Tripartite ontology of man? Bizarre Idea?

I have thought about Paul's division of a human person into Body, Spirit, and Soul. For a long time I assumed spirit and soul is redundant but now I'm thinking differently. I know a tiny amount of Hebrew, but no Greek. (I'm working on it). My assumption is Paul has 'nephesh' in mind, which is not exactly divorced from bodily existence. sometimes translated as 'life-force' or 'breath of life', i wonder if this is correct; humans have Body, Spirit, and Soul. The soul is the breath of life. It's life itself, and I don't mean only a scientific, purely material understanding of life. Both body and spirit are given life by the soul. i'm not trying to bring in any form of platonism into play. Body and Spirit and "ensouled" they are imbued with the breath of life.

This could have implications beyond its direct meaning. Please consider this first INDEPENDENTLY of death, judgement, eternity, and so forth, and THEN consider it with those things in mind. I would say, regardless of interpretations of what hell and judgement exactly entail, people who are unsaved have their Souls destroyed, and then exist only as Body and Spirit?

I'm asking what you guys think. I want as many perspectives as possible, from the most mystical to most conservative.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Chrisser, you're supposed to ask for any resources that support this idea .... forum guidance prohibits theology-fun. The key is to make the request as controversial as possible, while assuring readers 'just resources, no arguing'. Then, usually an FL guy will appear after 3 pages of excitement.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086144#Comment_1086144

Chrisser, you're supposed to ask for any resources that support this idea .... forum guidance prohibits theology-fun. The key is to make the request as controversial as possible, while assuring readers 'just resources, no arguing'. Then, usually an FL guy will appear after 3 pages of excitement.

any resources support this idea or other ideas which are similar or different?

[H]

David Thomas

My assumption is Paul has 'nephesh' in mind, which is not exactly divorced from bodily existence.

to assume Paul in any one citation had a particular Hebrew idea when in Greek he has a range of 16 different words at his disposal is a HUGE assumption. Louw-Nida provides a semantic range to describe "psychological faculties" English notions of soul and spirit contain much nuance.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086154#Comment_1086154

Alright I'll have to do some more research.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086154#Comment_1086154

Alright as it seems this is a very complicated topic. I'm gonna have to talk to my buddy who know's Greek. This makes me think of the maxim Body, Mind, and Spirit, rather than Soul.

Rich DeRuiter

There's been a lot of ink spilled on this topic, but I'd suggest dialing it down to the summaries of the arguments you can find in some systematic theologies. It would be under the general heading of anthropology or doctrine of man.

Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology discusses this on pp.191,ff (Part Two...; II.A.). Guy Duffield's Foundations of Pentecostal Theology discusses this on pp. 128,ff (Chapter Three...V. B.).

Berkhof (a Reformed theologian) comes down on the side of dichotomy; Duffield (obviously Pentecostal) seems to leave the question open ended. Your preferred systematic theologies probably also speak to the question.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086180#Comment_1086180

There's been a lot of ink spilled on this topic, but I'd suggest dialing it down to the summaries of the arguments you can find in some systematic theologies. It would be under the general heading of anthropology or doctrine of man.

Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology discusses this on pp.191,ff (Part Two...; II.A.). Guy Duffield's Foundations of Pentecostal Theology discusses this on pp. 128,ff (Chapter Three...V. B.).

Berkhof (a Reformed theologian) comes down on the side of dichotomy; Duffield (obviously Pentecostal) seems to leave the question open ended. Your preferred systematic theologies probably also speak to the question.

Thanks. I'll also need to talk to my friend familiar with greek as well. I'll take a look at those. The semantic dictionary seems to suggest this is our "mind" or something related to it.

MJ. Smith

humans have Body, Spirit, and Soul.

IIRC this is the stance you will find in the theology of the Jehovah's Witness. And I find that generally if I can remember a group that takes a particular stance there are many others I do not know. A google search on spirit vs. soul vs. body will give you many starting points.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086190#Comment_1086190

oof once again i have gathered my foot!

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086192#Comment_1086192

That's not good! I definitely want to be cautious. I'm NOT going to read JW "literature" to prove it.

Okay, Chrisser, here you are getting too close for comfort to breaking the guidelines and insulting another Christian group. Please re-read the guidelines, consider them prayfully, and remind yourself of how broad the Logos community is and should be. BTW remember I am Catholic - very, very far from the JW.

