For the first three centuries of the Church, the leaders’writings show belief in three­-part Man, but then dichotomy became the predominate view through the psychology of Augustine.[1]
Dichotomists believe Man is two­-part: one physical (body) and one immaterial (soul/spirit). They believe Scripture uses soul and spirit synonymously for the same one part. They assert the different words exist because of the artistic license of authors who also use words such as heart and mind to describe the invisible part of us. Many, if not most or all, of the historical and modern dichotomists are sincere disciples, who love God and deserve respect. However, it is possible to be sincerely wrong, and we believe this error has contributed greatly to the soulishness of believers (as Paul called it, literally, in 1 Cor. 2:14­-3:4, treated on page 9).

在教会历史的头三个世纪中,基督教领袖表现出三部分人(three­-part Man)的信仰,然而随后二元论借着奥古斯丁的心 理学而成为成为主要的观点。二元论者相信人有两个部分:一个物质的(身体)和一个非物质的(魂/灵)。他们相信圣 经把魂和灵当作一个交替使用的部分。他们坚称这两个字的不同乃是基于作者艺术性的表达方式,他们也使用了心和心思 来描述我们里面看不见的部分。许多,即便不是所有的,历史中和现代的二元论者都是真诚的信徒,他们爱神也值得我们 尊敬。然而,他们也可能犯了严肃的错误,我们相信这个错误乃是源自于信徒的属魂性(soulishness)(就如同保罗在 林前2:14­3:4直截了当所说的,将会在本文中被进一步处理。)

I will take great pains to present their arguments accurately, though abbreviating them is an unfair necessity. For the sake of educating without overwhelming, I have chosen to omit certain verses or considerations. If you are curious about some silence, please contact us through ProjectOne28.com.

我将会不厌其烦的尽可能正确的展现他们的论点,因为只简述这些论点是不公平的。为了教育的目的,我已经选择忽略某 些经文或论点。若你对于某些忽略的论点有一位,请通过ProjectOne28.com跟我们联络。



The main reason dichotomists believe in two-­part nature is they consider Scripture to use soul and spirit interchangeably.


A.Renowned Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof led with the parallelism in Mary's Magnificat in Luke 1:46­47,[2] which was popular style in the poetic Hebrew culture of Bible times: “And Mary said, ‘My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God, my Savior.’” Dichotomists claim this parallelism repeats the same idea with synonyms; both the spirit and the soul worship God because they are the same immaterial part. (They rightly stress that her body also worshiped, as evidenced by the vocal expression, because Man is whole.[3]
声誉卓著的改革宗神学家伯克富(Louis Berkhof)认为马里亚在路加1:46-­47中的尊主为大乃是一种平行的语法,是一种圣经时期希伯来文化中写诗的常用风格:“马利亚说:我魂(Greek:psuchē,应做‘魂’,重译)尊主为大;我灵以神我的救主为乐。”二元论者宣称这种平行的语法重申了同义词的观念;灵和魂都敬拜神,因为它们是同一个非物质的部分。(他们正确的强调,作为一种口语化的说法,她的身体也在敬拜,因为人是整全的。)

B.Wayne Grudem, a respected contemporary theologian in the vein of Berkhof, leads with Scripture reporting Jesus’soul was troubled (Jn. 12:27) and His spirit was troubled (13:21) by His impending crucifixion.[4]

Wayne Grudem,一位受尊重的、血液中流着伯克富血统的近代神学家,认为圣经记载,耶稣因为迫近的十字架,祂的魂受到搅扰(约翰12:27),祂的灵也受到搅扰(13:21)。

C.Scripture sometimes speaks of the combination of body and soul as the whole of Man (e.g. Mt. 6:25, 10:28),whereas it also considers the body and spirit as the whole (e.g. Eccl. 12:7, 1 Cor. 5:3-­5).[5]


D.Berkhof wrote, “Death is sometimes described as the giving up of the soul, Gen. 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21; Acts 15:26;and then again as the giving up of the spirit, Ps. 31:5; Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59. Moreover both ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ are used to designate the immaterial element of the dead, 1 Pet. 3:19; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 6:9; 20:4.”[6]

伯克富写到,“死有时候被描绘为放弃魂,创世纪35:18;王上17:21;行传15:26;有时候又被描绘为放弃灵,诗篇 31:5;路加23:46;行传7:59。除此以外,‘魂’与‘灵’都被用来描述死者的非物质部分,彼前3:19;希伯来12:23;启示录6:9;20:4。”

E.Grudem (who I find very good at arguing from silence) points out that Scripture never says both soul and spirit leave the body at its death.[7]


F.Berkhof sees two parts described in Genesis 2:7. The dust is obviously the body, and the breath of life is the spirit(which trichotomists also believe). Instead of counting the “living soul” a third part, Berkhof sees it as synonymous with the “breath or spirit of life.” He even says, “Thus it may be said that man has spirit, but is soul” (emphasis his).[8]

伯克富在创世纪2:7的描述中看见两个部分。尘土是身体(body),而生命之气就是灵(spirit)(三元论者也相信这点)。因着没有把‘活的魂(living soul)’当作第三个部分,伯克富认为它和‘生命之气或生命之灵(breath or spirit of life)’是同义词。他甚至说,‘故此可以说人有灵,但灵是魂’。

G.Berkhof also argued from experience: “While man is conscious of the fact that he consists of a material and aspiritual element, no one is conscious of possessing a soul in distinction from a spirit.”[9]


H.Grudem claims both the soul and the spirit sin, citing 2 Corinthians 7:1 and a horde of Old Testament verses.[10]
This seems particularly rewarding to dichotomists, because many trichotomists believe the spirit (of a believer) is a purer element, untainted by sin.


