Archive for the ‘Man’ Category

Man in The Image of God, Part 2

Posted: November 6, 2010 in Man
Tags: , ,
16

I. Man and woman were Formed in God’s Image at Creation (See Part 1)

II. The Image of God was Deformed at the Fall of Man into Sin

As Ryrie states it, the image of God “was defaced though not erased” (Basic Theology, first edition, p. 192). The image of God was not totally erased or the following exhortations relevant to the image of God would be meaningless.

A. The image of God is the basis for the exhortation not to murder (Genesis 9:6).

B. The image of God is the basis for the exhortation for men to be heads of home (1 Corinthians 11:3-16).

C. The image of God is the basis for proper speech (James 3:7-9).

D. The result of the Fall was Total Depravity. Every dimension of man was tainted by sin. All of the above areas of the image of God were also corrupted so that we are not as much like God as we were before the Fall. “His moral purity has been lost and his sinful character certainly does not reflect God’s holiness. His intellect is corrupted by falsehood and misunderstanding; his speech no longer continually glorifies God; his relationships are often governed by selfishness rather than love, and so forth” (Grudem, page 444).

III. The Believer is being Transformed into the Image of God since Salvation

Though the sinner is totally depraved and the original image or likeness of God in us has been greatly distorted there is the hope that salvation can start restoring that likeness. This is the assurance of 2 Corinthians 3:18.

Since our conversion we are closer to the original image of God. There are two parallel passages that make this point. The first is Colossians 3:10 where image is mentioned.  The next is the parallel to Colossians 3:10 which is Ephesians 4:24 which alludes to creation. “Charles Hodge contends that ‘knowledge’ refers to (true) knowledge of God, since the word has this sense in Colossians 1:6, 9, 27-28; 2:2-3, that ‘righteousnesss’ refers to moral rectitude toward one’s neighbor, that is, justice, and that ‘holiness’ refers to the Godward relation known as piety toward God….this means that these three’ renewed image virtues are indicative of right relationships with God and neighbor” (Reymond, p. 429). 

The key is in Colossians 3:10 which says this restoration of the image of God takes place as we are “renewed in knowledge.”

According to Romans 12:1-2, this renewal and transformation are taking place by the renewing of our minds in Word of God.

IV. The Believer will be Perfectly Conformed to God’s Image in Heaven

The perfect image of God is Christ. In 2 Corinthians 3:18, Paul promised that we are being changed more and more into the image of the Lord. A few verses later in 4:4, Paul says that Christ “is the image of God.”

A. This Image will include a physical likeness to Christ

In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul describes the future resurrection body of the believer. In 15:49, Paul says “we have borne the image of the earthy” that is Adam. Because Adam sinned, God said, “This day you will surely die.” Because we bear the image of Adam, we physically are dying. Paul described how that physical likeness to Adam causes us to die in verses 42-45: Our physical body which is like Adam’s dies in corruption, dishonor, weakness, as a natural body.

But Paul also promises the believer that “we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (15:49b). Because we know Christ though buried in the image of Adam we will be raised in the physical image of Christ’s resurrection body or “in incorruption, in glory, and in power” (15:42-45).

Every person now has the physical image of Adam stamped on his person but eventually we will perfectly be like Christ physcially and morally.

B. This Image will include a moral and spiritual likeness to Christ

One day we will be like Christ morally and spiritually (1 John 3:2). According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:44, we will enjoy a “spiritual body” that is a physical body with spiritual significance just like the children of Israel ate real meat (called “spiritual meat”) and drank real water (called “spiritual drink”) that had a spiritual significance in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:3-4).

Paul in Romans 8:28-29 says we are being conformed to the image of Christ who according to Heb. 1:3 is the “express image of God.” In 2 Cor. 3:18, Paul writes that believers are being changed or transformed into the same image from glory to glory even as by the Spirit of the Lord. The end of this process of “glory to glory” is gloryfication (intended misspell) or glorification or perfect likeness to Christ.

What are some important implications of the Image of God

1. Capital Punishment is Biblical because the murdered was in the image of God. A Connecticut jury has deliberated for days whether convicted murderer Steven Hayes gets the death penality. Steven Hayes raped and murdered Mrs. Petit and put the two girls of Dr. and Mrs. Petit in bed and then set the bed on fire. What is there to deliberate about?

