Why Trichotomy is Wrong 3 B, The Errors It Spawns

Part 3B: Christological Heresies

Think of the impact Trichotomy would have, if consistently held, on our Christology. Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed the Hypostatic Union of Christ. This means that Christ is fully God and fully man - two distinct natures, not intermingled - by a mystery of divine wisdom hypostatically united in One Person. Christ is not a human person and a Divine Person sharing a body.

Try to square this with Trichotomy and you rush headlong into blasphemous heresy. You will end up trying to divide Christ in an Apollonarian way. Apollonarius taught that Christ was a human body that had the Second Person of the Trinity, the Logos, in the place of a normal human soul. If you do this, you must postulate two spiritual natures in Christ and you don't want to know where that will lead you. A human nature without a human soul is a non-entity. It is semantic nonsense. If Christ was not fully human, He could not have died for humans. His death is efficacious for the elect precisely because He is one of us. A human without a soul is not a human. Christ had to be human to atone for humans.

The simple fact is, there is no way to square Trichotomy with biblical Christology. Either you end up denying or downplaying Christ’s deity, His humanity or you create a schizophrenic Christ – each option as heretical and blasphemous as the others. Mention is made of Jesus’ soul being troubled in Matthew 26:38. In John 11:33 and 13:21, we read that His spirit was troubled. The same emotion is described in these three texts, again reaffirming what we claimed before about the interchangeable nature of these words. But try dealing with any of those passages from a Trichotomist view point and you head straight down the toilet theologically. There is no way to handle those passages from a Trichotomist view point without ending up in one of the Christological heresies of the first 4 centuries of Church history. 

Why Trichotomy is Wrong 3 A, The Errors It Spawns

Part 3: The dangers and heretical dangers of a tripartite understanding of human nature.

           

Part 3A: Modalism

I will not mask my excitement at finally getting to this point. As I said in the first post in this series, it was very tempting to launch into a full-on polemic. But I felt it would be a wiser approach to deal with the subject by starting with what the Scriptures actually say and teach. After all, this is what matters, not opinions or theories.

We have probably all heard someone wax eloquent on the doctrine of the Trinity and use man’s tri-partite nature as an illustration. There are many flaws in this analogy. First of all, it does not come from Scripture. Nowhere does Scripture present man as a three-part being mirroring God’s Triune nature. And there is good reason why Scripture doesn’t use this analogy: it is false. Let’s just pretend for the moment that I am composed of three parts. How does this mirror the Trinity? I am not three persons! This is a horrible analogy. And if more people were familiar with Church history, they would know that that very analogy was proposed by heretics in the first few centuries of the Church and condemned as heretical.

Instead of being an analogy for the Trinity, this convoluted illustration actually denies the Trinity. If I am body, soul and spirit, I am still me. I am not three persons. The Trinity is not one person with three parts. This is a heresy known as Modalism. It asserts that the Father, Son and Spirit are all really just one Person who reveals Himself in three different modes. The “body, soul and spirit” illustration of the Trinity is blatantly heretical. If a person believes this about God, he cannot possibly be a Christian. He is an idolater who has substituted for the Triune God of the Bible a fiction of his own weak imagination.

I have encountered another variation of this modalistic version of the Trinity. It goes like this: I am a father; I am a son; and I am also a husband. Again, this is a horrendously false illustration because I am NOT three persons – just one. Moreover, I am also a cousin, grandson, uncle, nephew, brother and a second cousin twice removed. Does this therefore mean that Benny Hinn’s idiotic 9 person trinity is correct?

A couple of years ago, I was engaged in something of a debate on a Facebook group page on this subject. I noted that Charles Hodge vociferously handled Trichotomy as a heresy. The person with whom I was engaged in this discussion responded that none of the heretical views which Hodge tied to Trichotomy were held by anyone today. The insinuation was that maybe in Hodge’s day Trichotomy led to heresy, but no one today held those particular heretical views. I think this misses the point, not to mention the fact that all of these heretical views are widely espoused today, just under different names and forms. It misses the point however by failing to realize that Hodge’s inferences were valid even if his examples were straw men (which they weren’t).

Modalism is not some bizarre teaching from the early days of the Church. It is alive and kicking in the form of T.D. Jakes' theology and that of his fellow Oneness Pentecostals.

Why Trichotomy is Wrong 2, Dealing With the Supposed Proof Texts

Part 2: Answering 1 Thess. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12

In our last post, it was stated that once we provided the relevant Scriptural data, we would then handle the supposed biblical support for Trichotomy. There are, in fact, only two Scriptures that Trichotomists can appeal to. They are 1 Thessalonians 5:23 and Hebrews 4:12.

While this post may be short, I do not wish to be seen as treating these passages glibly. But the simple fact is that trying to get Trichotomy out of these passages is like trying to get blood out of a rock. The supposed support just isn’t there.

1 Thessalonians 5:23 states: Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Anthony Hoekema writes, “When Paul prays for the Thessalonians that the spirit, soul, and body of each of them may be preserved or kept, he is obviously not trying to split man into three parts, any more than Jesus intended to split man into four parts when he said, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" (Luke 10:27). This passage therefore also provides no ground for the Trichotomic view of the constitution of man.” Created in God's Image (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1988).

