Arthur Custance is of great influence in shaping my theology his in depth logical approach to understanding the scriptures in very insightful. This topic has always caused me conflict and through his many works he has articulated what many theologians have made confusing into a reasonable understanding. In various books he has dealt with this subject within the content of what he is writing but two books I have found most useful the “Seed Of the Woman” and “Two Men Called Adam” Custance gives a little historical background on in the begin of the Trichotomy Dichotomy debate. He is an exert from the Seed of the Woman page 239-40.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 does not stand alone in the arsenal of the trichotomists. They also appeal to Hebrews 4:12, "For the Word of God is quick [i.e., living] . . . piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow. . ." Yet if we take this statement quite literally we seem to have a quadrichotomy of soul, spirit, joints, and marrow. Or if this is objected to as absurd, since the words "joints and marrow" may be intended to be taken together to represent the physical body, then we ought logically also to take soul and spirit together as representing the spiritual component. In which case we strictly end up with a dichotomy, though the trichotomists make this one of their "proof" passages. But we do have a quadrichotomy in the Lord's own statement recorded in Matthew 22:37 and Mark 12:30 in which He speaks of heart, soul, mind, and strength. Again, if it should be argued (very reasonably) that this is really an attempt to emphasize the totality of being, then the same argument can be applied to both Hebrews 4:12 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23.
However we may choose to interpret 1 Thessalonians 5:23, we have to recognize that for historical reasons, the Christian Church has adopted the dichotomic view of man throughout most of its history. We owe to Greek philosophy, chiefly to Plato, the trichotomic view of man, a view which was adopted by both the Eastern and Western branches of the Church at first. The reasons need not concern us except to remark that Plato was persuaded, on philosophical grounds alone, that the interaction between what is purely physical and what is purely spiritual must be mediated through some middle agency. Between matter and spirit (or mind) he placed the soul. The influence of mind on body and of body on mind was mediated through the soul.
As a result of the Apollinarian heresy, the Western or Latin branch of the Christian Church shied away from the Greek concept of a trichotomy and settled firmly for the concept of dichotomy. Unfortunately in doing so, they retained the words soul and spirit without discriminating their meaning precisely. They were considered interchangeable. The Eastern Church, meanwhile, retained the trichotomic view.
At the time of the Reformation, Luther adopted a position which was essentially that of the Greek philosophers.
Further on in this section he describes how the Latin church held to a dichotomy view as well a Augustine and Aquinas
One thing is clear from this passage: man became a living soul when God added an appropriate spirit to a prepared body. Adam did not acquire a soul: he became one. The body was prepared for the spirit. The spirit was created only when the body was ready to receive it. Pg.248 SOW
a body and a spirit, which were designed to remain in union forever. Pg 236 SOW
This is a controversial topic as many are in this book. For “ages” there has been debate over the constitution of human. What is man a spirit, soul and body. A spirit, soul, mind and body. In any systematic theology book you will find scriptures supporting various views. But no one has put it together such as Arthur Custance. Custance in many of his works, “Man in Adam Man in Christ”, “The Forbidden Fruit”, “Two men Called Adam” and his most extensive work in the “Seed of the Woman” has logical and thoroughly held shown that not only historical that the view held was dual constitution but
It is significant that John 3:6 speaks of the rebirth of the spirit, not the soul. And in 1 Corinthians 5:5 we are told of the saving of the spirit rather than of the saving of the soul. In Ecclesiastes 12:7 it is the spirit not the soul that is given to the new-born, after being presumably pre-formed by God (Zechariah12:1). And it is the spirit not the soul that is surrendered by Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:5,10); it is the spirit not the soul that is willing though the body is weak (Matthew 26:41); that is finally to be made perfect (Hebrews 12:23); and that cannot be retained by man when the time comes to surrender it back to God (Ecclesiastes 8:8).
In all these important passages, and often contrary to the way they are quoted, it is the spirit and not the soul that is spoken of. We speak easily of the saving of the soul. And while this is perfectly justified, as will be seen later, it is not strictly biblical. Passages where spirit is used instead of soul can be multiplied greatly by careful attention to the wording of Scripture. Thus it is both body and spirit that need cleansing (2 Corinthians 7:1). Mystically, the Church is one body and one spirit (Ephesians 4:4). And we are called upon to glorify God in our spirit and our body (1 Corinthians 6:20).
