This was David’s statement that was not made in vanity but in the worship of his great Creator/God. Our study of the nature of man should also move us to worship our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
As Ryrie brought out in his introduction to chapter 32, man has a material part with a variety of features such as arteries, veins, brain, muscles, etc. All of us are agreed on this facet of man’s nature. Man also has an immaterial part with a variety of features such as soul, spirit, heart, will, mind, etc. This is where we agree to disagree on the nature of man. This is not a hill we must die on. But we do want to be as accurate and precise as possible when it comes to interpreting the Bible.
There are four positions on the trichotomy/dichotomy debate.
1. Monism, which is a non-conservative view, believes that man is one part. Monism was a reaction to the liberalism of Harry Emerson Fosdick who because of his belief in the immortality of the soul saw no need for a resurrection of the body. Monism taught that because the person is indivisible there is no existence of the soul after death and that the person will not exist after death until the resurrection of the body. This view eliminates the intermediate state of existence between death and resurrection which the Scriptures (Christian Theology, Erickson, pp. 524-525).
Wayne Grudem defines monism on page 473 in his Systematic Theology. “According to monism, the scriptural terms soul and spirit are just other expressions for the ‘person’ himself, or for the person’s ‘life.’ This view has not generally been adopted by evangelical theologians because so many scriptural texts seem clearly to affirm that our souls or spirits live on after our bodies die (see Gen. 35:18; Ps. 31:5; Luke 23:43, 46; Acts 7:59; Phil. 1:23-24; 2 Cor. 5:8; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 6:9; 20:4).” The 2 Cor. 5:8 passage nails it for me: “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”
2. Dichotomy which believes that man has two parts This is the general view of Scripture.
3. Trichotomy which says that man is made of three parts. There are particular verses that indicate this view.
Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology gives the origin of the trichotomy view on page 191. “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 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.”
C. I. Scofield helped popularized this view beginning in 1909 in his Study Bible on page 1270.
4. Modified trichotomy/dichotomy view states that man has two parts with three functions, where at times spirit refers to the higher nature of the immaterial and soul refers to the lower nature of the immaterial as in 1 Corinthians 15:44. I am basically a dichotomists.
My responses to the arguments that favor trichotomy.
First, I will state the argument in favor of trichotomy and then I will give my response in favor of dichotomy.
1. “Man is in three parts because he is made in the image of God who is a divine Trinity.”
This was the view of Franz Delitzsch in his A System of Biblical Psychology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966). Delitzsch compared the difference between soul and spirit to the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity. The persons of the Trinity, like soul and spirit, are distinct but not in essence (page 117).
Delitzsch, quoted Martin Luther, who likened the three parts of the believer to the three parts of the OT tabernacle. “To adduce a parallel to this from Scripture, Moses made a tabernacle with three distinct compartments (Ex. 26:33-34, 27:9). The first was called the holy of holies, since God dwelt there, and there was no light therein. The second was the holy place within which stood a candlestick with seven branches and lamps. The third was called the atrium or court; and it was under the open heaven, in the light of the sun. In the same figure a Christian man is depicted. His spirit is the holy of holies, God’s dwelling-place, in dim faith, without light. For he believes what he does not see, nor feels, nor apprehends. His soul is the holy place, whose seven lights represent the various powers of understanding, the perception and knowledge of material and visible things. His body is the atrium or court, which is manifest to every man, so that all can see what he does and how he lives” (Delitzsch, pp. 460-462).
There is really no New Testament grounds for making the tabernacle a type or picture of the believer’s person.
Ryrie’s response to the Trinity analogy on the top of page 224, in his second edition of Basic Theology, is well said. “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?”
2. “The unsaved do not have a spirit. This was lost at the fall and is restored at conversion.”
Dr. Bowman asks and answers this question; “Does the unsaved person have a spirit? All flesh have a spirit (Numbers 16:22; 1 Cor. 2:11).” See page 28 in Dr. Bowman’s notes on Anthropology. Wayne Grudem states, “Of course, our ‘spirits are alive’ to God after regeneration (Rom. 8:10), but that is simply because we as whole persons are affected by regeneration. It is not just that our spirits were dead before---we were dead to God in trespasses and sins.” Read the rest of his arguments on page 701 of his Systematic Theology.
3. “The spirit is the God conscious aspect of man that enables man to worship God and the soul is self conscious aspect of man that is synonymous with the mind.”
Scofield makes this distinction, “Because man is ‘spirit’ he is capable of God-consciousness, and of communication with God (Job 32:8; Psa. 18:28; Prov. 20:27); because he is ‘soul’ he has self-consciousness (Psa. 13:2; 42:5, 6, 11); because he is ‘body’ he has, through his senses, world-consciousness” (The Scofield Study Bible, page 1270).
