dissolved material entity.”[36] In this way, the Bible stresses the unity of the whole person.[37]

Finally, the redemption that God planned and promises in Scripture is a redemption of the whole man, body and soul (cf., Rom. 8:23; Phil. 3:21). The Greeks viewed immortality in terms of the soul being rescued from the body. The body was viewed as the “tomb” of the human soul. But the Bible does not portray the hope of immortality in that way. Biblical immortality, in the fullest sense of that word, includes the resurrection of our bodies. Thus, Paul can say in 1 Cor. 15:54, “So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: ‘Death is swallowed up in victory.’” God’s victory and our salvation will not be complete without the resurrection of our bodies! Therefore, when the Bible speaks of the salvation of the soul, we should not think merely of our spiritual part going to heaven while our physical part remains in the dust. Usually, when the Bible speaks of “souls” being saved, it has in view the whole person.

Does this mean we should adopt the monistic view of human nature? I believe not. As pointed out earlier, those who hold this position view man as an indivisible unity. But as we have seen, Jesus himself “divides” man when he warns his disciples not to “fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). Thus, contrary to the monistic view, we may divide man into body and soul.

Furthermore, advocates of the monistic position usually deny the conscious existence of the soul apart from the body after death. For example, a Seventh-day Adventist scholar states emphatically, “The soul has no conscious existence apart from the body, and no scripture indicates that at death the soul survives as a conscious entity.”[38] The Apostle Paul strongly disagrees! He assures the Corinthians that for the believer “to be absent from the body” is to be “present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). In like fashion, he assures the Philippians that his earthly departure will mean being “with Jesus” (Phil. 1:23). And Paul often may have encouraged himself with the words of Jesus, which he spoke to the thief on the cross, “Assuredly, I say to you, today [σήμερον] you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).[39] Based on Christ’s promise, we may assume that on the very day Jesus died, that thief joined all the other “spirits of just men made perfect” (Heb. 12:23)[40] to be with Christ. What is more, the Book of the Revelation provides us with many more assurances that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (Rev. 3:12, 21; 4:4; 6:9-10; 7:9-17; 19:14; 20:4).

Perhaps the most instructive text is found in Rev. 6:9-10. There we read that “the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held” were crying out “with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” Notice that the ones identified in this verse have already died (“who had been slain”). Notice secondly, they do not yet enjoy the full consummation of their redemption (“How long, O Lord … until you judge”). Thus, they are “in between” death and the resurrection. Notice finally, that they are conscious during this intermediate state apart from their resurrected body. In light of these considerations, we must reject the monistic view of man’s constitution. The Bible clearly views man from the two perspectives of body and soul.

What about the trichotomist view? Does the Bible further divide the non-physical part of man into “soul and spirit”? Is it true that “soul” is what we share in common with the animals; whereas the “spirit” is the faculty by which we worship God? I believe the answer to those questions is “no,” for the following reasons. First, the terms “soul” and “spirit” are clearly used interchangeably in Scripture. For example, in John 12:27, Jesus says, “Now is my soul [ψυχη] troubled.” But in John 13:21, we are told that Jesus was “troubled in spirit [πνευμα].” Perhaps an even clearer example is found in Luke 1:46-47. In that text, Jesus’ mother Mary responds to the news about her virgin conception with these words: "My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.” In keeping with Hebrew parallelism, the terms “soul” [ψυχη] and “spirit” [πνευμα] are used synonymously. Notice also that Mary is worshiping God not just with her “spirit” but also with her “soul.” Thus, the “soul” as well as the “spirit” may refer to the faculty of “God-consciousness.” In keeping with this last point, the Bible commands us to worship God with our soul (Deut. 6:5; Mark 12:30) and not just with our spirit.[41]

What about the passages that appear to make a distinction between “soul” and “spirit” (Heb. 4:12; 1 Thess. 5:23)? Careful exegesis of these texts reveals no real metaphysical distinction. For example, Heb. 4:12 speaks of “the word of God” which is “sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit.” Does not this verse “divide” the immaterial man into two parts? The rest of the verse will not permit such a conclusion: “and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” The writer is not intending a dichotomy between soul and spirit anymore than he intends a dichotomy between “joints and marrow” or “thoughts and intents of the heart.” The real point of the verse is not so much “division” as it is “penetration.” In the words of Calvin, “It means that there is nothing so hard or firm in a man, nothing so deeply hidden that the efficacy of the Word does not penetrate through to it.”[42]

