Anthropology: Part 4

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s note: In this issue of Bibliotheca Sacra one more article, of several yet to come on Anthropology, appears. This theme is a study of one of Systematic Theology’s most complex and difficult fields of discipline. The material is drawn from the Bible and is vital to the right understanding of man, the highest of God’s earthly creations.]

III. Man’s Estate at Creation

2. The Immaterial Part of Man.

c. The Derivation and Perpetuation of the Immaterial Part of Man.

Attention has been given to the truth relative to the origin of the immaterial part of the first man; it being revealed that he became a living soul by the divine in-breathing of lives. The problem which now arises is concerned with generation or perpetuation of human life. The divine plan for humanity is that two original beings—male and female should “be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth” (Gen 1:28). It is thus indicated that to Adam and Eve, as to their posterity, procreative power is given which not only generates the body of their offspring, but accounts directly for the existence of their immaterial natures. Nevertheless, there are varying theories advanced—three in all—as to the origin of the immaterial part of each member of the Adamic race. These theories call for consideration.

(1) The pre-existence theory.

The advocates of this hypothesis claim on rational grounds and quite apart from Biblical authority that, whatever may have been the original derivation of the immaterial part of man-whether created or eternally existent—, it is subject to reincarnation or transmigration from one embodiment—extending to the lowest forms of creature life-to another.

This theory, though embraced with various modifications by men who could avail themselves of Biblical truth, owes its origin wholly to heathen philosophy. It is a leading tenet of Hinduism and is represented in modern form by Theosophy. An early theory assigned a human soul to the pre-existent Christ. Of this system the Encyclopaedia Britannica asserts: “In theology, the doctrine that Jesus Christ had a human soul which existed before the creation of the world—the first and most perfect of created things—and subsisted, prior to His human birth, in union with the Second Person of the Godhead. It was this human soul which suffered the pain and sorrow described in the Gospels. The chief exposition of this doctrine is that of Dr. Watts (Works, v. 274, etc.); it has received little support. In a wider form the doctrine has been applied to men in general—namely, that in the beginning of Creation God created the souls of all men, which were subsequently as a punishment for ill-doing incarnated in physical bodies till discipline should render them fit for spiritual existence. Supporters of this doctrine, the Pre-existants or Pre-existiani, are found as early as the 2nd century, among them being Justin Martyr and Origen (q.v.), and the idea not only belongs to metempsychosis and mysticism generally, but is widely prevalent in Oriental thought. It was condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 540, but has frequently reappeared in modern thought (cf. Wordsworth’s Intimations of Immortality) being in fact the natural correlative of a belief in immortality.”[1] The contention that human life has pre-existed lends encouragement to the hope that conscious life continues after death. It thus reflects the natural desire of the human heart for unending existence. The following from Dr. William G. T. Shedd’s History of Christian Doctrine is a clear analysis of this system: “The theory of Pre-existence teaches that all human souls were created at the beginning of creation,—not that of this world simply, but of all worlds. All finite spirits were made simultaneously, and prior to the creation of matter. The intellectual universe precedes the sensible universe. The souls of men, consequently, existed before the creation of Adam. The pre-existent life was Pre-Adamite. Men were angelic spirits at first. Because of their apostasy in the angelic sphere, they were transferred, as a punishment for their sin, into material bodies in this mundane sphere, and are now passing through a disciplinary process, in order to be restored, all of them without exception, to their pre-existent and angelic condition. These bodies, to which they are joined, come into existence by the ordinary course of physical propagation; so that the sensuous and material part of human nature has no existence previous to Adam. It is only the rational and spiritual principle of which a Pre-Adamite life is asserted.”[2]

Objections to this theory are threefold, namely, (a) the Scriptures are ignored, though in his usual allegorizing method, Origen, who is said to be the “sunrise and sunset” of the pre-existent theory, attempted to harmonize his ideas with the Word of God. His distortions of the Bible leave little semblance of its plain teachings. (b) The doctrine of original sin is discredited, though the fact of sin is recognized. And (c) there is no proof for the theory.

(2) The creation theory.

Creationism—the present theme, and Traducianism—yet to be considered—, are doctrines related to the origin of the immaterial part of man which, though defended by men of equal orthodoxy, are widely different even to the point of contradiction. Creationism teaches that God creates directly and immediately a soul and spirit for each body at the time of birth and that only the body is generated by human parents. Traducianism teaches that the soul and spirit of man are generated along with the body. The question is not authoritatively determined and when good men differ so widely it is usually due to a lack of decisive testimony from the Scriptures. It is to be observed that, in the history of the church, Creationism was largely the accepted doctrine of the Eastern division while Traducianism was the accepted doctrine of the Western division. The issue has always been one of personal opinion and not a basis for theological order and separation. Nevertheless, great issues are involved. At once the humanity of Christ is implicated as well as the whole field of truth relative to the transmission of original sin, and heredity.

