No doubt, the ' life ' indicated by these terms is that of man and tho lower animals alike. A ' living soul ' is a living creature in general, or an animated being. It is used in Gn P"-^" in a wide sense of creatures that have life, and the same expression is used in Gn 2' to denote the result, even in man, of the Divine creative brrath. So,
PSYCHOLOGY
PSYCHOLOGY
167
also, riah and its kimlred term nc^liumah are ii?ed for tlie principle ot lite, in man and brute alike. It is tlie ' rUshdmah of life ' that makes man a living soul (/.'".)• It is the 'rii«/tof life' that animates all creatures threatened by the I'lood (6"), and all those which entered into the ark (7"). It is the nishmath-ruah of life those had which perished in the waters (7-"). These passages prove that no distinction is made between the life-principle in animals generally and in man.
But, what is of more im])ortance, they call attention to a usage which is practically uniform of putting 'spirit' (ri'ia/t or nashdmah) for the animating principle, and 'soul' or 'living soul' (nepliciU /I'li/i/ah) for the animated result. This primary distinction of the two terms, when applied to phj-.sical life, has passed over from the Hebrew of the or to their Greek equivalents in the NT, and suggests a reason for their respective employ- ment, even when the meaning goes bej'ond tlie merely physical. \i pnyche thus means the entire being as a constituted life, we can see why it is used in such a connexion as that of Jn 10" ' He giveth his life for the sheep ' (psyche, not zoe, nor pneuma). If pncuma is the life-i)rinciple, we see the propriety of its use in Jn lO*" ' He "ave up the ghost ' {pncuma). When we pass from tliis primary application of the two terms to a liigher, in which thej- refer not to ph}-.sieal life alone, but also to the lite of the mind, both terras denote almost indillerently the inner nature. For this purpose they are used throughout tlie OT and generally even in the NT with no sharp distinction, but freely interchanged and combined. As, for in- stance, when each is used alone, 'Why is thy Kpirit so sad ? ' ' Why art thou cast down, my i>oul?'{l K 2P, Ps 42"); 'Jesus was troubled in spirit ' ; ' My soul is e.\ceeding sorrowful ' (Jn 13-', Mt 20^) ; ' To destroj' both soul (psi/che) and body ' ; ' The body without the spirit (pneuma) is dead ' (Mt KF*, .)a '2-'). Or, again, when the two terms occur together, in the manner of other terms of Hebrew poetry, ' With my soul (neplicsh) have I desired thee in the night ; yea, with my spirit (riia/*) within me will I seek thee early ' (Is 20") ; ' My HO\i\(psyche) duth magnify the Lord, and my spirit (pneuma) hath rejoiced in God my Saviour' (Lk l*'- ") ; 'Stand fast in one spirit (pneuma), with one soul (psyclie) striving for the faith of the gospel' (Ph 1-'' K\ ). Tlie.se last quoted passages prove it iiuite impossible to hold that 'spirit can mean exclu- sively or mainly the Godward side of man's inner nature, and ' soul ' the rational or earthward. The terms are parallel, or practically equivalent expres.sion8 for the inner lile a-s contrasted with the outer or bodily life. The whole usage makes for the ordinary bipartite view of human nature, and not at all for any tripartite theory. No doubt, however, the underlying distinction found in the primary or physical application of the terms gives propriety to their usage all through ; and, when lirmly grasped, prepares us to under- stand the expanded meaning which they receive in the later .Scriptures.
-\ll thro\igh Scripture 'spirit' denotes life as coming from God, '.soul' denotes life as consti- tiiled in the man. Consequently, when the indi- vidual life is to be made emphatic, 'soul ' is used. 'Souls' in Scripture freely denotes persons. My 'soul' 13 the Lgo, the self, and when used like 'heart' for the inner man, and even for the feelings, has reference always to special individu- ality. On the other hand, 'siiirit' — seldom or never ii.sed to denote the individual human being in this life — is primarily that imparted power by which the individual lives. It lilly denotes, there- fore, when used as a i)sycliological term, the inner- most of the inner life, the higher aspect of the self
or personality. Thus the two terms are used, ovef the breadth of Scripture, as parallel expressions for the inner life. The inner nature is ' soul ' according to its special individual life ; it is ' spirit ' according to the life - power whence it derives its special cliaracter. The double phrase 'soul and spirit' presents the man in two aspects as his life is viewed from two different points.
So much for the use of the two words in the Scripture at large. But when we come to certain NT writings — mainly though not exclusively Pauline — a still more definite meaning has set in. The adjective 'psychic' or 'soulish ' has taken a force not percept ilile in its root-word. It has become almost eiiuivalent to ' carnal.' In Ja .3'° a wisdom is spoken of which is ' earthly, soulish (RV sensual), devilish.' Of certain predicted opponents of the gospel, it is said (Jude'") that ' they are soulish (A v and RV sensual ; RVni natural or animal), not having the Sjiirit.' St. Paul terms the unregenerate who cannot discern the things of the spirit of God a ' soulish ' man (1 Co 2'''). The body which we wear at present — 'the body of our humiliation' (Ph .3-') — is a ' soulish ' body, and shall be sown in the grave aa such (1 Co lo"""). The corre.spondin" adjective ' i)neumatic ' or ' spiritual ' has now tiUcen on, in the parallel passages, a religious sense, and de- niitcs what belongs to t,\\e pneuma in tliat sense, viz. that which is derived from the spirit of God — the spirit of the regenerate life. It is plain tli.at if we would not accuse these NT writers — especially St. Paul — of introducing groundless distinctions, we are drawn to admit a real dillerence of the terms from the first, in the general or wider sense already described.*