But what about Paul’s prayer in 1 Thess. 5:23, that the “whole spirit, soul, and body [of believers] be preserved blameless at [Christ’s] coming”? Is not Paul dividing man into three parts? The answer again is “no.” Paul is simply stringing together terms that emphasize the person as a whole. This is precisely what Jesus does in Mark 12:30, when he commands us to love God with “all [our] heart and with all [our] soul and with all [our] mind and with all [our] strength.” Jesus’ point is not to divide man into four parts. Rather it is to emphasize the whole person, which is precisely Paul’s point in 1 Thess. 5:23.[43]

Concluding Applications

In conclusion, the Bible portrays man from two perspectives. On the one hand, the Scriptures view man from both a physical perspective and also from a spiritual perspective. Hence, we may say that man consists of “body and soul.” On the other hand, the Scriptures normally do not make a great “dichotomy” between the body and soul.[44] There is an intermediate state in which body and soul are parted. However, that condition is not normal. The Bible always portrays man’s normal condition as a “psychosomatic unity” (i.e., physical-spiritual unity). What is the practical relevance of this conclusion?

1. The Biblical Teaching On Man’s Constitution Should Make Us Wary Of Any “Gospel” That Only Seeks To Improve The Quality Of Man’s Earthly Life.

Because men have never-dying souls, we must not preach a truncated gospel that focuses exclusively on their bodily and earthly needs. Neither the “social gospel” of liberalism nor the “health-wealth-prosperity gospel” of charismaticism gives proper weight to the Bible’s emphasis on man as a spiritual being. When the multitudes whom Jesus fed came to him a second time to ask for more, he said to them, “Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life” (Jn. 6:27). Jesus viewed these people as more than physical bodies. He viewed them as spiritual beings who would have an eternal existence either in heaven or in hell (cf., Matt. 10:28). Therefore, he exhorted men to make their spiritual welfare a priority over their earthly comforts (Matt. 6:33). We too must give proper weight to the Bible’s emphasis on the spiritual aspect of our humanity.[45]

2. The Biblical Teaching On Man’s Constitution Should Help To Preserve Us From Unbiblical Views Of Regeneration And Sanctification.

Sometimes the trichotomist distinction between “soul” and “spirit” is used to justify unbiblical views of regeneration and sanctification. For example, some trichotomists teach that man’s problem is not a depraved “spirit” but a dormant “spirit.” Because the unregenerate man’s spirit is “dead,” his sensuous “soul” leads him to sin. But once his “spirit” is reawakened through regeneration, he is able to overcome the animal impulses of his body and soul.[46] However, this presentation of regeneration and sanctification is without scriptural warrant. As we have seen, the terms “soul” and “spirit” are used interchangeably. Furthermore, the Bible represents both the soul and the spirit as vulnerable to sin (Deut. 2:30; Psa. 78:8; Prov. 16:18; Eccl. 7:8; 2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Pet. 1:22; Rev. 18:14) and as the objects of sanctification (Prov. 16:32; 1 Cor. 7:34; 1 Thess. 5:23).[47]

3. The Biblical Teaching On Man’s Constitution Encourages Us To Show Respect To The Body—Even After Death.

Since the Bible portrays the body as an integral part of our God-given humanity, then it follows that we should care for the body as well as the soul. Proper diet, fitness, and rest should all be matters of biblical concern to the Christian (Exod. 20:13; Prov. 23:1-2; Eph. 5:28-29; 1 Tim. 4:8; 5:23; 3 John 2). Furthermore, since the Bible continues to identity the person with the body even after death (Matt. 28:6; John 5:28-29; 11:17, 43), then providing a proper burial for the deceased should also be a matter of biblical concern to the believer (Gen. 23:4-20; 47:29-30; 49:29; 50:5; Matt. 26:12; Mark 14:8; John 12:7; 19:40). As Cornelius Venema notes, “The way we handle, even the way in which we lovingly commit, the body of a believer to the grave, should testify to our convictions about the resurrection of the body.”[48]

4. The Biblical Teaching On Man’s Constitution Reminds Us That Salvation Is Incomplete Without The Resurrection Of The Body.

We don’t deny that to be with Christ without the body is better than living in a sin-cursed world with the body. “We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). “To depart and be with Christ … is far better,” says Paul (Phil. 1:23). Nevertheless, that was not Paul’s ultimate hope nor should it be ours. “We ourselves groan within ourselves,” says Paul, “eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body” (Rom. 8:23). Our ultimate hope is not to escape from this body. Our ultimate hope is the complete transformation of this body (Phil. 3:21)! David says, “Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; my flesh also will rest in hope” (Psa. 16:9). Whence the confidence? “For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption” (Psa. 16:10). Of course, we acknowledge David was a prophet speaking ultimately of Christ’s resurrection (Acts 2; 13); however, David also believed that he had a personal stake in that resurrection. He believed like Paul: “Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming” (1Cor. 15:23). In a word, the Bible represents the resurrection and not the intermediate state as the believer’s ultimate hope (Dan. 12:2-3; 1 Cor. 15:1-58).[49]