I. Grudem lastly argues the spirit does the same things as the soul, and the soul does the same things as thespirit, because they are one, synonymous. Both feel; both think; both worship.[11]




Dichotomists should be able to admit that none of those verses explicitly state that the soul is the same as the spirit, nor that Man is two and only two parts. They may infer it. Perhaps it is a correct inference, but let us admit that it is not explicit and then consider the next three overarching points (followed by specific responses).


First, an overlap in usage of terms does not necessarily negate distinction. Dichotomists negate the distinction between soul and spirit because of apparent overlaps in language. But they themselves do not negate the difference between body and soul, even though there is overlap there, too.[12]
The word for “soul” is often used (alone, without “body”) for the whole person as an individual (e.g. Lev. 2:1, 7:20, 27:22; Jer. 52:28). Yet dichotomists still believe such usage of soul implies relationship with a body. Similarly, Scripture also uses nephesh (soul) to refer to a dead body without life or the departed soul (and spirit). Yet dichotomists do not therefore say the soul is the same as the body. Trichotomists are using the same kind of sensibility to still see the spirit as a distinct third part, even when not listed explicitly (as it is in places such as 1
Thess. 5:23 and Heb. 4:12, addressed below). Literature is not simple math.[13]


Secondly, less detail does not necessarily contradict more detail. To say that a Man has a body and a soul does not contradict having a body and a soul and a spirit. Woodward deftly draws correlation with other facets of Scripture: was there one angel at the tomb (Mt. 28:2) or two (Lk. 24:4)? Was there one demoniac in Gadara (Mk. 5:2) or two (Mt.8:28)? Was there one blind man outside Jericho (Mk. 10:46) or two (Mt. 20:30)?[14]
Because we believe God­breathed words cannot contradict themselves, we believe both are true; there were two. If there is two, then it is also true there is one, because one is included in two. Suppose there are three and only three cars in a parking lot. One is a Ford; another is a Toyota; another, a Chevy. One author could correctly write, “There are three cars in the parking lot.” Another author could write less specifically, but still correctly, “There is a Ford and a Toyota in the parking lot.” Still another author would be equally correct to write, “There is one Ford in the parking lot.” Yes, I am one person. Yes, I have a body and soul. Yes, I have body and spirit. Yes, I have a body and a soul and a spirit. Less detail does not necessarily contradict more detail.

其次,较不明细的细节不能推翻较为明细的细节。说人有身体和魂不能与说人有身体与魂和灵产生冲突。Woodward巧妙的将圣经不相干的经文联系起来:坟墓里面的是一位天使(马太28:2),亦或是两位天使(路加24:4)?在格拉森那里的是一个恶魔(马可5:2),还是两个(马太8:28)?在耶利哥外是一个瞎子(马可10:46)还是两个(马太20: 30)?因为我们相信神所呼出的话不能自相矛盾,我们相信两者都是正确的;有两个。若有两个,那么也必然是一个,因为一被包括在二里面。假设在停车场中有三辆,也只有三辆车。一辆是福特;另一辆是丰田;另一辆是雪弗兰。一位作者可以正确的写到:‘在停车场里面有一辆福特和一辆丰田。’另一位作者也可以同样正确的写到:‘在停车场中有一辆福特。’是的,我是一个人。是的,我有身体和魂。是的,我有身体和灵。是的,我有身体与魂和灵。较不明细的细节不能推翻较为明细的细节。

Thirdly, importantly, soul and spirit may seem interchangeable at first blush, and in some contexts that may be true. But a closer examination reveals soul and spirit are not entirely interchangeable. Soul is used alone as the personhood or individuality of a living Man, but spirit is not used in that manner.[15]
The spirit is not hated or persecuted as the soul can be.[16]
The New Testament always uses pneuma (spirit) to contrast the physical or metaphorical sarx (flesh), but psuchē (soul) never contrasts sarx.[17]
God is called the “Father of spirits” (Heb. 12:9, cf. Zech. 12:1), but never the Father of souls. The adjectival form of soul (psuchikos, soulish) is consistently negative and contrasted against the always “positive and Godward”[18] adjective for spirit (pneumatikos, spiritual). This contrast between soulish and spiritual is extremely vital in its theological precision and practical application (expounded below). And perhaps most convincingly, the Holy Spirit works in and through the human spirit with an intimate connection that is not said of the soul. Scripturally, spirit and soul are not interchangeable. Spirit and soul are not synonyms.

