Yet there must be some connexion between the two ideas. Otherwise we fall into mere tautology, and oljtain the profound conclusion that ' the flesh ' is sinful human nature. If ' the flesli' be nothing else than just this condition of h\iman nature which is to be explained, then the whole of St. Paul's subtle and acute deduction would be ' nothing but the most wretched argument in a circle ' (Pfleiderer). Now, it is quite certain the apostle means to posit a principle of sin in man, ' the sin that dwelleth in me,' ' the law in my members.' It is further clear that the law or princijde of sin is one thing, and tliat the flesh, or native constitution of man in which it inheres, is another. It is certain that the sacred writer as little develops the principle of sin out of the mere physical flesh, as he identihes the one with the other. It is impossible to deny a very pointed reference to the lower element of human nature in this important kej'-word of the Pauline theology. But what misleads is the sup- position that the lower and higher elements in man were conceived of by St. Paul as they were by the Greeks or are by ourselves ; that the antithesis, material and immaterial, is at the basis of tlie dis- tinction. So long as this idea prevails, it will be impossible to get rid of the suspicion that in ' the flesh ' of the Pauline Epistles we have somethin" wliicli connects sin essentially with the material element in man's constitution. Let us get rid of this idea. Substitute for it the proper biblical antithesis, — earthly and heavenly, natural and supernatural, that 'flesh' is what nature evolves (this term being understood, of course, in a theistic .sense), 'spirit' what God in His grace bestows, — then we can see how the idea of ' flesh,' even when ethically inteTisilied to the utmost, is ajipreciably distinct from tlie notion of evil necessarily resident in matter. The great saying of our Lord in Jn 3" is probably the source of apostolic doctrine on the point: 'That which is born of the flesh is flesh.' ' Flesh ' has become the proper designation of the race as self-evolved and self-continued. Human nature as now constituted can produce nothing but its like, and that like is now sinful. ' Flesh,' therefore, may be appropriately used for the prin- ciple of corrupt nature in the individual, for the obvious reason that it is in the course of the flesh, or, of the ordinary production of human nature, that the evil principle invariably originates. Thus the phrase is some explanation of the condition of man s nature, which it describes. It is no objection to this view, but rather a conflrmation of its cor- 'ectness, that it grounds the Pauline use of sarx
on the underlying doctrine of hereditary corruption. ' Flesh ' is that through which man in his natural state is descended from a sinful race and inherits a sinful nature, and the term is used to denote that nature. On the other hand, ' spirit ' is that through which and in which God implants the new Divine life of holiness, and the term therefore is used to denote that life. See Fle.SH.
Soul and Spirit. — Let us now direct our atten- tion to wh.at is usually considered the crux of our topic, and which, from the exaggerated use made of it by some writers, has led others to explode or reject biblical psychology altogether. The ques- tion raised is whether the Scripture makes a tenable and consistent distinction between soul and spirit. This is the real question which under- lies that of the so-called trichotomy of the Bible. Does the Bible conceive of human nature as three- fold, as made up of body, soul, and spirit ? The only relevant question is the one above stated. In what sense and to what extent does the Bible recognize a distinction between soul and spirit^. A large number, probably a majority, of exegetes have been in the habit of concluding that tliere is no real distinction, that the terms are synony- mous, or at least interchangeable, and that nothing can be asserted beyond a shadowy, poetic distinc- tion which enables the sacred writers to employ them in parallelism. But when we face the facts we are forced to a dift'erent conclusion. In the Pauline Epistles it is undoubted that a real dis- tinction is asserted. The natural or unconverted man is said to be soulish, the renewed man spiritual (i/'DXikis, TTfec^aTuis, 1 Co 2''- " ; cf. Jude'* yj/vx^Kol, TTneP/xa ixT] Ix""'''^^)- Again, St. Paul asserts that the body which all men carry to the grave is soulish, but the body of the resurrection is spiritual {tpvxiKti>', TTPeviiaTiKdv, 1 Co 15") ; that the first man was made a living soul, the last Adam a quicken- ing spirit (v."). The distinction of the adjectives is repeated in v.''".
Now, a fact of this sort emerging in such decisive and culminating passages of St. I'aul's writings compels us to reconsider the usage. If we adhere rigidly to the conventional idea that there is no real distinction in the terms ' soul ' and ' spirit ' beyond that of pjarallelism, we must go on to hold St. Paul to have introduced, in important passages of his writings, an arbitrary and baseless antithesis. For this we are certainly not prepared, and are thrown back upon the conclusion, which has great and growing probability in its favour, that from OT usage there was real distinction latent in the employment by biblical writers of the terms soul and spirit, which distinction was recognized and emphasized in these leading passages of St. Paul. What the distinction is, it may not be easj' to determine with precision. Precision is perhaps not present in the case at all. But there can remain little doubt in the mind of a careful reader of Scripture that a distinction makes itself felt from the first and throughout. Even in the relation of both terms to physical life the dis- tinction is felt. To this hiMx pneuma a,n<i psiiclu!, like ruah and ncphesh, of which they are the Greek equivalents, originally belong, ycphcsh is tho subject or bearer of life, riiah is the principle of life ; so that in all OT references to the origin of living beings we can distinguish nephcsh as life constituted in the creature, from ruah, as life bestowed by the Creator.