Thomas Garrett Isham
According to the customary formula, the Holy Trinity is Three in One and One in Three. Church-goers are well acquainted with this doctrinal shorthand.
They are less familiar with a second three-fold formula, one that can be called the Trinity of Man or–in my words–Triadic Anthropology. In this second formula, I refer not to the three persons of the divinity, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, but to the three parts of the human being: spirit, soul, body (in Greek, pneuma, psyche, soma), each of which is a distinct, substantive entity, though interrelated on various levels.i
Although most church-goers are likely unaware of this rather abstruse subject, I believe it is something worth knowing about. Some might think it on the level of counting angels on the head of a pin but this is mistaken. Just think: Inasmuch as man is created in the image of God, might there not be in human nature an echo of the Holy Trinity, of the triune divinity? After all, “three-ness” is present in any number of natural and supernatural entities. Why not this one? Why not Triadic Anthropology?ii
This second “trinity,” then, is not without interest to Christians of all stripes, not the least of which are Lutherans, since no less than Martin Luther himself held to the doctrine. Moreover, this doctrine finds expression in Scripture, and Lutherans are loath to overlook any teaching from the sacred source. The doctrine also, and this is not to be gainsaid, offers spiritual nourishment to believers, and for this alone is worth exploration.
This “Trinity of Man,” called trichotomy, does not however hold the field alone. It is challenged by dichotomists, that is, by those holding that man consists of two parts: one material (body) and one immaterial (soul/spirit). As far as I can tell, dichotomists represent the majority opinion in church history, though noted churchmen have held to trichotomy. I admit myself to having been influenced by any number of dichotomists in the past and am aware of their arguments. Specifically, such renowned conservative figures as evangelical Anglican J. I. Packer, Presbyterian J. Gresham Machen, and Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof, to name just three, have left their mark on me, but many others could be cited as well.
On the other hand, Lutherans (at least in the Missouri Synod) who have addressed the subject appear these days to be few and far between. In fact, I have discovered only one who recently addressed the issue, that being Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller of Austin, Texas (co-host of Table Talk Radio), who stands strongly by Luther’s position on the subject. There may be additional blogs or pastoral and academic writings here and there but I have not found them. I did, however, discover a hoary comment by John McClintock and James Strong in the Cyclopedia of Ecclesiastical Literature, circ. 1880, that says trichotomy was “still held” by evangelical Lutherans in the late 19th century (10:549).
Be that as it may, let us turn to Luther himself and see what he had to say on the subject. It was in the year 1521, in his commentary on The Magnificat, that he elucidated his views on what has become known as trichotomy. He propounded the concept in the context of the Virgin Mary’s opening words, wherein she sang (in Luke 3: 46-47) “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my savior.” These words allowed Luther to begin his discourse on “soul” and “spirit,” and he wasted little time in asserting that Scripture divides man into three parts, as taught by St. Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5: 23: “May the God of peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
According to Luther, the spirit is the “highest, deepest, and noblest part of man. By it he is enabled to lay hold on things incomprehensible, invisible, and eternal.” (Unless otherwise noted, all of Luther’s quotations used herein are found in Luther’s Works, vol. 21, pp. 303-306) Man’s spirit, then, not his mind, is the dwelling place of faith and the Word of God. Of it, Luther says, David speaks also in Psalm 51: 10: “Lord, create in my inward parts a right spirit.” That is, “a straight and upright faith.”
Luther continues: “The second part, the soul, is this same spirit, so far as its nature [that is, its invisible character] but viewed as performing a different function [italics added], namely, giving life to the body and working through the body.” In the Scriptures, he says, the soul “is frequently put for the life… Even in sleep the soul lives and works without ceasing.”
The soul’s nature, Luther asserts, is “to comprehend not incomprehensible things [as the spirit is enabled to do] but such things as the reason can know and understand. Indeed, reason is the light in this dwelling; and unless the spirit, which is lighted with the brighter light of faith, controls this light of reason, it cannot but be in error. For it is too feeble to deal with things divine. To these two parts of man the Scriptures ascribe many things, such as wisdom and knowledge – wisdom to the spirit, knowledge to the soul; likewise hatred, love, delight, horror, and the like.”
This brings us to the third part, the body with its members, the easiest of the three to comprehend [after all, we can see the body]. “Its work,” Luther explains, “is only to carry out and apply that which the soul knows and the spirit believes.”
Luther continues with a vivid illustration from Scripture to further explain the three parts of man. “In the tabernacle fashioned by Moses [the portable shrine constructed during the wilderness wanderings of the Hebrew people] there were three separate compartments. The first was called the holy of holies: here was God’s dwelling place, and in it there was no light. The second was called the holy place; here stood a candlestick with seven arms and seven lamps. The third was called the outer court; this lay under the open sky and in the full light of the sun. In this tabernacle we have a figure of the Christian man. His spirit is the holy of holies where God dwells in the darkness of faith, where no light is; for he believes that which he neither sees nor feels nor comprehends. His soul is the holy place, with the seven lamps, that is, all manner of reason, discrimination, knowledge, and understanding of visible and bodily things. His body is the forecourt, open to all, so that men may see [their] works and manner of life.” Although Luther does not mention it, one might also observe that the Solomonic temple parallels the earlier tabernacle by evoking the same tripartite symbolism, with its sanctuary (spirit), inner temple (soul) and porch (body).