第三,更为重要的是,魂和灵可能乍看之下是可以互换的,在某些经文中可能也是如此。然而更为仔细的研读会揭示魂和灵并不是完全能够互换的。魂只被用来描述人格或作为一位活的人的独立性,然而灵的使用方式却不是如此。灵并不会如同魂一样的被恨,被逼迫。新约总使用pneuma(spirit)与物质或隐喻上的sarx(肉体)相对,然而psuche(魂)从不会与sarx(肉体)相对。神被成为“万灵之父(Father of spirits)”(希伯来12:9;参考撒迦利亚12:1),然而从未被称为万魂之父。魂的形容词态(psuchikos,属魂的)对应总是“正面和向着神的(Godward)”之灵的形容词态(pneumatiko,属灵的),一定是负面,和相对立的。这个在属魂的和属灵的间的对立,在神学的精确性和应用(接下来会进一步提及)中是极其有活力的。更为让人信服的方面是,圣灵以一种亲密的联结方式,在人的灵里面,也透过人的灵作工,魂却从未如此被提及过。从属灵的方面而言,灵和魂不是互换的。灵和魂也不是同义词。

Now for specific responses to the dichotomist views outlined above:


A. Parallelism does not water down into simple redundancy. Mary, by the Spirit, still chose different nouns, verbs, and direct objects to more fully describe the nuances of her worship. Many translations do not maintain the change in tenses from Luke 1:46 to 1:47. Truly, the soul's action is present tense, while the spirit's is aorist (Greek past tense). The soul magnifies, whereas the spirit rejoiced. It places the spirit's action logically before the soul's. The spirit rejoiced; then the soul magnified. We do not suggest that the soul cannot participate in worship; the Scriptural point is an issue of source and order. Worship must begin in the spirit, for God is spirit (Jn. 4:24). Then the spirit communicates truth to the soul, and the soul magnifies it and expresses it through the body. It is ironic that Reformed dichotomists use this passage for proof, since this is where the great light[19] of the Reformation, Martin Luther, expounded on the three­part Image in his commentary (more on page X).


I. This leads to Grudem's point about the spirit and soul doing the same things because they are the same. The soul/spirit thinks, feels, and worships. We affirm an amazingly mysterious interconnectedness of spirit, soul, and body. For example, how can we explain the difference and interaction between the body's brain and the soul's mind? The soul uses the body's brain to think. Emotions are also connected to the brain's control of the endocrine system and the release of hormones and endorphins. It is just as sensible to expect a similar interaction between the spirit and the soul. The spirit can transmit a thought to the soul, which the soul can receive or reject (e.g. Mk. 2:8, 1 Cor. 12:8). The spirit can transmit an emotion to the soul, and the soul can adopt it as its own.[20]
When Grudem adds the point about the participation of the body in thinking, feeling, and worship,[21]
he cuts the leg out from under his argument. Even though body and soul do the same things, they are not the same parts – neither are soul and spirit.


B. Jesus' troubled soul and troubled spirit also fail to explicitly prove the sameness of soul and spirit. It still fits within the framework of trichotomy. (The response to Point I, above, applies here, too.) It is true that Jesus' soul and spirit were both troubled by the same impending event: crucifixion. However, the contexts of the reports do differ. It makes sense that John would choose in 12:27 to emphasize the trouble of Jesus' soul, because the will resides in the soul.
This passage describes Jesus' willingness to lay down His soul­life (psuchē), dying in order to bear fruit for the glory of God and for the Creation of the Church (12:23­28). Later, after the Passover meal and washing the disciples' feet, Jesus was troubled in spirit and spoke of betrayal by one of His friends (13:21). The spiritual warfare was intensifying: Satan had already put it in Judas’ heart to betray Him (13:2), and then Satan entered Judas during Jesus’ interaction (13:27). Still later, His body was also troubled – to the point of sweating blood (Lk. 22:44). Section Four of the booklet and another excursus [22] honor Jesus in thankfulness by describing how all three parts of His Manhood endured the full punishment for our sins on the Cross.


C. It is true that Scripture sometimes describes only two parts in order to represent the whole.[23]
But Scripture also occasionally uses only one part to represent the whole, and Man remains more than one part (e.g. Lev. 2:1, 7:20, 27:22; Jer. 52:28). Furthermore, 1 Thessalonians 5:23 is the only verse explicitly defining the “completely” “whole” Man: spirit and soul and body (more on page 6). Man's “one” immaterial part consists of two parts just as the tabernacle's one closed­-off section (Holy Place) hid an additional innermost room (Holy of Holies, more on page 5). Therefore, each inner element can represent the inner man as a whole (with two parts). Again, less detail does not contradict more detail. Speaking of two parts does not prohibit a third – just has speaking of the soul alone does not prohibit a body (or a spirit).

圣经确实有时候用两个部分来代表全人。但是圣经有时候也用一个部分来代表全人,而人仍然是好几个部分的(例如利未2:1, 7:20, 27:22;耶利米52:28)。除此以外,贴前5:23是唯一一处经文特别定义‘完全的’‘整全’之人的经文:灵和魂和身体(接下来会讨论)。人的‘一个’非物质的部分包括两个部分,就如同帐幕的一个封闭的部分(圣所)还隐藏着另一个深处的房间(至圣所)。再者,较不明细的细节不能推翻较为明细的细节。论及两个部分不能否定第三个部分—就如同只论及魂的时候,不代表否定身体(或灵)。

D. True: death is described as giving up the soul or the spirit from the body, and the dead are called souls or spirits.[24]
The response to Point C applies here. It also makes sense in many passages why the author, by the Spirit, chose to emphasize one of the two invisible parts. For example, the New Testament verses of the dead as “souls” are in the context of martyrdom (Rev. 6:9, 20:4). The will resides in the soul, and so calling them “souls” honors their willing sacrifice. On the other hand, “spirits in prison” flows naturally from the contextual setup that Jesus was made alive in the spirit (or Spirit) in which He preached to them (1 Pet. 3:18­-19).