Of two great theologians of more modern times-Dr. Charles Hodge and Dr. William Shedd—, though equally committed to the Calvinistic system of theology, Dr. Hodge contends for Creationism and Dr. Shedd for Traducianism. The plan to be pursued in this discussion is to quote somewhat at length from each of these worthy men under the statement here given of the doctrine which they espouse. Following that, some general remarks will be in order.

Dr. Hodge writes: “The common doctrine of the Church, and especially of the Reformed theologians, has ever been that the soul of the child is not generated or derived from the parents, but that it is created by the immediate agency of God. The arguments generally urged in favour of is view are,—

“1. That it is more consistent with the prevailing representations of the Scriptures. In the original account of the creation there is a marked distinction made between the body and the soul. The one is from the earth, the other from God. This distinction is kept up throughout the Bible. The body and soul are not only represented as different substances, but also as having different origins. The body shall return to dust, says the wise man, and the spirit to God who gave it. Here the origin of the soul is represented as different from and higher than that of the body. The former is from God in a sense in which the latter is not. In like manner God is said to form ‘the spirit of man within him’ (Zech xii.1); to give ‘breath unto the people upon’ the earth, ‘and spirit to them that walk therein.’ (Isa xlii.5.) This language nearly agrees with the account of the original creation, in which God is said to have breathed into man the breath of life, to indicate that the soul is not earthy or material, but had its origin immediately from God. Hence He is called ‘God of the spirits of all flesh.’ (Num xvi.22.) It could not well be said that He is God of the bodies of all men. The relation in which the soul stands to God as its God and creator is very different from that in which the body stands to Him. And hence in Heb xii.9, it is said, ‘We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?’ The obvious antithesis here presented is between those who are the fathers of our bodies and Him who is the Father of our spirits. Our bodies are derived from our earthly parents, our souls are derived from God. This is in accordance with the familiar use of the word flesh, where it is contrasted, either expressly or by implication, with the soul. Paul speaks of those who had not ‘seen his face in the flesh,’ of ‘the life he now lived in the flesh.’ He tells the Philippians that it was needful for them that he should remain ‘in the flesh;’ he speaks of his ‘mortal flesh.’ The Psalmist says of the Messiah, ‘my flesh shall rest in hope,’ which the Apostle explains to mean that his flesh should not see corruption. In all these, and in a multitude of similar passages, flesh means the body, and ‘fathers of our flesh’ means fathers of our bodies. So far, therefore, as the Scriptures reveal anything on the subject, their authority is against Traducianism and in favour of Creationism.

“2. Argument from the Nature of the Soul. The latter doctrine, also, is clearly most consistent with the nature of the soul. The soul is admitted, among Christians, to be immaterial and spiritual. It is indivisible. The traducian doctrine denies this universally acknowledged truth. It asserts that the soul admits of ‘separation or division of essence.’ On the same ground that the Church universally rejected the Gnostic doctrine of emanation as inconsistent with the nature of God as a spirit, it has, with nearly the same unanimity, rejected the doctrine that the soul admits of division of substance. This is so serious a difficulty that some of the advocates of the ex traduce doctrine endeavour to avoid it by denying that their theory assumes any such separation or division of the substance of the soul. But this denial avails little. The soul of Adam constitutes our souls. If this be so, then either humanity is a general essence of which individual men are the modes of existence, or what was wholly in Adam is distributively, partitively, and by separation, in the multitude of his descendants. Derivation of essence, therefore, does imply, and is generally admitted to imply, separation or division of essence. And this must be so if numerical identity of essence in all mankind is assumed to be secured by generation or propagation.

“3. A third argument in favour of creationism and against traducianism is derived from the Scriptural doctrine as to the person of Christ. He was very man; He had a true human nature; a true body and a rational soul. He was born of a woman. He was, as to his flesh, the son of David. He was descended from the fathers. He was in all points made like as we are, yet without sin. This is admitted on both sides. But, as before remarked in reference to realism, this, on the theory of traducianism, necessitates the conclusion that Christ’s human nature was guilty and sinful. We are partakers of Adam’s sin both as to guilt and pollution, because the same numerical essence which sinned in him is communicated to us. Sin, it is said, is an accident, and supposes a substance in which it inheres, or to which it pertains. Community in sin supposes, therefore, community of essence. If we were not in Adam as to essence we did not sin in him, and do not derive a corrupt nature from him. But, if we were in him as to essence then his sin was our sin both as to guilt and pollution. This is the argument of traducianists repeated in every form. But they insist that Christ was in Adam as to the substance of his human nature as truly as we were. They say that if his body and soul were not derived from the body and soul of his virgin mother he was no true man, and cannot be the redeemer of men. What is true of other men must, consequently, be true of Him. He must, therefore, be as much involved in the guilt and corruption of the apostasy as other men. It will not do to affirm and deny the same thing. It is a contradiction to say that we are guilty of Adam’s sin because we are partakers of his essence, and that Christ is not guilty of his sin nor involved in its pollution, although He is a partaker of his essence. If participation of essence involve community of guilt and depravity in the one case, it must also in the other. As this seems a legitimate conclusion from the traducian doctrine, and as this conclusion is anti-Christian and false, the doctrine itself cannot be true.”[3]

(3) The Traducian theory.

