Trichotomy v. Dichotomy.

[mattrose]

Man is triune because he was created in image of God. Gen 1:26 God says "Let us made man in our image"
....

Created in the image of God man therefore is trinity. He as a spiritual nature that is separate and distinct from the physical body in which it dwells.

Actually, that is just an interpretation of what the 'image' of God refers to. And, in my opinion, it's not a very good one. If you are correct, that you are hardly orthodox in terms of trinitarianism. The Trinity is thought of as 3 divine Persons. If this corresponds to the nature of man, then the body would have to be considered a person, the soul a distinct person, and the spirit a distinct person as well. I don't think that's the correspondence.

I think there are multiple understandings of the 'image of God' that make more sense that the Trinity interpretation you have suggested.

Passage in the scripture which clearly establish that man is triune being composed of body, spirit and soul 1 Thess 5:23 & Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is 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 intent of hearts.

Well if you're going to read this passage like that, why not say that people are made up of 5 parts (body, joints, marrow, soul, spirit)? I don't think the instruction in this verse is focused on the nature of man, but on the Word of God.

I say the above not to say your position is necessarily wrong, but only to say it's not so clear cut. There is evidence, I think, for all 4 positions I mentioned above.

[Paidion]

Once again, I am pressed for time. I was going to take the time to address Verbatim's analogy, but I see mattrose beat me to it. Matt said just what I would have said.
If this is the way in which we are created in the image of God, then God must be only one Person with three aspects, and who reveals Himself in three ways (This is not the Trinitarian view but the Modalist view), for a man is only one person with three aspects.

[Paidion]

Okay, as a child, I was taught trichotomy by my mother and older sister. I also heard it later in church from Christians with whom I associated. I accepted the view without thinking. My understanding is that in that view, the "soul" is defined by that part of us where reside the mind, will, and emotions, wheras our "spirit" is that part of us which, unlike other animals, can become God conscious and can enjoy spiritual experiences. Your soul is said to be "the real you", the conscious part of you which reasons, thinks, feels, chooses, and experiences.

I am wonding how this view of the "soul" can fit the following parable which Jesus gave:


Now he told them a parable, saying, “The land of a rich man produced plentifully, and he thought to himself, ‘What shall I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’
And he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ Luke 12:16-20

In this parable the man talks to his "soul". Now if his soul is the "real person" who separates from his body and goes somewhere after death, then WHO is talking to his soul? Is it his spirit? But it can't be. The spirit wouldn't have these grand plans for getting wealthy or it wouldn't be very "spiritual". God wouldn't call the man's spirit a "fool", would he? It is the man himself who has these grand plans and whom God calls "Fool!" Thus the man's soul cannot be the thinking, rational, aware part of the man himself.

In the New Testament the most usual meaning of "soul" is "self" (though in some contexts, it seems to make more sense in English to translate the word as "life"). The man in the parable is talking to his self, that is, himself. Suppose his name is Josh. It's like saying to himself, "Josh old boy, you've had huge crops this year. You're gonna be rich! You need a place to store your crops until you can sell them all. You're gonna be able to relax and enjoy life!"

[Paidion]

Now I would like to question how our experience can make sense out of the view that we consist of at least two separate entities — a body which physically dies, and a soul which survives death.
If our soul is "the real person", the thinking, self-aware, emotional part of us which makes decisions and experiences life, then why is this "soul" so different when we were very young, and different yet in many people when they get very old. When we were two or three years old was our soul also immature? Is that why a child does not understand some things, and sometimes makes unwise choices? If the person dies at age four, will his soul be eternally immature?

When a person becomes very old, does his soul age also? Is his soul more forgetful? Or get Altheimer's? Or become less aware? If a person dies with dementia, will his soul still have it in the after life?

It is said that worry can cause stomach ulcers. Isnt' worrying something we do with our mind or soul? How can something immaterial (the soul) affect mere matter (cause stomach ulcers)?

Conversely, if someone gets severely hit on the head with a baseball bat, he is rendered unconscious. The blow is merely a physical object (a bat) coming in contact with a physical object (the head). How can something which is merely physical cause the soul to become unconscious?

How can the ingestion of drugs, alcohol, or other drugs cause an altered state of consciousness within the soul? Conversely, how can an altered state of consciousness, for example, a person learning to be more at ease and relaxed, result in better physical health, or even the cure of certain diseases?

It seems to me that the close relationship between the "soul" and the "body" is such that they are really two aspects of a single being, and neither one can live independently of the other, so that when the body dies, the soul dies. I think this death of the soul is frequently called "sleep" in the New Testament because our Lord and the apostles knew this was not the end — that the day would come when the person, the whole person, would be raised to life — body, soul, and spirit, if you will. After one of Christ's disciples die, the next thing of which he will be aware, is being in the presence of his Lord — whether the resurrection takes place in 5 years, 50 years, or 50,000 years.