E.It is smart of Grudem to notice Scripture does not speak of both the soul and spirit departing the dead body simultaneously. I wish it did, but it does not have to. The silence does not overturn the affirmative three-­part passages.


F.Trichotomists would simply say Berkhof is wrong about their experience. There is something beyond reason, beyondfeelings, in the realm of faith that bubbles up to affect reason and feelings. An interesting application (from left field): Scripture describes the spirit praying, using the body's tongue, but the mind being unfruitful (1 Cor. 14:14). With the gift of tongues, the spirit[25]bypasses the soul in order to employ the body.[26]


G.Page 8 (affirmative point G) shows Berkhof is simply mistaken about Genesis 2:7, which indeed teaches threeparts, not two.


H.Regarding Grudem's claim the spirit can sin, the Old Testament verses do not apply because they refer to unbelievers whose spirits are still separated from the life of God. The only New Testament verse offered is 2 Corinthians 7:1. This verse does not say that the spirit sins, but that it can be “defiled.” In context, Paul advocates separation from external spiritual influences that could dangerously affect a believer's spirit. But the truth remains that the believer's spirit is one with the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:17). When we sin, it is because we ignore or suppress the spirit (cf. 1 Thess. 5:19) and act out of the soul and body – together referred to metaphorically as flesh (cf. Gal. 5:16).

关于Grudem所宣称的灵能够犯罪,旧约的经文不支持,因为它们指的乃是那些不信的人,他们的灵与神的生命仍然是隔绝的。只有新约的经文提供了林后2:7。这节并不是说灵犯罪(sin),而是说灵可以被‘玷污(defiled)’。保罗在上下文中提倡若脱离外界属灵的影响中,将会危险的影响一个信徒的灵。然而真理仍然是,信徒的灵与圣灵是一(林前6: 17)。当我们犯罪的时候,乃是因为我们忽略或压制了灵(参考贴前5:19)并从魂和身体行事为人—这在寓意上指的乃是肉体(参考加拉太5:16)。



Dichotomists do not adequately respond to the Scriptures supporting three parts in Man.


A. For whatever reason, I have not yet seen a dichotomist scholar acknowledge the glaring reality that Man is madein the Image of the Triune God. This is the single greatest reason to believe in our tri­part nature: God is Three in One. Man in God's Image is three in one. No other creature is three­part because no other creature is in God's Image. Angels are spirits. Plants are just material.[1]
Animals are body and soul.[27]
Only Man is spirit and soul and body. We are the vessels to bridge the spiritual realms and the earthly realm ­ to issue forth the spiritual into the earthly for the glory of God.

因着某种的原因,我尚未看见任何一位二元论学者承认那个耀眼夺目的,人根据三一神之形像所造的事实。这个就是我们相信三部分本质的一个 重要的原因:神是三而一的。在神形像中的人也是三而一的。没有任何其他的被造之物有三个部分,因为没有别的被造之物有神的形像。天使是灵。植物只是物体。动物有身体和魂。这既有人是灵与魂和身体。我们都器皿,衔接属灵和属世界的领域—为着神的荣耀将属灵的带给属世界的。

B.I also have yet to see a dichotomist address the three parts of the tabernacle and temple, which are symbolic forthe three parts of Man (see Section Three of the booklet). Jesus said He was the temple, and Paul said each of us is the temple of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 2:19­-22, 1 Cor. 6:19). Martin Luther, in his commentary on Luke 1:46­-47, wrote:


In the tabernacle fashioned by Moses there were three separate compartments. The first was called the holy of holies: here was God's dwelling place, and in it there was no light. The second was called the holy place; here stood a candlestick with seven arms and seven lamps. The third was called the outer court; this lay under the open sky and in the full light of the sun. In this tabernacle we have a figure of the Christian man. His spirit is the holy of holies, where God dwells in the darkness of faith, where no light is; for he believes that which he neither sees nor feels nor comprehends. His soul is the holy place, with its seven lamps, that is, all manner of reason, discrimination, knowledge, and understanding of visible and bodily things. His body is the forecourt, open to all, so that men may see his works and manner of life.[29]


The architecture of the tabernacle/temple gives so much insight into sourcing and manifesting. We must start with and source from the spirit, for in the spirit we have communion with the Holy Spirit, who guides us into all truth. The soul is the middle part, which must humble its will to receive from the spirit. Then the soul can magnify the spirit's life and express it through the body for all creation to experience the glory of God.


C. Progressive Sanctification. Scripture speaks of our salvation in three tenses:


1.We have been saved (e.g. Eph. 2:8).


2.We are being saved (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:2 ESV).


3.We will be saved (e.g. 1 Cor. 3:15).


