A few authors have named the study of the theological significance of biblical terms such as soul, spirit, flesh, body, heart, and the like “biblical psychology”. Although there seems to be little agreement concerning an alternative, it may suffice to refer to these biblical terms and their diverse meanings as “constituents of the human”.
At the outset one needs to realize that from the perspective of the Old Testament and the New Testament writings there is no undisputed, official list of such terms, even though some terms may be reckoned as major terms and other terms as minor terms merely on the basis of frequency or paucity of usages in the biblical writings. Indeed it may be an open question as to whether the ancient Hebrews and the later Christians used these terms to connote separate elements or parts in human beings or used them as separate vantage points from which to view human beings in their entirety.
I. BIBLICAL TERMS FOR HUMAN BEINGS AND THEIR USAGES#
The purpose of the present study will be to identify the biblical terms, to determine their specific and varied meanings as used in the two testaments, and to draw certain general conclusions about these biblical terms prior to any more general theorizing about how they ought to be used in the present.
A. OLD TESTAMENT#
1. The Term Nepes, Meaning “Breath” or “Soul” or “Life”
Four distinct usages of this Old Testament term can be identified.
First, probably the most basic meaning was that of personal and physical life which is terminated in death.
“And as her [Rachel’s] soul was departing (for she died), she called his name Benoni, but his father called his name Benjamin” (Gen. 35:18)
“But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life” (Exod. 21:23a)
“And the Lord said to Satan, ‘Behold, he is in your power; only spare his life’” (Job 2:6)
Second, nepes had psychical usages expressive of feelings, emotion, desire, and appetite.
The brothers of Joseph confessed, “In truth we are gulty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul…” (Gen. 42:21)
Of the Servant of Yahweh it was said: “After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied” (Isa. 53:11a)
Third, nepes could refer to a living person or to living persons in totality.
According to Gen. 2:7 “the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being”
And Abram took… the persons that they had gotten in Haran; and they set forth to go to the land of Canaan" (Gen. 12:5)
“And the king of Sodom said to Abram, ‘Give me the persons, but take the goods for yourself” (Gen. 14:21)
Fourth, nepes at times could be a circumlocution or a substitute for a personal pronoun.
Jacob instructed Esau: “And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die” (Gen. 27:4)
“If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify… he will be held responsible” (Lev. 5:1)
“If one person sins unwittingly, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering” (Num. 15:27)
Job asked: “Was not my soul grieved for the poor?” (30:25b). In this usage nepes was virtually a synonym for “self” or “I” or “any one who”.
In these Old Testament texts one does not find the later philosophical sense of “soul” as an animating principle or as a non-corporeal nature that will survice the body after death. Rather its usages are focused upon personal, physical life now.
2. The Term Ru(a)h, Meaning “Wind” or “Spirit”
In the Old Testament, this word was applied to God, to nature, and to man, and here the concern is for the third of these.
First, ru(a)h was used frequently in a psychical sense to refer to human attitudes or dispositions.
Pharaoh’s “spirit was troubled”, and hence he “called for all the magicians of Egypt and all its wise men” (Gen. 41:8a)
Num. 5:14 refers to “the spirit of jealousy” that comes on a husband who suspects his wife of adultery
When the queen of Sheba had seen “all the wisdom” and the wealth of Solomonn, “there was no more spirit in her” (1 Kings 10:4-5), that is, she was amazed.
According to Proverbs, “he that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly” (14:29b), and “he who rules his spirit [is better] than he who takes a city” (16:32b)
“The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit” (Ps. 51:17a), and God dwells “with him who is of a contrite and humble spirit” (Isa. 57:15b)
Second, ru(a)h at times meant the directing energy or will in human beings.
In the bulding of the tabernacle “they came, every one whose heart stirred him, and every one whose spirit moved him, and brought the LORD’s offering” (Exod. 35:21a)
The sovereign Yahweh declared: “Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!” (Ezek. 13:3)
Third, the word ru(a)h, when it was used as a parallel to the Hebrew term for “heart”, often served as an equivalent to the modern term “mind”.
