Bipartite or Tripartite Nature of Man?

Originally Posted by Freedom

I agree that the Bible distinguishes between the two. My question, however, is if this distinction is something that should lead us to a tripartite view or if perhaps means something different? Consider these verses:
Luke 1:46-47 And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior…” (NKJV)

At the surface it seems to indicate that two parts of her being were simultaneously giving glory to God. I’m not entirely convinced, however, that’s what these verses are saying. I have to quote something that I saw OBW post on a different thread: “Unless you are seriously bipolar, you never disagree with yourself.” It's a good point, and it's summarizes the reason why I question whether or not this kind of distinction between the soul and spirit means WHAT IT IS OFTEN PRESUMED TO MEAN.

Does it?

It doesn’t seem like this was the case with Saul:
1 Sam 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and a DISTRESSING spirit from the LORD troubled him. (NKJV)

You pose an interesting question, Freedom, and your choice of Biblical examples (Mary and Saul) have given me pause for thought and much reflection. It seems to me that whenever we tackle this issue of the distinction between the soul and the spirit, the definition of these two 'organs' is always dogmatically and unconsciously assumed. We have been taught that the 'spirit' is the deeper part of man and that the soul is the seat of the 'mind, will, and emotions'. This, I believe, is classic Nee, and promulgated further by Lee. We have accepted these definitions as if these two 'men of God' somehow, in a lab somewhere in China, were able to isolate 'a soul', observe it, dissect it, and carry out extensive tests on it, in order to come up with a near scientifically precise description of what it is.

Seriously, how did these gentlemen receive this knowledge of something so profound and intangible that it has eluded all others in all ages and climes? What kind of instruments did they use? I have read bygone tales of the corpses of freshly-executed criminals being drawn, and quartered, and excavated, in this quest to fathom the secrets of the soul. All without result! Where is the Biblical evidence that the "mind, will, and emotions" reside in the soul? Though I am not saying that this belief is totally without merit, it still begs the question of whether this is not yet another LC mantra and dogma that the sheep have mindlessly and uncritically accepted?

Freedom's example of Mary, I think, provides some insight. Her soul 'magnified' the LORD and her spirit 'rejoiced'. Could it not be that the soul is the region where we think, and reason, and deliberate, and calculate, etc, while the spirit is that region in us where our 'emotions' (like rejoicing) lie? And wasn't it Saul's spirit that was 'distressed', and not his soul?

Perhaps, we have been sold a faulty bill of goods that has produced in our thinking this false dichotomy of the different functions of the soul and the spirit; and the plain truth is right before our noses and lies in plain sight in everyday language. Is it not usually said of an extraordinarily happy person, even amongst unbelievers, that that person seems to be 'in high spirits'? Why must we look for esoteric and abstruse meanings for things that the LORD has plainly set forth (in what should be taken as ordinary language) in his Word?

Just my two pieces-of-eight, mateys...

Much Grace,

'Jack'

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

Freedom's example of Mary, I think, provides some insight. Her soul 'magnified' the LORD and her spirit 'rejoiced'. Could it not be that the soul is the region where we think, and reason, and deliberate, and calculate, etc, while the spirit is that region in us where our 'emotions' (like rejoicing) lie? And wasn't it Saul's spirit that was 'distressed', and not his soul?

But if you read through the lengthy list of verses that Nee originally provided as his base evidence of the three parts and their interior functions, too often you find the spirit being described as doing something that another verse gives to the soul and visa versa. In the end, I do not say that there is no distinction in the two, but it is not as simple as thinking v emotions. The spirit reasons and the soul is emotive.

We began to ponder if it is not that the spirit is (for lack of better terminology) and overlay on the soul that connects man to the spiritual world of God. Something that the lower animals do not possess. So it is not that the basic activities of either are peculiarly unique, but rather it is the spiritual aspect of their joint activities that reaches beyond ourselves.