This system of belief avers that both the immaterial and material parts of man are propagated by human generation. On its general character, Dr. Shedd writes: “Traducianism applies the idea of species to both body and soul. Upon the sixth day, God created two human individuals, one male and one female, and in them also created the specific psychico-physical nature from which all the subsequent individuals of the human family are procreated both psychically and physically.... Creationism confines the idea of species to the body. In this respect, it agrees with the theory of pre-existence; the difference relating only to the time when the soul is created. Creationism and pre-existence both alike maintain that the human soul is individual only, and never had a race-existence in Adam. The creationist holds that God on the sixth day created two human individuals, one male and one female, and in them also created the specific physical nature from which the bodies of all the subsequent individuals were procreated; the soul in each instance being a new creation ex nihilo, and infused into the propagated body.... The choice must be made between traducianism and creationism, since the opinion that man as to his soul existed before Adam has no support from revelation. The Bible plainly teaches that Adam was the first man; and that all finite spirits existing before him were angels. The question between the traducianist and the creationist is this: When God created the first two human individuals, Adam and Eve, did he create in and with them the invisible substance of all the succeeding generations of men, both as to the soul and body, or only as to the one body? Was the human nature that was created in Adam and Eve simple, or complex? Was it physical solely, or was it psychico-physical? Had the human nature in the first pair two sides, or only one? Was provision made for propagating out of the specific nature deposited in Adam, individuals who would be a union of body and soul, or only a mere body without a soul? The question, consequently, between the parties involves the quantity of being that was created on the sixth day, when God is said to have created ‘man.’ The traducianist asserts that the entire invisible substance of all the generations of mankind was originated ex nihilo, by that single act of God mentioned in Gen 1:27, by which he created ‘man male and female.’ The creationist asserts that only a part of the invisible substance of all the generations of mankind was created by that act; namely, that of their bodies; the invisible substance which constitutes their souls being created subsequently, by as many distinct and separate creative acts as there are individual souls. Traducianism and creationism agree with each other in respect to the most difficult point in the problem: namely, a kind of existence that is prior to the individual existence. The creationist concedes that human history does not start with the birth of the individual man. He does not attempt to explain original sin with no reference to Adam. He maintains that the body and physical life of the individual is not a creation ex nihilo in each instance, but is derived from a common physical nature that was originated on the sixth day. In so doing, the creationist concedes existence in Adam, quoad hoc. But this race-mode of human existence, which is prior to the individual mode, is the principal difficulty in the problem, and in conceding its reality as to the body, the creationist carries a common burden with the traducianist. For it is as difficult to think of an invisible existence of the human body in Adam, as to think of an invisible existence of the human soul in him. In reality, it is even more difficult; because the body of an individual man, as we now know it, is visible and tangible, while his soul is not. And an invisible and intangible existence in Adam is more conceivable than a visible and tangible.... There are difficulties attending either theory of the origin of man, but fewer connected with traducianism than with creationism. If the mystery of a complete existence in Adam on both the psychical and physical side is accepted, the difficulties connected with the imputation of the first sin and the propagation of corruption are relieved. As Turretin says, ‘there is no doubt that by this theory all the difficulty seems to be removed.’ It is only the first step that costs. Adopting a revealed mystery in the start, the mystery in this instance, as in all the other instances of revealed mysteries, throws a flood of light, and makes all things plain.”[4]

