Anthropology: Part 5

By Lewis Sperry Chafer

[Author’s note: Continuing the extended series of articles in Bibliotheca Sacra on Anthropology, this division, which will be followed by several more, presents features of theological truth which, though complex, are both vital and practical.]

III. Man’s Estate At Creation

2. The Immaterial Part of Man.

d. Elements Which Comprise the Immaterial Part of Man.

(4) Flesh.

This the fourth psychological term to be named which the Bible employs introduces a reality which is even more complex than any other. The word flesh (σάρξ) is subject to a threefold usage in the New Testament, and when these are distinguished, some light will fall on this easily misunderstood theme. In some instances the term flesh refers only to the material part of man, in which case it has no psychological implications whatever. It is equivalent to its synonym, body (σῶμα). In his Pentecostal sermon, Peter, referring to David’s expectation that Christ would be raised from the dead, states: “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption” (Acts 2:30, 31). In both instances where this term is used in this passage the meaning is restricted to the substance of the body. In 1 Corinthians 15:39 the Apostle extends its meaning to include the substance of all forms of living creatures. The term is several times joined with the word blood, as “flesh and blood,” and with weighty significance. Though used of the human body (Eph 5:29) and of Christ’s body (John 1:14; 1 Tim 3:16; Heb 5:7), it is in this specific use no more than a synonym of body.

In its second meaning it refers to humanity’s relationships and classifications. Bearing this sense the term flesh appears many times in the Old Testament. Quoting Isaiah 40:6–8, Peter declares: “For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1 Pet 1:24, 25). This reference is to living people of the earth—not to so many bodies composed of fleshly substance, but bodies ensouled and alive. However, though this use of the word signified both the body and the life which is in it, there is no direct reference in any such use of the word to moral or ethical qualities.

The third use of the word flesh is that which is wholly restricted to the immaterial part of man. In approaching this specific application of this word, it will be observed that in the first instance it is seen to be restricted to the body alone; in the second instance it combines both material and immaterial, but without moral significance; while in this the third instance it is restricted to the immaterial part of man and with special moral or ethical meaning. It is an element in man which is predicated of both the unregenerate and the regenerate. It is opposed to God and godliness. Being isolated from mere substance, it may be defined as a fallen nature, a disposition to sin. It manifests self, and in that evaluation of it, the body may be indirectly included, but without any contributing import. The Apostle spoke of himself thus: “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not” (Rom 7:18). The usual expression of the flesh is through the body, but evil tendencies are not always referred to under the term flesh. There are evil desires of the mind (Eph 2:3), and there is a “filthiness” of the “spirit” (2 Cor 7:1). Some “works of the flesh,” such as “hatred,” “variance,” “emulation,” “heresies,” are wholly unrelated to the body. There is that which is called “fleshly wisdom” (2 Cor 1:12)—the wisdom of men as opposed to the wisdom of God—, and a “fleshly mind” (Col 2:18) which characterizes Gnosticism. The term flesh, being ethical in character, is similar to such expressions as “the old man,” “the body of sin” (Rom 6:6), “the body of flesh” (Rom 7:24), “law in my members” (Rom 7:23), “members which are upon the earth” (Col 3:5).