2. Abortion is wrong because pre-born babies are in the image of God.

3. Euthanasia is also wrong. The elderly do not lose any of the image of God with age. Not only should we have programs and ministries for the children and youth but the elderly.

4. Racism is sin because all peoples are made in the image of God.

5. The deformed are important to God because they bear His image.

6. The comatose is still a person. The sanctity of life nor the image of God is not reduced when the quality of life is reduced.

Man in the Image of God, Part 1

Posted: November 5, 2010 in Man
Tags: , , , , ,
16

Does the image of God have anything to do with the current 2010 election and the 2012 election? John Piper makes  a connection. Here is John Piper’s comment after President Obama’s inauguration:

As everyone knows, our new President, over whom we have rejoiced, does not share this reverence for the beginning of human life. He is trapped and blinded by a culture of deceit. On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he said, “We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.”

To which I say . . .

  • No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women’s health; you are authorizing the destruction of half a million tiny women every year.
  • No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for a million helpless people every year.
  • No, Mr. President, killing our children does not cease to be killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. Call it what you will, they are dead, and we have killed them. And you, Mr. President, would keep the killing legal.

Some of us wept with joy over the inauguration of the first African-American President. We will pray for you. And may God grant that there arises in your heart an amazed and happy reverence for the beginning of every human life.

The next election should not be determined solely on the economy but on moral issues like the sanctity of life.

1. The Image of God has to do with the Beginning of our Life

In Genesis 9:6, God commanded that no life should be taken in murder because murder is a direct assault on “the image of God” in which God made man. It is like burning God in effigy.

2. The Image of God has to do with the Beginning of All Life

The image of God not only has to do with the beginning of each person in his/her mother’s womb but with the beginning of all life in the garden of Eden.

Robert Reymond starts his discussion on the Biblical view of man with these questions, “What is man? Simply the ‘outcome of accidental collocations of atoms’? The highest evolutionary stage to date of the primate? Is he among world species primarily homo sapiens? According to the Bible, none of these popular current ideas captures what man is essentially. Rather, man is a creature of God, indeed, the crowning work of God’s creative activity; uniquely the ‘image of God’ with whom God has entered into covenant, and as a covenant creature man is accordingly homo religious before he is homo sapiens” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p. 416).         

God creating man in His image is what sets man apart from animals. Prior to the creation of man and woman, God had prefaced His acts of creation with, “Let there be” (Genesis 1:3; 6; 9; 11; 14; 20; 24). But with man, God said, “Let us make man in our image” indicating the divine counsel took place before the creation of man.

Because “image” and “likeness” are used interchangeably, they “are practically synonymous. Exegetically it would be hard to prove a difference between ‘image’ and ‘likeness.’ In Genesis 1:26, 27 the two words look like they are synonyms. In verse 26, both words are used; whereas, in verse 27 only the one word ‘image’ (used twice) is used. Apparently, in verse 27 ‘image’ is used for both words, being used twice in the verse. In Genesis 5:1, 3 the prepositions of Genesis 1:26 are reversed. Genesis 1:26 indicates ‘in image and after likeness’ but in Genesis 5:3 it is ‘in likeness, after image’” (An Outline of Anthropology, Dr. Bowman, page 22).

So what does “image” and “likeness” mean? Here is Grudem’s definition: “The fact that man is in the image of God means that man is like God and represents God. . . .The expression refers to every way in which man is like God” (Systematic Theology, pages 442-443).

In Jehoiada’s revival in Judah, he broke the statues or idols of Baal in the house of Baal. These statues or idols were called Baal’s “images” (2 Kings 11:18). The images looked like and represented Baal.

In Matthew 22:20-21, Jesus asked the Herodians in reference to the Roman coin, “Whose is this image and superscription? They said unto him, Caesar’s.” The image on the coin looked like and represented Caesar.

In Genesis 5:3 “image” and “likeness” are used to describe Adam’s son Seth: “Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness after his image.” While Seth was not identical to Adam, apparently Seth was similar to Adam in many ways. In every way that Seth was similar to his father, Seth was in the image of Adam. In other words, Seth was a spitt’n image of Adam. Maybe both had brown curly hair with outgoing personalities and musical talents.