All three are true. We have been saved in spirit. We receive a new spirit that is born again by the Holy Spirit (Ezek. 36:26­-27, Jn. 3:5­-8). Our spirit is one spirit with the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:17) ­- sealed and fully saved (Eph. 1:13­-14, 2:6; cf. Col. 2:10). We are being saved in soul. Our minds are being renewed in knowledge after the Image of our Creator
(Rom. 12:2, Col. 3:10), and we are in the process of obtaining the salvation of our souls as the outcome (1 Pet. 3:9, cf. Jas. 1:21, 1 Cor. 15:2 ESV). Currently, we are outwardly wasting away, but we will be saved in body at the Resurrection when we will receive glorified, imperishable, spiritual bodies (Mt. 24:13, 1 Cor. 15:42-­58). The progression
begins in spirit, emanates to the soul, and culminates in the body. Such is the progression in our next verse.[30]


D. 1 Thessalonians 5:23 reads, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole [1] spirit and [2] soul and [3] body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Dichotomists simply do not do justice to those words in italics. The complete whole of Man is spirit and soul and body.


1.Berkhof immediately appealed to analogia Scriptura, a Latin phrase instructing us to interpret each verse from within the consistency of all the Scriptures.[31]
He claimed that because the rest of the Scriptures teach two­part, this verse should be interpreted as though two-part. This screams of the logical fallacy called begging the question, assuming the conclusion (Scripture says two­part) to make the argument (this verse must be two­part). He used his misinterpretation of inconclusive verses to sidestep a clear verse. The better counsel is to let clear verses mean what they say, helping to interpret the less clear verses.

伯克富立刻诉诸与analogia Scriptura(圣经的类比),这句告诉我们要在圣经的规范中诠释每一节经文的拉丁文。他宣称因为圣经其他的部分教导两个部分,这节也当被诠释为两个部分。这种逻辑性错误的叫嚣回避了问题,先假设了结论(圣经教导两个部分),再来进行辩论(这节必然是两个部分的)。他使用了对于有争议经文错误的诠释来回避一处明显不过的经文。更为妥当的做法乃是让更为明确的经文说出它本身的含义,以帮助诠释其他较为模糊的经文。

2.Berkhof and Grudem[32] brush away 1 Thessalonians 5:23 by comparing Matthew 22:37, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your mind, and with all your soul” (Mk. 12:30 adds “and with all your strength”). Supposedly, all these verses simply pile on synonyms for emphasis. But first, we acknowledge Jesus was answering a question about the Law, quoting a glorious old covenant verse that was shadowed and veiled (2 Cor. 3:5­15, Col. 2:16­17, Heb. 8:5, 10:1). Even realities as essential as the Holy Trinity are veiled in the Old Testament (truly there, but not explicitly blunt, cf. Mt. 28:19). Secondly, this quote from Jesus does not define the triad as “you completely,” “whole.”

伯克富和Gruedm想要以与马太22:37做比较的方式来刷掉贴前5:23,“你要全心、全魂并全心思,爱主你的神(重译 ——译者)(马可福音还加上了“全力”),”并假设这些经文都强调一堆名词的同意性。而首先,我们承认耶稣在回答一个关于律法的问题,引用了被遮盖和被遮蔽的荣耀旧约经文(林后3:5­15,歌罗西2:16­-17,希伯来8:5,10:1)。即便神圣三一如此重要的实际在旧约中都是隐藏的(在此也是一样,然而不是那么的明确,参考马太28:19)。其次,此处引用页数的化并没用将三部分定义为“你们完全”,和“整个人”。

Thirdly, heart is a different kind of word than spirit and soul. Heart is a metaphor, whereas soul and spirit are specific elements of Man. In reality, the heart is a physical organ in the body. Heart is used metaphorically to describe the invisible inner core of Man (1 Pet. 3:4), the two immaterial parts (soul and spirit) as a whole. On the other end of the spectrum, flesh is literally skin on the body. Yet it is used metaphorically to describe the essence or actions of Man apart from the Holy Spirit, which are dominated by soul and body together (e.g. Jn. 1:12­13, 3:4­-6). Scripture also uses many other body members metaphorically, such as kidneys[33](similar usage to heart, e.g. ESV fn. of lit. Heb. in Ps. 16:7, 26:2), bowels (for compassion, e.g. lit. Mt. 9:26), and hand (for power, e.g. lit. Dt. 32:36, Josh. 8:20). Hebrew language, carried over to Greek,[34]also used “belly” metaphorically for the inner man, and the belly was considered to have two parts, upper and lower abdomen (stomach and intestines).[35]
For example, Proverbs 20:27 and 20:30 are translated as “innermost parts,” but the Hebrew is literally “the chambers of the belly.” Plural chambers: more than one immaterial part. The metaphorical heart, the inner man, is spirit and soul. See ProjectOne28.com/heart for Scriptures and diagrams to understand the heart encompasses both spirit and soul just as the tent to the Holy Place encompassed the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies.


F. Hebrews 4:12 reads, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two­edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” This verse plainly states that the soul and spirit can be divided. They can be divided because they are different. Thoughts and intentions are not the same. Joints and marrow are not the same; they are different elements within a physical body, but that could not be seen until the priest dissected the sacrifice. Likewise, the difference between our souls and our spirits cannot be perceived, in our fallen state, until the word of God divides. This verse punctuates a deadly serious and practical context (3:7­4:13) and establishes the necessity of this division in order to move from unbelief and disobedience to faith and obedience.