Thus it is disclosed that the term flesh, when sustaining an ethical signification, refers to that part of man which, because of the fall, is opposed to God and to holiness. It is a fallen nature which, though expressing itself through the deeds of the body, is, nevertheless, to be identified as that which is immaterial and related to the material only as all that is immaterial is resident in, and expressed through, the material. To the Apostle the present life is a “life in the flesh” (Gal 2:20). He is in the flesh as he is in the cosmos. It is the sphere of his present abode, and is therefore ever an occasion for conflict. At this point is introduced the New Testament word carnal, which is the English translation of σαρκικός, and indicates that which is fleshly in its character. One important passage bears directly upon this theme (1 Cor 3:1–4), in which context this word appears four times. That the Corinthians are addressed as “brethren” and are “babes in Christ” (3:1), is conclusive evidence that they are regenerate. Yet they are carnal or fleshly and because of conditions which are mentioned in the context. The term carnal is thus seen to be a description of the spiritual estate of a Christian who is dominated by the flesh rather than by the Spirit of God. He is one who is “walking after the flesh.” In the same context (Rom 7:14–25) in which he declares himself to be flesh (7:18), the Apostle asserts, “but I am carnal, sold under sin” (7:14). This portion of the Scriptures-so personal in character-is presented by the Apostle as an example of the conflict which is developed by the presence of the flesh in the one who is saved. In this Peter concurs with an admonition to “abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul” (1 Pet 2:11). The function of the soul is usually in a lower sphere of human life than that of the spirit (cf. 1 Cor 15:44); but here it is disclosed that the flesh is lower than the spirit for its lusts are a detriment to the soul. In a similar passage (Rom 8:5–13), the fundamental problem as to whether the flesh or the Spirit of God shall dominate the believer’s life is carried to its logical end, namely, to live according to the flesh is to be in the way of death, and to live according to the Spirit is to be in the way of life with its victory over the flesh. It is not asserted that Christians are in danger of spiritual death, but it is nevertheless true that they may live in the realms in which those who are spiritually dead (cf. Eph 2:2) live. They may indulge the “deeds of the flesh.” The English word carnal appears in the Authorized Version of Romans 8:6, 7, but the word σάρξ and not σαρκικός appears in the original. A worthy consideration of this context cannot but impress the mind as to the evil character of the flesh when ethically considered, and of its determined and unrelenting opposition to the Spirit of God. Since no unregenerate person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the conflict here described is between what the Christian is in himself—flesh—, and the Spirit of God who indwells him. Such a warfare belongs only to the child of God. In respect to this conflict, a distinction is to be seen between the flesh in its counterpoise to the mind (νοῦς, Rom 7:23, 25) and the flesh in its counterpoise to the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:4–13; Gal 5:16–26). In the former conflict, or that between the flesh and the mind, there is only defeat, though the truth is established that with the mind a Christian may serve the “law of God,” and yet with the flesh serve “the law of sin” (Rom 7:25). In the wider conflict between the flesh and the Holy Spirit there may be victory. This possible triumph is published in two major passages, each of which is followed by a most vital explanatory portion. These passages read, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Rom 8:2–4); ”This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” (Gal 5:16, 17). No doubt as to the evil character of the flesh-ethically considered—could be entertained when upwards of twenty New Testament passages are contemplated. The quoting of five of them will suffice: “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” (Rom 8:13); “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts” (Gal 5:24); “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting” (Gal 6:8); “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ” (Col 2:11); “And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh” (Jude 23).

(5) Mind.

In the Pauline Epistles, the word mind is employed as one of the elements of the immaterial part of man. It is closely related to both the Holy Spirit and the flesh. The Apostle speaks of “the mind of the Spirit,” and “the mind of the flesh.” Obviously, the human mind may be related to that which is good or to that which is evil. The Apostle writes, as before indicated, that with the mind he served the law of God (Rom 7:25). He as definitely asserts that the carnal mind is enmity against God (Rom 8:7). In another place he joins flesh and mind in one phrase: “the desires of the flesh and mind” (Eph 2:3) with an evil implication regarding each. The mind may be defiled (Titus 1:15), and, against this, Peter says that the mind may be “girded up” as loins are girded (1 Pet 1:13).