Following this portion of Dr. Shedd’s treatment of this theme, he undertakes in seventy-five pages to discuss problems from three avenues of approach, namely, (a) the Scriptures, (b) theology, and (c) psychology. An attentive study of these pages is enjoined upon students who would ‘pursue an exhaustive treatment of these far-reaching issues. No such an array of convincing argument has been presented, it is believed, by any creationist and it is doubtful whether the creation theory is capable of such a worthy expansion. As has been intimated, the problem of Christ’s humanity—which included a human soul and a human spirit as well as a human body—the problem of original sin and of heredity enter largely into this controversy. Regarding the human soul and human spirit of Christ, Dr. Hodge, influenced by his creationist views, cannot see how under the Traducian theory Christ could be saved from partaking of the Adamic nature. Theologians of the Traducian group have always believed that there was exercised a special divine protection against the Adamic nature being imparted to the Son from the human mother. What is termed “the immaculate conception” secures this freedom from the taint of original sin. Speaking to Mary, the angel said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). On the other hand, it is difficult to understand that sinful nature which is attributed to all men and traced to the sin of Adam can exist if God creates each soul and spirit individually at birth ex nihilo. If, as the Traducianist contends, the immaterial part of man is transmitted from father to son, the father propagating after his kind, the conveying of the Adamic nature is not only reasonable but is an inevitable consequence. When attempting to account for the universal sin nature, strange speculations have been advanced by Creationists. These are to be examined later under the general discussion of Imputation. It is the witness of the Bible that sons and not merely human bodies are generated by human parents. It is clear, also, that mental and temperamental characteristics are as much inherited as are physical likenesses. Probably no Scripture is more revealing than Hebrews 7:9, 10, “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.” Here it is declared that Levi paid tithes—an act which could not be attributed to a mere germ of a lifeless human body—while in the loins of his great-grandfather, Abraham. It is recognized by Traducianists that God accomplishes a creative act when men are regenerated and that He will yet create a new heaven and a new earth, but it is also true that sequence of creation in which man came into being ceased with the production of the first man and as the consummation of the sixth day. It should be recognized, also, that if man is not procreated—body, soul and spirit—, he is, by so much, an exception to all other forms of created life. There would be a striking lack of real kinship between those who, perchance, are individually created ex nihilo at birth and all animals. Human relationship must, under those conditions, depend only on the procreation of the lifeless body. Thus the doctrine of a Kinsman Redeemer is involved. If that immaterial part of Christ which was human was a direct and a wholly unrelated creation of God, the foundation for His service as Kinsman Redeemer is diminished to near the vanishing point.

The conclusion is that, though the subject is shrouded in mystery—as is the fact of all life of every kind—, the preponderance of evidence sustains the Traducian theory.

d. Elements Which Comprise the Immaterial Part of Man.

The mystery of life is baffling and never more so than when an analysis of the immaterial part of man is undertaken. The whole reality of being is largely due to that in a living person which actuates the body, which sustains a conscious relation to all things, and without which the body is not only dead, but immediately subject to decay; but as long as that reality remains in the body, life continues, the body is preserved, and its structure renewed. It is that which thinks, which feels, which reasons, which wills. It is that enigmatic actuality which comprehends, yet itself cannot be comprehended.

When referring to the “inner man,” the Bible employs various terms—soul, spirit, heart, flesh, mind—, and the query arises as to whether these are separate elements which might exist apart from each other, or whether they are functions or modes of expression of the one ego. That the latter is nearer the truth is generally believed and for worthy reasons; nevertheless, to these elements or faculties of the “inner man” reference is constantly made in the Bible and in such a manner that anyone may be made to represent the whole of man’s immaterial nature. What is specifically true of each of these elements will be discovered only as a complete induction is secured. What these terms mean as used in the Bible must be discovered from their use in the Sacred Text. The Bible is not a book of definitions. Its greatest realities are assumed to be what they are. Concerning these features of human life, it may be said that human speculation tends more to confuse than to clarify. These terms are distinctive and used in the Word of God with infinite accuracy. Of these terms, the two—soul and spirit—are given especial prominence; not that their use is numerically superior, but because of the manner in which they are employed. The entire man is said to be “body, soul, and spirit,” and without recognition of other features of the “inner man” which are noted above.

A question arises at this point which has engaged and divided theologians in all generations, namely, is man a dichotomous being-two parts, material and immaterial with the supposition that soul and spirit are the same—, or is he trichotomous—body, soul, and spirit? It would be readily conceded by all that, under any consideration, there is not the same breadth of distinction observable between soul and spirit as between soul and body, or spirit and body. Distinctions—far-reaching indeed—are implied between soul and spirit; yet these terms are used synonymously. Thus the controversy is between those who are impressed with the distinctions and those who are impressed with the similarities. It would be well to recognize that, when so required, the Bible assigns to these two terms a distinctive meaning and that when no specific distinction is in view the Bible uses them as interchangeable. In other words, the Bible supports both dichotomy and trichotomy. The distinction between soul and spirit is as incomprehensible as life itself, and the efforts of men to frame definitions must always be unsatisfactory. In confirmation of what has been asserted regarding the Bible’s use of these terms, it may be noted: The term spirit is used freely to indicate the immaterial part of man (cf. 1 Cor 5:3; 6:20; 7:34; James 2:26); so, also, the term soul is used in the same manner (cf. Matt 10:28; Acts 2:31; 1 Pet 2:11. For a parallel use of these terms see Luke 1:46, 47). Likewise the same general functions are ascribed to both soul and spirit (cf. Mark 8:12; John 11:33; 13:21 with Matt 26:38; John 12:27. Cf. 2 Cor 7:13; 1 Cor 16:18 with Matt 11:29. Cf. 2 Cor 7:1 with 1 Pet 2:11; 1 Thess 5:23; Heb 10:39. Cf. James 5:20 with 1 Cor 5:5. Observe, also, Mark 8:36, 37; 12:30; Luke 1:46; Heb 6:18, 19; James 1:21). Those departed from this life are sometimes mentioned as souls and sometimes as spirits (cf. Gen 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21; Matt 27:50; John 19:30; Acts 2:27, 31; 7:59; Heb 12:23; 1 Pet 3:18; Rev 6:9; 20:4). So, also, God is revealed as being spirit and soul (Isa 42:1; Jer 9:9; Matt 12:18; John 4:24; Heb 10:38).