In other words, in the light of the rest of scripture, which overwhelmingly presents man as a dichotomic being, it is irresponsible and cavalier exegesis to make this one verse militate against hundreds of others. And if this passage teaches Trichotomy, then we are equally justified in affirming tetrachotomy based on Luke 10:27 or Mark 12:30. Scripture sometimes calls our body “flesh and blood.” Are we therefore to assume that this teaches that man’s nature has two material parts – that “flesh and blood” are not the same things as “body”? The sort of nonsense and error this sort of hermeneutic creates is easily seen.

The only other passage in the whole of Scripture where the words “soul” and “spirit” occur together with the word “and” in between them (claimed by some to suggest Trichotomy) is Hebrews 4:12, which reads, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

There is really no reason to think that the words soul and spirit necessarily imply that man has two immaterial parts. The text itself gives us reason to doubt this form of exegesis. The passage also refers to joints and marrow and thoughts and intentions. No one in his right mind reasonable infers from this that man has two hearts or two material parts of his total being. Joints and marrow are used synonymously in reference to man’s material part (the body). Heart, soul and spirit are three synonyms for that immaterial part of man. So that if this verse gives support for making a distinction between soul and spirit as two different entities, then it actually goes one further and proposes three immaterial entities. Thought and intentionality are the domain of the mind, which means that this verse uses the word “heart” as a synonym for “mind.”

John Murray asserts that that the verb translated as "piercing" in the ESV is never used elsewhere in Scripture in the sense of distinguishing between two different things. Rather it is always used when distributing and dividing up various aspects of the same thing (John Murray, Trichotomy, Collected Works of John Murray, volume 2). So this passage is not saying that the Word separates two distinct things – soul from spirit. Rather the Word of God judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart. The Word does not divide soul from spirit, as if they were two distinct entities. The Word divides soul and spirit in the sense of penetrating into our inner most parts. Soul and spirit do not imply two immaterial elements any more than flesh and blood imply two material ones.

Whenever one passage of Scripture is used to attain a doctrine without consulting with the entirety of the Scriptural data on that subject, only error can ensue. No one Scripture should ever be treated in isolation from the rest of the Bible. Jeremiah 36:23 says that Jehudi used a penknife to cut up the scroll of the Word of God through Jeremiah. Would it be correct then to conclude that penknives were instruments of evil? As stupid as that sounds, that interpretation has been made and others a thousand times worse are made every day by men who hold one verse in isolation from the rest of Scripture.

Why Trichotomy is Wrong, The Biblical Evidence For Dichotomy

I plan to deal with the error of Trichotomy in a series of posts. Lord willing, it will look something like this:

1) We will present the Scriptural data relevant to the subject. In other words, we will show that Scripture does not support Trichotomy.

2). We will answer supposed Scriptural evidence for Trichotomy.

3). We will look at several of the inherent flaws and dangers of Trichotomy. 

Part 1: The Scriptural evidence for a bi-partite division of human nature, not tripartite.

First of all we should give some background, and define our terms.

It’s an interesting phenomenon: Virtually all theologians in all streams of the Christian tradition have believed and taught that man is comprised of two parts – one material part and one immaterial part. The material part, of course, is the body. The immaterial part the Bible variously calls the soul or spirit. This is known as Dichotomy. Somehow though, the reigning notion among the average person in contemporary Christianity is that man is composed of three parts – body, soul and spirit. Let us reiterate, most theologians are dichotomists, but nearly all popular Christian literature and teaching is Trichotomistic.

It is very tempting to launch into a tirade against Trichotomy right here and now. It would, indeed, be east to blast it for all of the theological heresies it is responsible for. I could point to its Gnostic tendencies, its proclivity for mysticism, or its denigration of the mind, but that will be for another post. Right now, I wish to present the biblical evidence for the dichotomist position. Let me insert a word of warning. Many will likely be tempted to think that Scripture is largely silent on the issue (and that perhaps this is the reason for the differing opinions). I assure you, that is not true.

Before proceeding with all the Scriptures I plan to present, let me say something about the words “soul” and “spirit” in the Biblical languages, which if considered would clear a lot of the confusion.

First of all, The Hebrew word for soul is ‏נֶפֶשׁ (nephesh), and it occurs 753 times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. 475 times it is rendered “soul.” 117 times it is rendered “life.” It means breathing. When it appears in Genesis 2:7, Scripture applies it to man, noting that God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul.

רוּחַ (ruach) is the Hebrew word for “spirit.” It occurs 378 times. Of these occurrences, 232 are rendered “spirit;” 92 are rendered “wind;” and 27 are rendered “breath.” The similarities between breath and wind are obvious enough, especially when we consider the antiquity of Hebrew. But note that both words mean breath and are therefore interchangeable synonyms by definition alone.