The Lord desired that Israelites “not be like their fathers… a generation whose heart was not steadfast, whose spirit was not faithful to God.” (Ps. 78:8)
“Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed against me, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit!” (Ezek. 18:31)
Fourth, ru(a)h was used for life-breath or vitality, and in such usages it was a synonym for nepes.
When Samson drank water, “his spirit returned, and he revived” (Judg. 15:19b)
Of idols the psalmist declared: “nor is there any breath in their mouths” (135:17b)
Concerning the valley of dry bones Yahweh promised: “I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live” (Ezek. 37:5)
According to Gen. 6:17 animals also posses ru(a)h, or “the breath of life”
3. The Term Basar, Normally Translated “Flesh” but Literally the Muscular Portions of the Body
First, basar could be used for one’s spouse or for marriage or for consanguinity.
Adam spoke of Eve as “flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23a), and human marriage was designed that a man should “be united to his wife and they… become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24b)
The brothers of Joseph decided to sell him to the Ishmaelites rather than kill him, “for he is our brother, our own flesh” (Gen. 37:27)
According to Hebrew legislation and Israelite who has become the salve of an alien can be redeemed by his “uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan” (Lev. 25:49a)
Second, basar, like nepes, was sometimes used in lieu of a personal pronoun.
- The psalmist declared: “my flesh faints for thee, as in a dry and weary land where no water is” (63:1b), and “my heart and flesh sing for joy to the living God” (84:2b)
Third, basar was used to connote living, created beings in contrast to God the Creator.
The corruption of “all flesh” in Gen. 6:12b and the Noahic covenant with “all flesh” (Gen. 8:17) included only human beings
The death of “all flesh” by flood (Gen. 7:21) included animals
The voice calling for the preparation of the Lord’s way announced that his glory would be revealed and that “all flesh shall see it together” (Isa. 40:5)
In the Old Testament, basar is never suggestive of inherent evl. Rather it conveys the ideas of weakness, frailty, and perishableness (Isa. 40:6-8)
4. No General Term for Body
The Old Testament has no general or comprehensive term for “body”. The word gesem is sometimes translated “bodies”, but its use is largely confined to Daniel (3:27-28; 4:30; 5:21; 7:11). Other words may be more accurately rendered “back” or “carcass”.
5. The Term Leb or Lebab, Meaning “Heart”
For the Hebrew leb meant the center of man’s thought and will, not the center of his emotions or feelings. This meaning can be seen in the words, the “imagination of the thoughts of his heart” (Gen. 6:5), in the declaration “I will harden his [Pharaoh’s] heart” (Exod. 4:21, see also 7:3), and in the statement “The fool says in his heart” (Ps. 14:1; 53:1).
But leb was also used to mean a human disposition, as may be seen in the following texts:
“Whosoever is of a willing heart” (Exod. 35:5b)
“Give… thy servant an understanding heart” (1 Kings 3:9)
“God gave Solomon… largeness of heart” (1 Kings 4:29)
“The rest also of Israel were of one heart” (1 Chr. 12:38)
“A new heart also will I give you” (Ezek. 36:26a)
6. The Term Kelayot, Meaning “Kidneys”
The Old Testament uses kelayot to refer to the seat of consciousness in human beings. The KJV preserved a literal translation, whereas most modern versions employ a modern equivalent.
“Examine me, O Lord, and prove me; try my reins and my heart” (Ps. 26:2)
“Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked in my reins” (Ps. 73:21)
Kelayot could even be used in lieu of the personal pronoun: “my reins shall rejoice, when thy lips speak right things” (Prov. 23:16).
7. The Term Me’im, Meaning “Bowels”
Occasionally, the Old Testament employs me’im for the seat of compassion or mercy. Again one finds that the KJV was quite literal and that modern versions have sought modern terms.
Of Ephraim it was said: “Therefore my bowels are troubled for him” (Jer. 31:20c)
“Behold, O Lord; for I am in distress: my bowels are troubled; mine heart is turned within me; for I have grievously rebelled…” (Lam. 1:20a; see also 2:11a)
Conclusion
Certain conclusions can be drawn concerning the Old Testament terms for human beings and their usages.
Nepes and ru(a)h, although both used at times to connote vitality, were not fully synonymous.
A person was not a ru(a)h so much as he possessed ru(a)h.