Basing their conclusions upon these generalities, many have assumed that the Bible teaches only a dichotomy. Over against this is the truth that oftentimes these terms cannot be used interchangeably. At this point it may be observed that there is the closest relation between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit—so close, indeed, that it is not always certain as to which reference is made in the Sacred Text. The Holy Spirit works in and through the human spirit; but this is not said with respect to the human soul. “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit” (Rom 8:16). A soul may be lost, but this is not declared of the spirit (Matt 16:26). The three important texts which distinguish between soul and spirit are: “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44); “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:23); “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb 4:12). Much has been written with a view to bringing these three passages into harmony with the dichotomous view. In this effort 1 Corinthians 15:44 is too often wholly ignored, yet it presents a field of distinction which is immeasurable. The English translation, natural, obscures the fact from the usual reader that reference here is to the present body which is said to be adapted to the soul, as in contrast to that body which is future and is adapted to the spirit. The future body is to be like unto Christ’s glorious body and the difference, as here measured, between the present body—corruptible, dishonorable, weak, and soulish—and the resurrection body—incorruptible, glorious, powerful, and of the spirit—measures that which is the outlook and capacity of the soul as in contrast to that which is the outlook and capacity of the spirit.

Each of the elements which together comprise the immaterial part of man should be considered individually:

(1) Soul.

No better analysis of both soul and spirit has been found than that by J. I. Marais in the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Concerning the human soul he writes: “Soul, like spirit, has various shades of meaning in the Old Testament, which may be summarized as follows: ‘Soul,’ ‘living being,’ ‘life,’ ‘self,’ ‘person,’ ‘desire,’ ‘appetite,’ ‘emotion’ and ‘passion.’ In the first instance it meant that which breathes, and as such is distinguished from basar, ‘flesh’ (Isa 10:18; Deut 12:23); from shéʾer, ‘the inner flesh,’ next the bones (Prov 11:17, ‘his own flesh’); from beten, ‘belly,’ (Ps 31:10), ‘My soul and my belly are consumed with grief’), etc.

“As the life-breath, it departs at death (Gen 35:18; Jer 15:2). Hence the desire among Old Testament saints to be delivered from Sheol (Ps 16:10, ‘Thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol’) and from shahath, ‘the pit’ (Job 33:18, ‘He keepeth back his soul from the pit’; Isa 38:17, ‘Thou hast...delivered it [my soul] from the pit of corruption’).

“By an easy transition the word comes to stand for the individual, personal life, the person, with two distinct shades of meaning which might best be indicated by the Latin anima and animus. As anima, ‘soul,’ the life inherent in the body, the animating principle in the blood is denoted (cf. Deut 12:23, 24, ‘Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the soul; and thou shalt not eat the soul with the flesh’). As animus, ‘mind,’ the center of our mental activities and passivities is indicated. Thus we read of ‘a hungry soul’, (Ps 107:9), ‘a weary soul,’ Jer 31:25, ‘a loathing soul’ (Lev 26:11), ‘a thirsty soul’ (Ps 42:2), ‘a grieved soul’ (Job 30:25), ‘a loving soul’ (Cant 1:7), and many kindred expressions. Cremer has characterized this use of the word in a sentence: ʾnephesh [soul] in man is the subject of personal life, whereof pneuma or ruah spirit is the principle’ (Lexicon, s.v., 795).

“This individuality of man, however, may be denoted by pneuma as well, but with a distinction. Nephesh or ‘soul’ can only denote the individual life with a material organization or body. Pneuma or ‘spirit’ is not so restricted. ‘Scripture speaks of ‘spirits of just men made perfect’ (Heb 12:23, where there can be no thought of a material or physical or corporeal organization. They are ‘spiritual beings freed from the assaults and defilements of the flesh’ (Delitzsch in loc.). For an exceptional use of psuchē in the same sense see Rev 6:9; 20:4, and (irrespective of the meaning of Ps 16:10) Acts 2:27.