A summarization of the Biblical doctrine respecting the four leading elements which comprise the immaterial part of man—soul, spirit, heart, and flesh—is presented by Dr. Laidlaw as follows: “To sum up: no one need be at any loss to grasp the simple psychology of the Bible who keeps well in view the original signification and subsequent growth of the four leading terms SPIRIT, SOUL, FLESH, HEART. These are the voces signatae of the entire Scripture view of man’s nature and constitution. They are all grouped round the idea of life or of a living being. The first two, soul and spirit, represent in different ways the life itself of a living being (not life in the abstract). The last two, flesh and heart, denote respectively the life-environment and the life-organ; the former that in which life inheres, the latter that through which it acts. So much for their simple and primitive meaning. In their secondary meaning (which again in the case of the first three—spirit, soul, flesh—becomes the basis of a tertiary, viz. an ethical or theological meaning in the latest development of inspired thought) they are to be grouped as follows. Spirit, soul, and flesh are expressions for man’s nature viewed from different points. They are not three natures. Man’s one nature is really expressed by each of them, so that each alone may designate the human being. Thus man is flesh, as an embodied perishable creature: ‘All flesh is grass.’ He is soul, as a living being, an individual responsible creature: ‘All souls are mine’ (Ezek. xvii.4); ‘There were added about three thousand souls’ (Acts ii.41). Once more, he is spirit. More commonly, however, he is said to have it, as his life-principle derived from God. He is of the spiritual order—that, namely, of God and angels. But ‘spirits’ designates men only as disembodied: ‘The spirits of just men made perfect’ (Heb. xii.23), ‘spirits in prison’ (1 Pet. iii.19), exactly as we read ‘souls under the altar’ (Rev. vi.9). Heart stands outside of this triad, because man is never called ‘a heart,’ nor men spoken of as ‘hearts.’ Heart never denotes the personal subject, but always the personal organ. Again, they may be grouped thus: Spirit, soul, heart; each of them may be used to indicate one side of man’s double-sided nature, viz. his higher or inner life. Over against them stands flesh, as representing that nature on the lower or outer side, so that any one of the first three combined with flesh will express, dichotomically, the whole of man-flesh and spirit, flesh and soul, or flesh and heart; Then, looking at the first three once more, not in relation to flesh but in their mutual relations to ‘life,’ we get that correct and convenient division suggested by Beck and followed by most competent inquirers since,—a clear and intelligible result, which justifies itself throughout the whole Scripture, viz. that spirit represents the principle of life, soul the subject of life, and heart the organ of life; definitions which will be found to apply accurately to all the three constituent lives which the human being can lead—(a) the physical, (b) the mental and moral, (c) the spiritual and religious.”[1]

e. The Capacities and Faculties of the Immaterial Part of Man.

In turning from the consideration of the elements which comprise the immaterial part of man to the capacities and faculties, attention is removed from the general theme as to what the immaterial part of man is to what the immaterial part of man does. Much vital truth may be drawn from the Bible bearing on the activities of the immaterial part of man. The philosophy of Kant which classifies these activities into intellect, sensibility, and will is usually accepted as a working basis for thought. However, to this must be added that strange and mysterious function termed conscience, which might as easily be classified with those elements which make up the immaterial part of man as with the activities wrought by him. In fact, conscience stands quite alone as a monitor sitting in judgment on all else within the man. Following the Kantian division, each activity will be examined separately.

(1) Intellect.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica alludes to the word intellect as “the general term for the mind in reference to its capacity for understanding.” This theme belongs properly to the science of psychology. However, when that augmented understanding which is wrought in the human mind by the power of the Holy Spirit is in view, the subject becomes theological. A supernatural illumination for the unregenerate is promised by Christ when He said, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on me; of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged” (John 16:7–11). This illumination is evidently designed to overcome that incapacity described in 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4 which reads, “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” In like manner, an unlimited field of truth is made available to the regenerate by the same Spirit. Of this teaching, or enlightening, work of the Spirit Christ spoke as recorded in John 16:12–15: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (cf. John 3:3; 1 Cor 2:9 to 3:4; Heb 5:12–14; 11:3; 1 Pet 2:2; 1 John 2:27). Praying for the Ephesian saints, the Apostle introduces a vital reality when he makes request “That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints” (Eph 1:17, 18). Here the word understanding is a translation of καρδία (as in all ancient MSS), the thought being, evidently, that the heart, though usually supposed to be the seat of the emotions, is also the seat of thought and will (cf. Rom 1:21). The reception of the great revelation for which the Apostle prays is, therefore, more extended than it would be if restricted to either the intellect or the emotions. Plato employs the phrase, “eye of the soul” (“Sophist,” 254), and Ovid, speaking of Pythagoras, says: “With his mind he approaches the gods, though far removed from heaven, and what nature denied to human sight, he drew forth with the eye of his heart” (“Metamorphoses,” xv., 62–64). All that the Apostle prays is to the end “that ye may know,” and know by the peculiar capacity of the heart, since the heart both feels and understands.

(2) Sensibility.