Luther also touches on a holistic aspect of three-part anthropology culled from St. Paul’s writings: “Now Paul prays God, who is a God of peace, to sanctify us not in one part only, but wholly [as in 1 Thessalonians 5: 23], through and through, so that spirit, soul, body, and all may be holy. We might mention many reasons why he prays in this manner, but let the following suffice. When the spirit is no longer holy, then nothing is holy. This holiness of the spirit is the scene of the sorest conflict and the source of the greatest danger. It consists in nothing else than in faith pure and simple, since the spirit has nothing to do with things comprehensible, as we have seen.”
Such dangers, Luther warns, arise when false teachers “lure the spirit out of doors; one puts forth this work, another that mode of attaining to godliness. And unless the spirit is preserved and is wise, it will come forth and follow these men. It will fall upon the external works and rules and imagine it can attain to godliness by means of them. And before we know it, faith is lost, and the spirit is dead in the sight of God.”
Luther counters with his standard grace and faith teaching as the path to all good things: “There is no peace except where men teach that we are made pious, righteous and blessed by no work nor outward thing but solely by faith, that is, a firm confidence in the unseen grace of God that is promised us… Therefore Paul is not content with saying here simply, ‘your spirit, your soul,’ etc; but he says ‘your whole spirit,’ for on this all depends… The believing spirit alone possesses all things. Everything depends on the faith of the spirit. And this same ‘spirit that possesses the whole inheritance’ I pray God to preserve in you against the false doctrines which would make works the basis of our trust in God and which are but false tidings, because they do not base such trust upon God’s grace alone.
“On the other hand,” he continues, eager to extend a warning to believers, “when the spirit is without faith, the soul together with the whole life cannot but fall into wickedness and error, however good an intention and opinion it may profess, and find in that its own devotion and satisfaction. As a consequence of this error and false opinion of the soul, all the works of the body also become evil and damnable, even though a man killed himself with fasting and performed the works of all the saints. In order, therefore, that our works and our life may not be in vain, but that we may become truly holy, it is necessary that God preserve, first, our spirit, and then our soul and body, not only from overt sins but much more from false and apparent good works.”
Turning aside from Luther’s views, It is perhaps an apt time to mention additional Scriptures that differentiate spirit and soul in various contexts, rather than citing just 1 Thessalonians 5 and Luke 1. Among them are (italics added):
Genesis 2: 7 – “[T]hen the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground [body] and breathed into his nostrils the breath [spirit] of life, and the man became a living creature [soul].
Hebrews 4: 12 – “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.”
1 Corinthians 15: 44-45 – “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. Thus it is written: ‘The first man Adam became a living being [soul] ‘; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1 Corinthians 2: 14 – “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.” iii
These Scriptures, in combination with Luther’s lengthy discussion of Threefold Anthropology, present various contexts regarding the spirit, soul, body triad. In addition to Luther’s comments and the Scriptures just cited, is there another angle we might consider?
I believe there is, and it can be found in congruence with Luther’s famous saying, Simul Justus et Peccator,that is, “Simultaneously Justified and Sinner.” This saying fits the trichotomist paradigm nicely, since it indirectly makes sense of the activities of man’s trifold nature.
For instance, man’s spirit, especially when indwelt by the Holy Spirit, transcends the soul and is enabled to objectively (to one degree or another) observe and evaluate the soul’s faculties of thinking, feeling and willing. Spiritual awareness, then, is able to discern the works of the soul’s nature. It can judge good from bad, virtuous behaviors from ignoble deeds. One might ask oneself, have I done a good thing in a particular instance? Or was the soul up to its old antics again? The enlightened spirit can tell.
Through all of this, we remain spiritually justified even though the soul remains prone to repeated “soulish” sins. So even when we sin, even when we fall short or miss the target, we do not lose our justification. We remain in God’s good graces, repentant and safe in our born-again spirit, able to confront our soulish failures and carry forward with the sanctified life.
i There is a further subtlety: According to Luther, each of these parts of man’s nature (spirit, soul and body) may be good or evil, that is, they may be “spirit or flesh,” which are qualities here and not parts of man’s nature.
ii In addition to the Greek terms of spirit (pneuma), soul (psyche) and body (soma), we should note two parallels. In Judaism, spirit and soul are ruach and nephesh, respectively, and in Islam they are ruh and nafs, respectively. Thus, soul and spirit distinctions are found in the other members of the Abrahamic religions as well as in the Christian.
iii An Excursus to Spirit, Soul, Body: The Blueprint of Man in the Image of God, by Sam McVay Jr. and Spencer Stewart, Project one28 Publishing, El Dorado, Kansas, 2010. In regard to 1 Corinthians 15: 44-45 above (although many other examples could be adduced), commentators Sam McVay Jr. and Spencer Stewart take exception to certain modern translations, which they claim needlessly weaken the case for trichotomy. In the passage noted, psychikon is rendered as “natural.” In their view, modern scholars have done damage by translating it in this way, rather than rendering it as “soulish.” Thus, readers see the word “natural” and think “physical” instead of what God communicated in the original Greek, namely, a word with reference to the soul. Also, in 1 Corinthians 2: 14, the translators render psychikos anthropos as “the natural person” rather than as “the soulish person,” the latter of which would allow soulish to contrast correctly with spiritual (pneumatikos). As a result, soul and spirit are misleadingly turned into nature and spirit. Owing to such usages, McVay and Stewart contend, the Body of Christ at large remains tainted by the materialistic mindset of the present age.
Tom Isham is a member of Agnus Dei Lutheran Church in Marshall, Michigan. He is a retired newspaper editor and the author of six books.
Christian News 