Every way we are resemble and represent God we are in His image. How are we like God? How can we bear the image of God?

I. Man and woman were Formed in God’s Image at Creation

A. The image of God is not physical because John 4:24 says that “God is spirit.” Yet God has chosen man’s physical being, not animals, to be His representative. The theophanies or the appearances of God in the OT, such as the Angel of the Lord, were as man and not as animals. The anthropomorphisms, in the OT where God revealed Himself in terms of a man so man could better understand Him, were expressed as “The hand of the God” (Psa. 139:5, 10) and not the paw or hoof of God.

B. The image of God is seen in leadership. God commanded man or mankind including women in Genesis 1:26-27 to exercise “dominion over” creation. God is the Leader or Ruler of the universe (Psalm 103:19). We reflect His image when we lead and influence others. In 1 Corinthians 11, there was a leadership crisis. So Paul used the leadership of God the Father as an example: “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3). At Corinth, the women were usurping authority over the men and Paul wrote that the man “is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man (1 Corinthians 11:7). In this specific case, the man was to reflect the image or leadership of God the Father in the local church.

C. The image of God is moral. God declared all of His creation “very good” (Genesis 1:31) which included man. After the Fall of Adam into sin, man has to be exhorted to do and be what he was before man became a sinner. In Luke 6:36, Jesus exhorts, “Be you therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” The verses surrounding this exhortation show how we can reflect the image of God to others: “love your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the children of the Highest; for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be you therefore merciful as, your Father also is merciful.” When we are compassionate to the undeserving, as God is to us, we mirror God’s image.

D. The image of God is social. In the Genesis 1:26-27 passage, God said, “Let us make man (mankind or humanity) in our image.” The Trinity who has eternal, interpersonal relationships created man a social being.  That is why in the next chapter, God told Adam, “It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make him an help meet for him (Genesis 2:18). This is not denigrating for the woman to be called the helper for man. As Mark Driscoll says, it means we men need help. What about singles? They are to have social networks such as is provided at church. The local church is a family according to Ephesians 3:14-15. When we build strong relationships with our mates, children, and friends we are image bearers of God.

E. The image of God is mental. Man’s ability to think in abstract reasoning separates him from animals. “No group of chimpanzees will ever sit around the table arguing about the doctrine of the Trinity or the relative merits of Calvinism and Arminianism! In fact, even in developing physical and technical skills we are far different from animals: beavers still build the same kind of dams they built for a thousand generations, birds still build the same kind of nests, and bees still build the same kinds of hives. But we continue to develop greater skill and complexity in technology, in agriculture, in science, and in nearly every field of endeavor” (Grudem, page 446). In Genesis 2:19-20, Adam reflected the mental image of God when he named every animal. God had at creation named every star, but He delegated the naming of animals to Adam.

Because we are made in the image of God we can read and understand the Bible. Animals cannot.

F. The image of God is spiritual. Because God is Spirit we too have an immaterial and spiritual capacity to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Animals do not sing God’s praises nor pray one for another. Only man can fellowship and worship God as Adam did in the garden until he sinned (Genesis 3:8). Only man is said to be “God’s offspring” (Acts 17:28). When we come into church and lift our voices to God in song and praise we are bearing the image of God.

In Part 2, we dicuss the impact of the Fall on the image of God.

Man in the Image of God, Part 1

Posted: November 5, 2010 in Man
Tags: , , , , ,
0

Does the image of God have anything to do with the current 2010 election and the 2012 election? John Piper makes  a connection. Here is John Piper’s comment after President Obama’s inauguration:

As everyone knows, our new President, over whom we have rejoiced, does not share this reverence for the beginning of human life. He is trapped and blinded by a culture of deceit. On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he said, “We are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.”

To which I say . . .

  • No, Mr. President, you are not protecting women’s health; you are authorizing the destruction of half a million tiny women every year.
  • No, Mr. President, you are not protecting reproductive freedom; you are authorizing the destruction of freedom for a million helpless people every year.
  • No, Mr. President, killing our children does not cease to be killing our children no matter how many times you call it a private family matter. Call it what you will, they are dead, and we have killed them. And you, Mr. President, would keep the killing legal.