Ru(a)h was the life-force of God which makes a person alive.
Both nepes and basar were used of human beings in a holistic sense, the former from an individual or personal perspective and the latter from the standpoint of humankind’s creaturely finitude. They were correlatives, not antitheses.
The Hebrews, strictly speaking, did not view human beings as composed of two distinct parts or three distinct parts.
Neither nepes nor ru(a)h was used to refer to immaterial or noncorporeal existence after death.
B. THE OLD TESTAMENT APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA#
All the books in this literature reflect the terms and concepts found in the canonical Old Testament with three exceptions:
Wisdom of Solomon (first century B.C.), in which the immortality of human “souls” was assumed (3:1-9; 4:7-11; 5:15-16) and possibly the preexistence of human souls was taught (8:19-20).
2 (Slavonic) Enoch (first century A.D.), which taught the (Platonic) preexistence of souls (23:5)
4 Maccabees (first century A.D.), in which the Hebrew patriarchs were said to “live unto God” (7:19), the seven Jewish brothers put to death under Antiochus Epiphanes were said to have a “soul” that could not be killed (10:4), “immortality” (14:5), “eternal life” (15:3), and “immortal life” (16:13) and to “live unto God” (16:25) were mentioned, the mother of the seven was said to have the “hope” of “endurance” (17:4), and Antiochus himself to be punished after death (12:19, 13:15).
C. THE NEW TESTAMENT#
1. The Term Psyche, Meaning “Soul” or “Life”
This term had uses similar to those of nepes in the Old Testament.
First, it was used to refer to human life or vitality up to death.
Jesus asked, following the healing of a man with a withered hand, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath… to save life or to kill?” (Mark 3:4)
He admonished: “do not be anxious about your life” (Matt. 6:25a), and in the parable of the rich fool the word from God was: “Fool! This night your soul is required of you” (Luke 12:20a)
Of Barnabas and Paul the Jerusalem church wrote that they “have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 15:26)
Second, psyche could refer to living persons in their totality.
On the Day of Pentecost, there were added to the church in Jerusalem “about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:41b)
“Let every person”, Paul wrote, “be subject to the governing authorities” (Rom. 13:1a)
In Noah’s ark “eight persons” were “saved through water” (1 Pet. 3:20b)
Third, psyche sometimes meant life in its totality
According to Jesus, “a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions” (Luke 12:15)
The early company of believers “were of one heart and soul” (Acts 4:32)
Paul desired to hear that the Philippian Christians “stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” (Phil. 1:27b)
Fourth, psyche, like nepes and basar, sometimes meant the self in lieu of the personal pronoun.
In the Magnificat Mary declared: “My soul magnifies the Lord” (Luke 1:46)
Matthew quoted an Isaianic passage about Yahweh’s servant in which Yahweh referred to “my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased” (12:18b), and in Gethsemane Jesus said to Peter, James, and John: “My soul is very sorrowful, even to deaht” (Matt. 26:38a)
Fifth, at times psyche was connected with salvation in such a way as to suggest life, or one’s total being.
- The “implanted word is able to save your souls” (Jas. 1:21b), and “the outcome of your faith” is that “you obtain the salvation of your souls” (1 Pet. 1:9)
Sixth, in a usage that goes beyond the Old Testament, psyche could refer to continued or restored life after death, this being in the teachings of Jesus.
“And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28)
“He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 10:39)
“For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it” (Matt. 16:25)
2. The Term Pneuma, Meaning “Spirit” and Also “Wind” or “Breath”
In the New Testament pneuma was used of God, of suprahuman beings, and of human beings; it is the third of these that is the present focus.
First, pneuma could mean vitality or life-breath, especially when yielded in death.
Jesus prayed: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! And having said this he breathed his last” (Luke 23:46)
Stephen asked “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59b)
Second, pneuma could refer to human dispositions or attitudes.
Paul’s “spirit was provoked within him” upon seeing the idolatry of Athens (Acts 17:16)
According to Peter, Christian wives are to be adorned “with the imperishable jewel of a gently and quiet spirit” (1 Pet. 3:4b)
Third, pneuma, like psyche, occasionally was the Hebrew substitute for the personal pronoun: “my spirit rejoices in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47)
Fourth, pneuma could refer to mind or mental and emotional energy.
