Interesting discussion.
Forgive me for not having had time yet to read your articles, Oz, but my first question would be how then do you translate and interpret all three words in 1 Thessalonians 5:23? It would seem that using either "life" or "person" as a translation of ψυχὴ would be a bit redundant if the word weren't defining a specific part of their being that was distinct from the other two.
HIH,
1 Thessalonians 5:23 (ESV): ‘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’.
This verse is not an easy one to interpret for some of the following reasons. I’ll do my best. I may have to put it into 2 posts. It has caused lots of long hours for Bible exegetes over the years. Therefore, I will not give a simplistic answer, especially in light of these verses:
Matt 10:28 (NIV): Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell’. No ‘spirit’ here.
Matt 22:37 (NIV): ‘Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' No ‘spirit’ here.
Mark 8:36 (NLT): ‘And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?’ No ‘spirit’ here.
Mark 12:30 (NIV): ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' No ‘spirit’ here.
Acts 20:10 (NASB): ‘But Paul went down and fell upon him and after embracing him, he said, “Do not be troubled, for his life [
psuche] is in him.”’
Psuche is rightly translated as ‘life’. No use of ‘spirit’ here.
1 Cor 2:14-15 (NASB), ‘But a natural [
psuchikos] man does not accept the things of the Spirit [
pneuma] of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually [
pneumatikos] appraised. But he who is spiritual [
pneumatikos] appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one’. So, the adjectives based on
psuche and
pneuma are different in meaning.
1 Cor 7:34 (NIV), ‘An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world--how she can please her husband’. No ‘soul’ here.
Rom 1:9 (NIV), ‘God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you’. No ‘soul’ or ‘body’ here.
Heb 4:12 (NIV): ‘For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart’. Soul and spirit are clearly different words.
1 Pet 3:9 (NIV): ‘After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits….’ No ‘souls’ here.
Rev 8:9 (NASB): ‘and a third of the creatures which were in the sea and had life [
psuche], died; and a third of the ships were destroyed’. No ‘spirit’ here.
William Hendricksen provides exegesis in his commentary to support this conclusion:
a. The trichotomistic appearance of the passage is considerably reduced as soon as it is seen that the words in dispute are found not in one clause but in two clauses:
hence not: “And may your spirit and soul and body be kept …”
but
“And without flaw may be your spirit,
and your soul-and-body
…………………………….
May it be kept.”
But thus rendering the passage we can do justice to its grammatical syntax and even to its word-order [and may your the spirit, the soul, and the body be preserved (completely) whole].
b. Every trace of trichotomy which still remains can be obliterated in one of these ways:
(1) by considering the word “soul” to have the same meaning as “spirit,” the change from “spirit” to “soul” having been introduced for stylistic reasons. This eliminates trichotomy.
(2) by accepting the position that although both “spirit” and “soul” refer to the same immaterial substance (hence, no trichotomy here either!), this substance is viewed first (in one clause) from the aspect of its relation to God – the “spirit” being man’s power of grasping divine things, his invisible essence viewed as a recipient of divine influences and as an organ of divine worship - ; then, in the next clause, from the aspect of its relation to the lower realm, as the seat of sensations, affections, desires. This could well be the true element in theory e.
If a choice must be made, I would prefer this second alternative. It is in harmony with the distinction between the two words which is present elsewhere (as has been shown). There is also an interesting parallel in a somewhat similar passage, Heb. 4:12, where it is obvious that the two words have distinct meanings.
The main point has been proved, namely, that, either way, every trace of trichotomy has disappeared (Hendriksen & Kistemaker 1955/1984:150).
I have a problem with this kind of explanation, although it has many exegetical values, as it seems to be a begging the question fallacy (circular reasoning) where the non-trichotomous view (dichotomy) is assumed at the beginning and leads to the same non-trichotomous (dichotomous) conclusion.
For a detailed discussion of the difficulties with this verse, see the commentary: William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker1955/1984.
New Testament Commentary: Thessalonians, the Pastorals, and Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, pp. 146-150.
See my next post for a shorter discussion that presupposes the verses cited in this post.
Oz