ARTICLE V.

TRICHOTOMY: A BIBLICAL STUDY.

BY THE REV. S. H. KELLOGG, D. D., TORONTO, CANADA.

CONSCIOUSNESS and revelation alike bear witness that, to speak in a general way, man is a being with a dual nature. I have a body; I am also conscious that I have a soul, of which my body is but the instrument. This is the true Ego; an immaterial essence, which thinks and feels and wills; but a material body has been assumed into organic union with it. Thus I am body and soul. In a like general way, in the account of creation as given in the book of Genesis, we read of two different elements as entering into the constitution of man; the one, material, a body, made "of the dust of the ground," the other, immaterial, the ", "the breath of life (lives)," breathed into man by God, in the day that he created him. On this point, then, consciousness and Scripture bear consentient testimony; there is a dichotomy in the nature of man. But this being granted, the question still remains, whether a further analysis is possible. Philosophy, indeed, whether right or wrong, long ago insisted that a further distinction must be made in the immaterial part of man, as containing in the unity of the one person, first, the yuxý, or "animal soul," and secondly, the voûs, or "intelligence." Whether these names were well chosen or not, or whether there was any sufficient ground for the distinction, we do not yet inquire. But the fact that long ago such a distinction has been made by an influential school of philosophy, at least suggests that there may probably be in human consciousness some phenomena which seem to point

to a duality in the immaterial part of man. The application which was made of the doctrine of a trichotomy by the Gnostics, and later, in the fourth century, in the formulation of the Apollinarian doctrine of the person of our Lord, no doubt has had much influence, even until now, in predisposing theologians against a view which has seemed to them to accommodate itself too readily to certain forms of erroneous doctrine; as, in a matter so important as the constitution of the person of Christ. But there are many indications that in our time, partly as a result of an exegesis less than in former days under the control of the dogmatic spirit, and still more in consequence of recent discoveries in physiology, the minds of many are inclining again to affirm the reality of a true trichotomy in human nature, as attested apparently both by Holy Scripture and by modern physiological research.

Stated as a biblical question, the question may be put in this form: When the sacred writers speak as they do of "body, soul, and spirit," do they mean thereby to denote the soul and spirit as being in some sense different and distinct entities, or do these two words simply denote the same thing under two different aspects? The latter view has been expressed by the late Dr. A. A. Hodge as follows: "The word veûμa designates the one soul, emphasizing its quality as rational. The word ux designates the same soul, emphasizing its quality as the vital and animating principle of the body." The only argument which he gives in support of this view is in these words: "That the psuche and the pneuma are distinct entities cannot be the doctrine of the New Testament, because they are habitually used interchangeably and indifferently." To this, Dr. Charles Hodge, in his "Systematic Theology," adds two other arguments, which will be noticed later. If, however, this affirmation be correct, then so far as this is a biblical question, no further argument is needed. But whether it be correct or

not, is a question which can be decided only by a careful examination of all the passages in the Bible where the words rendered "soul" and "spirit," or their Hebrew and Greek equivalents, occur. The original words which are thus translated, are, in the Hebrew,,, and ; in the Greek, ψυχή πνεῦμα. yuxý and πvεvμa. What, then, are the facts as to their usage? and does that usage authorize us to say that both designate the same entity, "the one emphasizing its quality as rational, the other emphasizing its quality as the vital principle of the body;" and that they are "habitually used interchangeably and indifferently"? or are they used with discrimination, in such a manner that they appear, according to that usage, to denote different elements of our immaterial nature?

In investigating the facts, it is well to remember the law of development of doctrine in the Scriptures; and therefore we should not lay undue stress, either way, upon the usage of the Old Testament, especially in the older books. Still it will be instructive, especially as the New Testament usage in Greek is much influenced by the use of the corresponding Hebrew terms, to review rapidly the facts regarding the usage of the Hebrew words. The facts with respect to

are as follows. Primarily and by etymology it means "wind," in which sense it appears about one hundred times. Examples are: in Gen. iii. 8, "in the cool [lit. the wind] of the day;" Ex. x. 13, "the Lord brought an east wind;" Jon. i. 4, "the Lord sent out a great wind," etc. Immediately derived from this primary signification, we have the signification, “blast," or "breath;" as, e. g., in Ex. xv. 8, "with the blast of thy nostrils;" Job iv. 9, "by the breath of his nostrils are they consumed;" Isa. xi. 4, "with the breath of his lips will he slay the wicked;" and, probably, though not certainly, in the narrative of the Flood, in Gen. vi. 17; vii. 15, 22; in all other places, about two hundred and twenty in number, it is rendered "spirit."

