« ÎnapoiContinuați »
heavenly and spiritual state;—I'say, an organic connexion aster the analogy of the present body in its relation to the mind or soul. For the spiritual body is body and not spirit, and therefore must come under the definition of body. If it were to be mere spirit, then every man, in the future state, would have two spirits, the spirit that he had here and another spirit received at the resurrection.
The Spirit of God is not represented as coming into direct contact with the outer man, but first with the inner man, and through that with the outer. And thus the Apostle says: “If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his spirit that dwelleth in you.” And the operation of the Spirit of God upon the inner man, renewing, enlightening, sanctifying; changing the psychical to the pneumatical man; is not represented, and is not to be conceived of, as introducing into its subjects any new substance or faculties or constituent parts of their nature, but as renovating and restoring the deranged and perverted or misdirected functions; the regenerate man is renewed in the spirit and temper of his mind, renewed in righteousness and true holiness, renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him, created anew in Christ Jesus. Through the power of the Holy Ghost, Christ dwells in his people as a quickening Spirit. It is presumed that man in his original condition, before he sinned, was not destitute of the Spirit. And yet, to illustrate the reality of the psychical body, the Apostle refers to Adam as he was originally created : “And so it is written,” he says, “the first man Adam was made a living soul.” Thus, in his normal original state, he was a psychical man. The 'uz. 'uyzós, do not, therefore, necessarily carry with them a bad sense; but only when the latter is used in a distinctively negative way, as the Apostle here employs it, so that it implies the destitution of the Divine Spirit.
But now, finally, supposing that the Apostle here or elsewhere would contradistinguish soul and spirit as being distinct and co-ordinate, higher and lower, parts of man's inner nature; I should still maintain that the whole usus loquendi of the Scriptures requires us to consider it as a functional and not a substantial distinction. The twofold distinction into body and soul, body and spirit, body and mind, is to be regarded as a real and substantial distinction; but in the threefold distinction into " body, soul and spirit," that between soul and spirit simply refers to different faculties, relations or activities, functions-of the inner man, who is substantially an individual unit, but whose functions are thus distributed in respect to his moral and religious state, into two great departments, lower and higher, earthward and heavenward.
Those who scout the idea of substances as a mere metaphysical figment must of course admit the negative proposition, that the distinction in question is not substantial; and it is difficult to see how they can refuse to admit the positive proposition, that it is functional.
On the other hand, those who adopt the idea of substance, as it is commonly understood, must either admit the statement that the distinction in question is not substantial but functional, or they must hold that there are real substances in the world which are neither matter nor mind, and that either the soul or the spirit is such a substance.
I suppose that nobody has ever denied or doubted that in man's inner nature there are higher and lower powers or faculties or functions, and that it is the higher parts that are directly receptive of the impulse of the Divine Spirit. And if this is all that is meant by the trichotomists, they need not make much noise about their discovery. The real difficulty would be to draw any precise line between the higher and the lower, and to distribute all man's faculties or functions (other than the bodily) into the two departments of soul and spirit; and especially to make this distribution as of Scripture authorily and in consonance with the actual use of these words in the Old and New Testaments, or in either of them. The commonly received and very loose division of man's nature into Intellectual, Moral and Physical does not seem to correspond to what is meant by those who make the threefold division into spirit, soul and body; for they are understood to include the higher-rational as well as moral--faculties under the spirit, while they admit that in great part the moral affections belong to the soul. But we have seen that the same affections belong also to the spirit; and St. Paul enumerates among the fruits of the spirit, “love, joy, peace," &c., and speaks of "your love in the spirit.” And if it be suggested that the higher affections belong to the spirit and the lower to the soul, it is remarkable that the very highest of the affections, that which is the foremost of the spiritual graces, the very heart of the highest spiritual life, that which will endure when faith and knowledge shall vanish away, love, is a function of the soul. See Isa. xlii. 1, “In whom my soul delighteth"; and Song of Solomon, i. 7 and iii. 1-4, where “ my soul loveth” is five times repeated. Here the Septuagist uses the verb αγαπάω. .
The trichotomists are understood to admit that the will belongs to the soul; and certainly the soul is represented as the active, motive
power in man. But St. Paul “purposed in the spirit" (20:20 ! -Ù πνεύματι).
). The conscience might be assigned to the spirit, but it includes a sentiment as well as a judgment; and, besides, the soul as the person, the ego,—as it is admitted to be, —must be the subject of the whole consciousness.
The spirit, as we have seen, may be used for the person also; but when the Divine Spirit is said to “witness with our spirits that we are the Sons of God,” it does not appear that the sense is anywise different from what it would be if the apostle had said “with our minds, “our hearts," or “our souls." For the same apostle says that “God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts” (not into our spirits); and the Spirit thus imparted begets, or becomes, in us“ the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba Father.”