[Paidion]

If Paul did indeed believe in a "human spirit" and wished to express this belief i don't know what else he could have said or how else he could have described it when he suggested that either he was here and present on earth OR would leave to be with the Lord, Phil 1 , 2nd Cor 5 , Rom 8.15. He had already said our bodies would remain in the grave until the second coming so he had to be referring to our "human spirit" which he also called our "inner man." Paul also said "to die is gain" and what would that gain actually be? Is it being in a grave 2,000 years or being with present with the Lord? What part of Paul is present with the Lord? If we don't believe Paul about this, why believe in the resurrection?

I can see how a person who already believes you can exist apart from your body as a disembodied soul or spirit, could interpret the scripture you referenced in the way you do. But let's consider these words of Paul as being the anticipation of the resurrection. For Paul made the resurrection central in his teaching. Indeed, in the great resurrection chapter (I Corinthians 15) he implied that if there is no resurrection that there will be no afterlife for us:

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (I Cor 15:32)

Does he not indicate here that if the dead are not raised, we may as well eat and drink and enjoy ourselves in any way we want since we will simply die and stay dead?

Again he says in the same chapter:

For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. (vs 16-19)

If the dead are not raised... then those who have died in Christ have perished — gone — dead forever! And why, if the dead are not raised, would we be "of all people most to be pitied"? Is the reason not that we had been nourishing a false hope? — the hope that we would be raised to life? We would have lived lives here on earth with that hope in mind. Why would we be "of all people most to be pitied" if we could depart and be with Christ forever? What's the problem? Who needs a resurrection body, if we are conscious as "souls" or "spirits" in the glory of heaven forever? However, clearly Paul thought the resurrection was essential to our faith.

Now let's examine the passages to which you referred in the light of Paul's belief in the necessity of the resurrection:

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. (Philippians 1:21-24)

If Paul dies, the next thing of which he will be conscious is being with Christ in the resurrection. "To live in the flesh" means to live in this present mortal body. Though Paul would like to be martyred for Christ, to die, which is "far better" because of his awaking into the resurrection, he indicated that he would avoid martyrdom and remain in his present body so that he might continue to minister to the Philippians.

For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. Now he who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. 2Corinthians 5:1-8

Paul thinks of our life in this mortal body as dwelling in a tent. That may or may not be a good analogy. In any case, he says that if this body is destroyed we have a "lasting house not made with hands in the heavens" — the immortal resurrection body. The mortal body may be destroyed, but the immortal body which we will receive in the resurrection is lasting, eternal. He says that we don't want to be unclothed, that is exist as a mere disembodied spirit as some believe, but to be "further clothed", that is to come alive again in the resurrection body. This is what God has prepared for us. So he indicates that while we are at home in this present mortal body, we are absent from the Lord. We would rather be absent from this present mortal body, and be present with the Lord in our immortal, resurrection body.

At first, I was somewhat puzzled as to what part of Romans 8 you saw as relevant to the question. The following is the only part I could think of that might relate:

For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38,39)

If I am not mistaken, your thoughts are that if death cannot separate us from God's love in Christ, then we cannot cease to exist between death and the resurrection or we would be separated from God's love. What I think Paul means is that death cannot separate us from God's love because we will come alive again in the resurrection. It is incoherent to consider the intermediate period as a separation from God and His love since we won't exist, just as it is incoherent to consider we were separted from God and His love for the thousands of years that mankind existed before we were conceived.

[verbatim]

Hello Mattrose, Paidion, and Steve 7150,
Due to language barrier I decided to quote you in together because I'm not capable to expound this in many words so, allow me to use scripture to explain my position on why man is trichotomy.

When the first couple sinned against God Eve was cursed together with the serpent Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed and her seed; it shall bruise the head, and thou shall bruise his heel. It was also prophesied in Jeremiah 31:27 Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man and with the seed of beast.

The seed of man is Life (light) the image of God without darkness (sinless), the seed of beast is the soul (sinner) which also represent Eve who was the one beguiled by the serpent. This two spirit is distinct from each other and was embodied to flesh. This result why a man is trichotomy life(spirit), soul and body.

The powerful word of God is the word Jesus mentioned in John 12:48 He that rejecteh me, and receiveth not my words, had one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Man,s body are composed of many parts, the feet is not the hands, the eyes is differ from the ears, the mouth is distinct to nose and so many other anatomy of man. It is the same with spiritual sight, hearing, smell, taste`, feelings have function differ with the others. Even our mind has different works even our, memory, differ from understanding and senses; every one work together for the satisfaction and benefit of man. It can either be use in praising the Lord and even in transgressing his commandment.

Back to Hebrews 4:12 when the powerful word of God pierced to asunder, divide or separate the spirit (life) from soul and disembodied to flesh the man will be three separate parts as manifested in Zechariah 13:8-9 And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die;but the third shall be left therein. ( two parts represent the unregenerated soul and flesh & the third part is life which is the image of God)
v.9 And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: and they shall call on my name, and I will hear them; I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God.

Eccleciastes 3:20-21 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. v.21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth. God Bless.

All scripture are NKJV unless otherwise is indicated.