Some of us wept with joy over the inauguration of the first African-American President. We will pray for you. And may God grant that there arises in your heart an amazed and happy reverence for the beginning of every human life.

The next election should not be determined solely on the economy but on moral issues like the sanctity of life.

1. The Image of God has to do with the Beginning of our Life

In Genesis 9:6, God commanded that no life should be taken in murder because murder is a direct assault on “the image of God” in which God made man. It is like burning God in effigy.

2. The Image of God has to do with the Beginning of All Life

The image of God not only has to do with the beginning of each person in his/her mother’s womb but with the beginning of all life in the garden of Eden.

Robert Reymond starts his discussion on the Biblical view of man with these questions, “What is man? Simply the ‘outcome of accidental collocations of atoms’? The highest evolutionary stage to date of the primate? Is he among world species primarily homo sapiens? According to the Bible, none of these popular current ideas captures what man is essentially. Rather, man is a creature of God, indeed, the crowning work of God’s creative activity; uniquely the ‘image of God’ with whom God has entered into covenant, and as a covenant creature man is accordingly homo religious before he is homo sapiens” (A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, p. 416).         

God creating man in His image is what sets man apart from animals. Prior to the creation of man and woman, God had prefaced His acts of creation with, “Let there be” (Genesis 1:3; 6; 9; 11; 14; 20; 24). But with man, God said, “Let us make man in our image” indicating the divine counsel took place before the creation of man.

Because “image” and “likeness” are used interchangeably, they “are practically synonymous. Exegetically it would be hard to prove a difference between ‘image’ and ‘likeness.’ In Genesis 1:26, 27 the two words look like they are synonyms. In verse 26, both words are used; whereas, in verse 27 only the one word ‘image’ (used twice) is used. Apparently, in verse 27 ‘image’ is used for both words, being used twice in the verse. In Genesis 5:1, 3 the prepositions of Genesis 1:26 are reversed. Genesis 1:26 indicates ‘in image and after likeness’ but in Genesis 5:3 it is ‘in likeness, after image’” (An Outline of Anthropology, Dr. Bowman, page 22).

So what does “image” and “likeness” mean? Here is Grudem’s definition: “The fact that man is in the image of God means that man is like God and represents God. . . .The expression refers to every way in which man is like God” (Systematic Theology, pages 442-443).

In Jehoiada’s revival in Judah, he broke the statues or idols of Baal in the house of Baal. These statues or idols were called Baal’s “images” (2 Kings 11:18). The images looked like and represented Baal.

In Matthew 22:20-21, Jesus asked the Herodians in reference to the Roman coin, “Whose is this image and superscription? They said unto him, Caesar’s.” The image on the coin looked like and represented Caesar.

In Genesis 5:3 “image” and “likeness” are used to describe Adam’s son Seth: “Adam lived an hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness after his image.” While Seth was not identical to Adam, apparently Seth was similar to Adam in many ways. In every way that Seth was similar to his father, Seth was in the image of Adam. In other words, Seth was a spitt’n image of Adam. Maybe both had brown curly hair with outgoing personalities and musical talents.

Every way we are resemble and represent God we are in His image. How are we like God? How can we bear the image of God?

I. Man and woman were Formed in God’s Image at Creation

A. The image of God is not physical because John 4:24 says that “God is spirit.” Yet God has chosen man’s physical being, not animals, to be His representative. The theophanies or the appearances of God in the OT, such as the Angel of the Lord, were as man and not as animals. The anthropomorphisms, in the OT where God revealed Himself in terms of a man so man could better understand Him, were expressed as “The hand of the God” (Psa. 139:5, 10) and not the paw or hoof of God.

B. The image of God is seen in leadership. God commanded man or mankind including women in Genesis 1:26-27 to exercise “dominion over” creation. God is the Leader or Ruler of the universe (Psalm 103:19). We reflect His image when we lead and influence others. In 1 Corinthians 11, there was a leadership crisis. So Paul used the leadership of God the Father as an example: “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Corinthians 11:3). At Corinth, the women were usurping authority over the men and Paul wrote that the man “is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man (1 Corinthians 11:7). In this specific case, the man was to reflect the image or leadership of God the Father in the local church.

