The Biblical Meanings of "Soul"

[Guest]

My understanding is that the soul means the mind and the emotions of a person and the spirit means the things of the heart. I know

Hi, I'd like to amend my definition of the soul to mind/emotions/will of a person. And here is a quote from Paul using the phrase "inner man."

"That he would grant you , according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man." Eph 3.16

And from the OT
"And they entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul." 2 Chronicles 15.12

[Guest]

Hi Steve7150,

I apologize for dropping off in the middle of our discussion. Things suddenly got very busy as Christmas approached. At the risk of taking this discussion further into a direction that Paidion may not have intended, I wanted to focus further on the doctrine of trichotomy.

… it would seem to me the more times we can find the human spirit described by itself the more weight it would give the trichotomy view.

This seems like circular reasoning. Finding references to the spirit described by itself only lends weight to the Trichotomy view if you begin by assuming that spirit and soul are different. If the terms spirit and soul can be used interchangeably, then finding the human spirit described by itself means nothing in regards to Trichotomy.

My understanding is that the soul means the mind and the emotions of a person and the spirit means the things of the heart. I know things of the heart sounds like emotions but it's deeper then emotions and it let's us connect with "agape love." I know it may sound mystical but that's because it's hard to describe , it's something like an inner man. When the Holy Spirit indwells us i don't think He is indwelling in our emotions although He definetely influences our minds but i think He indwells with our inner man.

Steve7150, you’ve only muddied the water further. Here are the components you’ve just listed:
Soul
Mind
Emotions
Spirit
Heart
Inner man

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that:
Mind=Soul
Emotions=Soul
Heart=Spirit
Inner man=Spirit

Is this correct? (I know you posted that you were amending your statement, but I didn't understand how, exactly, you were amending it)

Does this mean that the spirit does not think? Or that the heart has no emotions?

This looks like classic Aristotlean compartmentalizing.

Louis Berkhof, in his Systematic Theology, explains the origins of trichotomy:

The tripartite conception of man originated in Greek philosophy, which conceived of the relation of the body and the spirit of man to each other after the analogy of the mutual relation between the material universe and God. It was thought that, just as the latter could enter into communion with each other only by means of a third substance or an intermediate being, so the former could enter into mutual vital relationships only by means of a third or intermediate element, namely the soul.

Charles Ryrie, in his Basic Theology, puts it this way:

Aristotle further developed Plato’s twofold division (body and soul) into (a) an animal soul (the breathing aspect) and (b) the rational soul (the intellectual aspect). This distinction was further developed in Roman Catholic doctrine through Thomas Aquinas. Early Christian writers, influenced by the Greeks, thought they found support for trichotomy in certain New Testament passages, as do some modern writers.

Popular trichotomy (man is composed of body, soul and spirit) makes the spirit superior to the soul, and the spirit and soul superior to the body. Body relates to self, soul to the world, but spirit to God. Spirit and the spiritual are to be cultivated, while soulishness and body are deprecated. This prioritizing is incompatible with popular trichotomy’s attempt to draw an analogy between the tripartite nature of God and man. Certainly the persons of the Trinity are equal, though the parts of man are not. To which person of the Trinity would the body correspond? Trichotomy, popular or formal, cannot be substantiated logically, analogically, or scripturally.

The spirit can partake of pollution along with the flesh (2 Cor 7:1). Trichotomy ought to have pollution affecting the flesh and soul, not the spirit. Fleshly lusts war against the soul (1 Pet 2:11). Trichotomy ought to have flesh warring against the spirit, or soul against spirit. How can the Lord command us to love Him with all our souls if the soul is world-conscious, not God-conscious? (Mark 12:30). Trichotomy ought to have the command read “with all your spirit,” but spirit is not mentioned at all in the command. In Hebrews 10:38 soul is used of God.

Man is made up of two substances, material and immaterial. Each consists of a variety within. The many facets of the material and the many facets of the immaterial join together to make up the whole of each person. Man is rich diversity in unity.