For a more comprehensive view, I refer to Wikipedia's article Tripartitie (theology)

Supporters of a tripartite view

Many of the theologians below are cited by Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology, Augustus H. Strong's Systematic Theology, Jan Jacob van Oosterzee's Christian Dogmatics, John Bickford Heard's Tripartite Nature of Man, and Henri de Lubac's History and Spirit.

Name	Born	Died	Theological Tradition	Major Works Supporting Trichotomy	Referenced by
Justin Martyr	100	165	Early Christian apologist	On the Resurrection	Van Oosterzee, Heard
Tatian	120	180	Early Christian apologist	Tatian's Address to the Greeks	Van Oosterzee; A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs
Clement of Alexandria	150	215	Church Father		Berkhof
Melito	?	180	Bishop of Sardis		Van Oosterzee
Hippolytus of Rome	170	235	Presbyter of the Church in Rome	Commentary on Daniel, Book 2, Ch. 38	Henri de Lubac
Origen	184	253	Church Father	De Principiis, Book 2, On the Soul	Van Oosterzee, Berkhof, Henri De Lubac
Irenaeus	2nd century	202	Church Father	Against Heresies	Van Oosterzee
Eusebius	260/265	339/340	Roman historian & Bishop of Caesarea	Commentary on the Psalms 102, v. 20	Henri de Lubac
Apollinarius	?	390	Bishop of Laodicea in Syria		Berkhof
Didymus of Alexandria	313	398	Coptic Church theologian	Commentary on Ecclesiastes; Commentary on the Psalms	Richard A Layton; Henri de Lubac
Basil of Caesarea	329	379	Church Father	Homily 21	Henri de Lubac
Gregory of Nazianzus	329	389/390	Church Father and Archbishop of Constantinople	Poems, bk. 1, sec. 1, 8 (On the Soul)	Henri de Lubac
Gregory of Nyssa	335	395	Church Father	On the Making of Man 8.4–6	Berkhof
John of Damascus	645/676	749	Eastern Orthodox		Strong
John Climacus	7th century	?	7th-century Christian monk	The Ladder of Divine Ascent
Martin Luther	1483	1546	German Reformer	Commentary on the Magnificat	Delitzsch
Thomas Jackson	1579	1640	English theologian, Arminian
Thomas White	1593	1676	Roman Catholic priest and scholar
Philip Doddridge	1702	1751	English Nonconformist leader	A Paraphrase and Notes on the First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians
Magnus Friedrich Roos	1727	1803	German Lutheran theologian	Outlines of Psychology drawn from the Holy Scriptures	Berkhof
Seraphim of Sarov	1754	1833	Russian Orthodox Theologian	St. Seraphim of Sarov's Conversation with Nicholas Motovilov
Adam Clarke	1762	1832	British Methodist theologian	Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Gotthilf Heinrich von Schubert	1780	1860	German Theologian		Van Oosterzee
Karl Friedrich Goschel	1784	1861	Prussian Right Hegelian	Herzog, Realencyclopadie, article "Seele"	Strong
August Neander	1789	1850	German theologian and church historian	History of the Planting and Training of the Christian Church by the Apostles	Strong
Hermann Olshausen	1796	1839	German theologian	Opuscula Theologica and Commentary on 1 Thes. 5:23	Strong, Berkhof
Leonhard Usteri	1799	1833	Swiss Reformed theologian	Entwickelung Des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes	Strong
August Friedrich Christian Vilmar	1800	1868	German Neo-Lutheran theologian	Dogmatik: Akademische Vorlesungen	G. C. Berkouwer
Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer	1800	1873	German Protestant theologian	Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
Johann Tobias Beck	1804	1878	German theologian	Outlines of Biblical Psychology	Strong, Berkhof
Henry Alford	1810	1871	Anglican theologian and scholar	New Testament for English Readers
Frederic Charles Cook	1810	1889	English churchman and linguist	The Speaker's Commentary
