Good post. I'll have to read it a couple more time to digest it.
And yours as well. As usual, your posts are informative and well researched. I enjoy reading them greatly.
Yes, "depending on how you interpret the term 'fall away'." Dan, if you interpret "enlightened" as being saved, then this set of verses demand that you MUST believe in lost salvation. 'Fall away' from 'enlightenment/salvation'? What else?
But, chew on this: "enlightened" is the knowledge of the Gospel message, not the acceptance of such. Then: "tasted...gift, and ... partakers of the Holy Ghost" describes God's calling of the individual and the sending of the Holy Spirit to invite him into the kingdom. So verse 5 shows that this person had an understanding of the Gospel, of what God's call is, and of what the Holy Spirit is offering. But verse 6 states that this person fell away from such understanding, and thus blasphemed the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29) and we know from the Gospel of Mark that there is no repentence for this.
I feel ya'. However, I have a different viewpoint on this set of verses that is different than both of those, that I am quite content with. But I am going to leave that alone for now as I cannot get on too many subjects at one time, as I then lose my focus. Mabey we can start another thread on just that topic at a later time.
Yes, and not to mention all the verses about the guarantee of the Holy Spirit and our being sealed.
Agreed.
And my final
thought is that if you are going to use this (the soul of man)as the cog-pin of your understanding then take into consideration the following (
acknowledging my understanding of traditional charismatic teaching on the subject of the soul):
Matthew 22:37-38
37 Jesus said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and great commandment.
There is a heart (not the pumping organ) in a man; there is a soul within a man; and there is a mind within a man.
I contend, fine sir, that Jesus is neither dyslexic nor repetitious.
Be blessed!!
Lol, you are quite the comedian, aren't you? I agree, Jesus is neither dyslexic nor repetitious.
However, let me put a little bit more context to that verse. That verse is a quote from the Old Testament, and the Old Testament does not use the word
mind here, rather it uses the word
might:
4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
-Deuteronomy 6:4-5
This word comes from the Hebrew
meh'ode Strongs number
H3966, and according to Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon means
strength.
To be fair, in the account in Matthews gospel, the word
mind is used, and it is the Greek word for
mind also, according to the Lexicon. this makes one wonder why the word was used by Jesus when quoting the Old Testament verse. In most cases, I would probably lean toward Jesus quote as being a more accurate explanation of the original intent, for obvious reasons. However, in this case, I lean the opposite way, and I will do my best to explain why.
As I am sure that you know, even Lexicons or Hebrew and Greek dictionaries aren't really the final word when it comes to interpreting scripture. They are extremely helpful, but they are not the final word. There are three levels of interpretive review, IMHO, starting with the lowest form to the highest:
- obvious english meaning of the words used
- scholarly definitions of the original language words
- contextual definitions from the scripture itself, led by the Holy Spirit
I don't want to go into all the mechanics of this, as I am sure that you already understand this, but suffice it to say that sometimes even the scholarly definitions can be lacking because no one alive today was around in the first century or before, so no one really knows all there is to know about the languages of that time, their idioms, figures of speech, etc. Some know alot, but no one knows it all. Add to this that many times translators bring their own theological bias into the translation process, inadvertantly and unconsciously allowing it color the accuracy of their sholastic work and interpretive process, and we see that sometimes we need to do some contextual digging of our own. Some of the greatest revelations that I have gotten from the Word have come this way.
Looking at the context of both the original statement in Deuteronomy, and Jesus rendition of it in the gospels I note some interesting facts.
First, from the context of the Deuteronomy passage:
4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:
5 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7 And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
9 And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
-Deuternomy 6:4-9
Reading this in context seems to give a lot of weight to the word
might that is used by the KJV translators, as the description given of how this should play out in ones life involves alot of actions in the physical world, i.e.: teaching them to thy children, talking of them in the house and when your walking and laying down and getting up, writing them on your hands and on your forehead, writing them on the posts of the house and on the gates.
This to me speaks of the third part of man,
the body, under the direction of the mind, expressing through the actions of the flesh, that which you have in your heart and in your soul. Therefore I see this verse in this manner, "Thou shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all the might or strength of your flesh."
So then if this is accurate, why does Jesus use the Greek word for
mind when quoting it in Matthew? Well, we can shed some light on this if we go to the same account of this in Mark and Luke.