Grudem deals with trichotomy at length and in detail in his Systematic Theology. Here is a synopsis of the five points he makes to dispute trichotomy:

1. Scripture uses “Soul” and “Spirit” interchangeably (“soul”=Heb. nephesh and Gk. psyche; “spirit’=Heb. ruach and Gk. pneuma):
John 12:27 vs. John 13:21
Luke 1:46-47 (an example of Hebrew parallelism)
Heb. 12:23 & 1 Pet 3:19 vs. Rev. 6:9 & 20:4

2. At death, scripture says either that the “soul” departs or the “spirit” departs:
Soul: Gen. 35:18, 1 Kings 17:21, Isa. 53:12, Luke 12:20
Spirit: Ps. 31:5, Luke 23:46, Eccl. 12:7, John 19:30, Acts 7:59

3. Man is said to be either “Body and Soul” or “Body and Spirit”:
Matt. 10:28 (again)
1 Cor. 5:5, James 2:26, 1 Cor 7:34, 2 Cor 7:1 (all of which seem to view man in
his entirety as “body and spirit”, with no mention of a third component).
See also Rom. 8:10, 1 Cor 5:3 & Col. 2:5

4. The “soul” can sin (or be defiled) or the “spirit” can sin (or be defiled):
Soul: 1 Pet 1:22, Rev 18:14
Spirit: 2 Cor 7:1, 1 Cor 7:34, Deut 2:30, Ps. 78:8, Prov. 16:18, Isa. 29:24, Dan
5:20, Prov 16:2, Ps. 32:2, 51:10, Prov. 16:32.

5. Everything that the “soul” is said to do, the “spirit” is also said to do, and everything that the “spirit” is said to do, the “soul” is said to do:
Spirit experiences emotions: Acts 17:16, John 13:21, Prov. 17:22
Spirit knows/thinks: Mark 2:8, Rom 8:16, 1 Cor 2:11, Isa. 29:24
Soul worships God: Ps. 25:1, Ps. 62:1, Ps. 103:1, Ps. 146:1, Luke 1:46
Soul prays: 1 Sam 1:15
Soul thirsts for God: Ps. 42:1,2 and hopes in God: Ps. 42:5
Soul rejoices and delights in God: Ps. 35:9, Isa. 61:10
Soul longs for God: Ps. 119:20
Soul loves and keeps God’s testimonies: Ps. 119:167
We are to love God with all our heart, soul and might: Deut. 6:5, Mark 12:30

Grudem points out one of the potential results of a trichotomic view of man:

Trichotomy can also have an anti-intellectual tendency. If we think of the spirit as that element of us that relates most directly to God, and if we think that the spirit is something distinct from our intellect, emotions, and will, we can easily fall into an anti-intellectual kind of Christianity that thinks that vigorous academic work is somehow “unspiritual” – a view that contradicts Jesus’ command to love God with all our “mind” (Mark 12:30) and Paul’s desire to “take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor 10:5). Such a separation of the realm of the “spirit” from the realm of the intellect can too easily lead to a neglect of sound doctrine or of the need for extensive teaching and knowledge of the Word of God – in contradiction to Paul’s goal that he would work among God’s people to further both their “faith” and the “knowledge of the truth which accords with godliness” (Titus 1:1; cf. v. 9). Similarly, if we think of our spirits as a distinct part of us that relates most directly to God, we can easily begin to neglect the role of Bible study and mature wisdom in making decisions, and place too much reliance on “spiritual” discernment in the realm of guidance, an emphasis that has, through the history of the church, led many zealous Christians astray into false teaching and unwise practices. Finally, trichotomy can subtly influence us to think that our emotions are not important or not really spiritual, since they are thought to be part of our soul, not part of our spirit.

By contrast, if we hold to a view of dichotomy that upholds the overall unity of man, it will be much easier to avoid the error of depreciating the value of our intellects, emotions, or physical bodies. We will not think of our bodies as inherently evil or unimportant. Such a view of dichotomy with unity will also help us to remember that, in this life, there is a continual interaction between our body and our spirit, and that they affect each other: “A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a downcast spirit dries up the bones” (Prov. 17:22).

Moreover, a healthy emphasis on dichotomy within an overall unity reminds us that Christian growth must include all aspects of our lives.