1.Grudem again chalks this up to redundancy of synonyms. Strangely, Grudem argues that “we do not divide jointsfrom marrow, for joints are the places where bones meet, not the places where joints meet marrow.”[36]
The point is joints and marrow are different! Marrow parallels spirit in Hebrews 4:12, which is genius because marrow, inside the sheath of bone, produces the life­supply of blood cells, just as the spirit gives life to the soul and body.


2.Berkhof provided a fun admission in the midst of doing gymnastics to avoid the clear reading: “Heb. 4:12 should notbe taken to mean that the word of God, penetrating to the inner man, makes a separation between his soul and his spirit, which would naturally imply that these two are different substances; but simply as declaring that it brings about a separation in both between the thoughts and intents of the heart” (emphasis mine).[37]
This verse does not say the word divides the soul into two parts and the spirit into two parts. Stick with the natural reading of the paralleled tandems: the word of God divides soul and spirit just as a sword divides joint and marrow. A second verb is employed for discerning the thoughts and intents of the heart (which are also two distinct elements).


G. Genesis 2:7 describes three parts in the Creation of Man, just as that chapter illustrates three types of trees corresponding to three types of life. With the dust of the ground, the Potter shaped Man's body. The breathing of the Creator's sustaining life into the nostrils created spirit.[38]
When spirit entered into body, the third part became a living soul (nephesh). Soul is the third part. Some scholars and translators treat nephesh as creature­-like being (as in Gen. 1:20­21, 2:19, et al.), but the whole point of the Creation context is that we are different than other creatures, unique in the Image of the Triune God (see also fn. 27).


Section One (pages 5-­7) of the Spirit, Soul, Body booklet writes of the three trees and life: The trees are central characters in the story of Man – here [Gen. 2:8­9, 15­-17] and continuing into Genesis 3. Regular trees do not give knowledge or spiritual life, so these trees were clearly both natural and supernatural. The very act of eating is a parable to teach us that we need to receive sustaining life from a source outside of our creaturehood. These trees offered food for the three types of life, corresponding to the three parts of Man. We know this because New Testament Greek employs three different words for life in consistent contexts.[39]
Bios speaks of the body's physical life. Psuchē means the soul or soul­life. Zōē is the spirit's life given by God's Spirit. The normally delightful and nutritious trees could be eaten by Adam and Eve's bodies in the same way we now do for bios. But God drew special attention to two trees and placed them center stage in the Garden. The first is the Tree of Life, which the New Testament calls the Tree of Zōē (Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19). The Tree of Life was digested in the spirit and enlivened the spirit. The second special tree was named the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was eaten in the soul and grew the soul (through the mind).

灵、魂、体小册的第一个段落(5­-7页)写到三种树木和三种生命:树木是人的故事中的核心特征,并一直延续到创世纪第三章。一般的树木并不能赐人知识或属灵的生命,所以这些树木很明显的是天然的,页数超自然的。吃是一个预表,教导我们我们需要从我们被造的源头之外,领受维持我们的生命。这些树木提供三种生命为食物,跟人的三个部分相对应。我们知道这乃是因为新约希腊文前后一致的用三个不同的、意思都为生命的字。Bios指的是身体物质的生命。Psuchē指的是魂或魂的生命。Zōē是神的灵所赐予我们的灵的生命。一般而言,亚当和夏娃的身体吃了悦目和有营养的树木,如同我们今日为了bios而吃一样。然而神特别把注意力集中到在园子中间的两颗树上面。第一棵是生命树,新约称这棵树为 Zōē树(启示录2:7;2:22,14,19)。生命树乃是为了灵,并点活灵。第二棵特别的树叫做善恶知识树,被魂所吃,并让魂增长(透过心思)。

Such revelation makes sense of why, having eaten the Tree of Knowledge, Man became soulish as opposed to spiritual.


H. 1 Corinthians 15:44­-45 reads, “It is sown a soulish[40]body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a soulish body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living soul;[41]the last Adam [Jesus] became a life­giving spirit.” What is the point of contrasting a soulish body and a spiritual body, if there is no contrast between soul and spirit? Dichotomists would have us think those words could be swapped[42]without affecting meaning, because they are supposedly synonyms. Therefore, we might as well paraphrase, “It is sown a spiritual body; it is raised a soulish body. Adam became a living spirit; Jesus became a life­-giving soul.” That would be foolish. The only reason this passage makes sense is because soul and spirit are two different parts inside one body. The first body is inappropriately dominated by and characterized by the soul. The soul has usurped the greatest influence. But thank God in Christ, we will receive a body that is led by, filled with, and wholly characterized by spirit. We will saturated with God, who is spirit, and He will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). Hallelujah!


I. First Corinthians 2:8­3:3 highlights the glory and necessity of the Spirit's ministry to our spirits. To quote for brevity only verses 12­-15 (lit.):


But we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit from God, in order that we might understand the things freely given us by God, which things we also are speaking, not in words taught by human wisdom, but taught by the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. But a soulish[43]man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know, because they are spiritually discerned. But the spiritual man discerns all things indeed.


These verses serve as setup for Paul to explicitly declare in the following verses (3:1­-4) that the believers in Corinth were soulish and fleshly instead of spiritual. This again proves a serious distinction between soul and spirit. It stresses our need to submit the soul to the spirit's ability to receive from the Holy Spirit. Our spirits receive the Holy Spirit, and only our spirits can discern the Spirit's ministry of teaching all that we have been freely given from God. Our spirits can help our souls understand, if our souls submit and quiet the mind to learn by faith.