The word

occurs much more frequently, about seven

hundred times in the Old Testament. It also has much greater diversity of meaning. The radical meaning, like that of ruach, is probably "wind," but it does not occur in this sense. From this, as in the case of ruach, the meaning "breath" naturally comes; but nephesh is so rendered only once, in Job xli. 21, "His breath kindleth coals." In very many places it denotes the life or animating principle, whether of man or beast; as, in Lev. xxiv. 18, "he that killeth a beast" (Heb., "he that smiteth the life of a beast;" R. V., "he that smiteth a beast mortally"); Deut. xix. 21, "life shall go for life." Next, in a sense still broader, nephesh denotes the whole man, both soul and body; as, in Ex. xii. 16, "that which every man must eat;" Josh. xi. II, "they smote all the souls;" and xx. 9, "whosoever killeth any person." In this sense it is thus often used where we should use "person," "individual," or simply "man." But the word even denotes, in a similar manner, an animal, as made up of soul and body; as, in Gen. ii. 19, where we read, "Adam called every living creature;" and in Gen. ix. 10, 15, 16, it is similarly used of the animals that went in with Noah into the ark. As thus often in a broad sense comprehending the entire personality of man, soul and body, it is often used pleonastically with a possessive pronominal affix, as a personal pronoun, as often in the Psalms; e. g., Ps. xi. 1, “How say ye to my soul?" i. e., "to me;" xxii. 29, "none can keep alive his own soul," i. e., "keep himself alive." As thus used of the whole person, the nephesh is even said to die, and is spoken of as dead. Thus it occurs in this idiom in Num. vi. 6, "he shall not come near to a dead body," "a dead nephesh;" and ix. 6, 7, "defiled by the dead body (nephesh) of a man.”

, like the two words already noted, primarily means "wind," and then "breath." It is much less common, however, than ruach or nephesh, only occurring twenty-four times. Of these passages, in seventeen it is rendered

In only two places. "whose spirit came

"breath" or "breathe;" in three places more, “blast" (2 Sam. xxii. 16; Job iv. 9; Ps. xviii. 15). it is translated "spirit;" Job xxvi. 4, from thee?" and Prov. xx. 27, the spirit of man is the lamp of the Lord." In one passage alone it is rendered "soul;" viz., Isa. lvii. 16, "the souls which I have made." In Job xxxii. 8, A. V., it is rendered "inspiration,”—“ the inspiration of the Almighty;" but the Revised Version gives the more usual rendering "breath."

Summing up now the results of this part of our induction, we find that, as regards nephesh and ruach, they are by no means used indifferently and interchangeably. The facts

1. Both ruach and nephesh are used in the physical sense of "breath;" ruach, frequently, nephesh, but rarely.

2. Both ruach and nephesh are used to denote the life or animating principle, whether of man or beast; but while this is the most common sense of nephesh, it is rare with ruach, which in this sense, indeed, perhaps occurs in no other place than in the sceptical passage in Eccl. iii. 21, "Who knoweth the . . . spirit of the beast, whether it goeth

downward to the earth?"

3. Both ruach and nephesh are used in a broader sense, as comprehending the whole immaterial part of man, not only the principle of animal life, but also the higher rational spirit. But with this generic reference nephesh again appears to be the more common word, and ruach is employed more rarely.

4. While nephesh is frequently used to denote the whole man, soul and body, ruach is never thus employed. Still less can ruach be used, like nephesh, to designate an irrational animal, as made up of a soul and a body.

5. While nephesh is even applied to the body after the soul has left it, such a usage never occurs with ruach. On the contrary, is contrasted with , "flesh," as someVOL. XLVII. NO. 187. 7