Ezekiel 37:9-10. > Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and > say to the breath, Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O > breath, and breathe on these slain, that they may live.” 10 So I > prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they > lived and stood on their feet, an exceedingly great army.ESV The choice of translators in English is to take "breath" instead of "spirit." Regardless of this, what is supposed to mean. Breath would be the spirit of the trichotomists? Clearly the concept of Soul seems to be absent in this text. How was this interpreted throughout history?

Matthew 10:28: > 28 `And be not afraid of those killing **the body**, and are not able to kill **the soul**, but fear rather Him who is able **both soul and body** to destroy in gehenna. [YLT] > > 28 And fear not them which kill **the body**, but are not able to kill **the soul**: but rather fear him which is able to destroy **both soul and body** in hell. [KJV] > > 28 And do not fear those who kill **the body** but cannot kill **the soul**. Rather fear him who can destroy **both soul and body** in hell. [ESV] According to believers in the tripartite nature of man (body, soul and spirit, i.e., *trichotomism*), why did Jesus omit the word "spirit" in Matthew 10:28? Did Jesus expect his audience to have an understanding already of the fate of a person's spirit upon death, which is why he thought it unnecessary to say anything about the "spirit"? If so, what was that implicit understanding?

Those holding to a tripartite nature of man, or trichotomism, [sometimes point to Hebrews 4:12](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/50368/21576) as evidence for their view that soul and spirit are distinct in man: > For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. ([NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+4%3A12&version=NIV)) How do proponents of a dual nature of man (dichotomism), believing that the soul and spirit are two words referring to the same entity, understand this passage?

Essentially I'd like to know what *trichotomists* (i.e. believers in a tripartite nature of man, consisting of body, soul and spirit) have to say about a question I recently asked on Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange, namely, [A living soul cannot exist without a body (Gen 2:7; 1 Cor 15:44-45) but killing the body doesn't kill the soul (Matt 10:28). Is this a contradiction?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/73790/38524) The answers so far all seem to reason from a 'dichotomy of man' standpoint, in which man is seen as the combination of two basic components: body and breath of life (some see the breath of life as the 'spirit' and the union of body and spirit as the 'soul', others use the words 'soul' and 'spirit' interchangeably). How would trichotomists define the terms and solve the apparent paradox presented in the aformentioned question? I'm copying and pasting the body of the BHSE question below: > #### The Passages > > Genesis 2:7 (KJV): > > 7 And the Lord God **formed man of the dust of the ground**, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; **and man became a > living soul**. > > 1 Corinthians 15:44-45 (KJV): > > 44 It is sown a **natural body**; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a **natural body**, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so > it is written, **The first man Adam was made a living soul**; the last > Adam was made a quickening spirit. > > Matthew 10:28 (KJV): > > 28 And **fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul**: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and > body in hell. > > #### The Logical Contradiction > > **P1**: a living soul is a combination of physical body and breath of life (from Gen 2:7 and 1 Cor 15:44-45) > > **P2**: a human is a living soul (from Gen 2:7) > > **P3**: if human A kills/destroys the body of human B, the soul of human B is **NOT** killed/destroyed, i.e., the soul remains (from > Matthew 10:28) > > **P4**: if human A kills/destroys the body of human B, human B no longer has a body (from common sense) > > **C1**: if human A kills/destroys the body of human B, human B is no longer a **living soul** (from P4, P2, P1) > > **Contradiction/Paradox**: if human A kills/destroys the body of human B, human B still has a soul (from P3) **BUT** no longer is a living > soul (from C1) > > #### In other words ... > > If I kill someone (hypothetically, God forbid) by destroying their > physical body, that person would no longer have a body, so by > definition they would stop being a living soul (Genesis 2:7, 1 Cor > 15:44-45), but **paradoxically** their soul would remain > "unkilled"/undestroyed (Matthew 10:28). They would cease to be a > living soul yet their soul would be untouched (??). > > #### Question > > How can we make sense of this? Is this a real paradox/contradiction?

The trichotomy of man (or his trichotomous or [tripartite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_(theology)) nature) is the belief that man was created with three "parts" – body, soul, and spirit. This is a popular viewpoint among many Christians, but the official position of Catholicism ([Catechism §365](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm#365)) , not to mention the majority view of many Protestant traditions, is that man consists of only body and soul. It turns out that there was some disagreement on this point in the early church. [Apollinaris of Laodicea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollinaris_of_Laodicea) came up with a tripartite scheme in his attempts to explain the incarnation of Jesus, and he was defeated at the [First Council of Constantinople](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople) (381). However, according to J. Oliver Buswell's *Systematic Theology* (3.2.5.H.2), his trichotomism was not specifically rejected – just his view of Christ's nature more generally. Thus, I wonder – **when did the church specifically reject the trichotomy of man?** By "church" I'm referring to the orthodox (small O) church prior to the East-West schism, the Western church prior to the Reformation, and, if necessary, Roman Catholicism after that. Note too that this means I'm looking for official church councils, not the writings of respected fathers and doctors.

My personal understanding is that plants have a body, animals have both a body and a soul, and mankind has a body, a soul and a spirit. However, angels, as I understand, do not have a body that is physical. Jesus seems to have indicated this after His bodily resurrection. > See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For **a spirit does not have flesh and bones** as you see that I have. Luke 24:39 ESV Are angels, then, classified as spirits, having no flesh and bones? If so, are they spirits with souls or just spirits? I would like an answer from the perspective of those who hold to the tripartite nature of mankind (body, soul and spirit). I do not know if positions differ between the traditions of Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic. If they do, I am specifically interested in what Protestants believe on this issue and and in what ways this is distinct.

There are generally two* views of Man - the Dichotomous (Soul & Body) - the Trichotomous (Soul, Spirit, & Body) Notably, [A W Pink](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6870/69) ascribes to the Trichotomous view (or Tripartite). Also notably, [R C Sproul](http://books.google.com/books?id=DC-TRU4tEvsC&lpg=PT156&ots=TvaN8tCFza&dq=r%20c%20sproul%20trichotomous&pg=PT156#v=onepage&q=r%20c%20sproul%20trichotomous&f=false) views the Trichotomy as heretical. Personally, I believe that the [Platonic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato) Tripartite view is dangerous or heretical, but the Bible does seem to indicate at least some type of trinitarian mirroring of the image of God in Man. What is an overview of these two perspectives and how much support is found in the Bible for both? ---- *An argument can be made for a Quadrichotomous view (Body, Soul, Mind, Spirit), but can be covered in another question

A common belief regarding the nature of mankind is that we have a body, a soul and a spirit. This is known as the Tripartite Nature of Man. What is the essential argument in favor of this view? I would also be interested to know how early in the Scriptures this is indicated or understood. It would be really interesting to know how the Old Testament speaks of this and whether or not that idea was held by Jewish people prior to the coming of Jesus.

A common belief regarding the nature of mankind is that we have a body, a soul and a spirit. This is known as the Tripartite Nature of Man (or [trichotomism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anthropology#Three_parts_.28Trichotomism.29)) . Some, however, hold to only a Dual nature of man (also known as [dichotomism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anthropology#Two_parts_.28Dichotomism.29)) . What is the essential argument in favor of the Dual Nature of Man? It would be interesting to see how the evidence for the Tripartite Nature of Man is explained as well, especially a verse like Hebrews 4:12. > For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the **division of soul and of spirit**, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 ESV