This has been my experience in 20+ years in fundamentalist/Charismatic circles. I have encountered many individuals and churches that have followed the doctrine of trichotomy to its logical conclusion of quasi-gnosticism and anti-intellectualism. In some cases they followed it into full-blown superstition, where every event was viewed as a prophetic portent. Considerable energy is spent on things “of the spirit” while Biblical literacy and social action are neglected. They begin to resemble the stereotype of being "so spiritually-minded that they're no earthly good". This is one reason why I think it’s a topic worthy of debate.

This reminds me of a funny story: I was once playing in the worship band at a charismatic “prophetic” conference. My bass amp has a “direct box” built into it, which enables it to be connected to a sound system (PA). Because my amp has a tube preamp, it has a tendency to “discharge” the tube a couple of seconds after being turned off. This “discharge” causes a signal to get sent out of the “direct box” into the sound system which, frankly, sounds rather like a fart. As a result, I’ve learned to leave the amp turned on after playing a worship set. On this occasion though, I forgot and switched it off as we left the stage and the prophetic speaker walked up and took the microphone. As he began to speak, my amp “farted” into the PA. He froze in mid-sentence, his eyes got really big, and he whispered into the mic, “Did you hear that?! Did you hear it???!!!” People responded with raised hands and enthusiastically bobbing heads. The speaker, now inspired, launched into a prophetic word that the strange sound was Satan being cast down which, in turn, was a sign that this particular conference would have world-changing ramifications. This elicited a wave of hallelujahs, further binding of various evil spirits, more prophetic words, etc. I was rolling on the floor behind the sound board, biting my hand, trying not to burst out laughing. It took 45 minutes for things to settle back down. The consensus for the rest of the conference was that a powerfully supernatural event had occurred at the outset, which set the tone for the rest of the conference.

Back to the matter at hand, I’ll finish by quoting Grudem once more:

In conclusion, Scripture does not seem to support any distinction between soul and spirit. There does not seem to be a satisfactory answer to the questions that we may address to a trichotomist, “What can the spirit do that the soul cannot do? What can the soul do that the spirit cannot do?”

[Guest]

At the risk of taking this discussion further into a direction that Paidion may not have intended...

I am not aware of having any intentons as to any particular direction. Let the discussion, like the wind, go where it wants.

In any case, I am pleased that someone has brought forth scripture which supports the view that a human being is a single entity, with "material" and "immaterial" aspects not constituting a dichotomy, but being two differerent aspects of the unified being which we call a human being.

This view is my own view, and it has ramifications concerning death. The immaterial aspect cannot, or at least does not, exist in isolation from the material aspect (a human soul or spirit floating around somewhere, or going somewhere at death). The material aspect can exist in isolation, but if it does, the person is dead.

My belief is that when you're dead, you're dead, and you'll remain dead until God raises you to life again in a resurrection, either in the first resurrection, or in the second.

[Guest]

Paidion,

In the view you're expressing, are the soul and body equally dead at death since they are in unity and is the unity awaiting resurrection?

livingink

[Guest]

The immaterial aspect cannot, or at least does not, exist in isolation from the material aspect (a human soul or spirit floating around somewhere, or going somewhere at death).

Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint Paidion. If I understand correctly, your view of the nature of man would be classified as monism. Old Testament Judaism seems to have been, by and large, monist in its view of man. Obviously, dichotomy and trichotomy are products of Greek influence.

It seems that in the Inter-Testamental period, Hellenistic influences caused the Jewish view to shift from monism towards dichotomy, bringing with it such concepts as “Abraham’s Bosom” (a blissful abode for the righteous dead).

The question then is (in my mind at least), “Were the writers of the New Testament monists or dichotomists?” By “dichotomists” I don’t mean hardcore Platonic dualists (though that came soon enough with the likes of Tertullian and Augustine) but a fuzzier Greco-Hebrew dichotomy that did recognize the spirit/soul as able to exist apart from the body after physical death.

Scriptures like the following would seem to argue for the latter being the case:

Luke 23:43 - Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Luke 23:46 - Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

Acts 7:59 - While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

Philippians 1:23-24 - I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.