- “Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said…” (Mark 2:8a), and “he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, ‘Why does this generation seek a sign?” (Mark 8:12a)
3. The Term Sarx, Meaning “Flesh”
Comparable to the Hebrew basar, sarx had various uses in the New Testament.
First, it referred to humanity in contrast to God.
This contrast heightens the significance of the incarnation (“And the Word became flesh”, John 1:14a) and of the new birth (“That which is born of the flesh is flesh”, John 3:6a).
The incarnate Son was given “power over all flesh” (John 17:2a), and God promised to “pour out” his Spirit “upon all flesh” (Acts 2:17; see Joel 2:28)
According to Paul, “no human being will be justified in his [God’s] sight by works of the law” (Rom. 3:20a)
Second, when joined together with “blood”, sarx referred to that which was essentially human.
According to Jesus, “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you” (Matt. 16:17b)
For Paul “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” but only those who will have “put on immortality” (1 Cor. 15:50, 53), and in the Christian warfare we are “not contending against flesh and blood” (Eph. 6:12a)
Third, sarx was at times used to refer to the material of the human body.
Jesus taught: “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” (John 6:51c)
Indeed, human beings can enter the heavenly “sanctuary” “by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh” (Heb. 10:20)
Paul’s allusion to a “thorn” given to him “in the flesh” (2 Cor. 12:7) is usually given a physical interpretation.
Fourth, sarx could refer to the way of sin as opposed to the way of God.
- “To set the mind on the flesh is death… For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God… and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:6-8)
4. The Term Soma, Meaning “Body”
Lacking any full parallel in the Old Testament, soma had diverse usages in the New Testament.
First, soma could be used to refer to a human corpse.
Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate “for the body of Jesus” and “took the body, and wrapped it… and laid it in his own new tomb” (Matt. 27:58-60a)
Peter, “then turning to the body [of Tabitha or Dorcas]… said ‘Tabitha, rise’” (Acts 9:40b)
Second, soma at times meant a human person at or near death.
Believers “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10)
Paul hypothesized “if I deliver my body to be burned” (1 Cor. 13:3b)
Third, soma sometimes referred to the physical nature of human beings in the present.
“Your eye is the lamp of your body; when your eye is sound, your whole body is full of light; but when it is not sound, your body is full of darkness” (Luke 11:34)
“For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his body, but the wife does” (1 Cor. 7:4)
Fourth, occasionally soma meant the physical involvement of human beings in sin: “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves” (Rom. 1:24)
Fifth, soma could refer in the teaching of Jesus to human beings after death: “it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell” (Matt. 5:29b), and “rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28b)
5. The Term Kardia, Meaning “Heart”
Kardia seems to refer to the seat of thought and will or decision-making in humans, not to the seat of emotions.
Jesus taught that “the pure in heart… shall see God” (Matt. 5:8) and that “where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt. 6:21)
The commandment to love God included loving him “with all your heart” (Matt. 22:37)
In the Pauline delineation of sin among Gentiles it was said that “their foolish heart was darkened” (Rom. 1:21b)
On hearing Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost his hearers “Were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brethren, what shall we do?’” (Acts 2:37)
Moreover, “man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved” (Rom. 10:10)
6. The Term Splagchna, Meaning “Bowels”
Parallel to the Old Testament usage is the Pauline use of splanchna as the seat of compassion or mercy; therefore the KJV rendered the term literally in contrast to the modern preference for paraphrase.
To the Philippians Paul wrote: “For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ” (1:8 KJV; see also 2:1)
He admonished the Colossians: “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies” (3:12a)
In sending Onesimus back to Philemon, Paul wrote: “thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels” (v. 12)
7. The Term Nephros, Meaning “Kidneys”
Once in the New Testament nephros is used of humans: namely, in the letter to the church at Thyatira God is said to be the one who “searched the reins and hearts” (Rev. 2:23b)
8. The Term Nous, Meaning “Mind”
Nous was almost exclusively a Pauline term and seems to have connoted the will as much or more than the intellect.