[Paidion]

Since people have referred to the following passage more than once in an attempt to show that man is more than a simple, unified being, and that his "soul" and "spirit" can be separated, let me comment:

For the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Hebrews 4:12,13)

"The Word of God" must be personal since "No creature is hidden from his sight" (vs 13). So the writer must be referring to the Son of God — the Logos of God. Our resurrected Lord can discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Since we are a single, unified being, with "body", "soul" and "spirit" being three ASPECTS of our being, these three aspects cannot be separated. So why does the author of Hebrews indicate that the Son of God can divide soul and spirit? I suggest that the writer is using a figure of speech here, to indicate just how totally the Son of God knows us, and knows our thoughts and intentions. Clearly the writer IS using a simile, comparing Christ's discernment to "a two-edged sword".

I think the writer is using hyperbole. Jesus' knowledge of us is so complete that it may be compared to doing the impossible —division of soul and spirit, or division of joints and marrow (This would be impossible to do on a living person in the writer's day).

[verbatim]

Hello Paidion,
Correct!!! That's it: The Logos the hidden name of Jesus Christ, the power and wisdom of God.

John 5:22-23 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement unto the Son.

v.23) That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which sent him. (NKJV)

[steve7150]

Now let's examine the passages to which you referred in the light of Paul's belief in the necessity of the resurrection:

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. (Philippians 1:21-24)

If Paul dies, the next thing of which he will be conscious is being with Christ in the resurrection. "To live in the flesh" means to live in this present mortal body. Though Paul would like to be martyred for Christ, to die, which is "far better" because of his awaking into the resurrection, he indicated that he would avoid martyrdom and remain in his present body so that he might continue to minister to the Philippians.




Paidion,

Sorry the Romans verse i meant was 8.16 which IMO reveals we have a human spirit which the Holy Spirit commnicates with.
The first thing i wish to answer is that this is not a resurrection issue, every Christian believes this, but this is about whether we may be with the Lord at our death in a form which might be similar to an angelic form. In Phil 1 i think you can sense the tension and urgency in Paul thoughts.
"live is Christ/die is gain"
"hard pressed between the two"
"my desire IS TO depart and be with Christ", "for that is far better"

Paul sounds to me like he is pressured to make an urgent decision, either choice A or choice B, if he was to sleep for 2,000 years i think he was unaware of it, therefore i think if you don't read anything into his words he did indeed rather depart and be with Christ.

[Paidion]

The Spirit himself [or "itself"] bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God...(Romans 8:16)

In the sentence immediately preceding (vs 15), Paul wrote:

For you did not receive a spirit of slavery — again into fear, but you received a spirit of sonship in which we cry out, "Papa, Father".

Steve7150, do you think this means that God gave the Romans an actual spirit, maybe a good spirit which was a spirit of sonship as opposed to an evil spirit which was a spirit of slavery? In my view, Paul is using "spirit" in the same way we do today when we say someone has a spirit of meekness. We also say, "John seems to be a free spirit." It's a manner of speaking.

So in vs 16, Paul is simply saying that the Spirit of the Father or the Spirit of Jesus (they share the same Spirit) bears witness with our conscious mind that we are children of God not some part of us called our "spirit" which can exist independently of our whole person (a concept derived from Greek philosophy).

Justin Martyr, who followed Plato before he became a Christian made a clean break from Platoism. In his discussion with Trypho and other Jews he said, "If you have fallen in with some who are called "Christians" ... who say that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven, do not imagine that they are Christians..." In the second century, this was the position of the gnostics, not the regular Christians.

Paul sounds to me like he is pressured to make an urgent decision, either choice A or choice B, if he was to sleep for 2,000 years i think he was unaware of it, therefore i think if you don't read anything into his words he did indeed rather depart and be with Christ.

Yes, you're right in that Paul was unaware that Christ would come more than 2000 years after his death. For the apostles of that day doubtless thought Christ would return soon, probably in their life time. That's why Paul could say that at Christ's coming, "Those of us who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them" (the dead in Christ who will rise first). He expected to be among those who would be raised to life and be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.

Concerning death being called "sleep" (even our Lord called it that), I think this is also a figure of speech, perhaps a euphamism for "death". For a dead person in some respects resembles one who sleeps.

... after that he said to them, "our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up."
Then his disciples said, "Lord, if he sleeps he will be okay."
However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. Then Jesus said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead. (John 11:11-14)

Obviously, when Jesus said He would "wake" him, He meant that He would bring him back to life. But by saying, "Lazarus sleeps", our Lord did not mean that he had an immaterial "soul" or "spirit" which survived death but was in a state of unconsciousness (in other words "soul sleep"). I think he meant that Lazarus had died, that he no longer existed. As I see it, when we die, we're really dead — as dead as a dog or cat is when it dies. And we'll stay dead unless God raises us to life as He did His Son — and we will be raised; that is the promise, and our great hope, the hope of resurrection!

In the resurrection morning when the trump of God shall sound,
We shall rise; we shall rise!
Then the saints will come rejoicing, and no tears will e'er be found,
We shall rise; we shall rise!

We shall rise! Hallelujah! We shall rise! Amen!
In the resurrection morning,
When death's prison bars are broken,
We shall rise; we shall rise!