Primarily through Augustine’s influence and his prosecution of the Pelagian controversy, the post-Nicene Church defected from the orthodox tripartite understanding of most earlier Fathers who believed man to be comprised of body, soul and spirit212; the latter being provided directly from God and the means by which one receives sound reason and a pure conscience, the Light of Christ by which little children cannot but “believe” in Jesus the Word213. This has exacerbated difficulties when interpreting Paul’s epistles; the
“spirit” not being conceived by most readers to be a separate entity (a component of human nature) distinct from the Holy Spirit. Paul refers more frequently than others to the human spirit because of his substantial handling of the inner struggle concept. On one occasion he refers to body, spirit and soul together214 in terms of them being sanctified as a whole.
Likewise, the writer to the Hebrews speaks of the word of God penetrating between soul and spirit as it does between the joints and marrow215. The latter two materials of the body are closely related yet distinct, as are the soul and spirit. Justin Martyr spoke of the soul housing the spirit just as the body houses the soul216, the latter being a kind of ethereal interface formed in the outline of the body enclosing the spirit - invisible when it leaves the body at death yet (of necessity) made visible in the realm it inhabits prior to resurrection217.
Irenaeus concurred: the soul possessing the figure of the body in which it dwells218 whilst
“the complete man is composed of flesh, soul and spirit. One of these does indeed preserve and fashion the man – this is the spirit; whilst as to another it is united and formed – that is the flesh; then comes that which is between the two – that is the soul which sometimes when it follows the spirit is raised up by it but sometimes it sympathises with the flesh and falls into carnal lust"219. In the New Testament the Greek word for soul ( psuche) is often translated as “life” for it more often relates to the physical: “Take no thought for your
“psuche” what you shall eat or what you shall drink”220.
209 Lk16:25
210 Rom13:9-10
211 Rom2:15
212 Historical background to trichotomy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_(theology)
213 Cf. Mt18:6
214 1Thes5:23
215 Heb4:12
216 Justin on the resurrection chap. 10
217 Cf. Lk16:23
218 Irenaeus against heresies Book II chap. 19 (6)
219 Irenaeus against heresies Book V chap. 9 para 1
220 Mt6:25
36
The nature of “original sin”
Paul affirms that human flesh and spirit have opposing moral inclinations because of which the human mind becomes a battleground, receiving conflicting advice or motivations from each: the selfish creaturely inclinations derived from the bodily members processed through the brain on the one hand; the more idealistic sometimes altruistic impulses arising from the conscience that governs the God-planted spirit on the other. It is not that the immaterial part of man (the soul and spirit) is in any Platonic sense generically superior or purer than the material housing or “vessel” (the body) because the former happens to be immaterial. The dualism in the form of moral antagonism arises from the immediate source of the component parts. The spiritual components are pure not because they are immaterial but because they are from God; the body is impure not because it is material but because it originates from the loins of fallen Adam and carries the contagion of sin. Paul explains how precisely that affects human morality and how for Christians the matter is partially remedied by gospel salvation, yet not wholly so for anybody until resurrection221.
Such anthropological duality was recognized by the very early Christian writers. In the epistle to Diognetus (c. AD130), Mathetes, the anonymous disciple likens the soul’s relationship to the body to that of the Church to the world: the latter (equating to the flesh) wars against the former (the soul) and hates it because it is perceived to restrict its worldly enjoyment, whereas the Church (the soul) loves the body (the world) and seeks to preserve and sanctify it222. Likewise, Cyprian (A.D.200-258) recognized the body to be of the earth and the human’s spirit to be from heaven and that through the Fall they have opposing natures. He affirms that Paul’s references to the spirit being opposed to the flesh223 are not referring to the Holy Spirit but the human’s spirit; similarly, the fruits of the spirit224.
There has been such a spiritual and physical dimension to man since his creation.
Adam was formed from the dust of the earth; the Creator breathed into his nostrils and he became a living soul created after God’s own nature225. Dust however reconstituted or developed could never relate to God; man as a whole can, for he is body and soul/spirit.
Having a body is an essential aspect to being human: the problem is this body and from whom it has been procreated. The physical/spiritual moral dichotomy within man is a result of the Fall. Paul draws out the different inclinations acting upon the mind in view of the different law or principle acting within the material and immaterial constituents of human nature, particularly in Romans chapter seven. He affirms that the disposition of the flesh is death whilst the disposition of the spirit is life and peace226. The soul is rather like Adam and Eve at creation: pure and innocent but pliant, i.e., liable to corruption, except that in the soul’s case it is certain to experience corruption through the intrinsic unrighteous bias of fallen human nature as a whole. God never creates what is evil or impure of itself, so that must apply to the human soul/spirit but fallen man can and does procreate what is impure, and then they are combined in the human embryo. Yet it is not like pouring wine into a bottle: the body, soul and spirit are so closely inter-related that the material soon 221 Cf. Rom8:23
222 Epistle to Diognetus chap. 6
223 E.g. Gal5:17
224 The treatises of Cyprian - Treatise 4 para 16
225 Gen2:7
226 Rom8:6
37
compromises the integrity of the immaterial, yet they remain separable identities, being parted at death.