On the one hand Paul wrote of serving “the law of God with my mind” (Rom. 7:25b; also v. 23), and on the other hand of being “captive to the law of sin” (Rom. 7:23b) and serving “the law of sin” “with my flesh” (Rom. 7:25c)
Believers are to “be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Rom. 12:2b), “renewed in the spirit of your minds” (Eph. 4:23), “united in the same mind” (1 Cor. 1:10c), and “convinced in his own mind” about divisive questions (Rom. 14:5b)
All these uses of nous are positive in nature. There were also negative usages of nous by Paul. He referred to “a base mind” (Rom. 1:28b), “the futility of their [Gentile] minds” (Eph. 4:17b), those who are “depraved in mind” (1 Tim. 6:5a), and “minds” that “are corrupted” (Tit. 1:15c, see also 2 Tim. 3:8c)
9. The Term Dianioa, Meaning “Mind”
Dianoia, conveying the idea of mind or intellect, could be used positively or negatively.
Loving God according to the second new commandment included loving him “with all your mind” (Mark 12:30c)
In quoting from Jer. 31:33, Heb. 8:10b and 10:16b state: “I will put my laws into their minds” and “I will… write them on their minds”
Believers are to “gird up” their “minds” (1 Pet. 1:13a), and apostolic letters are supposed to “have aroused” the “sincere mind” of the recipients “by way of reminder” (2 Pet. 3:1)
In a negative vein Paul referred to those who had followed “the [evil] desires of body and mind” (Eph. 2:3b) and “once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds” (Col. 1:21)
10. The Term Noema, Meaning “Mind” or “Thought”
Paul used noema both negatively and positively.
Characteristic of Jews who read Moses with veiled face was the fact that “their minds were hardened” (2 Cor. 3:14a).
Indeed “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers” (2 Cor. 4:4a), and even believers may find that heir “thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor. 11:3b)
But “the peace of God… will keep” believers’ “hearts and minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:7)
Conclusion
Certain conclusions can now be drawn concerning the New Testament terms for human beings and their usages.
The terms psyche, pneuma, and sarx were employed in ways quite similar to the Old Testament usage of nepes, ru(a)h, and basar, but there were distinctive uses such as psyche in reference to continued or restored life after death and sarx in the sense of the way of sin.
Soma as a general term with diverse uses had no Old Testament parallel
Kardia, splanchna, and nephros were used in ways quite consonant with the Old Testament use of parallel terms.
The use of nous, dianoia, and noema, however, represented a distinctive New Testament pattern, and such usage has been commonly ascribed to Greek or Hellenistic influence.
The study of the various uses of the terms which biblical writers applied to human beings has showed that these terms are somewhat nontechnical, that the uses of a single biblical word can be diverse, and that there are meanings common to more than one word. The Hebrew-oriented biblical writers referred to human beings by using numerous words. Those words were not intended, it seems, to compartmentalize humans into intricate subdivisions, and thus later Christians desiring to prove that there are two parts or three parts to human existence tend to ignore some of the biblical usages or to bend the biblical texts to their own theories. The Hebrew mind was more given to thinking of human life in holistic ways, and thus the various terms applied to human beings were more like different windows through which humans could be viewed than like pieces of a pie which has been cut.
II. POSTBILICAL USAGE OF BIBLICAL TERMS FOR HUMAN BEINGS#
The Christian doctrine of humankind was from the patristic age heavily influenced by Greek or Hellenistic thought. The entire Western Christian theological tradition has continued to reflect that influence, although the Eastern Christian tradition, especially in its Greek and Russian forms, has been even more completely influenced by the Hellenistic thought-world. Such influence has even shaped the way in which Christians have understood the biblical terms for human beings as well as shaping the way in which Western Christians have theologized about those aspects of the human which are considered to be essential to human existence.
A. SPECIFIC RESULTS OF THE CONTINUING HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE ON THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE HUMAN#
The Hellenistic influence upon the Christian understanding of human beings was marked by a strong soul-body dualism and by the substitution of nous (mind) for psyche (soul).