“In the New Testament psuchē appears under more or less similar conditions as in the Old Testament. The contrast here is as carefully maintained as there. It is used where pneuma would be out of place; and yet it seems at times to be employed where pneuma might have been substituted. Thus in John 19:30 we read: ‘Jesus gave up his pneuma’ to the Father, and, in the same Gospel (John 10:15), Jesus gave up His ‘psuchē for the sheep,’ and in Matthew 20:28 He gave His psuchē (not His pneuma) as a ransom-a difference which is characteristic. For the pneuma stands in quite a different relation to God from the psuchē. The ‘spirit’ (pneuma) is the outbreathing of God into the creature, the life-principle derived from God. The ‘soul’ (psuchē) is man’s individual possession, that which distinguishes one man from another and from inanimate nature. The pneuma of Christ was surrendered to the Father in death; His psuchē was surrendered, His individual life was given ‘a ransom for many.’ His life ‘was given for the sheep.’

“This explains those expressions in the New Testament which bear on the salvation of the soul and its preservation in the regions of the dead. ‘Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades’ (the world of shades) (Acts 2:27); ‘Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil’ (Rom 2:9); ‘We are...of them that have faith unto the saving of the soul’ (Heb 10:39); ‘Receive...the implanted word, which is able to save your souls’ (Jas 1:21). The same or similar expressions may be met with in the Old Testament in reference to the soul. Thus in Psalms 49:8, AV ‘The redemption of their soul is precious,’ and again: ‘God will redeem my soul from the power of Sheol’ (Ps 49:15). Perhaps this may explain-at least this is Wendt’s explanation-why even a corpse is called nephesh or soul in the Old Testament, because, in the region of the dead, the individuality is retained and, in a measure, separated from God (cf. Hag 2:13; Lev 21:11).

“The distinction between psuchi and pneuma, or nephesh and ruah, to which reference has been made, may best be described in the words of Oehler (O.T. Theology, I, 217): ‘Man is not spirit, but has it; he is soul...In the soul, which sprang from the spirit, and exists continually through it, lies the individuality—in the case of man, his personality, his self, his ego.’ He draws attention to the words of Elihu in Job (33:4): ‘God’s spirit made me,’ the soul called into being; ‘and the breath of the Almighty animates me,’ the soul kept in energy and strength, in continued existence, by the Almighty, into whose hands the inbreathed spirit is surrendered, when the soul departs or is taken from us (1 Kgs 19:4). Hence according to Oehler the phrases naphshī (‘my soul’), naphshékhā (‘thy soul’) may be rendered in Latin egomet, tu ipse; but not ruhī (‘my spirit’), ruhakhā (‘thy spirit’)—soul standing for the whole person, as in Genesis 12:5; 17:14; Ezekiel 18:4, etc.”[5]

(2) Spirit.

Similarly, the analysis of the human spirit by the same author is partially quoted: “Used primarily in the Old Testament and the New Testament of the wind, as in Genesis 8:1; Numbers 11:31; ...Hebrews 1:7 (angels, ‘spirits’ or ‘winds! in m); often used of the breath, as in Job 12:10; 15:30, and in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (wicked consumed by ‘the breath of his mouth’). In a figurative sense it was used as indicating anger or fury, and as such applied even to God, who destroys by the ‘breath of his nostrils’ (Job 4:9; Exod 15:8; 2 Sam 22:16; see 2 Thess 2:8). Hence applied to man—as being the seat of emotion in desire or trouble, and thus gradually of mental and moral qualities in general (Exod 28:3, ‘the spirit of wisdom’; Ezek 11:19, ‘a new spirit,’ etc.). Where man is deeply stirred by the Divine Spirit, as among the prophets, we have a somewhat similar use of the word, in such expressions as: ‘The Spirit of the Lord came...upon him’ (1 Sam 10:10).

“The spirit as life-principle in man has various applications: sometimes to denote an apparition (Matt 14:26, AV ‘saying, It is a spirit’; Luke 24:37, AV ‘had seen a spirit’) sometimes to denote angels, both fallen and unfallen (Heb 1:14, ‘ministering spirits’; Matt 10:1, ‘unclean spirits’; cf. also 12:43; Mark 1:23, 26, 27; and in Rev 1:4, ‘the seven Spirits...before his throne’). The spirit is thus in man the principle of life—but of man as distinguished from the brute—so that in death this spirit is yielded to the Lord (Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59; 1 Cor 5:5, ‘that the spirit may be saved’). Hence God is called the ‘Father of spirits’ (Heb 12:9). Thus generally for all the manifestations of the spiritual part in man, as that which thinks, feels, wills; and also ‘to denote certain qualities which characterize the man, e.g. ‘poor in spirit’ (Matt 5:3); ‘spirit of gentleness’ (Gal 6:1); ‘of bondage’ (Rom 8:15); ‘of jealousy’ (Num 5:14); ‘of fear’ (2 Tim 1:7 AV); ‘of slumber’ (Rom 11:8 AV). Hence we are called upon to ‘rule over our own spirit’ (Prov 16:32; 25:28), and are warned against being overmastered by a wrong spirit (Luke 9:55 AV, ‘Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of’). So man may submit to the ‘spirit of error,’ and turn away from the ‘spirit of truth’ (1 John 4:6). Thus we read of the ‘spirit of counsel’ (Isa 11:2); ‘of wisdom’ (Eph 1:17).