C. The image of God is moral. God declared all of His creation “very good” (Genesis 1:31) which included man. After the Fall of Adam into sin, man has to be exhorted to do and be what he was before man became a sinner. In Luke 6:36, Jesus exhorts, “Be you therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.” The verses surrounding this exhortation show how we can reflect the image of God to others: “love your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the children of the Highest; for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be you therefore merciful as, your Father also is merciful.” When we are compassionate to the undeserving, as God is to us, we mirror God’s image.

D. The image of God is social. In the Genesis 1:26-27 passage, God said, “Let us make man (mankind or humanity) in our image.” The Trinity who has eternal, interpersonal relationships created man a social being.  That is why in the next chapter, God told Adam, “It is not good that the man should be alone, I will make him an help meet for him (Genesis 2:18). This is not denigrating for the woman to be called the helper for man. As Mark Driscoll says, it means we men need help. What about singles? They are to have social networks such as is provided at church. The local church is a family according to Ephesians 3:14-15. When we build strong relationships with our mates, children, and friends we are image bearers of God.

E. The image of God is mental. Man’s ability to think in abstract reasoning separates him from animals. “No group of chimpanzees will ever sit around the table arguing about the doctrine of the Trinity or the relative merits of Calvinism and Arminianism! In fact, even in developing physical and technical skills we are far different from animals: beavers still build the same kind of dams they built for a thousand generations, birds still build the same kind of nests, and bees still build the same kinds of hives. But we continue to develop greater skill and complexity in technology, in agriculture, in science, and in nearly every field of endeavor” (Grudem, page 446). In Genesis 2:19-20, Adam reflected the mental image of God when he named every animal. God had at creation named every star, but He delegated the naming of animals to Adam.

Because we are made in the image of God we can read and understand the Bible. Animals cannot.

F. The image of God is spiritual. Because God is Spirit we too have an immaterial and spiritual capacity to worship God in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Animals do not sing God’s praises nor pray one for another. Only man can fellowship and worship God as Adam did in the garden until he sinned (Genesis 3:8). Only man is said to be “God’s offspring” (Acts 17:28). When we come into church and lift our voices to God in song and praise we are bearing the image of God.

In Part 2, we dicuss the impact of the Fall on the image of God.

Is Man a Dichotomy or Trichotomy or Quadchotomy or Sexchotomy? Part Two

Posted: March 28, 2009 in Man
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Here are the most commonly used verses used to support trichotomy.

1st Thessalonians 5:23 “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Instead of teaching that man has three parts, A. H. Strong in his Systematic Theology states that 1st Thess. 5:23 is “not a scientific enumeration of the constituent parts of human nature, but a comprehensive sketch of that nature in its chief relations like Mark 12:30. Based on Mark 12:30, no one would say man has a 4-fold division of human nature.”

Mark 12:30 quotes Jesus saying, “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.” If so, they would be a quadchotomist, I quess. Or if you add the parts mentioned in Mk. 12:30 which are not mentioned in 1 Thess. 5:23 then you would be a sexchotomist. “The emphasis of the verse is on the completeness of sanctification” (Ryrie, p. 196).

“It is far better to understand Jesus as simply piling up roughly synonymous terms for emphasis to demonstrate that we must love God with all of our being” (Wayne Grudem).

1st Corinthians 15:44 “It is sown a natural (soulish) body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.”

Charles Hodges’ explanation of this verse is helpful. “The soul has lower animal appetites which characterize this life: Hunger, thirst, need of rest. The soul also has higher powers that animals do not possess: immortality and worship of God. In Heaven in our glorified body only the higher powers of the soul will be active.”

In heaven people are referred to as “souls” (Rev. 6:9) even though they are in their “spiritual body” or resurrected body as Paul says in 1st Cor. 15:44. In this reference spirit is bigger than the just immaterial part of a person, but includes also the physical body, howbeit, a glorified, physical body. Ryrie did say that the soul can refer to both the material and the immaterial, but here is an example where spirit can also refer to both the immaterial and the glorified material part of the resurrected believer.