1. The Lingering Concept of the Body as Evil
Beginning in the patristic age, the view that the human body is inherently or essentially evil began to permeate Christian thought, even though the view was more Hellenistic and Gnostic than Christian. Inferred from this view of the body was the corollary that the body needs to be suppressed or punished for the well-being of the human soul or spirit. This corollary in turn was embraced by monastic and ascetical movements within Christian history. Paul’s statements about “the flesh” as the way of sin were read as meaning the human body per se.
Somewhat like tritheism, which has lingered on the fringes of Christianity as a recurring danger, the concept of the body as evil has lingered on so as to lure a few to become its advocates.
2. The Soul as Chiefly a Metaphysical Entity with the Consequent Question as to Its Origin
Another instance of Hellenistic influence has been the tendency of Christian theologians and philosophers to regard the soul as a metaphysical entity, being of greater value than the body, and almost never in the Old Testament senses of the life-breath or vitality within humans or the very selfhood of human beings.
Consequently, the distinct origin of each human soul came to be regarded as a major theological question, and theories as to the origin came to be set forth and defended. There have been three major theories as to the origin of human souls, and their respeective advocates seem not to have succeeded fully in their efforts to locate, quote, and utilize specific biblical texts to support their theories.
a. Preexistence of Souls
Origen of Alexandria/Caesarea taught the eternal preexistence of a company of spirits or souls waiting to become incarnate as angels, demons, or human beings. After Origen’s death his view was severely questioned, and nearly three centuries after his death it was condemned by imperial and conciliar authority.
The preexistence theory has not gained any considerable following during later Christian history, although a German theologian, Julius Muller (1801-78) did embrace it, not because he thought it was taught in the Bible but in order the better to explain humam inborn sinfulness.
b. Direct Divine Creationism
This is the theory that God directly creates each human soul at conception or early in the development of the fetus. It has had numerous exponents throughout the history of Christianity.
In the second century Irenaeus wrote: “But, as each one of us receives his body through the skillful working of God, so does he possess his soul.” At the turn of the fourth century, Lactantius declared:
Therefore the manner of the production of souls belongs entirely to God alone… [Indeed] souls are not given by parents, but by one and the same God and Father of all, who alone has the law and method of their birth.
Pelagius also taught direct divine creation of souls. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century taught that human rational souls are not produced by the angels or by paternal semen but are created “immediately” by God. Each soul “begins to exist when the body does”, and such daily creating by God is not inconsistent with God’s rest (Gen. 2:2).
Henry C. Sheldon favored direct creationism but allowed that a yet unrealized combination of direct creationism and derivation from parents would be better. In 1950, Pope Pius XII noted that “Catholic faith obliges us to hold that the human soul is immediately created by God”.
c. Traducianism, or Generationism
Traducianism, a term derived from the Latin verb traducere, “to lead across”, is the theory that the soul as well as the body of each human being is produced by natural generation, or the process of reproduction, so that one’s soul derives from one’s parents. It also had numerous exponents throughout the history of Christianity.
Early in the third century, Tertullian wrote:
How, then, is a living being conceived? Is the substance of both body and soul formed together at one and the same time? Or does one of theme precede the other in natural formation? We indeed maintain that both are conceived, and formed, and perfectly simultaneously, as well as born together; and that not a moment’s interval occurs in their conception, so that a prior place can be assigned to either… For although we shall allow that there are two kinds of seed - that of the body and that of the soul - we still declare that they are inseparable, and therefore contemporaneous and simultaneous in origin.
According to Gregory of Nyssa, writing in the latter fourth century
the seminal cause of our constitution is neither a soul without body, nor a body withotu soul, but that, from animate and living bodies, it is generated at the first as a living and animate being, and that our humanity takes it and cherishes it like a nursling with the resources she herself possesses…
During the seventeenth century, John Milton taught traducianism, holding that direct creationism would mean that God would be much too busy with “a servile task” of creating souls and contending that the doctrine of original sin is supportive of the traducian view.
A.H. Strong argued for traducianism on four grounds:
a. It best accords with the Bible, especially the once-for-all divine inbreathing (Gen. 2:7)
b. It is consistent with “vegetable and animal life”
c. It accords with the “observed transmission… of mental and spiritual” as well as “physical” characteristics in families and races
d. It “admits a divine concurrence throughout the whole development of the human species”
According to E.Y. Mullins, traducianism best accounts for “the universal tendency to sin”, “the transmission of traits of character from parent to child”, and “the unity of the [human] race”.