This another function of the immaterial part of man is properly classed, also, as an important theme of psychology; yet there is much that is emotional in both God and man which is theological. In this respect man reflects or images that which is true of God. How vast is the love of God, and how real is the love and devotion of the human heart! Again, the human emotional nature, like the human intellect, may be wrought upon and enlarged experimentally by the power of the indwelling Spirit. “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Spirit which is given unto us” (Rom 5:5). The Scriptures declare that the divine compassion may find expression through the Christian and that it arises, not in the Christian’s capacity, but from the Spirit who indwells him. “The fruit of the Spirit is love” (Gal 5:22; cf. 1 Cor 13:1–13). The Christian, loving with divine love, will love those objects which God loves. The extent of such a possibility is limitless. This divine love being the actuating force, the emotions and life are lifted to the plane of that which is supernatural.

(3) Will.

The human will is rightfully a major theme in theology. It appears not only in Anthropology, but also in Soteriology, and, insofar as man is created in the image of God and reflects the divine attributes, the will of man is indirectly related to Theism. The fact of the will is a psychological truth, while the freedom of the will is theological. The latter aspect of the subject belongs specifically to Soteriology, and will be attended in due time. It may be recorded here, however, that the will usually acts as moved or influenced by the intellect and emotions, and its freedom is no more than the experience of acting without conscious necessity; yet no greater necessity could be imposed than that which arises when the intellect and emotions are themselves influenced by a superior power. Of the unregenerate it is said that Satan is working in them or energizing them (Eph 2:2), while of the regenerate persons it is said that God is energizing them “both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). These two passages account for the whole of humanity and therefore determine the truth—important indeed—that no human will, in the absolute sense, is free. Addressing those who were under Satan’s influence, as all unregenerate are, Christ said, “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40). He also declared, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (John 6:44; cf. 5:21). Such “drawing” is evidently a divine moving of the whole inner man and is experienced by the intellect, the sensibilities, and the will. Faith, or confidence in God, is a divinely wrought state of mind and to such the gracious invitation, “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37), is most attractive. There is such a thing as seeing the Son and believing on Him because of that vision (cf. John 6:40). Apart from this none is naturally inclined to believe. To those who are subject to the will of God, there is ever-increasing knowledge of the truth available. Of this gracious fact Christ said, “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17).

Of the will in general the Encyclopaedia Britannica states: “Will, in psychology, is sometimes used as synonymous with conation (q.v.), but more usually in the restricted sense of deliberate decision, as contrasted with mere impulse (q.v.) or desire. In an act of will there is a deliberate choice of one of several alternatives, and frequently a conscious reference to the interests of the subject’s self as a whole. People sometimes speak as though the will were a kind of independent entity or faculty which makes the decisions, etc. But that is only a loose way of talking. As Spinoza and Locke pointed out long ago, there is no will apart from particular acts or processes of willing; and it is not the will that wills but the whole self that does it. Similarly with the related hypostasis of ‘will-power’ or ‘strength of will.’ There is no strong ‘will,’ but there are strong-willed characters, that is, people who can pursue distant ends (good or bad) with great perseverance; weak-willed people, on the other hand, are easily influenced and carried away by every instinct or impulse or desire that prompts them from time to time, and cannot subordinate them to the pursuit of remote ends.”[2]

Of the will theologically considered, Dr. Augustus H. Strong writes:

“A. Will defined.—Will is the soul’s power to choose between motives and to direct its subsequent activity according to the motive thus chosen,—in other words, the soul’s power to choose both an end and the means to attain it. The choice of an ultimate end we call immanent preference; the choice of means we call executive volition.

“B. Will and other faculties.—(a) We accept the threefold division of human faculties into intellect, sensibility, and will. (b) Intellect is the soul knowing; sensibility is the soul feeling (desires, affections); will is the soul choosing (end or means). (c) In every act of the soul, all the faculties act. Knowing involves feeling and willing; feeling involves knowing and willing; willing involves knowing and feeling. (d) Logically, each latter faculty involves the preceding action of the former; the soul must know before feeling; must know and feel before willing. (e) Yet since knowing and feeling are activities, neither of them is possible without willing.