Dichotomists sincerely mistake the parts of Man. The Scriptures do not use spirit and soul interchangeably. In fact, the Scriptures often contrast spirit and soul, imploring us to submit our souls and to become spiritual disciples that we may issue forth the Spirit’s life from the spiritual realm into the physical realm. Every facet of the Gospel story affects all three parts of Man: Creation, Fall, tabernacle, Incarnation, redemption, discipleship, and eternal salvation. We hope and pray you study these truths in the Spirit, Soul, Body booklet, and apply them to your spiritual discipleship.


“Oh, magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together!” (Ps. 34:3, cf. Lk. 1:46­47).


[1]trichotomist leaders included Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus of Alexandria, and Basil of Caesarea. For example, Justin Martyr wrote, “As the body is the house of the soul, so the soul is the house of the spirit.” But in the Fourth Century, a bishop of Laodicea, Apollinaris, though affirming the Nicene Creed’s orthodoxy of Christ’s Godhood and Manhood, blundered in his attempt to explain the humanity of Christ. He confused the distinctions of spirit and mind and asserted it was replaced in the Man Jesus by the Logos (“Word,” in Jn. 1:1, 14). His view was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381 A.D., and trichotomy began to be avoided. Well­cited in John B. Woodward, Jr., Man as Spirit, Soul, Body: A Study in Biblical Psychology (Pigeon Forge, TN: Grace Fellowship International, 2006) 73-­75, quoting Heard, Berkhof, and others. Available at gracenotebook.com.
早期三元论的领袖包括爱任纽,殉道者游丝丁,亚历山大的革利免,俄列根,尼撒的贵格利,亚历山大的丢尼修和该撒利亚的巴西流。例如,游丝丁写到:‘如同身体是魂的家,同样的魂也是灵的家。’然而在四世界,一位老底嘉的主教,亚波里拿流,虽然肯定尼西亚信经关于基督神性和人性的正统性,但在尝试解释基督的人性时犯了错误。他混乱了灵和心思间的分别,并坚称为人基督的心思完全被道(Logos)所取代了(在约翰1:1,14中的‘道’)。他的观点被318年第二次康士坦丁堡大会所定罪,教会开始避免三元论。John B. Woodward, Jr.的具有灵、魂、体的人:圣经心理学的研究(Man as Spirit, Soul, Body: A Study in Biblical Psychology)73-­75页中清楚的引用了Heard,伯克富(Berkhof)和其他人士的论点。可购于gracenotebook.com。

[2]Berkhof, Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996) 194.
伯克富,系统神学:新合订版(Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996) 194页。

[3]Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994, 2000) 477.
Grudem,系统神学,(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994, 2000) 447页。(古氏新约神学的作者——译者。)


[5]Theology, 194.

[6]Theology, 194.

[7]Theology, 474.

[8]Theology, 194.


[10]Theology, 475-­476.


[12] argued by Woodward, op. cit., 94.

[13]not literature breathed by a transcendent, mysterious God through more than forty human writers spanning over 1,500 years in diverse geographies, languages, and cultures. Yet spiritual believers can discern spiritual truths by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13).

[14]cit., 99.

[15]F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament (NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1883), 150. Cited in Woodward, 97.

[16]Schweiser, “Psuche,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Eds. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964) 6:649, 654­-655. Cited in Woodward, 97.



[19]Berkhof states that only “a few lesser lights [of the Reformation] defended the trichotomic theory” (op. cit., 192). Luther is not a lesser light of the Reformation! His wonderful trichotomy is quoted on page 5.
令人难以置信的是,伯克富宣称只有‘[宗教改革]只有微弱的声音捍卫三元论’( op. cit., 192)。路得不是宗教改革宗的微弱声音!他完美的三元论论也被本文所引用。

[20]the Scriptural description of the spirit's feelings on pages 4­-5 of the Spirit, Soul, Body booklet.

[21] Theology, 477.

[22]ProjectOne28.com/cross for this author's “The Fullness of Judgment Upon the Man Christ Jesus.”

[23]Berkhof lists 1 Cor. 5:3, 5, which I do not believe contextually represents the whole of Man.

[24]that Acts 15:26, referenced by Berkhof, does not apply to souls departing from bodies. Barnabas and Paul were still alive, being sent to Antioch. The expression commended them for giving up their soul­-lives for the sake of the Gospel. They considered their soul­-lives nothing and traded them for lives of surrender to the Spirit of Christ.

[25] ( the human spirit, rather than the Holy Spirit, because Paul repeatedly says “my spirit.”
这当然是人的灵而不是神的灵,因为保罗不断重复的说‘我的灵(my spirit)’。

[26]point stands whether someone is a cessationist or not. This verse is true of Paul’s gifted, trichotomist experience. But no one should be a cessationist. See “Until the Perfect Comes” at ProjectOne28.com/gifts.
不论某个人是不是静止主义(cessationist),这点都是成立的。这节根据保罗领受的恩赐,三元论的经历,是真实的。然而,没有人应当成为静止主义者。参考ProjectOne28.com/gifts中的“直到完美来临(Until the Perfect Comes)”。

[27] are never described as having nephesh life in them. This is why Man and animals were commanded to be vegetarians (Gen. 1:29­-30), and yet that did not introduce death into the world. Death did not come by eating plants or fruit. Death entered the world through the sin of Adam (Rom. 5:12), and the resultant sacrifice of an animal to clothe Adam and Eve's nakedness (Gen. 3:21, cf. Heb. 9:22).