Johann Gottfried Hausmann	1811	1901
Gustav Friedrich Oehler	1812	1872	German Lutheran theologian	Theology of the Old Testament	Berkhof
Søren Kierkegaard	1813	1855	Danish Lutheran	The Concept of Anxiety, The Sickness Unto Death, Johannes Climacus, or De omnibus dubitandum est. A Narrative
Franz Delitzsch	1813	1890	German Lutheran theologian	Biblical Psychology	Berkhof
William Smith	1813	1893	English Lexicographer	Smith's Bible Dictionary
Theophan the Recluse	1815	1894	Russian Orthodox Theologian	The Spiritual Life
Jan Jacob van Oosterzee	1817	1882	Dutch Divine	Christian Dogmatics	Strong
Charles John Ellicott	1819	1905	Anglican theologian	Destiny of the Creature	Strong
A. R. Fausset	1821	1910	Anglican theologian	Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
Karl August Auberlen	1824	1864	German Lutheran theologian	Geist des Menschen im Biblischen Sinne	Strong, Berkhof
George Boardman the Younger	1828	1903	Baptist	"The Scriptural Anthropology." Baptist Quarterly Vol. 1	Strong
Andrew Murray	1828	1917	Dutch Reformed Church	The Spirit of Christ
John Bickford Heard	1828	?		The Tripartite Nature of Man	Strong, Berkhof
Henry Liddon	1829	1890	English Theologian		John Laidlaw
Hermann Cremer	1834	1903	German Protestant theologian	Biblico-theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek	Strong
C. I. Scofield	1843	1921	American Theologian	Scofield Reference Bible
G. H. Pember	1837	1910	Plymouth Brethren	Earth's Earliest Ages
Otto Stockmayer	1838	1917	German Holiness Movement		Watchman Nee in Spiritual Man
F. B. Meyer	1847	1929	English Baptist pastor and evangelist		Watchman Nee in Spiritual Man & Latent Power of the Soul
James M Stalker	1848	1929	Scottish preacher	Christian Psychology
Clarence Larkin	1850	1924	Protestant (Baptist)	Dispensational Truth or God's Plan and Purpose in the Ages
Jessie Penn-Lewis	1861	1927	Protestant (Welsh)	Soul and Spirit, War on the Saints
Mary E. McDonough	1863	1962		God's Plan of Redemption
Lewis Sperry Chafer	1871	1952	American Protestant Theologiian	Systematic Theology Vol. 1&2	Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest in Integrative Theology
George H. Lang	1874	1958	Plymouth Brethren	Firstfruits and Harvest
Evan Roberts	1878	1951	Welsh Calvinist Methodist	War on The Saints
Robert Lightfoot	1883	1953	Anglican Priest and Theologian		John Laidlaw
William Theodore Heard	1884	1973	Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church
Arthur W. Pink	1886	1952	Reformed	The Great Change, Regeneration, Or, The New Birth, Gleanings in Genesis
Herbert Lockyer	1886	1984		All the Doctrines of the Bible	John Woodward
Theodore Austin-Sparks	1888	1971	British Christian evangelist	What is Man?	John Woodward
Ruth Paxson	1889	1949	Protestant	Life on the Highest Plane
Watchman Nee	1903	1972	Chinese Christian Preacher	The Spiritual Man, The Release of the Spirit
George S. Hendry	1904	1993	Reformed Theologian	The Holy Spirit in Christian Theology
Witness Lee	1905	1997	Chinese Christian Preacher	The Economy of God
E.C.Bragg	1912	1995	American Evangelical Theologian
Lehman Strauss	?	1997	Baptist	Man A Trinity (Spirit, Soul, Body)
Mark G Cambron	1911	2000		Bible Doctrines	John Woodward
Lester Sumrall	1913	1996	American Pentecostal pastor and evangelist	Spirit, Soul and Body
S. Lewis Johnson Jr.	1915	2004	American Presbyterian Theologian	Man and his Nature, part 1
Gleason Archer	1916	2004	American theologian	Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
P. B. Fitzwater	?	?		Christian Theology A Systematic Presentation	John Woodward