What, then, of the soul? Where does it enter the picture? Surely, the soul is the end result of the fusion of
pg.4 of 10
body and spirit, an entity, a reality, generated by the fusion of two elements — just as salt is generated from sodium and chlorine gas, or as the colour green is generated by the fusion of yellow and blue. When the two components are separated by death, one component returns to the earth and the other to heaven into God's keeping, until reunion of the two at the raising of the body brings about the reconstitution of the person. The soul is the result of a union, an entity which comprehends the whole man.
Such a view can be supported both from the Old and the New Testaments. J. Barton Payne has written a most useful volume entitled The Theology of the Older Testament. In his chapter on "The Nature of Man," he proposes that in the Old Testament we have the following progressive equation: (66)
DUST + BREATH = FLESH (as the living organism)
and FLESH + SPIRIT = SOUL (Heb. nephesh, i.e., the person)
The simplicity of this arrangement commends itself highly since it seems to meet many of the apparently conflicting relevant passages in the Old Testament, and virtually all of the New. Passages not satisfied are usually poetry or analogy or an accommodation to common parlance. Basically it presents us with a physical body and a non-physical spirit which together constitute the soul, the person.
We can compare with this a recent equally satisfying study of the biblical view of human constitution by Robert H. Gundry titled Soma in Biblical Theology. This makes an excellent companion volume on the New Testament evidence to that by Barton Payne on the Old.
Gundry concludes, on the basis of the New Testament, that man is a body plus spirit entity which, when fused, becomes a soul. Notice that we are talking about fusion, not mere addition. Soul is something which neither body nor spirit alone can ever be. Man thus can be said to have a body and to have a
spirit: but he does not have a soul. Man IS a soul.
Without the spirit the body is like a car without a driver: without the body the spirit is like a driver without a car. A brief quotation from Gundry nicely indicates his overall position: (67)
The biblical touchstone for truly human life is not consciousness of the spirit, let alone the material being of a physical object such as the body. Rather, man is fully himself only in the unity of his body and spirit in order that the body may be animated and the spirit may express itself in obedience to God.
Both parts of the human constitution share in the dignity of the divine image. That dignity lies in man's service to God as a representative caretaker over the material creation. For such a task man needs a physical medium of action as much as an incorporeal source for the conscious willing of action.
Neither spirit nor body gains precedence over the other. Each gains in union with the other: each loses in separation from the other.
We seem therefore to be nearest to the truth when we formulate the simplest equation possible:
BODY + SPIRIT = SOUL.
1 Thessalonians 5:23 does not stand alone in the arsenal of the trichotomists. They also appeal to Hebrews 4:12, "For the Word of God is quick [i.e., living] . . . piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow. . ." Yet if we take this statement quite literally we seem to have a quadrichotomy of soul, spirit, joints, and marrow. Or if this is objected to as absurd, since the words "joints and marrow" may be intended to be taken together to represent the physical body, then we ought logically also to take soul and spirit together as representing the spiritual component. In which case we strictly end up with a dichotomy, though the trichotomists make this one of their "proof" passages. But we do have a quadrichotomy in the Lord's own statement recorded in Matthew 22:37 and Mark 12:30 in which He speaks of heart, soul, mind, and strength. Again, if it should be argued (very reasonably) that this is really an attempt to emphasize the totality of being, then the same argument can be applied to both Hebrews 4:12 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23.
However we may choose to interpret 1 Thessalonians 5:23, we have to recognize that for historical reasons, the Christian Church has adopted the dichotomic view of man throughout most of its history. We owe to Greek philosophy, chiefly to Plato, the trichotomic view of man, a view which was adopted by both the Eastern and Western branches of the Church at first. The reasons need not concern us except to remark that Plato was persuaded, on philosophical grounds alone, that the interaction between what is purely physical and what is purely spiritual must be mediated through some middle agency. Between matter and spirit (or mind) he placed the soul. The influence of mind on body and of body on mind was mediated through the soul.
As a result of the Apollinarian heresy, the Western or Latin branch of the Christian Church shied away from the Greek concept of a trichotomy and settled firmly for the concept of dichotomy. Unfortunately in doing so, they retained the words soul and spirit without discriminating their meaning precisely. They were considered interchangeable. The Eastern Church, meanwhile, retained the trichotomic view.
At the time of the Reformation, Luther adopted a position which was essentially that of the Greek philosophers.