“We go a step higher when we find the human spirit brought into relationship with the Divine Spirit. For man is but a creature to whom life has been imparted by God’s spirit-life being but a resultant of God’s breath. Thus life and death are realistically described as an imparting or a withdrawing of God’s breath, as in Job 27:3; 33:4; 34:14, ‘spirit and breath’ going together. The spirit may thus be ‘revived’ (Gen 45:27), or ‘overwhelmed’ (Ps 143:4), or ‘broken’ (Prov 15:13). And where sin has been keenly felt, it is ‘a broken spirit’ which is ‘a sacrifice to God’ (Ps 51:17); and when man submits to the power of sin, a new direction is given to his mind: he comes under a ‘spirit of whoredom’ (Hos 4:12); he becomes ‘proud in spirit’ (Eccl 7:8), instead of being ‘patient in spirit’; he is a fool because he is ‘hasty in spirit’ and gives way to ‘anger’ (Eccl 7:9). The ‘faithful in spirit’ are the men who resist talebearing and backbiting in the world (Prov 11:13). In such instances as these the difference between ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ appears.”[6]

In the same work and under the head of Psychology, the same author presents important contrasts between soul and spirit: “Gathering all together, the Scriptural position seems to be as follows: The Divine Spirit is the source of all life, and its power is communicated in the physical, intellectual and moral sphere. That Spirit, as in the spiritus spirans, the inspiring spirit, by its very breath makes man a living soul: ‘The spirit [or breath] of God is in my nostrils’ (Job 27:3); ‘Thou takest away their breath [ruäh, ‘spirit’], they die, and return to their dust’ (Ps 104:29). Hence God is called ‘God of the spirits of all flesh’ (Num 16:22; 27:16).

“Soul, though identical with spirit, has shades of meaning which spirit has not; it stands for the individual. ‘Man is spirit, because he is dependent upon God. Man is soul, because, unlike the angels, he has a body, which links him to earth. He is animal as possessing anima, but he is a reasoning animal, which distinguishes him from the brute’ (Bavinck, Ger. Dogm., II, 628).”[7]

Having quoted Auberlen as saying, “Body, soul, and spirit are nothing else than the real basis of the three elements of man’s being, world-consciousness, self-consciousness, and God-consciousness,” Dr. Laidlaw goes on to say “It would be easy enough to refute each of these proposed divisions by confronting it with one or more texts which it will not cover. It is better to accept them all as evidence that a trichotomic usage in Scripture plainly there is, and that it requires recognition and explanation. Only a patient investigation of its rise will enable us to apprehend its force. That soul and spirit denote distinct natures in man, or, as Delitzsch has it, separable elements of one nature, or even, as others, distinct faculties of the inner man, implies a kind of analysis which is out of harmony with biblical thought, and will not stand upon an impartial examination of the biblical phraseology. On the other hand, that in the passages to be explained we have nothing more than rhetorical accumulation of terms, will not satisfy the facts....