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
-Mark 12:29-30
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
-Luke 10:25-27
It is interesting to note that in Lukes account the words themselves aren't even ascribed to Jesus, but to a lawyer. However, this may well have been a seperate but similar event, and even if not, Jesus agreed to His rendition, making it Jesus word anyways.
So leaving that aside, note that here an extra statement is added, and instead of it just saying, "all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy mind", it says, "all thy heart, and all thy soul, and all thy strength, and all thy mind".
So how do we interpret that? Jesus is basically interpreting the word
might in the Old Testment passage to mean the
mind and the
strength of the
flesh. Or, as I would put it,
the mind of the flesh.
Of course, the flesh itself doesn't really have a mind, does it? Well, not so fast. If someone is brain dead, or in a coma, often their body continues to function. Something is directing the bodily functions. While it is not the "mind" in the sense that we often tend to think of it, it is a sort of direction of will, based upon instinct, and habit. For me, this brings up a verse in Hebrews:
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
-Hebrews 5:14
This verse seems to imply that one can trian the flesh itself to discern both good and evil. This is a kind of "mind of the flesh", so to speak, and is what I believe Jesus was alluding to here. My conclusion from this contextual journey is that the Greek word mind that Jesus employed here has a greater more versatile meaning than just the intellect, and furthermore, a meaning that is not fully contained or explored in the Lexicons that I have looked at.
My view is bolstered by the fact that the Greek word used for mind here is not the normal Greek word for mind. Rather it is a compound word with the prefix
dia added to it, which means to see through to, implying an ability to judge rightly or discern. That sounds alot like Hebrews 5:14.
This takes us back to what exactly a soul is. The Bible tells us that God formed man of the dust of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the breathe, (ru-ach) of life, or spirit, and man became a living soul.
I can't describe all the parameters of the essence of that soul, but it appears to me to occur where and when the flesh of man and the spirit of man meet. The soul is kinda a co-joining of the two, or a meshing of the two, that brings about our cognitive functions, emotions, and where the seat of our will is. Please don't be too critical of my description here, it may not be technically correct, but I am just trying to give a feeling or picture of what I see happening.
The soul sits between the two. The spirit of man does not command man, rather the soul does. The soul receives information from both the flesh and the spirit, then makes a decision of will, and commands the mind and the body/flesh to obey. If we are walking in the spirit, then our soul is in agreement with our spirit, and following its lead, but it is still the choice of the will that makes this decision. If it was up to the spirit to make the choice, then obviously everyone that was born again would thereafter walk a perfect walk in the flesh because we have a perfected spirit. We don't however, because even though we are saved, it is the soul of man, which is not completely renewed, that has the seat of command.
It appears to me that what Jesus was doing here was emphasizing the role of the mind in directing the flesh, not trying to state that the soul and the mind are two different things.
In conclusion, let me say that this view of man being a spirit, that has a soul, and lives in a body is the default view of the WOF movement, to the best of my understanding. Kenneth Hagin taught this, and so does Kenneth Copeland. However, your statement seems to lean toward the dichotomous view of man, rather than the trichotomous view. Is that so? I'm just curious.
My view is that man is a spirit, he has a soul, and he lives in a body. Both the spirit and the body have senses that receive information from the world around them. The spirit receives information from the spiritual senses about the spiritual world, and the body receives information from the physical senses about the physical world. The soul doesn't have senses of its own, it is simply the clearinghouse for the information sent to it from the spirit and the body. The soul contains the mind, the will, and the emotions. It colates all the information and makes decisions about what do do with it.
The word heart in the Bible is used to mean the inner part of the man. It never refers to the flesh. Most of the time it seems to refer to both the spirit and the soul, but often it is used to refer to just the spirit of man, and sometimes to just the soul of man.
Finally, I would like to add, that just becasue the word 'and' is used, doesn't always make it a separate item, and one can use a word that describes a whole to refer to only a part, even though the word means the whole normally. For instance, if I were to say that I washed my body and my hands and my feet, you would understand what I mean. Even though technichally my body includes my legs arms hands and feet, I could also use the word in a more limited fashion, referring to just the trunk of my body. That doesn't make the statement false, and is I was to interpret from that the may hands and feet are not part of my body, I would be incorrect. In the same way, just because Jesus said soul, and mind, doesn't mean that the mind could not be part of the soul also.
I would say that in order to believe that the mind is not a part of the soul, which is a pretty well established doctrine, you would have to provide more than one verse as evidence, particularly one that can be seen in a very different light.
Hope that this helps.
Peace...