Tripartite (theology)
In Christian theology, the tripartite view holds that humankind is a composite of three distinct components: body, spirit, and soul. It is in contrast to the bipartite view, where soul and spirit are taken as different terms for the same entity.
Scriptural basis
The primary proof texts for this position are as follows:Trichotomists see in Genesis 2:7 the first implications of the constituents of man's nature. Delitzsch, commenting on this passage, says, "We cannot consider with sufficient care Gen. 2:7; for this one verse is of such deep significance that interpretation can never exhaust it: it is the foundation of all true anthropology and psychology." John Bickford Heard refers to Genesis 2:7 as a revelation of the material cause, the formal or efficient cause, and the final cause of man's threefold nature. The material cause—the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground. The formal or efficient cause—God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. The final cause—man became a living soul. The question is whether Genesis 2:7 refers to two or to three distinct facts and thus whether Genesis 2:7 describes two or three distinct parts of man's constitution. Trichotomists believe that God's breath of life, when breathed into man's body of dust, became man's human spirit. Proverbs 20:27 uses the same Hebrew word for the spirit of man, indicating that God's breathe of life and man's spirit are closely related. George Boardman describes the Divine and the human pneuma as "constitutionally akin" while Heard ascribes to them the same nature. For Michael Schmaus and most trichotomists, the human spirit is the focal point of the image of God.
Proponents of the tripartite view claim that this verse spells out clearly the three components of the human, emphasized by the descriptors of "whole" and "completely". Opponents argue that spirit and soul are merely a repetition of synonyms, a common form used elsewhere in scripture to add the idea completeness.
In this passage, the Apostle Paul divides men into three categories based on their responses to apostolic teaching: those who are spiritual, those who are soulish and the Corinthians who are carnal. Each is driven or controlled by some aspect of their being, whether the spirit, the soul or the flesh. If the spirit and soul are identical, Paul's argument is meaningless.
Proponents of the tripartite view claim that this verse spells out that there is a clear difference between soul and spirit, though they may be so intertwined and similar that they would be difficult to separate without scriptural clarity. Opponents argue that there is no real separation here, but the two are only used as a metaphor of things difficult to differentiate, like the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Before salvation, the soul was stuck to the body.
After salvation, the soul is trying to follow the spirit. The spirit is known to be the new man or new nature. At the same time, the soul is trying not to follow the old man or old nature. The soul can either follow the spirit and do what is right or follow the body and do what is wrong.
Historical development
Old Testament
The Old Testament consistently uses three primary words to describe the parts of man: , which refers to the external, material aspect of man ; , which refers to the soul as well as the whole person or life; and which is used to refer to the human spirit. In the Old Testament basar occurs 266 times, nephesh occurs 754 times, and ruach occurs 378 times with at least 100 times referring to the human spirit.According to trichotomists, the full anthropology of man and the proper distinction between his inward parts while latent in the Old Testament, does not receive a clear treatment until the New Testament. Genesis 2:7 "rather implies than asserts the trichotomy of spirit, soul, and body" and must be "illuminated by the light of subsequent Scriptures" to reveal its full import. This corresponds with what many theologians call progressive revelation. As with Genesis 2:7, other verses in the Old Testament directly correlate man's spirit with God's breath . However, the revelation of the human spirit is obscure in the Old Testament, as is the revelation of the Holy Spirit or the Trinity. Not until the New Testament is the nature of God fully and explicitly revealed and likewise not until the New Testament is the nature of man fully and explicitly revealed.
Heard explains:
We have only another caution to make before entering on our task; it is that revelation being a progressive manifestation of the truth of God, the discovery of man's nature must also be progressive. In the same way that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead, and their relation to each other, was only gradually unfolded in Scripture, so we may expect it to be with the trichotomy of man's nature, spirit, soul, and body. As in the case of the doctrine of the Trinity it was not fully understood until the Spirit was given, so the distinction of Psyche and Pneuma is implied rather than taught when the race was still in its spiritual infancy....It would be out of harmony with the “analogy of the faith,” if the tripartite nature of man were fully described in those books of the Bible which only contain implied hints of the plurality of persons in the Godhead. All we shall see of the subject will confirm this view of the harmonious way in which doctrines and duties, the nature of God and the nature of man, are unfolded together.