Man’s nature cannot be compartmentalized this neatly. The spirit of man thinks, not just the soul. “They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine” (Isaiah 29:24). The soul of man worships or has a God-consciousness, not just the spirit. “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Mt. 22:37).
These two terms, soul and spirit, are used interchangeably throughout Scripture.
Again, Scofield fails to see the interchangeably of these two words, “In Scripture use, the distinction between spirit and soul may be traced. Briefly, that distinction is that the spirit is that part of man which ‘knows’ (1 Cor. 2:11), his mind; the soul is the seat of the affections, desires, and so the emotions, and of the active will, the self. ‘My soul is exceeding sorrowful; (Mt. 26:38; see also Mt. 11:29; and John 12:27)” (page 1270).
For trouble feelings: Not only does the soul feel but also the spirit of man. In the OT (Gen. 41:8 and Ps. 42:6); in the NT (John 12:27 “My soul is troubled” and John 13:21 “He was troubled in spirit”).
For expressing praise: Luke 1:46 and 47 where you have OT parallelism where the same thought is expressed with similar words.
For death: Gen. 35:18 (soul departs); Acts 7:59 (spirit departs). Scripture never says that “the soul and spirit departed.” Wayne Grudem elaborates on this point. “If soul and spirit were separate and distinct things, we would expect that such language would be affirmed somewhere, if only to assure the reader that no essential part of the person is left behind. Yet we find no such language: the biblical authors do not seem to care whether they say that the soul departs or the spirit departs at death, for both seem to mean the same thing” (page. 474).
For persons in heaven: Heb. 12:23 (spirits); Rev. 6:9 (souls).
Both terms are ascribed to animals: souls in Gen. 1:24; spirit in Ecc. 3:21; Rev. 16:3.
The highest duties of Christians are demanded of the soul, not just the spirit: Mark 12:30; Luke 1:46, 47.
The whole man is referred to as body and soul (Mt. 10:28) and body and spirit (1 Cor. 5:3). Grudem asks a question that needs to be answered by trichotomists, “What can the spirit do that the soul cannot do? What can the soul do that the spirit cannot do?” (page 477).
RESPONSES TO VERSES USED TO DEFEND TRICHOTOMY
Here are the most commonly used verses used to support trichotomy.
1st Thessalonians 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.”
Instead of teaching that man has three parts, A. H. Strong in his Systematic Theology states that 1st Thess. 5:23 is “not a scientific enumeration of the constituent parts of human nature, but a comprehensive sketch of that nature in its chief relations like Mark 12:30. Based on Mark 12:30, no one would say man has a 4-fold division of human nature.” Mark 12:30 quotes Jesus saying, “And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” If so, they would be a quadchotomist, I guess. “The emphasis of the verse is on the completeness of sanctification” (Ryrie, p. 196).
“It is far better to understand Jesus as simply piling up roughly synonymous terms for emphasis to demonstrate that we must love God with all of our being” (Wayne Grudem).
1st Corinthians 15:44 “It is sown a natural (soulish) body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”
Charles Hodges’ exclamation of this verse is helpful. “The soul has lower animal appetites which characterize this life: Hunger, thirst, need of rest. The soul also has higher powers that animals do not possess: immortality and worship of God. In Heaven in our glorified body only the higher powers of the soul will be active.”
In heaven people are referred to as “souls” (Rev. 6:9) even though they are in their “spiritual body” or resurrected body as Paul says in 1st Cor. 15:44. In this reference spirit is bigger than the just immaterial part of a person, but includes also the physical body, howbeit, a glorified, physical body. Ryrie did say that the soul can refer to both the material and the immaterial, but here is an example where spirit can also refer to both the immaterial and the glorified material part of the resurrected believer.
Here is Grudem’s explanation. “However, it is much more characteristic of Paul’s terminology to use the word “spirit” to talk about our relationship to God in worship and in prayer. Paul does not use the “soul” (Gk. psyche) very frequently (14 times, compared with 101 occurrences in the New Testament as a whole), and when he does, he often uses it simply to refer to a person’s “life,” or as a synonym for a person himself, as in Rom. 9:3; 13:1; 16; Phil. 2:30. Use of the “soul” to refer to the non-physical side of man is more characteristic of the gospels, and of many passages in the Old Testament.”
Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”
Charles Hodge explains: “The joints and marrow are not different substances. They are both material; they are different forms of the same substance; and so soul and spirit are one and the same substance under different aspects or relations.”
A. H. Strong has a helpful comment: “Not the dividing of soul from spirit or of joints from morrow, but rather the piercing of the soul and of the spirit, even to very joints and marrow i.e., to the very depths of the spiritual nature.”
“The point is simply that the Word of God leaves nothing hidden” (Charles Ryrie).