2 Corinthians 5:8 - We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Revelation 6:9 - When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.

[Guest]

it would seem to me the more times we can find the human spirit described by itself the more weight it would give the trichotomy view.


This seems like circular reasoning. Finding references to the spirit described by itself only lends weight to the Trichotomy view if you begin by assuming that spirit and soul are different. If the terms spirit and soul can be used interchangeably, then finding the human spirit described by itself means nothing in regards to Trichotomy.


Hi Mort, You make it pretty difficult to make a case that our human spirit is a separate entity when you say that to demonstrate it's use independently is circular reasoning.
I appreciate your concerns that trichotomy can potentially lead to ant-intellectualism but that's an abuse often used by word of faith preachers but it need not be an inevitable result.
Anyway i'll be back ASAP to make my case but for now let me submit this verse.
"God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4.24
Worshipping God in truth uses our mind/soul which identifies the truth but worshipping in spirit is using that "inner man" which is not our emotions alone because human emotion can love one day and hate the next day. Our inner man relates to God on a deeper level then just our fickel emotions.

[Guest]

Hi Mort, You make it pretty difficult to make a case that our human spirit is a separate entity when you say that to demonstrate it's use independently is circular reasoning.

Well then I accomplished my goal!

When you say "make the case that our human spirit is a seperate entity", do you mean seperate from the soul? That is the trichotomic view and I thought that's what you were trying to make a case for. However, the logic you were using to argue in favor of trichotomy was circular.

"God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4.24

Look at the context of this verse. Jesus is having a dialog with the Samaritan woman about places of worship: Mt. Gerizim vs. Mt. Zion. Jesus explains that the time has come for worship to not be centered around rituals in a temple at a specific geographic location (Mt. Gerizim or Mt. Zion) but in ways that are unseen and honest. The issue being discussed in this verse is the obsolescence of the temple system in worshipping God, not the nature of man.

Worshipping God in truth uses our mind/soul which identifies the truth but worshipping in spirit is using that "inner man" which is not our emotions alone because human emotion can love one day and hate the next day. Our inner man relates to God on a deeper level then just our fickel emotions.

As I understand Mark 12:30/Luke 10:27, we are to engage, relate to and worship God with our entire being.

[Guest]

Paidion,
In the view you're expressing, are the soul and body equally dead at death since they are in unity and is the unity awaiting resurrection?

At death, the whole person is dead. The idea of "the soul" being dead, in my thinking, is tantamount to saying "the self" is dead, and I suppose in a brain-dead person, one could say whether or not "the body" was dead, meaning whether or not there was any heart function and breathing function. So I suppose my answer would be "Yes."

Scriptures like the following would seem to argue for the [spirit/soul as able to exist apart from the body after physical death] being the case:

Luke 23:43 - Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Hellenistic Greek in the days that the NT was written, had no punctuation.
Rather than saying, "Truly I tell you, 'Today you will be with me in paradise,'" Jesus may have actually said, "Truly, I tell you today, 'You will be with me in paradise."

Some say that the latter would be an unusual way of speaking. Not so. We still do it in our society to this day. We may say, "I'm telling you right now, etc." We do it to emphasize what follows.

Luke 23:46 - Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

You have shown that "soul" and "spirit" are used interchangeably in the NT. Perhaps Jesus is simply saying that is is commiting Himself into the hands of the Father, trusting that the Father will raise Him to life again.
I notice you have accepted the translation for the second sentence, "When he had said this, he breathed his last," rather than "When he had said this, he yielded up the spirit." The second one seems more consistent with the idea that Jesus had a separate spirit which went somewhere before His resurrection. And I admit that this is a possibility, since the case of Jesus was unique among humanity. He was pre-existent, and was incarnated. Though He divested Himself of His divine attributes, He retained His identity. This would suggest that He was some some sort of dichotomy. I may be suggesting this because I am unable to explain any other way that His identity could have been preserved. Notwithstanding, there may be another way of which I have never considered or understood.

Acts 7:59 - While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

As in the suggestion concening Christ, Stephen may have been simply yielding his spirit (self) into the care of the Saviour.

