Spirit. — On a closely similar line of e.xegetical investigation we explain the Scripture use of this term. It is an entirely original biblical term for the highest aspect of man's life. It is almost inseparable from the idea of man's relation to God, whether in creation or in redemption. All through the OT it is the supreme term for human life. God is spirit, and man has spirit. ' The sjjirit returns to God who gave it' (Ee 12'). In this way the psychology of the Bible is distinguished from all ethnic system.s. In this it stands entirely alone, and is thoroughly consistent with itself from first to last. ' Spirit' is not so used by Plato, by Philo, by the earlier Stoics, by Plotinus and the Neo- Platonists, nor indeed anywhere out of the circle of Bible thought. It denotes the direct dependence of man upon God. The peculiarly biblical idea is the attribution to man, as the highest in him, of that which is common to man with God. 'Spirit' is the God-given princiido of man's life, physical, mental, and spiritual. Where modem analysis imports a false element into it, is when an attempt is made to represent jri-eD/ia as a separable constituent of man's being, as .something which can be wanting, dead, or dormant on the one hand, restored or conlirmed on the other. Indeed the whole character of the Bible psychology is mistaken in such attempts to distinguish spirit, soul, heart, and the like as seiiarale faculties. They are diverse a.spects of one indivisible inner life.
When we come to the Pauline writings, and those associated with them in the NT, we lind that a certain improvement or addition to the force of this term has come in ; yet one comjiletely in harmony with its original meaning. That in man which IS ' spiritual ' is, frankly and fully, that which is inlluenced by the spirit of God — by the new spirit of regener.ation. 'Spirit' is more entirely used of the renewed man, though there is still a clear and appreciable distinction maintained
* See this discussed in ch. v. of the present writer** DittU Doctrine n/ itan, Edin. 1600.
168
PSYCHOLOGY
PSYCHOLOGY
between the two. 'The Spirit itself beareth wit- ness with our spirit that we are the ohihlren of God' (Ko S'"). Vet so almost eoaiiilute is the identilication, that our translators find it dilficult — tlirouyhout tlie Epistles — to determine wliere the term spirit should be distinguished by a capital letter. The advance consists in the fact that, whereas from the lirst, man's life is dignified as the direct inbreatliing of the Almightj', — ncslidmah or riiuh from tlod, — his new life is now signalized by a term identical with that bestowed on the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. It is one of tlie central doctrines of Christianity concerning the tlieanthrupic person of the Son, that, as head of tlie new humanity, He becomes a life - giving vftvixa — a (juickening spirit. At every point in the unfolding of the Bible anthropology this doctrine of the pneuma in man will be found distinctive. It forms a central element in the Divine Image in which he was created, and at the climax of redemption it is the approi)riate designa- tion of the man as renewed in Christ. See Spirit.
Heart is a term used with much clearness and consistency throughout Scripture, for the inner, the real, the hidden and ruling element in man's nature. Translated into modem language it denotes, in one of its most frequent applications, 'principles of action.' It is always suthciently distinguished from Being or Personality. From the first it is said that ' every imagination of the thoughts of man's heart is evil ' (Gn 6^), i.e. his ' principles of action ' are gone wrong, but it is never said that the personality is corrupt or de- stroyed. Again, it is the great promise of restora- tion, 'a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you' (Ezk 36'-'^), i.e. new principles will be implanted ; yet it is not another or a dillerent personality that is given. There is not such a sharp distinction in Biljle speech as that which we have introduced into modern language between the h':ad and the heart. Tliere is no marked separation of the rational and intellectual elements in man's nature from the emotional or volitional. Althoujjh there is, to some e.xtent, a distinction of this Kind between 35'? and b';j, all inward elements of whatever sort may be included \inder heart: even such as good judgment and clear perception are, at least in the UT, lonsidered as qualities of heart. In the writings of the older apostles the OT idea of ' heart' is still the ruling one. Indeed, in these NT writings the Greek terms for the intellectual life of man are used for the more general OT terms ' Heart,' ' Soul,' and the like, without any precision whatever. Thus the LXX, on occasion {e.r/. Dt 6°, B), uses Sidroia for Ifbhdhh. St. Mark (12-'^) uses aiveai^ for nephcxh. St. Luke introduces Jidi/oia along with KapSla, 'pi/X'^t und CirxiJs {10'"). See HEART.
It is plain, however, that in the writings of St. I'aul and those allied to him, these Greek expres- sions for the intellectual elements in man liave acquired more place, although no very marked precision. In especial, St. Paul has a firm con- ception of MlNl> (i-oiis) as the highest expression for man's mental or intellectual faculty, as that which in man, under grace, is appealed to by the Divine law (Ko T'^-'"'), and as that, on the other hand, which is to be distingtiished from the nj/latus 01 influence upon him of the supernatural (i Co 14"- "). Then there is introduced in these writing a free use of the similar and related terms in which the Greek language was so rich, <rvi'e<n^ understanding, \670! reason, Sia\cryt<rii6t reasoning, yoij/noTa thinkings, (ppifrj/j.a minding or disposition, but scarcely any one of these used with strictness or accuracy. See MiND.