“When we pass from the natural to the theological use of these two terms in the New Testament, the important question arises, whether the distinction to be found between pneuma with its adjective on the one hand, and psuche with its adjective on the other, in the well-known group of texts, mainly Pauline, 1 Thess. v.23, 1 Cor ii.14, xv.44, Heb. iv.12, Jude 19, is identical with that of the Jewish schools, or owes its force to another and higher influence. If the Old Testament use of them, followed, as we learn from the Gospels, by our Lord and the elder apostles, was not analytic, was natural and real as opposed to philosophical, then though Paul may be said to have adopted the philosophical language of the Jewish schools, he was rather redeeming the Old Testament terms out of their hands for a new purpose. The parallel between his tripartite language and that of the Platonists and Stoics is obvious enough. But the difference is no less distinct. What he took from them was sanctioned by the usage of the Septuagint; what he added was an application of Old Testament language to express the New Testament revelation of grace. The tripartition of Plato and the Platonizing schools was part of a method for solving the problem of evil. It was intended to account for divergent moral forces in man, for the subjugation in him of what is best by what is worst; and it did so by assuming that there was in his formation a physical element eternally opposed to the divine. In the terms of the trichotomy, as derived from the Old Testament, there was no such taint. They were fitted to do a better thing than to account for man’s evil-namely, to express under the power of a new revelation the way of his recovery. They were exactly suited to express the new idea. One of them especially, ‘spirit’ (πνεῦμα), had never been debased by ethnic or erroneous thought. It was never used in the Greek psychology. Even Plato’s highest principle is not πνεῦμα, but νοῦς and its derivatives. While, therefore, the idea of the New Testament trichotomy was suggested by the usage of the Greek and Graeco-Jewish schools, the terms themselves were biblical. The meaning was at once true to the simple psychology of the Old Testament, and enlarged with fulneas of New Testament revelation. It is clear that the distinction between the psychical man and the spiritual man, the psychical body and the spiritual body, is one radical to the theology of Paul’s Epistles. But instead of being rooted in a philosophical analysis of the constituents of human nature, it is mainly born of two disclosures of advancing revealed thought. The one is the clear revelation of the personality of a third hypostasis in the Godhead, definitely and fully indicated in the New Testament by the term Spirit, Holy Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ. The other is the spiritual union of redeemed humanity with God through Christ Jesus. The new life or nature thus originated is variously called ‘the new man,’ ‘a new creature,’ ‘the inner man’ and especially ‘the spirit’ as contrasted with ‘the flesh.’ Why this word pneuma should be adopted to express the new nature in believers, or the indwelling of God with man, is plain. The Third Person in the Trinity is the agent in originating and maintaining this new life, and with a rare felicity the same word (ruach of the Old Testament, and pneuma of the New) denotes the Holy Spirit of God and the heaven-derived life in renewed man. It is an instance at once of the elevating influence of revelation upon language, and of that insight into the capacity and destinies of human nature which the progress of revelation brings with it. Pneuma and psuche, with their derivatives, thus assume under the influence of New Testament theology a new and enlarged significance. Besides denoting physical life in common, yet with difference of aspect; besides denoting the inner life in general with corresponding difference of emphasis, they denote a moral and spiritual distinction. The psychical man is man as nature now constitutes him, and as sin has infected him. The spiritual man is man as grace has reconstituted him, and as God’s Spirit dwells in him. The unrenewed man is ‘psychical not having the spirit.’ The word of God divides and discriminates between that which is psychical and that which is spiritual. The Christian is to be sanctified wholly in his three-fold life,—the physical life of the body, the individual life of the soul, the inner life of the spirit; which latter two become again the basis of the natural and of the regenerate life respectively. In the progress of redemption he shall exchange a body psychical or natural, which he has in common with all men as derived from Adam, for a body spiritual or glorified, adapted to his new nature and fashioned like unto the glorious body of his Lord; for the first head of the race was made a living psuche, but the second Adam is a life-giving Pneuma.”[8]

(3) Heart.

In its psychological sense, the term heart refers, alike in both Testaments, to human life with its energies exercised. The physical organ which bears this name is the distributer of the blood and the Biblical conception is that the life is in the blood (Lev 17:11). It is thus natural that the heart should be deemed the center of human life. Similarly, the heart is the organ that reacts to human emotions and is thus as easily considered the center of sensibility. In Proverbs it is written, “The heart knoweth its own bitterness” (14:10), and, “Keep thy heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues of life” (4:23). In this manner the Word of God relates the term heart to natural self-knowledge. To the same end, Isaiah 6:10—a passage six times quoted in the New Testament—and 1 Corinthians 2:9 are especially revealing. It is written: “Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed” (Isa 6:10); “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the,things which God hath prepared for them that love him” (1 Cor 2:9). It was declared of man as early in his history as the record of Genesis 6:5 that “Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” The prophet Ezekiel declares it to be Jehovah’s purpose to give Israel a “new heart” (Ezek 36:26), and the Apostle writes of the law being “written in their hearts.” The heart is to be “purified by faith,” Peter writes of the “hidden man of the heart,” Jehovah “searches the heart.” From such passages as these it is to be seen that the term heart represents specific exercise of the realities of human life and may thus, to some extent, be distinguished from the soul and the spirit, though here, again, no close line may be drawn and human speculation is of little profit.

The word heart occurs over 600 times in the Old Testament and at least 120 times in the New Testament. The word soul occurs but about 400 times in the whole Bible and the word spirit but slightly more—including all references to the Spirit of God. The extensive use of the word heart in all its varied implications places it in a position of supreme importance in Biblical psychology. Closely related to the word heart in its psychological import is the word reins which is used in the Bible fifteen times and but once in the New Testament (Rev 2:23). In this term the kidneys seem to symbolize the innermost part of man’s being, the seat of man’s deepest emotions which God alone can fully know. Six times the word reins is used along with the word heart and evidently as an emphasis upon the emotional nature of man.

Dallas, Texas

Notes

1. 1936 edition, Vol. 18, p. 434.
2. Book IV, Vol. II, pp. 4, 5.
3. Systematic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 70-72.
4. Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, pp. 7-19.
5. Vol. V, pp. 2837, 2838.
6. Ibid., pp. 2841, 2842.
7. Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 2497.
8. The Bible Doctrine of Man, by J. Laidlaw, pp. 66, 67, 70–73.