Notes

1. I say this because sometimes the differences may be due mainly to emphasis and/or nuance. For example, some trichotomists may agree with the dichotomists that man consists basically of two distinct substances: a material part and an immaterial part. However, they then may further distinguish the immaterial part as consisting of a more Godward aspect (spirit) and a more manward aspect (soul). Furthermore, some dichotomists are quick to distance themselves from a philosophical dualism and therefore lay great emphasis on the unity of body and soul. In doing so, they sometimes seem to be articulating a monistic view. This is not to deny genuine differences among the three views. I only wish to point out that it is sometimes challenging to classify different theologians. As we will see, the errors are often exposed more in the actual ramifications of their position than in its articulation.
2. The sources from which I have gleaned this summary differ over the term used for the “third” substance. According to Millard Ericksen, drawing from The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 7:1-2, the “spirit” was the mediating substance postulated by the Greeks. Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 521. But Anthony Hoekema, citing Herman Bavinck, Bijbelsche en Religienuze Psychologie (Kampen: Kok, 1920), 53, sees the “soul” as the mediating substance. Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 206. See also Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 191.
3. See John Murray, “Trichotomy,” Collected Wrings of John Murray [hereafter CW] (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1977), 2:23-24.
4. Hoekema, 205; Ericksen, 521. Sometimes Apollinarius is categorized as “trichotomist,” but this has been questioned by J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (London: Black, 1958), 292.
5. A System of Biblical Psychology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), vii, 247-66.
6. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 258-60.
7. The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), n. 1 on 1 Thess. 5:23; cf., The New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), n. 2 on the same text.
8. The Release of the Spirit (Indianapolis: Sure Foundation, 1956), 6.
9. Wilfred Brockelman, Gothard, The Man and His Ministry: An Evaluation (Santa Barbara: Quill Publications, 1976), 85-96.
10. Ericksen, Christian Theology, 522; Berkhof, 191. It was at this council that Apollinarism was rejected.
11. See the Belgic Confession, Art. 37; the Westminster Confession, 32:1; and the Second London Baptist Confession, 4:2, 31:1.
12. According to Berkhof, 192.
13. Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 1.15.2.
14. Systematic Theology (reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 2:42-51.
15. Berkhof, 192-96.
16. CW, 2:14-33.
17. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 422-24.
18. Ericksen refers to William Newton Clarke as an example of this position. Clark writes, “The person, the self-conscious moral agent, is not the body; rather does it inhabit and rule the body.” Harry Emerson Fosdick goes further and denies the resurrection, arguing instead for the “persistence of the personality through death.” See Ericksen, Christian Theology, 522-24.
19. Berkhof, 192. So too John Murray (2:21) and Hoekema (217). Actually, Hoekema sees the unified aspect of man as so important that he prefers not to be called a “dichotomist.” He rejects the designation because of its association with Greek dualism and because the meaning of the term seems to undermine the Bible’s emphasis on man’s unity (209-10).
20. H. Wheeler Robinson, “Hebrew Psychology,” in The People and the Book, ed. Arthur S. Peake (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925), 366, as cited in Ericksen, Christian Theology, 526.
21. See above “Hebrew Psychology.”
22. The Body (London: SCM, 1952), 9ff.
23. Man in Revolt: A Christian Anthropology, trans. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1947), 363-74.
24. The Truth that Leads to Eternal Life (New York: Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 1968), 34-40.
25. Seventh-Day Adventists Believe…: A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1988), 82-85.
26. Reymond in A New Systematic Theology places Berkhouwer in this category (418-20). He actually cites Lewis B. Smedes, who in turn is citing Berkhouwer. According to Smedes, Berkhouwer argues, “Man as he is constituted, as he exists in himself abstracted from his relationship to God, does not interest the Bible and therefore is not a proper object of theological concern” (419). I would sympathize with Berkhouwer’s point if he was simply expressing what Calvin expressed, namely, that we cannot truly know man apart from his relation to God as God’s image. However, Reymond cites another statement by Smedes that does raise a concern about Berkhouwer’s position: “The state of man in the ‘between times’ we must leave as one of the hidden things. Scripture itself gives us no help in a search for an analyzable anthropological conclusion” (419).
27. With the exception of the last reference in Psa. 16:9, the LXX uses soma to translate the Hebrew basar.
28. Hans Walter Wolff argues that בָּשָׂר= “Man in his Infirmity.” Anthropology of the Old Testament, trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 26ff.
29. One possible exception might be Gen. 6:3, but this is debatable.