Here is Grudem’s explanation. “However, it is much more characteristic of Paul’s terminology to use the word “spirit” to talk about our relationship to God in worship and in prayer. Paul does not use the “soul” (Gk. psyche) very frequently (14 times, compared with 101 occurrences in the New Testament as a whole), and when he does, he often uses it simply to refer to a person’s “life,” or as a synonym for a person himself, as in Rom. 9:3; 13:1; 16; Phil. 2:30. Use of the “soul” to refer to the non-physical side of man is more characteristic of the gospels, and of many passages in the Old Testament.”

Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Charles Hodge explains: “The joints and marrow are not different substances. They are both material; they are different forms of the same substance; and so soul and spirit are one and the same substance under different aspects or relations.”

A. H. Strong has a helpful comment: “Not the dividing of soul from spirit or of joints from morrow, but rather the piercing of the soul and of the spirit, even to very joints and marrow i.e., to the very depths of the spiritual nature.”

“The point is simply that the Word of God leaves nothing hidden” (Charles Ryrie).

Is Man a Dichotomy or Trichotomy or Quadchotomy or Sexchotomy? Part One

Posted: March 28, 2009 in Man
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

“I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).With the these words David worships of his great Creator/God. Our study of the nature of man should also move us to worship our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

As Ryrie brought out in his introduction to chapter 32 (Basic Theology), man has a material part with a variety of features such as arteries, veins, brains, muscles, etc. All of us are agreed on this facet of man’s nature. Man also has an immaterial part with a variety of features such as soul, spirit, heart, will, mind, etc. This is where we agree to disagree on the nature of man. This is not a hill we must die on. But we do want to be as accurate and precise as possible when it comes to interpreting the Bible.

There are four positions on the trichotomy/dichotomy debate.

1. Monism, which is a non-conservative view, believes that man is one part. Monism was a reaction to the liberalism of Harry Emerson Fosdick who because of his belief in the immortality of the soul saw no need for a resurrection of the body. Monism taught that because the person is indivisible there is no existence of the soul after death and that the person will not exist after death until the resurrection of the body. This view eliminates the intermediate state of existence between death and resurrection which the Scriptures teach as demonstrated in the next paragraph (Christian Theology, Erickson, pp. 524-525).

Wayne Grudem defines monism on page 473 in his Systematic Theology. “According to monism, the scriptural terms soul and spirit are just other expressions for the ‘person’ himself, or for the person’s ‘life.’ This view has not generally been adopted by evangelical theologians because so many scriptural texts seem clearly to affirm that our souls or spirits live on after our bodies die (see Gen. 35:18; Ps. 31:5; Luke 23:43, 46; Acts 7:59; Phil. 1:23-24; 2 Cor. 5:8; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 6:9; 20:4).” The 2 Cor. 5:8 passage nails it for me: “We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”

2. Dichotomy which believes that man has two parts This is the general view of Scripture.

3. Trichotomy which says that man is made of three parts. There are particular verses that indicate this view.

Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology gives the origin of the trichotomy view on page 191. “The tripartite conception of man originated in Greek philosophy, which conceived of the relation of the body and the spirit of man to each other after the analogy of the mutual relation between the material universe and God. It was thought that, just as the latter could enter into communion with each other only by means of a third or an intermediate being, so the former could enter into mutual vital relationships only by means of a third or intermediate element, namely, the soul.”

C. I. Scofield helped popularized this view beginning in 1909 in his Study Bible on page 1270.

4. Modified trichotomy/dichotomy view states that man has two parts with three functions.

Here are my responses to the arguments that favor trichotomy. First, I will state the argument in favor of trichotomy and then I will give my response in favor of dichotomy.

1. “Man is in three parts because he is made in the image of God who is a divine Trinity.”

This was the view of Franz Delitzsch in his A System of Biblical Psychology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966). Delitzsch compared the difference between soul and spirit to the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity. The persons of the Trinity, like soul and spirit, are distinct but not in essence (page 117).