“C. Will and permanent states.—(a) Though every act of the soul involves the action of all the faculties, yet in any particular action one faculty may be more prominent than the others. So we speak of acts of intellect, of affection, of will. (b) This predominant action of any single faculty produces effects upon the other faculties associated with it. The action of will gives a direction to the intellect and to the affections, as well as a permanent bent to the will itself. (c) Each faculty, therefore, has its permanent states as well as its transient acts, and the will may originate these states. Hence we speak of voluntary affections, and may with equal propriety speak of voluntary opinions. These permanent voluntary states we denominate character.

“D. Will and motives.—(a) The permanent states just mentioned, when they have been once determined, also influence the will. Internal views and dispositions, and not simply external presentations, constitute the strength of motives. (b) These motives often conflict, and though the soul never acts without motive, it does notwithstanding choose between motives, and so determine the end toward which it will direct its activities. (c) Motives are not causes, which compel the will, but influences, which persuade it. The power of these motives, however, is proportioned to the strength of will which has entered into them and has made them what they are.

“E. Will and contrary choice.—(a) Though no act of pure will is possible, the soul may put forth single volitions in a direction opposed to its previous ruling purpose, and thus far man has the power of a contrary choice (Rom 7:18—’to will is present with me’). (b) But in so far as will has entered into and revealed itself in permanent states of intellect and sensibility and in a settled bent of the will itself, man cannot by a single act reverse his moral state, and in this respect has not the power of a contrary choice. (c) In this latter case he can change his character only indirectly, by turning his attention to considerations fitted to awaken opposite dispositions, and by thus summoning up motives to an opposite course.

“F. Will and responsibility.—(a) By repeated acts of will put forth in a given moral direction, the affections may become so confirmed in evil or in good as to make previously certain, though not necessary, the future good or evil action of the man. Thus, while the will is free, the man may be the ‘bondservant of sin’ (John 8:31–36) or the ‘servant of righteousness’ (Rom 6:15–23; cf. Heb 12:23—’spirits of just men made perfect’). (b) Man is responsible for all effects of will, as well as for will itself; for voluntary affections, as well as for voluntary acts; for the intellectual views into which will has entered, as well as for the acts of will by which these views have been formed in the past or are maintained in the present (2 Pet 3:5—’wilfully forget’).

“G. Inferences from this view of the will.—(a) We can be responsible for the voluntary evil affections with which we are born, and for the will’s inherited preference of selfishness, only upon the hypothesis that we originated these states of the affections and will, or had a part in originating them. Scripture furnishes this explanation, in its doctrine of Original Sin, or the doctrine of a common apostasy of the race in its first father, and our derivation of a corrupted nature by natural generation from him. (b) While there remains to man, even in his present condition, a natural power of will by which he may put forth transient volitions externally conformed to the divine law and so may to a limited extent modify his character, it remains true that the sinful bent of his affections is not directly under his control; and this bent constitutes a motive to evil so constant, inveterate, and powerful, that it actually influences every member of the race to reaffirm his evil choice, and renders necessary a special working of God’s Spirit upon his heart to ensure his salvation. Hence the Scripture doctrine of Regeneration.”[3]

(4) Conscience.

The faculty of conscience is one of the major manifestations of the immaterial part of man. And doubtless no other faculty reflects more fully that which is in likeness to God. The estimation on the part of men as to what the conscience really is varies to a large degree. Some maintain that it is not an integral part of man, but is rather the voice of God speaking directly to the one who is exercised by conscience. On the other hand, and far removed indeed, is the notion that conscience is no more than a bent of mind received by the discipline of childhood. Neither one of these extremes is sustained by Scripture. It is to be observed, however, that the voice of conscience, when normal to any degree, is ever true to the divine ideal, and this in spite of the fact that there is much in man—especially his flesh—which is contrary to God. Conscience is not subject to the will, but rather sits in judgment over the will and all other features of the life of man. The unity of man’s being is none the less real regardless of the various elements in his immaterial nature—soul, spirit, heart, flesh, and mind—, and regardless of the various modes of expression of that immaterial nature—intellect, sensibility, will, memory, and conscience. All these elements and manifestations perfectly articulate to form one experience which is called life. The mind may originate thoughts, the memory may retain thoughts, the spirit may discern the value of thoughts, and the soul respond to thoughts, but the conscience judges thoughts as to their moral worthiness. Naturally but little that is experienced by man is moral in character and therefore the conscience is not always exercised. At times and as occasion demands, conscience may become a torment, a lash, which is all but unbearable. In this, God seems to be more or less identified by every individual. He knows that God knows what he knows. Conscience is little concerned with the fact, as the case may be, that other people know that which constitutes its burden.

