St Paul's distinction between soul and spirit

[ThalesBrax]

St Paul makes a clear distinction between soul (psyche) and spirit (pneuma) in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. What does this distinction mean? Are they separated realities in men?

Kind regards,

–
Thales

 

[Huiou_Theou]

St Paul makes a clear distinction between soul (psyche) and spirit (pneuma) in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. What does this distinction mean? Are they separated realities in men?

Kind regards,

–
Thales

The understanding received is that all living things have a soul, and in man – the ultimate animating/forming principle is the spiritual soul. Notice in the passage that Paul is saying that the “whole” is body - soul - and spirit. He is not dividing these things, but saying they are a unity regardless of how his audience accounts the parts.

A distinction (minor) is made, however, here:
“Hebre 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.”

The comparison shows that the distinction is of a very subtle nature – one might even say that they are aspects of the same thing. eg:joints and Marrow, the outside of the bone is the joint – the inside is the marrow. eg:thoughts and intents – an intent is a thought held and pursued, but a thought may or not be held firmly on its own.

I don’t think they are separate “realities” but rather distinctions in the quality of a particular reality or another.
Definitely Marrow is not “separate” from the bone – but is the very thing which the bone grows from as intentions grow from thoughts.

The distinction is only with respect to the quality (likeness/analogy) being thought of. So, inasmuch as we call them different “qualities” they are different “things” – but this is a distinction based on how we as humans categorize things by outward appearances.

Eg: A plant and animal can be said to have a “soul”. An animal can be said to have a mortal soul and physical spirit, a human being, however, has an additional quality to his life principle (“the soul”) which animals do not have.

One can speak of the “soul” of man, by which one may only mean that which is mortal, or the breath (spirit) of man which is also mortal. These are the physical breath and animating principles of the body. (eg: since the human “seed” leaves the man’s body and yet is still “alive” for a time, it can be said to have a “soul”, but until it truly becomes a viable seed – that is, it becomes fused in the conception of a child, I do not think it is the same as a human being. The sperm is merely animated and a dying portion of a man’s body.

Another idea which might help is the theme of the book of Ezekiel – and the valley of “dry” (empty of spirit/blood) bones. Ezekiel speaks of them being sewn back together, and yet not having a spirit – which he sees as an additional factor to the physical substance of the bones and sinews, etc.

Hope this helps.

 

[Henning]

St Paul makes a clear distinction between soul (psyche) and spirit (pneuma) in 1 Thessalonians 5:23. What does this distinction mean? Are they separated realities in men?

Kind regards,​

Thales

Whether man is tripartite (body, soul, and spirit) or dipartite
(body, soul/spirit) is an issue debated within the ‘doctrine of man’ in the study of theology. Some scholars argue for dichotomy and others for trichotomy. While I’m not a scholar I think I tend toward trichotomy. Verses like mentioned 1 Thess 5:23, Heb 4:12, and others such as 1 Cor 2:14-3:4, 1 Cor 15:44, to me argue for trichotomy, eg,

1Cor 15:44 (context resurrection of the dead)
“It is sown a natural (psychikon) body
it is raised a spiritual (pneumatikon) body
there is a natural (psychikon) body
and there is a spiritual (pneumatikon) body”

So there is a psychikon-soulish body and a pneumatikon-spiritual body. Iit seems to me from this verse that they are different from one another. Maybe the two (soul and spirit) overlap to such a degree that its hard for man to differentiate them from each other and to experience the difference. I would think though that God knows how soul and spirit perhaps overlap and is able to differentiate the two. Just my opinion.

I don’t know what or if the Catechism of CC teaches on this. Does tradition of CC teach dichotomy or trichotomy??? Have a feeling its dichotomy.

H

 

[ThalesBrax]

Hope this helps.

It surely helped a lot! Thanks!

I don’t know what or if the Catechism of CC teaches on this. Does tradition of CC teach dichotomy or trichotomy??? Have a feeling its dichotomy.

Now that you mentioned the Catechism, I searched it and found a clear teaching that “spirit” is not to be considered as a “duality in the soul” (§367). I will not quote by the letter because my version is in Portuguese .

But, the way I understood Huiou Theou’s explanation, this doesn’t mean the distinction is invalid or pointless. Both concepts refer to the same thing, but by different prospects.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

It surely helped a lot! Thanks!

Now that you mentioned the Catechism, I searched it and found a clear teaching that “spirit” is not to be considered as a “duality in the soul” (§367). I will not quote by the letter because my version is in Portuguese .

But, the way I understood Huiou Theou’s explanation, this doesn’t mean the distinction is invalid or pointless. Both concepts refer to the same thing, but by different prospects.

You have a way with words.

Yes, There are not a spirit AND a soul in man. There is either a soul with the quality of immortality, &c or not.

The confusion also seems to spring from an issue which St. Thomas (I think) arbitrarily defines regarding the “nature” of man. He takes it to include his eternal existence after death – yet this sort of sweeps death of our mortal bodies under the rug. How to speak of the mortal and immortal “natures” of man since he naturally dies, in the colloquial expression?
It is a vocabulary / equivocation issue.

There is no precise distinction between the words themselves – scripturally – it is just that “soul” is generally not used of God – so that “soul” is quite often taken to suggest “mortal animal”. But, “spirit” is used of God – so it suggests that which is beyond the mere animal (even though mere animals often have breath too…)

The idea (I think) that the CCC is stressing, is that scripture does not speak of spirit and soul as if they were separate compartments so that one can say something to the effect that – the “soul” is flooded but the “spirit” is dry. In reality the words are synonyms referring to the whole life principle BUT statistically in Catholic writing and scriptural references – the author will favor “soul” where mortal life is concerned and “spirit” for immortal life.

 

[Jerusalem]

By no means should it be implied that the Catechism has solved this issue.
It is heavily debated still within theological circles. Nor has the Church ever
stated in a Council a resolution to this issue. Early Church Fathers including
Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Gregory of Nyssa, and Apollinais held to the
tripartite view of the soul. This Platonic view was more heavily substantiated
by the Church Fathers which was then replaced in later ages by the Scholastic
view that collapsed the spirit and soul down into synonymous words.

What the catechism states is that a duality can’t be introduced such that the soul is divided into parts. Since the soul is spiritual, it can’t be considered to have parts as spiritual things are not physical and can’t be distinguished by physical locality or distinction.

However, distinction can be made in operation and power. Just as we can’t consider
man to be of 2 natures we consider man as one nature : a unity or composite of 1 nature
body and soul. So also man can be argued to be of one nature: body, soul, and spirit.

It is the blasted Scholastics who will try to convince everyone else otherwise that this issue is long and buried. It is not. It is still very much not settled by the Church.

 

[babs57]

Isn’t the spirit what gives the soul life? I always thought that we are our soul in space and time. Our body gives us definition in the here and now, whereas our soul gives us definition in the eternal. We exist in the here and now and in the eternal at the same time, as a composite creature. But neither body or soul can be alive without the spirit.

Gen 2:7 And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (ruah) of life; and man became a living soul (nephesh). I doesn’t say God breathed a soul into him. The body already incorporates the soul. What God does is give life.