The general conclusion, therefore, is, that:
(1) The words soul and spirit are generally employed in the Scriptures in an indiscriminate way, each as denoting the whole mind or inner man.
(2) In some few cases spirit may be used to denote especially the higher faculties or functions of the mind or soul, but even then not in direct contrast with the soul itself.
(3) In son other cases spirit is used for what does not at all belong to man in his natural state; but, for a certain temper, disposition and direction of the heart, imparted by the Divine Spirit in the life of Christ, by virtue of which Christians are called spiritual (or pneumatical) men.
But (4) there is no ground in the Scripture use of the words soul and spirit to furnish the foundation for the trichotomistic doctrine of a sharp and radical distinction between the two, as co-ordinate parts of man's nature, -much less as distinct substances in his constitution.
NOTE.—In the second Scripture quotation, p. 74, from Isa, lvii. 16, the original word for “souls” is igen?
On the Construction of Romans ix. 5.
BY PROF. EZRA ABBOT, D. D., LL. D., CAMBRIDGE, MASS.
We shall understand better the passage to be discussed if we consider its relation to what precedes and follows, and the circumstances under which it was written.
In the first eight chapters of the Epistle to the Romans the Apostle has set forth the need and the value of the gospel, as “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” In view of the present blessings and the glorious hopes of the Christian believer he closes this part of the Epistle with an exultant song of triumph.
But the doctrine of Paul was in direct opposition to the strongest prejudices of the Jews, and their most cherished expectations. It placed them on a level as to the conditions of salvation with the despised and hated Gentiles. The true Messiah, the king of Israel, the spiritual king of men, had come; but the rulers of their nation had crucified the Lord of glory, and the great mass of the people had rejected him. They had thus placed themselves in direct opposition to God; they had become ανάθεμα από του χριστο), outcasts from the Messiah and his kingdom. Christians, a large majority of them Gentiles by birth, were now the true Israel. No rite of circumcision, no observance of the Jewish Law was required, as the condition of acceptance with God, and the enjoyment of the Messianic blessings; no sacrifice but self-sacrifice: the only condition was faith, as Paul uses the term,-a practical belief and trust in Christ, and thus in God revealed in his paternal character; a faith that carried with it the affections and will, πίστις δι' αγάπης ενεργουμένη.
How could these things be? How was this gospel of Paul to be reconciled with the promises of God to the “holy nation”? how with his justice, wisdom, and goodness? Had God cast off his people,
“ Israel his servant, Jacob his chosen, the seed of Abraham his friend"? These are the great questions which the Apostle answers in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of this Epistle. The first five verses are to be regarded as a conciliatory introduction to his treatment of this subject, on which he had so much to say that was not only hard for the unbelieving Jews, but for Jewish Christians, to understand and accept.
The unbelieving Jews regarded the Apostle as an apostate from the true religion, and as an enemy of their race. Five times already he had received from them forty stripes save one; he had been “in perils from his own countrymen” at Damascus, at Antioch in Pisidia, at Iconium and Lystra, at Thessalonica, Beræa, and Corinth, —often in peril of his life. By a great part of the believing Jews he was regarded with distrust and aversion. (See Acts xxi. 20, 21.) His doctrines were indeed revolutionary. Though he was about to go to Jerusalem to carry a liberal contribution from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia to the poor Christians in that city, he expresses in this Epistle great anxiety about the reception he should meet with anxiety sully justified by the result), and begs the prayers of the brethren at Rome in his behalf. (Rom. xv. 30-32.) As the Jews hated Paul, they naturally believed that he hated them.
These circumstances explain the exceedingly strong asseveration of his affection for his countrymen, and of his deep sorrow for their estrangement from God, with which this introduction begins. So far from being an enemy of his people, he could make any sacrifice to win them to Christ. They were his brethren, his kinsmen as to the flesh; he gloried in sharing with them the proud name of Israelite; he delights to enumerate the magnificent privileges by which God had distinguished them from all other nations,—“the adoption, and the glory, and the giving of the Law, the covenants, the temple-service, and the promises"; theirs were the fathers, and from among them, as the crowning distinction of all, the Messiah was born, the supreme gist of God's love and mercy not to the Jews alone, but to all mankind. All God's dealings with his chosen people were designed to prepare the way, and had prepared the way, for this grand consummation. How natural that when, in his rapid recital of their historic glories, the Apostle reaches this highest distinction of the Jews and greatest blessing of God's mercy to men he should express his overflowing gratitude to God as the Ruler over All; that he should "thank God for his unspeakable gift"! I believe that he has done so; and that the fifth verse of the passage we are considering should be translated, -“whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Mes