The relation between body and soul was not clear to the ancients, much less the relation between soul and spirit. The physiology and psychology of the Hebrew and the Archaic Greek world were speculative, and so, reasoning on imperfect data, they spoke of various physical organs as the seat of thought, feeling, and decision. The heart primarily was the seat of thought and feeling, the kidneys the seat of reflection, and the bowels the seat of affection. It wasn't until the Alexandrian physicians and the Classical Greek philosophers that a more accurate understanding of man's inward parts began to emerge.
Intertestamental period
During the intertestamental period, two factors shaped and "enlarged the semantic domain of the Greek and Hebrew words for the parts of man" and set the stage for a more complete and accurate understanding of the nature of man. The first factor was Greek philosophy. The Greek philosophers, unlike the Greek poets, clearly distinguished the material from the immaterial part of man, defined the functions of the soul in more precise terms, and in general expanded the vocabulary for the parts of man. The second factor was the translation of the Septuagint. The translators of the Septuagint incorporated the linguistic developments of the Greek philosophers into the biblical revelation when they translated the Hebrew into Greek.Good explains:
Although the classical Greek writers did not arrive at the same realization as the New Testament writers, their use of certain key words in Greek gave the New Testament writers a greater and more precise vocabulary to work with in describing the parts of man. After Plato and Aristotle, there was a richer array of words to describe the inward parts of man, particularly the mind.
Dichotomists often argue against the tripartite view of man by discrediting it through its apparent connection with Platonism. However, Plato and the Greek philosophers, strictly speaking, were dichotomists. Plato did divide man into three parts, but his trichotomy was different from Paul's trichotomy in essence, function, and primacy. Plato's divisions were a tripartite division of the soul. He conceived of man's soul as consisting of an appetitive, irascible, and rational element. In Timaeus 30 he divides man into nous, , and , with nous being the noblest part of the soul. When Plato does speak of spirit he means something essentially different from Paul. The three parts of man are not equivalent for Plato and Paul, and the master faculty for Plato is a subordinate faculty for Paul. "To discredit trichotomy by a similarity with Platonism confuses similarity with source. One could likewise attribute the source of the dichotomist view with Greek dichotomy ; some writers have argued for such a connection."
New Testament
Trichotomists believe that a tripartite view of man is clearly taught throughout the New Testament. The writers of the New Testament, like the writers of the Old Testament, consistently use three primary words to describe the components of man's nature: , used 151 times, refers to the physical aspect of humanity; psychë, used 105 times, refers to the psycho-logical aspect of humanity; and , used 385 times total in the New Testament, refers to the human spirit in approximately 80 of those instances. Finer distinctions can be made between the functions and relations of man's inward parts.A full treatment of man's nature must consider the New Testament use of such words as flesh, body, spirit, soul, heart, mind, and conscience. For instance, dichotomists often dismiss the distinction between soul and spirit in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 as a piling up of terms for emphasis, that spirit and soul is "rhetorical tautology". They claim that if 1 Thessalonians 5:23 proves that man is composed of three parts, then Mark 12:30 must prove that man is made of four parts since Jesus enumerates heart, soul, mind, and strength. However, trichotomists see only three parts here based on their understanding of how the Bible uses the terms heart, soul, and mind. The heart is a composition of the soul plus the conscience, and the mind is the leading part of the soul. Thus, Mark 12:30 is within the parameters of a tripartite view of man.
Early Church
The tripartite view of man was considered an orthodox interpretation in the first three centuries of the church, and many of the early Church Fathers taught that man is made up of body, soul, and spirit. Irenaeus, Tatian, Melito, Didymus of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil of Cesaraea, all held to the distinction firmly according to its supporters.However, there arose primarily three historical errors, the fear of which have caused a "prejudice against trichotomy": the pseudo-Gnostic view, the Apollinarian error, and the semi-Pelagian error. "But", Delitzsch argues, "in the face of all these errors, its opponents must confess that man may be regarded trichotomically, without in the least degree implying the adoption of such erroneous views."