# Humanity: Body, Soul & Spirit



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (May 29, 2005)

"Humanity: Body, Soul & Spirit"

What are the main arguments for and against this statement?

My friend keeps going on about it and I ignored it at first incase I looked like the argumentative one but it is starting to effect their other beliefs. Before I bring it up I want to know enough about the debate, what I might have to face, how I should answer any verses etc...


----------



## turmeric (May 29, 2005)

Find out if that friend is reading Watchman Nee.

Or maybe I should ask; what other beliefs of your friend's is this affecting?


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 29, 2005)

1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.


----------



## VanVos (May 29, 2005)

Against Luke 1:46-47 Any Mary said, My Soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. 

The bible seems to use spirit and soul interchangeably. Although I do believe that the word spirit refers to the animating self (present tense), where as soul referes to the animated self (past tense).

VanVos


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 29, 2005)

Jon,
That is what Matt has said as well. However, when you look at the Greek they are entirely different words......

For whatever that's worth.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 29, 2005)

Gen. 2:7 and John Murray, Collected Writings, II, 14-33, "The Nature of Man" and "Trichotomy".


----------



## Texas Aggie (May 29, 2005)

Looks to me from scripture, my "spirit" is no different from an animal's. It is a spirit that provides life. I do have a soul which an animal lacks. 

I see man as a trinity... made in the image and likeness of God. We have a body, a spirit and a soul. Under the New Covenant, our body is now the temple of God. Any similarities between our body, soul and spirit compared to the tabernacle God gave to Moses?


----------



## Authorised (May 29, 2005)

I never really thought of man as being a trichotomy.


Just as a point of information, what is the historic reformed position?

I tend to think of man as being composed of body and soul.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 29, 2005)

dichotomy as being the historic position. See Webmaster's story on Columbo and the case of the missing contradictions.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 29, 2005)

Check this thread out


----------



## Texas Aggie (May 30, 2005)

Take a look at the tabernacle in the Old Covenant. I tend to believe this is a physical representation of man. With this in mind, man could be a trinity comprising of a body, soul and a spirit. I see the body as the outer court with the spirit and soul comprising the Holy Place and the Most Holy (which is separated by the veil containing the Ark of the Covenant).

Furthermore, take a look at the contents of the Ark. There is the law, Aaron's staff that budded and a cup of manna. 

Under the New Covenant, the veil is rent in two... possibly representing a circumcision of your will (your heart). Now the inner court has become one compartment containing your soul and spirit (a spirit of life combined with your soul for eternal salvation).

The contents of the Ark represent the law now written in your heart and mind, Jesus Christ (manna from heaven) and resurrected life (Aaron's staff).

I think this is quite interesting.... man can be a trinity (made in the image and likeness of God). Spirit, Soul and Body are three different words in both the Greek and Hebrew. Animals have a spirit (same word is used for ours). They have no soul which therefore indicates the soul and the spirit are separate items. Just a thought.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (May 30, 2005)

Matt,

I think it safest to approach this issue by dealing with the texts that speak directly to the issue of the constitution of man. This keeps us from speculative typology. FYI, I think a very strong case, based on structural paralles, can be made that the Israel's tabernacle and temple are reflections of and recapitulations of the first temple in the Garden of Eden (cf. G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, 66ff.). I do not think it necessary to base one's view of the consitution of man on the tabernacle and/or temple. I think this atomizes typology to a degree that appears to me to be a bit speculative.

Gen. 2:7 is the first mention of man's constitution - i.e., material aspect/immaterial aspect. Just as man's material aspect has parts and functions so man's immaterial aspect has "parts" and functions. For instance, Deut. 6:5, Mt. 22:37, and Mk. 12:30 reveal that man's immaterial aspect has various "parts" or functions. Words like soul, spirit, mind, heart are sometimes used interchangeably and with a degree of overlap.

I highly recommend Murray's treatment of this issue as I referenced above. It deals with all the big questions concerning this issue and I found it to be a very sane and balanced treatment.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> Matt,
> 
> I think it safest to approach this issue by dealing with the texts that speak directly to the issue of the constitution of man. This keeps us from speculative typology. FYI, I think a very strong case, based on structural paralles, can be made that the Israel's tabernacle and temple are reflections of and recapitulations of the first temple in the Garden of Eden (cf. G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church's Mission, 66ff.). I do not think it necessary to base one's view of the consitution of man on the tabernacle and/or temple. I think this atomizes typology to a degree that appears to me to be a bit speculative.
> ...



I agree with Rich. Wayne Grudem's Systematics does a good job in discussing these issues (another area it is good on).


----------



## Texas Aggie (May 30, 2005)

OK... I agree we should stay with the texts that speak directly to the issue of the constitution of man (I don´t usually engage in speculative typology unless I can back it up).

"œAnd the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." This indicates a two-fold nature of man (physical/spiritual). It does not cover any indepth spiritual aspects of man.

The author of Hebrews addresses the old question: What is man? (Hebrews 2:6). The answer begins to unfold in the verses throughout the rest of the book. Chapter 3 details Christ´s superiority to Moses and uses the word "œApostle" expressing the divinity of his commission. Christ was "œsent directly from God as our High Priest (in this position, Christ is now man´s direct intercessor with God). "œA minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man (Hebrews 8:2)." I see the true tabernacle as man himself, Christ is our High Priest. The sanctuary is heaven.

Chapter 9 contrasts the Old/New Covenant means for worship... "œordinances of divine service." The author goes through great detail to describe the tabernacle (which is probably for our understanding... not necessarily the Jews´). Hebrews 9:11 talks of a "œgreater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands." This is a direct comparison of the tabernacle Moses was instructed to build and the new habitat of God within man under the New Covenant. God does not dwell in temples made with hands (2 Corinthians 5:1).

We are now the temple of God. I see two many comparisons not to pay closer attention to the relationship between the two (man and the tabernacle). From my perspective, there is profound significance to the construction of the tabernacle as well as all the furnishings and ordinances of divine service.

As for the trinity of man... I honestly don´t know. I see a difference between Soma, Psyche and Pneuma. If in fact the tabernacle is a representation of man... the three would fit. If the veil represents a circumcision of your heart (your will), the Psyche and Pneuma fill the same compartment, leaving room for the Holy Spirit to indwell. Psyche and Pneuma then become interchangeably for the regenerate.


----------