That would be something that is described as so connected as to take a very sharp knife or sword to separate. And when that verse goes into describing that two-edged sword, was the purpose to say it had verses to separate soul and spirit, or to state that it has power and precision in our lives beyond mere words. Just finding verses that say this or that is not so "sharp." If it were that easy, it could be described are somewhat blunt. Bluntly stated as this is this and that is that. But once you really look at all those verses, they step all over each other thereby making the simplistic analysis that Nee provided a sham.

And he was good at saying whatever he wanted and everyone just taking it at face value. But it seems that if you do not simply take his word for it and allow yourself to make an analysis of what is or is not true, his "this means that" statements too often fall apart.

Yes, there is a distinction between soul and spirit. But it is so deep and hard to understand that even mere words bluntly stated in the scripture cannot do it for you. Rather it is the living and operative word (not the letter) that is sharp.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

Seriously, how did these gentlemen receive this knowledge of something so profound and intangible that it has eluded all others in all ages and climes?

Good question. At the very least their bland assertions should not be received as if it were so, simply because it is convenient to their ministry.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

You pose an interesting question, Freedom, and your choice of Biblical examples (Mary and Saul) have given me pause for thought and much reflection. It seems to me that whenever we tackle this issue of the distinction between the soul and the spirit, the definition of these two 'organs' is always dogmatically and unconsciously assumed. We have been taught that the 'spirit' is the deeper part of man and that the soul is the seat of the 'mind, will, and emotions'. This, I believe, is classic Nee, and promulgated further by Lee. We have accepted these definitions as if these two 'men of God' somehow, in a lab somewhere in China, were able to isolate 'a soul', observe it, dissect it, and carry out extensive tests on it, in order to come up with a near scientifically precise description of what it is.

Seriously, how did these gentlemen receive this knowledge of something so profound and intangible that it has eluded all others in all ages and climes? What kind of instruments did they use? I have read bygone tales of the corpses of freshly-executed criminals being drawn, and quartered, and excavated, in this quest to fathom the secrets of the soul. All without result! Where is the Biblical evidence that the "mind, will, and emotions" reside in the soul? Though I am not saying that this belief is totally without merit, it still begs the question of whether this is not yet another LC mantra and dogma that the sheep have mindlessly and uncritically accepted?

What I find striking about WN/WL is not simply that they spoke of man having a tripartite nature, but that they presented such a teaching as if they were experts on the nature of man, having managed to develop a full understanding that had not been rivaled to date. Of course, many LCers would also have no problem brazenly telling other Christians that somehow everyone else has “missed” these verses in the Bible that presumably show that man is tripartite. Like aron mentioned, it really seems that such a teaching was convenient for WN/WL ministries more than anything else. It gave them a way to differentiate themselves from others, and also to attack others (as Lee later became so good at doing).

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

Freedom's example of Mary, I think, provides some insight. Her soul 'magnified' the LORD and her spirit 'rejoiced'. Could it not be that the soul is the region where we think, and reason, and deliberate, and calculate, etc, while the spirit is that region in us where our 'emotions' (like rejoicing) lie? And wasn't it Saul's spirit that was 'distressed', and not his soul?

Perhaps, we have been sold a faulty bill of goods that has produced in our thinking this false dichotomy of the different functions of the soul and the spirit; and the plain truth is right before our noses and lies in plain sight in everyday language. Is it not usually said of an extraordinarily happy person, even amongst unbelievers, that that person seems to be 'in high spirits'? Why must we look for esoteric and abstruse meanings for things that the LORD has plainly set forth (in what should be taken as ordinary language) in his Word?

I wouldn’t even attempt to try to differentiate what is meant by ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’, for the same reasons that OBW has mentioned. And that is what I find so troubling about what WN/WL taught. The Bible doesn’t make it clear what the difference is, and if there is some difference that us humans need to be aware of, that is the job of the Word alone, to divide soul and spirit. I might also add that in the context of Hebrews 4, this ‘dividing’ seems to be something meant to happen at an individual level. Thus it seems out of the question that someone could develop concrete understanding or dogma as to how we are meant to understand soul and spirit. Isn’t it interesting then that both WN/WL presumed to know what was what? Even certain of their "inner-life" predecessors like Jessie Penn-Lewis literally were driven crazy by trying to understand things that weren't meant to be understood. I've personally witnessed an LC member have a breakdown due to obsessing over whether or not they were "living in their spirit". I’ve long since accepted the fact that there is good reason to not overcomplicate things that weren’t meant to be complicated.