Further on in this section he describes how the Latin church held to a dichotomy view as well a Augustine and Aquinas
One thing is clear from this passage: man became a living soul when God added an appropriate spirit to a prepared body. Adam did not acquire a soul: he became one. The body was prepared for the spirit. The spirit was created only when the body was ready to receive it. Pg.248 SOW
a body and a spirit, which were designed to remain in union forever. Pg 236 SOW
This is a controversial topic as many are in this book. For “ages” there has been debate over the constitution of human. What is man a spirit, soul and body. A spirit, soul, mind and body. In any systematic theology book you will find scriptures supporting various views. But no one has put it together such as Arthur Custance. Custance in many of his works, “Man in Adam Man in Christ”, “The Forbidden Fruit”, “Two men Called Adam” and his most extensive work in the “Seed of the Woman” has logical and thoroughly held shown that not only historical that the view held was dual constitution but
It is significant that John 3:6 speaks of the rebirth of the spirit, not the soul. And in 1 Corinthians 5:5 we are told of the saving of the spirit rather than of the saving of the soul. In Ecclesiastes 12:7 it is the spirit not the soul that is given to the new-born, after being presumably pre-formed by God (Zechariah12:1). And it is the spirit not the soul that is surrendered by Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:5,10); it is the spirit not the soul that is willing though the body is weak (Matthew 26:41); that is finally to be made perfect (Hebrews 12:23); and that cannot be retained by man when the time comes to surrender it back to God (Ecclesiastes 8:8).
In all these important passages, and often contrary to the way they are quoted, it is the spirit and not the soul that is spoken of. We speak easily of the saving of the soul. And while this is perfectly justified, as will be seen later, it is not strictly biblical. Passages where spirit is used instead of soul can be multiplied greatly by careful attention to the wording of Scripture. Thus it is both body and spirit that need cleansing (2 Corinthians 7:1). Mystically, the Church is one body and one spirit (Ephesians 4:4). And we are called upon to glorify God in our spirit and our body (1 Corinthians 6:20).
What, then, of the soul? Where does it enter the picture? Surely, the soul is the end result of the fusion of
pg.4 of 10
body and spirit, an entity, a reality, generated by the fusion of two elements — just as salt is generated from sodium and chlorine gas, or as the colour green is generated by the fusion of yellow and blue. When the two components are separated by death, one component returns to the earth and the other to heaven into God's keeping, until reunion of the two at the raising of the body brings about the reconstitution of the person. The soul is the result of a union, an entity which comprehends the whole man.
Such a view can be supported both from the Old and the New Testaments. J. Barton Payne has written a most useful volume entitled The Theology of the Older Testament. In his chapter on "The Nature of Man," he proposes that in the Old Testament we have the following progressive equation: (66)
DUST + BREATH = FLESH (as the living organism)
and FLESH + SPIRIT = SOUL (Heb. nephesh, i.e., the person)
The simplicity of this arrangement commends itself highly since it seems to meet many of the apparently conflicting relevant passages in the Old Testament, and virtually all of the New. Passages not satisfied are usually poetry or analogy or an accommodation to common parlance. Basically it presents us with a physical body and a non-physical spirit which together constitute the soul, the person.
We can compare with this a recent equally satisfying study of the biblical view of human constitution by Robert H. Gundry titled Soma in Biblical Theology. This makes an excellent companion volume on the New Testament evidence to that by Barton Payne on the Old.
Gundry concludes, on the basis of the New Testament, that man is a body plus spirit entity which, when fused, becomes a soul. Notice that we are talking about fusion, not mere addition. Soul is something which neither body nor spirit alone can ever be. Man thus can be said to have a body and to have a
spirit: but he does not have a soul. Man IS a soul.
Without the spirit the body is like a car without a driver: without the body the spirit is like a driver without a car. A brief quotation from Gundry nicely indicates his overall position: (67)
The biblical touchstone for truly human life is not consciousness of the spirit, let alone the material being of a physical object such as the body. Rather, man is fully himself only in the unity of his body and spirit in order that the body may be animated and the spirit may express itself in obedience to God.
Both parts of the human constitution share in the dignity of the divine image. That dignity lies in man's service to God as a representative caretaker over the material creation. For such a task man needs a physical medium of action as much as an incorporeal source for the conscious willing of action.
Neither spirit nor body gains precedence over the other. Each gains in union with the other: each loses in separation from the other.
We seem therefore to be nearest to the truth when we formulate the simplest equation possible:
BODY + SPIRIT = SOUL.