A form of trichotomy is also held in Latter Day Saint theology. In the Doctrine and Covenants, a revelation of Joseph Smith Jr. states: "And the spirit and the body are the soul of man" (D&C 88:15).

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086193#Comment_1086193

Thanks VERY MUCH for the help. Apologies, I did not think JW counted as that! That was genuinely not an attempt to be a trouble. I know it tends me follow me on this forum, as I'm to speaking in small christian discussion where we more or less don't mince words.

Sean

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086197#Comment_1086197

You may have better search results if you search for "trichotomy" than "tripartite." The former term is used more frequently.

Trichotomy is a longstanding minority viewpoint within the church. A good history of theology should give you some idea of its acceptance & rejection, and most systematic theologies should have at least some discussion of it in its anthropology section.

Two sources I've read recently with interesting treatments:

Boice, J. M. Foundations of the Christian faith. Reformed, seems to accept trichotomy (This volume is in many base packages.)

Miley, J. Systematic theology. 19th century Methodist; rejects trichotomy but with a good historical discussion. Like many, he sees it more as a matter of opinion, not a question of orthodoxy.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086200#Comment_1086200

Thanks Sean.

SineNomine

I'm asking what you guys think. I want as many perspectives as possible, from the most mystical to most conservative.

Hmmm. I'm not used to thinking on a spectrum that puts mysticism on one end and conservativism on the other.

At any rate, as with most theological and philosophical issues, I recommend consulting Aquinas for his perspective. The article linked to references passages accessible in Logos/Verbum.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086204#Comment_1086204

I mean conservative as in cautious. I should say that. Ill note acquinas.

MJ. Smith

I'm asking what you guys think. I want as many perspectives as possible, from the most mystical to most conservative.

As Denise tried to gently remind you, the FL forums are NOT the place for us to ask what others think, it is a place to ask for how to use the Logos tools or resources (Logos or not) for researching a topic. Like Sine Nomine, I am puzzled by the concept of mystical to conservative as some kind of a continuum. Our community ranges from people who consider mysticism as "satanic" to those who consider mysticism the purest form of religion. Our community ranges from people who argue whether Orthodoxy or Catholicism is the most conservative position to those who label the same groups "liberal". It is, however, a place to ask for input to personal research from a wide range of perspectives ... and hope you are lucky enough to have a Rastafarian respond.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086207#Comment_1086207

I like mysticism. I'm not labeling anything Satanic. I meant cautious, not conservative. JW's and Mormons aren't Christians. I don't know if Rastafarians are or aren't.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086207#Comment_1086207

Another take is something referred to as "Binity" (as opposed to Trinity). The general idea is that the HS is personal, in that it is the Father's spirit, but not a third "person" in the Godhead. The Father & Son "are", but the two share the HS together, and likewise it is shared with those who are being fashioned in their likeness. You may find a spread of views as to what the idea means, but that's true of pretty much anything that exists.

Generally speaking, "soul" as used in Greek-inspired religious thought (particularly that inspired by Plato) and nepphesh in Hebraic thought are not compatible ideas, but they were clearly taken to be equivalent by many "church fathers" (who were frequently imbued with a familiarity of Platonic thought). The word nepphesh essentially means "breather". The concept as the Bible describes it is that there is a body (physical) and the spirit that animates it (ephemeral) and empowers it with life. This spirit is the air/breath/wind that a body reSPIRes (specifically oxygen) that is the "battery" of living things. A body that has a resident, active spirit animating it is a soul (nepphesh), i.e. a breathing life. When the body and spirit are together, the soul lives. When they are separated, the soul dies. If a "breather" isn't breathing, it is functionless, thus dead. One way to look at it is that the nepphesh (soul) is the composite whole which is made up of the two combined components of body & spirit. To sum it up bluntly, some say we "have" a soul. The Bible says we "are" a soul.

This understanding fits hand-in-glove with what Yeishuua` described when He said that some can kill the body but not the soul (psuchay is the Greek equivalent of nepphesh), but that there is One who can kill both body and soul. Those who kill "YHWH's children" may take their life (kill the body), but He can and will reanimate them so that their souls do not permanently perish. You are not to fear the one (human or Satan) who can take your physical (first) life, because there is One who can restore it permanently. But you are to fear the One who can not only extinguish your first life, but can finally extinguish your second life (the one you receive for attending your final judgment) as well--thus leading to "the second death".

To factor in "spirit" in this discussion, there is nothing a human can do to "kill" a spirit, which is why Yeishuua` doesn't bother to mention it in the discussion of what can be killed. The spirit simply leaves the body and returns to the Father. Now, the term "spirit" is used in a couple of different ways: first, as the general animating essence; and second, as the SPECIFIC "imprint" of a individual nepphesh. Whatever the spirit of a person is when they die is the RAM memory (so to speak) that gets saved to a flash drive and stored by YHWH until the day of judgment. It is then "downloaded" into a reconstituted (resurrected) body for judgment, resulting in either eternal life or second death.