What was derived from the dust of the ground returns to the ground to await a radical transformation (resurrection) whilst that which was given by God returns to God227.
But the soul will inevitably have been tainted by its association with mortal flesh unless a person has been “saved” (soul-healed) through the gospel. For as a consequence of original sin the physical component’s latent instincts as they are processed within the brain are intrinsically corrupting, tending to concupiscence (disordered desire), and will inevitably gain the upper hand over the divinely planted spirit unless aided by divine grace.
The inner struggle is not between human nature in its entirety and the Holy Spirit as most have come to understand Paul, for it applies equally to those who do not possess the Spirit. Rather it is a conflict between the inclination of the bodily members (Paul and Peter’s temporary vessel or tent) and the influence of the human’s spirit; the one governed by concupiscence, the other by conscience; the one having been created after God’s own nature, the other created originally from God’s good earth but degenerated through the Fall and procreated therefrom. “O wretched man that I am. Who can deliver me from the body
of this death? I thank God it is through Jesus Christ our Lord”. Truly, this is the essence of Christian salvation, for in the believer that battle is aided and can be turned into victory by becoming one spirit with Christ228.
Anthropological dualism in the Gospels and non-Pauline epistles
Anthropological dualism is not exclusive to the writings of Paul. Jesus uses the terminology of the “heart” when referring to what Paul’s describes as the “inner man” or
“spirit”:
“A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth that which is good”229
Jesus is obviously referring to the man’s heart not God’s in which the treasure resides; similarly it is the human spirit not the Holy Spirit that directly produces good fruit, for contrary to the wishful thinking of the devil and the doctrines of those who have been deceived by him, people who do not possess the Holy Spirit can still exercise genuine love, kindness and patience which are fruits of the spirit. That is nothing for anyone to boast about for these virtues come from God as the human’s soul/spirit comes from Him and is created in His image regardless of whether it becomes empowered by the Holy Spirit. But
then there is “the flesh” , hence the need for gospel salvation for those who are to serve God in the current age and be fitted to reign with His Son in the next230.
In the gospels Jesus utilizes metaphorical language to describe the would-be disciple’s inner struggle with the spiritual and physical components of his nature, and it is starker than Paul’s but is teaching the same principle. The self-mutilation passages recorded in Matthew5:28-30 and Mark9:43-48 are referring to the need to control the bodily 227 Eccles12:7
228 1Cor6:17
229 Lk6:45a
230 Cf. Rom8:29; Rev5:9-10
38
members so that the soul or “heart” is not polluted. It is clearly allegorical for it is obvious that cutting off an arm does not make someone a better person: they will still find a way to steal if that is their inclination. Jesus is highlighting the need for a disciple to keep his bodily members under tight control otherwise the whole person will be damaged.
But note the reflexives: “If your eye offends you pluck it out; if your arm ensnares
you hack it off” etc. As with the apostle’s teaching, this pertains to the disparate moral dispositions of spirit/heart and body. The “you” that is offended, ensnared or led into sin is the spirit/soul/heart, being that which is from God and survives physical death; the offenders or ensnarers are your bodily members driven by the physical senses processed through the brain pertaining to the temporary earthly vessel. If the latter is not controlled, it pollutes the former and the soul may need to be purged or salted in fire231. Only Jesus specifically alludes to this post-mortem aspect (next chapter) but otherwise Peter teaches the same principle albeit less dramatically than Jesus and with less proneness to being misunderstood than Paul since he refers more inclusively to the “soul” rather than “spirit”, such that there is no ambiguity in translation to confuse spirit with Spirit.
“Abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul”232
Peter’s “fleshly lusts” equate to Paul’s “flesh”. His “soul” incorporates Paul’s “spirit”, but in Peter’s case it is unambiguous for Bible translators cannot lexically equate “soul” with
“Holy Spirit”, yet to be consistent with the way Paul is normally understood in this area Peter might have been expected to write “Abstain from fleshly lusts that war against the Holy Spirit”. In fact, the various apostles’ teachings are consistent throughout: the spirit (or soul or “heart” or inner man) is constantly at war with the earthly tabernacle (or vessel or body or flesh) into which the spiritual essence is diffused, and the battleground is the mind that determines the will.