Note
Not all Christian theologians have embraced or espoused one of these major theories.
Augustine of Hippo was unable to decide finally between direct creationism and traducianism. His Neo-PLatonism would have tended to draw him to the former, and his doctrine of original sin as Adamic guilt would have tended to pull him to the later. He even asked for Jerome’s help in resolving his dilemma.
G.C. Berkouwer has called the creationist-traducianist debate “an unfruitful controversy” and an “apparently hopeless controverse” because both views build on the soul as a metaphysical subtance “separate from the body”.
Dale Moody has called for a “dynamic traducianism that unites creation and procreation in process”, but his only clue as to how that goal can be attained is his insistence that Berkouwer adopt “creative evolution”.
3. The Innate or Inherent Immortality of Each Human Soul
The third instance of Hellenistic influence upon the Christian doctrine of the constituents of the human is the concept that each human soul is innately or inherently immortal. This concept has had many advocates and some opponents.
a. Advocacy of the Innate Immortality of Each Soul
Precededd by the teaching of Ambrose and Jerome, Augustine of Hippo expounded this theme in one of his early philosophical treatises.
The Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17), in opposition to Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1525) and the humanistic Neo-Platonists of the fifteenth century, condemned their view that “the rational soul in all men is numerically one unique principle, and that only this general soul is immortal”. The council, therefore, was indirectly teaching the individuality and immortality of human souls.
John Calvin assumed the immortality of the individual soul and rejected the concept of a world soul. Calvin seems to have been influential in bringing about the widespread Protestant acceptance of the innate immortality of the soul.
b. Rejection of the Innate Immortality of Each Soul
Rejection has taken two major forms during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
1) Rejection by Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses and their advocacy of conditional immortality
Both these movements, holding that God only is immortal and hence humans cannot be innately immortal, have proceeded to the conclusion that all wicked human beings will be utterly or completely annihilated at death or immediately after being resurrected and that immortality will be bestowed by God upon the righteous at the second coming of Jesus.
One should note carefully that the rejection of innate immortality of human souls by these two movements is coupled with the teaching of the annihilation of all wicked or unbelieving humans at or after death with the result that they cease to exist. “Eternal life” is equated with continued existence, and biblical evidence for the consciousness of the wicked after death ignored.
2) Rejection by biblical theologians during the middle third of the twentieth century and by certain systematic theologians
These theologians concluded that, since the biblical writings regard man’s immortality - or the gift of “eternal life” - as given by God, the immortality of human beings ought not to be considered as innate or inherent, as Greek thought had done.
Earlier, H. Wheeler Robinson had written: “The Hebrew idea of personality is an animated body and not an incarnated soul”. Emil Brunner asserted that “the doctrine of the immortality of the soul as a substance, is of Platonist, and not of Biblical origin. It is a result of the view that the human spirit is essentially ‘divine’… The essential destiny of man is not substantial immortality, but eternal life”.
Oscar Cullmann stated that Jesus, facing the cross, “cannot obtain his victory by simply living on as an immortal soul, thus fundamentally not dying”. Rather, Jesus “can conquer death only by actually dying.” Cullmann also commented that Paul on his missionary journeys “surely met people who were unable to believe in this preaching of the resurrection for the very reason that they believed in the immortality of the soul”
According to Derwyn Randulph Grier Owen (1914-), the Greek New Testament word for “eternal”, aionios, means “having to do with the age to come”. Aionios life is “an eschatological concept, developed from the Hebrew tradition, and not a metaphysical concept, borrowed from the Greek”. Moreover, the “personal unity” of a human being “can be called, as a whole, either soma or psyche or sarx or pneuma, depending on the point of view from which man is being considered”.