30. In Hebrew, the terms for the “intestines” (מֵעֶה) and “kidneys” (כִּלְיָה) are often used to represent man’s emotional faculty (Psa. 40:8; 73:21; Prov. 23:16; Song 5:4; Isa. 16:11; Jer. 4:19; Lam. 1:20; 2:11; 3:13).
31. In Genesis, 35:18, Rachel’s “soul” is described as “departing” from her at death. This may also be the idea expressed in Jer. 15:9. When the Psalmist speaks of God redeeming his “soul” from Sheol (Psa. 16:10; 49:16; 86:13), it is probably not a reference merely to his immaterial aspect but to his person.
32. The Greek construction, καὶ (both) ψυχὴν καὶ (and) σῶμα, clearly distinguishes two different entities.
33. Murray, “Nature of Man,” CW, 2:21.
34. Murray, “Trichotomy,” CW, 2:33.
35. Edmund Jacob writes, “Nephesh is the usual term for a man’s total nature, for what he is and not just what he has.” Cited in Hoekema, 210. See also Gustav Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, 4th edition, trans. George E. Day (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1888) 150-51; J. Barton Payne, Theology of the Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 224-25.
36. CW, 2:16.
37. Perhaps 2 Cor. 5:8 is an exception: “to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.” But Paul clearly views his state as unnatural and inferior to the prospect of the resurrection (cf., v. 4; 1 Cor. 15:1-58).
38. Seventh-Day Adventists Believe, 353.
39. Advocates of “soul-sleep” argue that the English translators should re-punctuate the verse so that the adverb “today” modifies Jesus’ promise to the thief (“I say to you today …”) rather than the fulfillment of his promise (i.e., “today you will be with me …”). But this would make the adverb somewhat superfluous (when else would Jesus be speaking to the thief?!), and it would rob his promise of powerful effect. See Alfred Plummer, Gospel According to St. Luke in The International Critical Commentary, 4th ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901), 535.
40. Commenting on this passage, Philip Hughes writes, “It is preferable, therefore (with Owen, Delitzsch, Alford, Westcott, Teodorico, etc.), to understand “the spirits of just men made perfect” as an inclusive designation, comprehending all who through faith have been accounted righteous by God (10:38) from the beginning of the world onward (cf. 11) and who now, their earthly pilgrimage completed, have experienced for themselves that Jesus is not only the pioneer but also the perfecter of their faith (12:2). Absent from the body, they are at home with their Lord (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21, 23). A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 550.
41. For many more examples of the interchangeability of “soul” and “spirit” in Scripture, see Murray, “Trichotomy,” CW, 2:24-29 and Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 473-77.
42. John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., trans. David and Thomas Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 12:53.
43. This is further underscored by the two related adjectives used in the verse: “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely (i.e., wholly [ὁλοτελεῖς]); and may your whole [ὁλόκληρον] spirit, soul, and body be preserved.”
44. For this reason, I sympathize with Hoekema’s preference not to use the term “dichotomist” (209-10).
45. The Apostle Paul seems to give proper weight to the spiritual aspect of his humanity when he writes, “Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day” (2 Cor. 4:16).
46. This is the position of J.B. Heard, The Tripartite Nature of Man, as summarized by John Murray, CW, 2:24.
47. Some Christian psychologists use trichotomy as a justification for their profession as distinct from that of a Christian pastor. The Christian pastor is responsible to look after the person’s “spirit,” while the psychologist is responsible for his “soul.” Once again, this kind of reasoning is without any scriptural warrant. See Jay Adams, The Christian Counselor’s Manual (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 9-20.
48. The Promise of the Future (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000), 385. In light of this, Venema appropriately questions the practice of “cremation.” In the Scriptures, consuming the human body with fire was usually an indication of God’s curse upon the individual (2 Kings 13:2). Today, individuals (or their families) sometimes choose cremation as a way to broadcast publicly their rejection of a bodily resurrection.
49. Responding to those who would argue for a purely spiritual immortality, Anthony Hoekema properly remarks, “If the resurrection body were nonmaterial or nonphysical, the devil would have won a great victory, since God would then have been compelled to change human beings with physical bodies such as he had created into creatures of a different sort, without physical bodies (like the angels). Then it would indeed seem that matter had become intrinsically evil so that it had to be banished. And then, in a sense, the Greek philosophers would have been proved right. But matter is not evil; it is part of God’s good creation. Therefore the goal of God’s redemption is the resurrection of the physical body, and the creation of a new earth on which his redeemed people can live and serve God forever with gloried bodies. Thus the universe will not be destroyed but renewed, and God will win the victory.” The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 250.