Delitzsch , quoted Martin Luther, who likened the three parts of the believer to the three parts of the OT tabernacle. “To adduce a parallel to this from Scripture, Moses made a tabernacle with three distinct compartments (Ex. 26:33-34, 27:9). The first was called the holy of holies, since God dwelt there, and there was no light therein. The second was the holy place within which stood a candlestick with seven branches and lamps. The third was called the atrium or court; and it was under the open heaven, in the light of the sun. In the same figure a Christian man is depicted. His spirit is the holy of holies, God’s dwelling-place, in dim faith, without light. For he believes what he does not see, nor feels, nor apprehends. His soul is the holy place, whose seven lights represent the various powers of understanding, the perception and knowledge of material and visible things. His body is the atrium or court, which is manifest to every man, so that all can see what he does and how he lives” (Delitzsch, pp. 460-462). There is really no NT grounds for making the tabernacle a type or picture of the believer’s person.

Ryrie’s response to the Trinity analogy on the top of page 196, in his first edition of Basic Theology, is well said. “Certainly the Persons of the Trinity are equal, though the parts of man are not. To which Person of the Trinity would the body correspond?”

2. “The unsaved do not have a spirit. This was lost at the fall and is restored at conversion.”

Dr. Bowman asks and answers this question; “Does the unsaved person have a spirit? All flesh have a spirit (Numbers 16:22; 1 Cor. 2:11).” “And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and will you be wroth with all the congregation”(Numbers 16:22)? Wayne Grudem states, “Of course, our ‘spirits are alive’ to God after regeneration (Rom. 8:10), but that is simply because we as whole persons are affected by regeneration. It is not just that our spirits were dead before—we were dead to God in trespasses and sins.” Read the rest of his arguments on page 701 of his Systematic Theology.

3. “The spirit is the God conscious aspect of man that enables man to worship God and the soul is self conscious aspect of man that is synonymous with the mind.”

Scofield makes this distinction, “Because man is ‘spirit’ he is capable of God-consciousness, and of communication with God (Job 32:8; Psa. 18:28; Prov. 20:27); because he is ‘soul’ he has self-consciousness (Psa. 13:2; 42:5, 6, 11); because he is ‘body’ he has, through his senses, world-consciousness” (The Scofield Study Bible, page 1270.

Man’s nature cannot be compartmentalized this neatly. The spirit of man thinks, not just the soul. “They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine” (Isaiah 29:24). The soul of man worships or has a God-consciousness, not just the spirit. “”Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Mt. 22:37).

These two terms, soul and spirit, are used interchangeably throughout Scripture.

Again Scofield fails to see the interchangeably of these two words, “In Scripture use, the distinction between spirit and soul may be traced. Briefly, that distinction is that the spirit is that part of man which ‘knows’ (1 Cor. 2:11), his mind; the soul is the seat of the affections, desires, and so the emotions, and of the active will, the self. ‘My soul is exceeding sorrowful; (Mt. 26:38; see also Mt. 11:29; and John 12:27)” (page 1270).

For trouble feelings: Not only does the soul feel but also the spirit of man. In the OT (Gen. 41:8 and Ps. 42:6); in the NT (John 12:27 “My soul is troubled” and John 13:21 “He was troubled in spirit”)

For expressing praise: Luke 1:46 and 47 where you have OT parallelism where the same thought is expressed with similar words. The soul can worship the Lord.

For death: Gen. 35:18 (soul departs); Acts 7:59 (spirit departs). Scripture never says that “the soul and spirit departed.” Wayne Grudem elaborates on this point. “If soul and spirit were separate and distinct things, we would expect that such language would be affirmed somewhere, if only to assure the reader that no essential part of the person is left behind. Yet we find no such language: the biblical authors do not seem to care whether they say that the soul departs or the spirit departs at death, for both seem to mean the same thing” (page. 474).

For persons in heaven: Heb. 12:23 (spirits); Rev. 6:9 (souls).

Both terms are ascribed to animals: souls in Gen. 1:24; spirit in Ecc. 3:21; Rev. 16:3.

The highest duties of Christians are demanded of the soul, not just the spirit: Mark 12:30; Luke 1:46, 47.

The whole man is referred to as body and soul (Mt. 10:28) and body and spirit (1 Cor. 5:3). Grudem asks a question that needs to be answered by trichotomists, “What can the spirit do that the soul cannot do? What can the soul do that the spirit cannot do?” (page 477).