The biblical and systematic theologians objecting to the concept of the innate immortality of human souls because it is seen as an alien Hellenistic idea have made their case against innate immortality more persuasively than they have explained what their own views of the states of righteous and wicked after death are. It has not been utterly clear as to how they differ from the annihiationism of the Seventh-day Adventists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
B. VIEWS ABOUT THE ESSENTIAL OR CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS IN HUMAN BEINGS AS CREATED#
1. Trichotomy
Trichotomy is the theory that human beings consist of three distinct parts, namely body, soul, and spirit. The word “trichotomy” is derived from two Greek words: tricha meaning “three part”, and temnein meaning “to cut”.
Two New Testament passages are usually cited as proof-texts in support of this theory:
Paul’s statement, “May your whole spirit, soul, and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. 5:23b)”
The declaration, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of koints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb. 4:12)
Advocates of trichotomy may utilize as secondary support or at least as a parallel theme Paul’s differentiation of “the natural man” (psychikos… anthropos), the “carnal [ones]” (sarkikoi), and “the spiritual man” (ho penumatikos) in 1 Cor. 2:14, 3:3, and 2:15.
Trichotomists often describe “spirit” as that which especially has come from or is like unto God and “soul” as the princile of life in human beings, or the animating principle.
First advocated by Greek Christian writers such as Origen, Apollinaris of Laodicea (c. 310-390), and Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398), trichotomy came to be expressed by the fifth-century Semi-Pelagians in terms of “spirit” as being exempted from the total impact of Adamic sin.
2. Dichotomy
Dichotomy is the theory that human beings consist of two distinct parts, namely body and soul or spirit. The word “dichotomy” is derived from two Greek words: dicha meaning “in two” or “asunder”, and temnein meaning “to cut”.
More biblical texts have been cited in favor of dichotomy than in favor of trichotomy.
The locus classicus in Gen. 2:7 “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being [or soul]”
Among the Old Testament passages that have been cited in support have been the following: Isa. 10:18b; Eccl. 12:7; Job 32:8 and 33:4.
Among the New Testament passages cited have been the following: Luke 1:46-47 (in which “my soul” and “my spirit” are understood as synonymous parallelism); Matt. 10:28b; 1 Cor. 5:3 and 5; 1 Cor. 7:34; 2 Cor. 7:1b; Rom. 8:10; Eph. 2:3b; Col. 2:5a; Jas. 2:26; and 3 John 2.
These texts have been interpreted so as to point to the conclusion that the New Testament teaches that “soul” and “spirit” and “mind” are synonyms and were used interchangeably.
Dichotomists have usually regarded the question as to the origin of souls as very important. Some have tended to follow Greek or classical thought in magnifying the soul at the expense of the body.
3. Holism, or Monism
Holism is the view, hardly unified and explicit enough to be called a theory, that holds that human beings are biblically and theologically one as beings and hence only secondarily should be construed as having elements. It has gained acceptance during the twentieth century, especially as the result of the biblical theology movement.
Against trichotomy and dichotomy, advocates of holism cite as evidence that there were not just two or three constituent elements of man the fourfold usage of Jesus in Mark 12:30. In the parallels, Luke 10:27 uses the same four terms and Matt. 22:37 refers only to “heart”, “soul” and “mind”. Exponents of holism stress those biblical usages of “soul” in which the term conveys the idea of human selfhood. They also press the idea that traditional Christian thinking (dichotomy, trichotomy) has been deeply influenced by classical Greek thought.
If indeed human beings are fundamentally one and not fundamentally divided into constituent parts or elements, how then is this oneness to be understood? Three recent answers should be noted.
First, Karl Barth held that the unity of a person’s soul and body is effectuated by the immortal Holy Spirit of God, not through the human spirit.
Arnold Bruce Come (1918-) taught that the unity of soul and body is effectuated through the human spirit, the spirit being the person’s self in the image of God.
Dale Moody affirmed that the unity of body and spirit is effectuated through the human soul-the “living soul” of Gen. 2:7, all of such souls having been created by the Holy Spirit.
Asian Christian theology, especially the Chinese variety, may be able to approach the question of the constituents of the human with cultural tools not readily available to Western Christians. The correlation of yin and yang in Chinese thought, according to Jung Young Lee (1935-), offers an available option, but not an absolute alternative, to the Western pattern of “either/or” thinking with its “excluded middle.” The relation of body and spirit is one of four Christian doctrinal themes which, according to Lee, can be illuminated by yin-yang thinking.