An overlap between the soul and spirit seems to be without question. And with that in mind, if we are to believe Nee/Lee that the soul and spirit are separate and distinct organs, then it would make no sense why there would be such an overlap found in different verses. At the very least, some of the claims that WN/WL made fall flat on their face, even for those who do support a tripartite view.

Great replies, me mateys...much food for thought! Unfortunately it all makes for even more of a dog's breakfast of the whole issue than we started out with.

I was thinking of the verse that says 'we should love the lord our God with "all...our HEART...all our SOUL...all our MIND...and all our STRENGTH..."

Why wasn't the SPIRIT mentioned, I wonder? And why in that particular order? Heart, and then Soul, and then Mind, at least, seem to follow Lee's hierarchical order of how we are inwardly constructed. Our Strength may refer to our physical (fleshy) capacity...hence, why it is named last.

I'm also asking myself what could be the significance intended by Paul in Hebrews 4 in mentioning the "joints and the marrow"? I mean, clearly the Word of God does not literally sunder our joints apart or suction out our bone-marrow. We'd all be dead. Could there, then, be some important clue that lies in this comparison between the 'joints' and 'marrow' and the 'soul' and 'spirit' that may serve to throw some light on the actual nature and function of both the soul and spirit, and their interdependence? This seems, to me, like a reasonable path to follow.

Needless to say, I've been carrying out some medical research into joints and bone marrow. Watch this space. Your minds will be blown apart...

Much Grace,

'Jack'

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

Great replies, me mateys...much food for thought! Unfortunately it all makes for even more of a dog's breakfast of the whole issue than we started out with.

I was thinking of the verse that says 'we should love the lord our God with "all...our HEART...all our SOUL...all our MIND...and all our STRENGTH..."

Why wasn't the SPIRIT mentioned, I wonder? And why in that particular order? Heart, and then Soul, and then Mind, at least, seem to follow Lee's hierarchical order of how we are inwardly constructed. Our Strength may refer to our physical (fleshy) capacity...hence, why it is named last.

I'm also asking myself what could be the significance intended by Paul in Hebrews 4 in mentioning the "joints and the marrow"? I mean, clearly the Word of God does not literally sunder our joints apart or suction out our bone-marrow. We'd all be dead. Could there, then, be some important clue that lies in this comparison between the 'joints' and 'marrow' and the 'soul' and 'spirit' that may serve to throw some light on the actual nature and function of both the soul and spirit, and their interdependence? This seems, to me, like a reasonable path to follow.

Needless to say, I've been carrying out some medical research into joints and bone marrow. Watch this space. Your minds will be blown apart...

Much Grace,

'Jack'

Jack (or should I call you Captain Jack?),
I agree with what you have posted. In my initial post, I characterized Heb 4:12 as a metaphor. This, I believe, is a fair characterization. I have said before that Paul was no stranger to employing literary devices in his writings. With that in mind, it follows that not all verses or passages in his writings can or should be interpreted literally. Obviously, the same can be said of the rest of the Bible. Context needs to be taken into consideration, and ultimately, context is everything.

This is certainly the case with Jesus' admonition that you referred to in your post. Jesus says to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” Presumably, it would have been sufficient for him to just say “Love the Lord your God” without everything else that follows. I don’t think saying “Love the Lord your God”, is necessarily an insufficient admonition, but obviously Jesus added “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" to emphasize how we should love the Lord. With that in mind, it would be completely ridiculous if someone came along and completely ignored the “Love the Lord your God” part and instead used the latter portion of what Jesus said solely to “prove” a different kind of trichotomy – that man is composed of three parts – a heart, soul, and mind. Obviously this is a stupid example, but I think the point is clear.