[28] least the higher animals have souls; nephesh is used of them in Gen. 1:20, 24; 2:19, et al. It should be obvious that a pet dog has mind, emotions, and will. Our souls are not just superior to animals; they are unique because of their ability to interact with a third part (a spirit) in communion with God. Man alone is in the Image of the Triune God (1:26-27).

[29]Luther, Luther's Works, Ed. Jaroslar Pelikan (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 1956) 21:304. Qtd. in Woodward, 77.

[30]saw intentional order in 1 Thess. 5:23, just as we stress it on page X of the booklet. Luther's commentary on this verse included, “… it is necessary that God preserve, first our spirit, then our soul and body, not only from overt sins but more from false and apparent good works.” Ibid., 21:305-­306. Qtd. in Woodward, 78.

[31]Theology, 194­-195.

[32]Theology, 194. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 478­-479.

[33]remaining nine references all use kidneys as a symbol of the innermost being. This is probably so since in dismembering an animal the kidneys arethe last organ to be reached. In this usage it is frequently paralleled with heart….” John N. Oswalt, “kilya,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Eds. R. Laird Harris et al (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1980) 441.
“其他的九处经文都使用肾脏作为人类 深处之存有的预表。这可能是因为在解剖动物的时候,肾脏是 后一个能够触及的器官。在这个用法中,它常常被用来当作心。。。。”,John N. Oswalt, “kilya,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Eds. R. Laird Harris et al (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1980) 441.

[34]John 7:38 is usually mistranslated with “heart,” but it is literally, “Out of his belly will flow rivers of living water.”

[35]and Smith's Bible Dictionary. “Greek Lexicon entry for Koilia.” The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon at biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/koilia.html.

[36]Theology, 479.

[37]Systematic Theology, 195.

[38]supports the relationship between physical air and spiritual spirit, as seen in Hebrew word ruach. Adam's spirit is not to be confused with God's Holy Spirit. Romans 8:16 distinguishes, “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.”

[39] these facts in detail.

[40]Greek word is psuchikos, which is the adjective form of the root noun, psuche (soul). Modern translators do so much damage to the Body of Christ by failing (with “natural”) to maintain the root word (soul) in the adjective soulish. Readers see “natural” and think physical, instead of what God communicated, soulish. And so the Body of Christ, at large, remains soulish and unaware.
希腊文中的psuchikos,是字根名词psuche (soul,魂)的形容词态。现代的翻译因着没有重视的根据字根(soul,魂)的形容词态翻译为soulish(属魂的)而极大的伤害了基督的身体。读者们在看见“natural(和合本译为血气)”时,就会认为是物质的,而不是神想要告诉我们的,属魂的(soulish)。也是因为这个缘故,基督的身体的绝大部分都仍然是属魂的,且未察觉到这个真理。

[41]Greek word is psuche, which is most literally soul. Translators again muddy up the contrast: the soul in Adam propagated soulish bodies, but the spirit of Christ will propagate spiritual bodies.
希腊文是psuche, 直接的意思就是soul(魂)。翻译者再次模糊了这里的对比:在亚当里面的魂扩大为属魂的身体,然而基督的灵则扩大为属灵的身体。

[42]actually dares this elsewhere. 1 Cor. 14:14 reads, “My spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.” Grudem wrote, “Paul probably could equally have said, ‘My soul prays but my mind is unfruitful’” (Systematic Theology, 480). That is quite wrong, as this example from 1 Cor. 15:44­-45 exaggerates.
Grudem事实上用这处经文挑战其他的经文。林前14:14写到,“是我的灵祷告,但我的悟性没有果效。”Grudem写到,“保罗可能也能够说,‘我的魂祷告,然而我的悟性没有果效。’‘”(系统神学,480)。那个说法是错误的,就像对林前 15:44­-45的诠释一样。

[43]Greek word is psuchikos, which is the adjective form of the root noun, psuchē (soul). Modern translators do so much damage to the Body of Christ by failing (with “natural”) to maintain the root word (soul) in the adjective soulish. Readers see “natural” and think physical, instead of what God communicated, soulish. NIV does even worse with “the man without the Spirit,” which not only mistranslates, but forces the interpretation that this soulish man must be an unbeliever. Paul's point in context is that the Corinthian believers were soulish, not spiritual (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1-­4).
希腊文中的psuchikos,是字根名词psuche (soul,魂)的形容词态。现代的翻译因着没有中神的感觉字根(soul,魂)的形容词态翻译为soulish(属魂的)而极大的伤害了基督的身体。读者们在看见“natural(和合本译为血气)”时,就会认为是物质的,而不是神想要告诉我们的,属魂的(soulish)。NIV版圣经的翻译更糟糟糕,译为“没有圣灵的人,”这不但是错误的翻译,还强制性将这个属魂的人诠释为不信的人。保罗在上下文中的重点乃是哥林多的信徒是属魂的,而不是属灵的(参考林前3:1-­4)。