Now, some take the "one" who can kill both body and soul as being Satan (James Barr, for instance), but that leads to difficulties elsewhere. I would definitely research nepphesh. Animals are called nepphesh in Genesis 1, but most people who think the word means "soul" would probably not want to assign souls to animals, since they perceive that to be the unique "mechanism" allowing for the unique God & human "connection".

[ Specifically regarding Plato's usage of the word "soul" (Greek psuchay), he used psuchay as something "in" the body, whereas in Biblical thought, that animating and "personalized" essence of the individual would be better described as "the spirit in man" (per Job) and thus by pneuma in Greek and ruuahh in Hebrew. The Platonic perspective nevertheless gained supremacy in the early church, and so talk about "what happens to the soul when you die" took hold. The Biblical answer is, it's dead...because it lost the spirit and stopped breathing. But the spirit goes to the Father and awaits the time of resurrection and final judgment. ]

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086197#Comment_1086197

Thanks VERY MUCH for the help. Apologies, I did not think JW counted as that! That was genuinely not an attempt to be a trouble. I know it tends me follow me on this forum, as I'm to speaking in small christian discussion where we more or less don't mince words.

This is incomprehensible gibberish. I don't know how I wrote that.

I mean mysticism to non-mystical which I assume is "cautious." MJ Smith I'm not trying to be difficult.

I'll just not make non-technical threads anymore as I'm not supposed to.

PetahChristian

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086235#Comment_1086235

I don't think you can seriously say JW's and Mormons are Christians.

This forum isn’t the place for any controversial discussions or debates.

The community here is made up of many different groups who come here to post about Logos.

I hope you will be as courteous and respectful of other members, as you would want them to be of you.

See the forum guidelines for more details: https://community.logos.com/forums/t/10072.aspx

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086238#Comment_1086238

I see I'm violating the guidelines. Apologies. I realize I shouldn't be doing that. I'll not do that anymore.

Mattillo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086144#Comment_1086144

Chrisser, you're supposed to ask for any resources that support this idea .... forum guidance prohibits theology-fun. The key is to make the request as controversial as possible, while assuring readers 'just resources, no arguing'. Then, usually an FL guy will appear after 3 pages of excitement.

This is pure gold [:D]

Adam Borries (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086241#Comment_1086241

Chrisser, you're supposed to ask for any resources that support this idea .... forum guidance prohibits theology-fun. The key is to make the request as controversial as possible, while assuring readers 'just resources, no arguing'. Then, usually an FL guy will appear after 3 pages of excitement.

This is pure gold

😂Yeah, that's pretty good. Oops, I was supposed to wait for one more page. [;)]

Thomas Pape

There is a very interesting book in my mother tongue on the topic:https://www.logos.com/product/166057

and on the question of whether someone is a Christian or not - let God work as he wants ... I write that as a former JW

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086247#Comment_1086247

Can't speak German but thanks for the recommendation.

again apologies for breaking the guidelines. Iron sharpens iron.

If anyone wants to post resource/ author recommendations which disagree with a trichotomy I'd also like to look at that.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086250#Comment_1086250

Iron sharpens iron.

Not to begrudge this phrase and its current presumed meaning (usually Pro 27:17 and the NIV/thereafter). But since you're enjoying hebrew, and by extension greek and english, you might want to bird-dog it. From a semitic standpoint, about the only 2 words for sure are some iron, and 2 guys. The Pell LXX translation (public domain) illustrates how it can go in unexpected directions.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086232#Comment_1086232

JW's and Mormons aren't Christians. I don't know if Rastafarians are or aren't.

This is unacceptable on the forums as you should know since you were called out on JW's already. You can easily move into the "report to authorities" category and/or the do not respond to category if you continue to be judgmental against ANY group.

but I don't think you can seriously say JW's and Mormons are Christians.

I've had no personal direct communication from God telling me not to. I do have lots of evidence that it is God not me who knows the membership of the church.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086263#Comment_1086263

I deleted the offending post. Just found it. I made incorrect assumptions about the rules and It's been a good while since I read them. I will behave myself. I'm sorry about that.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086289#Comment_1086289

It's a good thing the offensive thing wasn't quoted so that it remains entrenched in the thread despite repentance. [:^)]

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1086293#Comment_1086293

Fixed it.