In the same way, in 1 Thess 5:23, Paul was trying to make a point about being sanctified. The word completely is spelled out and although the way that Paul qualifies completely seems to indicate that man has three parts, that is still secondary to his main point of being sanctified. I’m always willing to leave these kinds of things open for debate, but what I have a problem with is the position that Lee took, that these verses like 1 Thess 5:23 are just there to ‘prove’ his own dogmas. It misses the larger context to say the least.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n_Sparrow

I'm also asking myself what could be the significance intended by Paul in Hebrews 4 in mentioning the "joints and the marrow"? I mean, clearly the Word of God does not literally sunder our joints apart or suction out our bone-marrow. We'd all be dead. Could there, then, be some important clue that lies in this comparison between the 'joints' and 'marrow' and the 'soul' and 'spirit' that may serve to throw some light on the actual nature and function of both the soul and spirit, and their interdependence? This seems, to me, like a reasonable path to follow.

First, I will start with the essentially irrelevant point that it is not necessarily Paul who wrote Hebrews. In fact there are clues in favor of others. And I don't really care. If we can't figure it out by 2016, it's too late to worry about it.

But the whole soul and spirit thing, or joints an marrow thing — neither appear intended to state that you can find answers to separate those in the word, but rather to point to the key of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The light in the word should touch you concerning your reasons — even if you don't admit it out loud to anyone.

[Ohio]

First, I will start with the essentially irrelevant point that it is not necessarily Paul who wrote Hebrews. In fact there are clues in favor of others. And I don't really care. If we can't figure it out by 2016, it's too late to worry about it.

Of course it was Apostle Paul who authored the book of Hebrews. We have known this for a very long time.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course it was Apostle Paul who authored the book of Hebrews. We have known this for a very long time.

I hope you are joking.

Because there are a lot of we that haven't.

I was told that by Lee. And it was a statement that was made in a manner that stood out from the crowd of Christianity that had not come to that conclusion (though they had not simply dismissed it either).

So "we" have not known any such thing. We just heard it stated very surely by Lee for many years.

From Wikipedia (don't just dismiss it)

By the end of the first century there was not a consensus over the author’s identity. Clement of Rome, Barnabas, the Apostle Paul, and other names were proposed. Others later suggested Luke the Evangelist, Apollos and Priscilla as possible authors.

Though no author is named, the original King James Version of the Bible titled the work "The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews". However, the KJV's attribution to Paul was only a guess, and not a very good one according to the majority of recent scholarship. Its vastly different style, different theological focus, different spiritual experience — all are believed to make Paul's authorship of Hebrews increasingly indefensible. At present, neither modern scholarship nor church teaching ascribes Hebrews to Paul.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course it was Apostle Paul who authored the book of Hebrews. We have known this for a very long time.

The author of Hebrews said that s/he got their revelation of Christ from those who'd been eyewitnesses: "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him" (2:3[NIV]); which strongly contrasts with Paul's gospel narrative: "I didn't receive it from any man" (Gal 1:12).

It doesn't prove that Paul didn't write Hebrews, but it leans in that direction.

You know what WL's reasoning was? "Only Paul could have written a book like Hebrews"... that was it... and on such slender reeds the LC's conceptual edifice was built.

Originally Posted by OBW

But the whole soul and spirit thing, or joints an marrow thing — neither appear intended to state that you can find answers to separate those in the word, but rather to point to the key of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The light in the word should touch you concerning your reasons — even if you don't admit it out loud to anyone.

It is interesting that the "writer" here should mention the "heart" (i.e. ...'thoughts and intents of the heart'..). My mind flies back to the gospels where Jesus, speaking of the heart, asserted that, "..for from within, "out of the heart" of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: all these evil things come from within..." (Mark 7: 21-23).

The apostle Paul, speaking to the Romans of similar sinfulness writes ..."I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet; but sin, taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence"...(But)..."it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me; for I know that in me, that is, in 'my flesh', dwelleth no good thing" (Romans 7: 7-8, 17-18).