Philippians 1:23-24 - I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.

From Paul's standpoint, he could depart and be with Christ. For the next thing of which he would be aware, when he died, would be his presence with Christ in the resurrection. "Remaining in the body" meant to remain alive.

2 Corinthians 5:8 - We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

The chapter begins:

For we know that if the earthly tent in which we live is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, permanent in the heavens.

There is no doubt in my mind that by "a building from God, a house not made with hands", Paul refers to the resurrection body.

The whole passage is about the resurrection, and on that basis we must interpret the verse in question.

So in the verse you quoted, Paul means that he would prefer to be away from this present body, and to be at home with the Lord in the resurrection body.

Revelation 6:9 - When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.

Virtually all of revelation consists of visions which were given to John. No doubt John was able to see the "souls" in his vision, and to hear them speak. In Genesis, Yahweh said to Cain, "Your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground." Was that not a rather picturesque way for Yahweh to tell Cain that He knew Cain had killed Abel? Could this not also be the case in John's vision? The "souls" cried out, "How long, O Lord until you avenge us, etc."

Are the words in Revelation to be taken literally? Do they imply that John, or anyone else can see actual "souls" apart from their bodies? In popular spiritism today, the spirits (or ghosts) of people who have died float around and communicate with or perhaps haunt the living. Many Christians consider such exeriences result not from the actions of "spirits" or "souls" who have died, but from demons impersonating them.

[Guest]

Hi Paidion,

Your view makes sense to me and doesn't defy scripture (very much.)

On Dec. 27, you posted this:

This view is my own view, and it has ramifications concerning death. The immaterial aspect cannot, or at least does not, exist in isolation from the material aspect (a human soul or spirit floating around somewhere, or going somewhere at death). The material aspect can exist in isolation, but if it does, the person is dead.

My belief is that when you're dead, you're dead, and you'll remain dead until God raises you to life again in a resurrection, either in the first resurrection, or in the second.

Are there any ramifications concerning life and how you live it?

[Guest]

Are there any ramifications concerning life and how you live it?

Yes, several.

1. I must trust God to raise me after I die. The other view usually includes belief in an immortal "soul". There's nothing to trust God for in that view. For the soul cannot die anyway.

2. I, like Paul, consider our personal resurrection of paramount importance.

According to Paul in I Corinthians 15: 16-19, if the dead are not raised, then
a)Christ has not been raised.
b)Your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
c) Those who have fallen asleep in Christ [died] have perished.
d) Only in this life, we have hope in Christ and are of all people most to be pitied.

Paul also said in I Cor 15:32

...If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

But with the immortal-soul view (derived from the Greek philosophers), the resurrection is unnecessary in order to have a life after death. Indeed, I cannot even think of a reason for a resurrection in that view. If we die and go to heaven, why not be content in that state forever? Why have the physical body raised? Wouldn't we be less restricted without it?
The gnostics in the early church age denied the resurrection. They believed all of Paul's statements about it were merely figurative for becoming "spiritually" alive. The gnostics of that day taught that at death, the soul goes to heaven. Justin Martyr in his "Dialogue with Trypho" said to Trypho and his Jewish companions, "If you have heard that there are among us those who say there is no resurrection, and that when they die their souls go to heaven, do not believe that they are Christians."

3. I find the view I expressed in harmony to human exerience, and the other contrary to it. In the immortal-soul view, the soul is usually thought of as being separate from the body, as well as being trapped by the body until it is released by death. Such sentiments are expressed in some of the well-known hymns. But if a person is a dichotomy, the soul being separate from the body, why should any action on the body cause a change in the soul? For example, why should striking a man's head with a baseball bat render the soul of the man unconscious? Conversely, why should something going on with the soul, affect the physical body? For example, why should worrying, a purely soulish activity, cause stomach ulcers?

How can a soul be immature? Why should a child's soul be so different from that of an adult?

What happens to the soul of some aged people? Does the soul deteriorate as the body ages, so that some aged people become delusional, and others appear barely conscious?

With the view that a person is a single entity, no such inconsistencies exist.