The New-Testament usage follows the Old, in denoting all individuals from the point of view of individual fe. Thus the phrase raca uy every soul, i.e., every person (Rom. ii. 9; xiii. 1), marking them off from inanimate nature. So Rom. xi. 3; xvi.4; 2 Cor. i. 23; xii. 15; Philip. ii. 30; 1 Thess, ii. 8, il- lustrate an Old-Testament usage whereby the soul is the seat of personality, and is employed instead of the personal pronoun, with a collateral notion of value as individual personality.
These and other passages are opposed to the view which lim- its the term to a mere animal life-principle. See Eph. vi. 6; Col. iii. 23; the compounds ctpapvyos with one soul ; icoypiyov like-minded (Philip. i. 27; ii. 20), where personal interest and accord of feeling are indicated, and not lower elements of per- sonality. See, especially 1 Thess. v. 23.
As to the distinction between uy soul and mvebdpa spirit, it is to be said:
1. That there are cases where the meanings approach very closely, if they are not practically synonymous; especially where the individual life is referred to. See Luke i.47; John xi. 33, and xii. 27; Matt. xi. 29, and 1 Cor. xvi. 18.
2. That the distinction is to be rejected which rests on the restriction of yvy7 to the principle of animal life. This cannot be maintained in the face of 1 Cor. xv. 45; ii. 14, in which latter the kindred adjective Wuysxds natural has reference to the faculty of discerning spiritual truth. In both cases the an-
*It is, however, occasionally used in the Septuagint to translate other words: for instance, ish man, Lev. xvii. 9; chat life, Job xxxviii. 39 (A. V., appetite), Ps. lxiii. 1; Lebh heart, 2 Kings vi. 11; 1 Chron, xii. 38; xv. 29; Ps. xviii. 20; Prov. vi. 21, ete. ; meth a dead body, Hzek. xliv. 25. In Num. ix. 6, nephesh of a dead body; P’ne look (A. V. state), Prov, xxvii. 23 ; rwach spirit, Gen. xli. 8; Exod. xxxv. 21.
122 WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, (Cu. XL
tithesis is wvedua spirit in the ethical sense, requiring an en- largement of the conception of puytxeds natural beyond that of capkKixos fleshly.
3. That wuy7 soud must not be distinguished from mvedya spirit as being alone subject to the dominion of sin, since the mvedua is described as being subject to such dominion. See 2 Cor. vii. 1. So 1 Thess. v. 23; 1 Cor. vii. 34, imply that the spirit needs sanctification. Compare Eph. iy. 23.
4. Wvyn soul is never used of God like wvedua spirit. It is used of Christ, but always with reference to His humanity.
Whatever distinction there is, therefore, is not between a higher and a lower element in man. It is rather between two sides of the one immaterial nature which stands in contrast with the body. Spardt expresses the conception of that nature more generally, being used both of the earthly and of the non-earthly spirit, while soul designates it on the side of the creature. In this view uy soul is akin to odp& flesh, “not as respects the notion conveyed by them, but as respects their value as they both stand at the same stage of creatureliness in contradistinct- ion to God.” Hence the distinction follows that of the Old Testament between soud and spirit as viewed from two differ- ent points: the soul regarded as an individual possession, dis- tinguishing the holder from other men and from inanimate nature; the spirit regarded as coming directly from God and re- turning toHim. “The former indicates the life-principle simply as subsestent, the latter marks its relation to God.” Spirit and not sow/ is the point of contact with the regenerating forces of the Holy Spirit; the point from which the whole personality is moved round so as to face God.