If one reads those quoted passages carefully, one notices a peculiar conundrum. On the one hand, the Lord states emphatically that "sin" emanates from the 'heart'; but on the other hand, the apostle Paul explains that "sin" actually resides in the 'flesh'. Now, which one to accept?

Surely, the terms 'the flesh' and 'the heart' cannot be taken as freely interchangeable synonyms. Perhaps, what Paul meant to imply was that 'his heart' was encased in 'his flesh' and so, in a manner of speaking, the sin in his heart, technically, was located in his flesh. But he himself would seem to dispute such a shallow explanation because further on in that same chapter he quite unmistakably makes the distinction between the physical and the non-physical when he states, "..I see another 'law in my members' warring against the 'law of my mind'.." (Romans 7:23).

The Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul seem to have, most disturbingly, contradicted each other!!! Who to take? And if we are to take one over the other, what about after that? What is one expected to make of the rest of Scripture from this point forth, and particularly of the integrity of the New Testament -which, to add further to the complication, owes much of its weight to Paul's contributions? If faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God, and this question remains unanswered, where else can our faith find to rest?

What, therefore, is the unseen relationship between the heart (mind, will, emotions, conscience, and the spirit, according to Li Changshou) and the flesh? What is the nature of their interconnectedness? Would the answer to this offer insight into Paul's conflict with the Lord Jesus?

Moreover, in view of the foregoing ramble, what can explain Paul's didactic intention in mentioning the 'joints and marrow' in apposition to the 'spirit and soul'? Is it simply to show us that when we read the Word it should shine on us 'concerning our reasonings'? Really? Just that?

Does that offer an effective cure for all that is gravely wrong with us, not just in our behavior, but fundamentally and constitutionally, as was indicated by the Lord?
Do calls to just 'act better', to just be 'better people', because the Word of God has divided and discerned our behavior and exposed the 'reasons' behind that behavior really suffice to reverse and correct the deeply corrupt condition of humankind?

Poppycock!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

If one reads those quoted passages carefully, one notices a peculiar conundrum. On the one hand, the Lord states emphatically that "sin" emanates from the 'heart'; but on the other hand, the apostle Paul explains that "sin" actually resides in the 'flesh'. Now, which one to accept?

Surely, the terms 'the flesh' and 'the heart' cannot be taken as freely interchangeable synonyms. Perhaps, what Paul meant to imply was that 'his heart' was encased in 'his flesh' and so, in a manner of speaking, the sin in his heart, technically, was located in his flesh. But he himself would seem to dispute such a shallow explanation because further on in that same chapter he quite unmistakably makes the distinction between the physical and the non-physical when he states, "..I see another 'law in my members' warring against the 'law of my mind'.." (Romans 7:23).

The Lord Jesus and the apostle Paul seem to have, most disturbingly, contradicted each other!!!

Jesus in Mark 7 rebuked the Pharisees for invalidating the Word of God with their traditions by contrasting what enters a man from without (passing thru the stomach and out the other end) but never enters his heart, from evil things what go out of a man "from within" out of his heart. "From within"(v.21) should be what Paul explained in Rom 7.18 to be the flesh. No problem here. Neither the heart nor the flesh in these verses is physical.

Your second contrast is different. Using Rom 7.23, Paul contrast the law of God which he has mentally acknowledged and "the members" of his body, later referred to as "this body of death." These "members" should include all our faculties (from brains to fingers and toes) which can be used in the attempt to fulfill the law of God. This is a contrast between knowing and doing, between the psychological and the physical. Paul engaged this battle so vigorously that he referred to both sides as laws.

So SheepDawg, let not your heart be troubled! Welcome to the forum! And rest assured that Jesus and Paul are on the same page.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

If one reads those quoted passages carefully, one notices a peculiar conundrum. On the one hand, the Lord states emphatically that "sin" emanates from the 'heart'; but on the other hand, the apostle Paul explains that "sin" actually resides in the 'flesh'. Now, which one to accept?