The Greek word for soul is ψυχή (psyche) occurs 105 times. 58 times it is rendered “soul.” And 40 times it is rendered “life.” Like its Hebrew counterpart, it means breath as well. Thus it is the immaterial part of human nature.

The Greek word for spirit is πνεῦμα (pneuma). Of its 385 occurrences in the New Testament, it is rendered “spirit” in all but 21 cases. It means breath, or a current of air, or by implication the human soul.

As I said above, if these definitions were simply considered, there would be no confusion on this subject.

We will now view the Scriptural data.

Matthew 10:28 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. (This passage presents man as a bi-partite being comprised of body and soul.)

Ecclesiastes 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it. (This passage switches the terms and presents man as being composed of body and spirit.)

Scripture describes death as the separation of body and soul in these passages: Genesis 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21, Acts 15:26. The following passages refer to the soul as the immaterial part of a man which survives death: Revelation 6:9 and 20:4

But then Scripture describes death as the separation of body and spirit in these passages: Psalm 31:5; Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59. The following passages refer to the spirit as the immaterial part of a man which survives death: Hebrews 12:23; 1 Peter 3:19

James 1:21 and Hebrews 6:19 tells us that it is our soul which communes with God. Romans 8:16 and 1 Corinthians 6:20 tell us that it is our spirit which communes with God.

We are told in Ephesians 2:3 that our soul has been affected by sin. 2 Corinthians 7:1 informs us that our spirit has been affected by sin.

The body is said to be dead without the spirit. This is stated and/or implied in James 2:26; Matthew 27:50; Luke 23:46; John 19:30; Acts 7:59. But Scripture just as clearly tells us that the soul is the life of the body in Matthew 6:25; 10:39; 16:25-26; 20:28; Luke 14:26; John 10:11-18, Acts 15:26; 20:10; Philippians 2:30; 1 John 3:16. Remember I said that sometimes the Greek and Hebrew words were translated “life.” This is why in some of the above references, you will find the word “life.” Not “soul” or “spirit” in the English text.

The mind is considered to be the cognitive function of the soul wherein though and reason occur. Yet, while this is true, Scripture also states, either explicitly or by implication that thought and cognitive understanding occur in one’s spirit. See Matthew 26:41; Mark 2:8; Luke 1:46-47; Acts 17:16; 1 Corinthians 2:11; 1 Peter 3:3-5. Indeed, whenever pneuma is used of man, it refers either to the immaterial part of man’s being or to his mental disposition (e.g. spirit of fear, spirit of meekness, etc.) Hence it is clear that it is equivalent to psyche. The Trichotomists, especially the Charismatic ones, place the spirit over the soul, hence the mind must be neglected for the sake of the spirit. But Scripture frequently uses pneuma to refer to a state of the mind (nuos). 

I could go on, but I hope that by now it is clear that Scripture most definitely uses the words soul and spirit interchangeably (e.g. Genesis 2:7; Job 32:8; 33:4; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Isaiah 10:18). Anyone who is interested in testing my assertion is more than welcome to compare the several hundred other occurrences of these words in Scripture and see that I have taken as examples passages which are representative of all the others.

If Scripture has any authority with us, this should be enough to put the nail in the coffin of Trichotomy. Scripture does not affirm a tri-partite nature of man, nor is it silent on the issue. Scripture presents man as a bi-partite being composed of an immaterial part (the soul or spirit), and a material part (the body).

Obscure Heroes of the Reformation - Pelican

Conrad Pelican was born in Rouffach, in the German province of Alsace in the year 1478. He was schooled at home until he was 13, when his parents sent him to Heidelberg. After a year and four months of study he returned home and entered a monastery. He later, however, returned to Heidelberg and then moved to Tubingen where he studied liberal arts. He also studied Scholastic theology and Hebrew. At Basel he was made Doctor of Divinity. The Pope, impressed with his learning sent a legate to bring him to Rome. On the way there, Pelican became very ill and returned to Basel.

While there, he came across some of Luther’s books, and through consulting with some godly men, Pelican began to be enlightened of popish errors. His distaste for Roman errors grew so strong that he was persecuted as a Lutheran. About this same time the senate of Basel appointed him, with Œcolampadius, lecturer in divinity where he began first reading on Genesis, then on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

In 1526 Zwingli was able to have Pelican brought to Zurich. In Zurich, Pelican renounced his monkish life. He married and had a son. Because he was currently reading on Samuel, he named his son Samuel. After his wife died, he married a second time, but had no children by his second wife.

After Zwingli died, Bullinger and Bibliander replaced him. Bibliander astonished his hearers for his excellent linguistic skills which he applied to his lectures on Isaiah, and for the fact that he had such skills at the age of 23. Pelican was requested to print all of Bibliander’s lectures with annotations. The lectures were on every book of the Bible except Revelation. In order to make the commentary complete, Pelican included Sebastian Meyer’s commentary on Revelation.

Pelican translated many books out of Hebrew which were printed by Robert Stephens. He held the post of professor of Hebrew at Zurich for 30 years. He was revered for his great learning, his indefatigable labors and his sweet and holy demeanor. He died on Easter Sunday 1556 at the age of 78.