The Bible testimony concerning conscience is that it is either (a) natural-that which belongs to the unregenerate—, or (b) supernatural—that which belongs to the regenerate. The conscience of the unregenerate is defiled (Titus 1:15), evil (Heb 10:22), convicting (John 8:9), seared (1 Tim 4:2). On the other hand, the supernatural conscience, or that of the Christian, is far more complex. In fact a real question is raised properly as to whether the Christian lives by his conscience at all. It is contended that he is influenced by the indwelling Holy Spirit who is either grieved or not grieved by the manner of the Christian’s life. No more vivid description of the experience of one in whom the Spirit is grieved could be found than that written by David concerning himself in Psalm 32:3, 4. He declares: “When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me; my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. Selah.” The Apostle Paul significantly states that his conscience bore him witness in the Holy Ghost (Rom 9:1). By this it would seem that the Spirit employs the conscience as His means of expression and impression, and perhaps that is the unveiling of the true relation between the Holy Spirit and the believer’s conscience. With this in mind, certain revealed truths regarding the Christian’s conscience may be considered. The conscience is purged. It is written: “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins” (Heb 10:1, 2). There is no intimation here that the Christian will not be conscious of unconfessed sin in his life, it is rather that the whole record of past sins, having been forgiven as a part of salvation, the purged conscience will not be exercised over them. This specific Scripture presents a vital test as to whether one is saved and may be applied to any professed believer. Closely related to this is the good conscience which is mentioned six times in the New Testament (note 1 Pet 3:16). This aspect of conscience relates to or reflects the state of the believer’s heart. A good conscience is free from self-condemnation. Two passages serve to describe this reality. In 1 Corinthians 4:4, the Apostle asserts, “For I know nothing by [against] myself,” and in 1 John 3:20–22 this good conscience is said to be an important factor in effectual prayer. The passage states: “For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” Evidently the particular form of conscience was experienced by those who were faithful to Jehovah under Judaism (cf. Acts 23:1; 2 Tim 1:3). It is in this manner that conscience witnesses (Rom 9:1) and may be void of offense (Acts 24:16). It is also worthy of note that the conscience of an immature Christian may be encouraged in the ways of sin by the example which other Christians present. It is written: “For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols?” (1 Cor 8:10). The Apostle also identifies this as a wounded conscience: “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ” (vs. 12).

From this brief review of the testimony of the New Testament respecting the conscience, it may be seen that this faculty of the immaterial part of man is almost like a thing apart from the man which sits in judgment upon the man; yet it is capable of being the instrument by which the Holy Spirit’s feelings are recorded on the one hand, or, on the other hand, it may be injured and degraded.

Dallas, Texas

* * * * *

“The faculty of conscience is eternal, its power is eternal; and yet, in this world that power is exercised in condemnation, simply that the soul may be induced to escape from its eternal exercise. The penal power of conscience in this world, inflicting such terror and distress, is God’s own merciful arrangement to arouse the soul and send it to Christ, that in Him it may find a refuge from the accusing power and penal operation of conscience through eternity. When the soul, fleeing to Him from the wrath to come, hears His gracious voice, Thy sins be forgiven thee, and is washed in the fountain of His atoning blood, then, and not till then, is the conscience at peace with God; then, and not till then, can conviction of sin be anything but anguish.... Amazing mercy! wondrous grace, which can thus change death into life, and make the assurance of being the very chief of sinners, the foundation of endless, inexhaustible bliss, of which the rule is, that the deeper the conviction of guilt, the greater the experience and knowledge of the glory and happiness of deliverance! Such was the experience of Paul; such is the experience of every redeemed sinner, now, and in glory everlasting.”—Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1851.

Notes

1. The Bible Doctrine of Man, pp. 91-93.
2. 1936 Edition, Vol. 23, p. 605.
3. Systematic Theology, pp. 257,258.