Surely, the terms 'the flesh' and 'the heart' cannot be taken as freely interchangeable synonyms. Perhaps, what Paul meant to imply was that 'his heart' was encased in 'his flesh' and so, in a manner of speaking, the sin in his heart, technically, was located in his flesh. But he himself would seem to dispute such a shallow explanation because further on in that same chapter he quite unmistakably makes the distinction between the physical and the non-physical when he states, "..I see another 'law in my members' warring against the 'law of my mind'.." (Romans 7:23).

Perhaps this "conundrum" exists only because you want it to exist. Lets rewind from Romans 7 back to chapter 3 where Paul references several Psalms in his discussion of sin:
“Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit”;
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.”

What Paul quotes in Rom 3 represents the same theme that Jesus spoke about- "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man". In other words, Paul was on the same page as Jesus. Yes, Paul emphasized sin dwelling in the flesh, but there is no evidence to suggest that Paul felt that sin only resides in the flesh. I agree with what Ohio said regarding Paul's use of the word members in Rom 7:23. All evidence that I can see suggests that Paul's view of the flesh was broader than just understanding it to be his physical body.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

n 1 Thess 5:23, Paul was trying to make a point about being sanctified... I have a problem with is the position that Lee took, that these verses like 1 Thess 5:23 are just there to ‘prove’ his own dogmas. It misses the larger context to say the least.

A recent unregistered poster wrote that no one on this forum has come out with a compelling narrative which captures the complete arc of scripture, from start to finish, to which replied that hardly had Lee, either. Lee's method was to take a few passages or clauses, often out of context, and put them together in a make-shift attempt at systematized theology. Then he re-imposed this conceptual grid, this "larger narrative" back onto scripture. And the fact that he had to reject large swaths of scripture as "fallen human concepts" in order to keep his theology whole, speaks volumes to me.

Originally Posted by Sheepdawg

What can explain Paul's didactic intention in mentioning the 'joints and marrow' in apposition to the 'spirit and soul'? Is it simply to show us that when we read the Word it should shine on us 'concerning our reasonings'? Really? Just that?

Does that offer an effective cure for all that is gravely wrong with us, not just in our behavior, but fundamentally and constitutionally, as was indicated by the Lord?

Do calls to just 'act better', to just be 'better people', because the Word of God has divided and discerned our behavior and exposed the 'reasons' behind that behavior really suffice to reverse and correct the deeply corrupt condition of humankind?

Now to Sheepdawg's quote. Why did Paul write his epistles? What was the kingdom of God, as presented by Paul, by Jesus, and in Second Temple Judaism? Who is our Father, and why are we so separated from Him? And how many "parts of man" are there, and how do they fit into the larger narrative? How does the "spirit" versus the "soul" help us navigate our way back to the celestial realms, and escape the chains of fallen flesh?

I won't try to answer that, but will simply make one small point about the larger context, which I believe Lee completely missed. How can Lee and now his Blended Lieutenants say that the spirit of Man and the Holy Spirit are somehow entirely divorced from the spiritual realm, i.e. the "world of the spirits", to coin a phrase? Lee told us that Jessie Penn-Lewis tried to address this spiritual realm in an unbalanced way. So he rejected it, and that was that. We got the mingling of the Holy Spirit with the spirit of man, presented from "The Lord be with your spirit" and "The Spirit witnesses with our spirit", gleaned from Paul's writings, but no "when a spirit goes out of a man, it flies about looking for rest", as Jesus taught.

And on and on. I could present 50 verses which were ignored because they weren't convenient to Lee's narrative arc. And I could present 350 verses that were panned by Lee & Co as "fallen" and "ignorant men's concepts" because Lee couldn't reconcile them with his theology. Including verses from the NT (!!).

I conclude that the "Tripartite Nature of Man" isn't invalid as an avenue of discussion, of itself, but our feeble attempts to systematize it may end up creating small prisons of conceptual thought, which actually cut us off from the scriptures themselves. So be awfully cautious as you try to read larger meaning into small phrases of 6 or 8 Greek words. The enemy is extremely subtle. Don't presume that you can think your way past the gates of Hades. They are not called "adamantine gates" for nothing. They are indeed strongholds.

Peace and God bless.