Dichotomy Versus Trichotomy of Human Nature
The question of whether human nature is best understood as a dichotomy or a trichotomy concerns the fundamental components of a human being, specifically the relationship between body, soul, and spirit. Dichotomy posits that humans consist of two main parts: a material body and an immaterial soul, with the soul often encompassing what some traditions call "spirit" [1]. Trichotomy, in contrast, argues for three distinct components: body, soul, and spirit [1].
Early Christian writers engaged with this distinction. Tertullian, for instance, objected to a strict dichotomy that might diminish the soul's significance [1, 2]. The concept of a tripartite nature of humanity was also discussed in the patristic period, as noted by scholars referencing works on the subject [1].
In Reformed theology, Charles Hodge discusses the nature of man, including the debate between dichotomy and trichotomy [5]. He emphasizes that the Scriptures do not teach that regeneration is exclusively about intellectual illumination; rather, it is the soul as a whole that is spiritually dead and receives a new principle of life, affecting intellect, sensibility, conscience, and will [3]. This perspective suggests a holistic view of the immaterial part of humanity, often aligning with a dichotomous understanding where "soul" broadly covers the non-physical aspects.
Catholic scholastic tradition, particularly through Thomas Aquinas, focuses on the human person as a composite of body and soul. Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, discusses the human nature in relation to the Incarnation, emphasizing that what belongs to human nature cannot be predicated of the Divine Nature in the abstract, but rather in the hypostasis of the two natures in Christ [4]. He also addresses the nature of man as not existing independently of individuals, refuting Platonic ideas of abstract human nature [6]. This framework implicitly supports a dichotomous view, where the soul is the form of the body, together constituting the human person.
Eastern Orthodox theology, as articulated by John of Damascus, also emphasizes the union of natures, particularly in Christ. John of Damascus speaks of Christ's two natures (divine and human) being brought under one person and one subsistence of the Word [9]. He clarifies that the anointing of Christ is the divinity of His humanity, and that Christ is both God and Man [7]. While this primarily addresses Christology, the emphasis on "natures" rather than distinct "parts" of a nature tends to align with a dichotomous understanding of human composition, where the human nature itself is a unified entity of body and soul. The worship of Christ's immaculate flesh is understood not as worship of the created, but of flesh united with divinity [9].
The historical development of these concepts often arose in discussions concerning Christology and anthropology. The Council of Chalcedon, for example, affirmed Christ as having two natures (divine and human) united in one person, without confusion or division [8, 11]. This emphasis on distinct yet united natures in Christ influenced how human nature itself was understood, often leading to a dichotomous view where the human person is a unity of body and soul. Charles Hodge notes that some Lutheran doctrines of Christ's humiliation imply that the Logos is not "extra carnem" (outside the flesh), suggesting a deep integration of the divine and human in Christ [10].
The distinction between dichotomy and trichotomy is not always clear-cut, as the terms "soul" and "spirit" can sometimes be used interchangeably or with overlapping meanings in biblical texts and theological discourse [1]. However, the prevailing view in many theological traditions leans towards dichotomy, understanding the human being as composed of a material body and an immaterial soul, with the soul encompassing the spiritual, intellectual, and emotional faculties [3, 5].
Sources
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 3: Tertullian — ELUCIDATIONS. (part 1): I (Soul and Spirit, cap. xv. and notes 1 and 2, p. 463.) Dr. Holmes, in the learned note which follows, affords me a valuable addition to my scanty remarks on this subject in former volumes. See (Vol. I. pp. 387,532,) references to the great work of Professor Delitzsch, in notes on Irenaeus. In Vol. II. p. 102, I have also mentioned M. Heard's work, on the Tripartite Nature of Man. With reference to the disagreement of the learned on this great matter, let me ask is it not less real than apparent? The dichotomy to which Tertullian objected, and t”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 4: Tertullian IV, Minucius Felix, Commodian, Origen — CHAP. XXV.: But if you depreciate the littleness of man, not on account of his body, but of his soul, regarding it as inferior to that of other rational beings, and especially of those who are virtuous; and inferior, because evil dwells in it,--why should those among Christians who are wicked, and those among the Jews who lead sinful lives, be termed a collection of bats, or ants, or worms, or frogs, rather than those individuals among other nations who are guilty of wickedness?--seeing, in this respect, any individual whatever, esp”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 5: was the vision Paul had of the divine glory of Christ that made him instantly and forever his worshipper and servant. The Scriptures, however, do not teach that regeneration consists exclusively in illumination, or that the cognitive faculties are exclusively the subject of the renewing power of the Spirit. It is the soul as such that is spiritually dead; and it is to the soul that a new principle of life controlling all its exercises, whether of the intellect, the sensibility, the conscience, or the will is imparted. Not a Change of the H”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part (Tertia Pars), Of Those Things Which Are Applicable to Christ in His Being and Becoming, Art. 5: Article: Whether what belongs to the human nature can be predicated of the Divine Nature? I answer that, What belongs to one cannot be said of another, unless they are both the same; thus "risible" can be predicated only of man. Now in the mystery of the Incarnation the Divine and human natures are not the same; but the hypostasis of the two natures is the same. And hence what belongs to one nature cannot be predicated of the other if they are taken in the abst”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 151: Table of Contents Title Prefatory Part II. Anthropology Chapter I. Origin of Man. 1. Scriptural Doctrine. 2. Anti-Scriptural Theories. 3. Antiquity of Man. Chapter II. Nature of Man. 1. Scripture Doctrine 2. Trichotomy. 3. Realism. 4. Another form of the Realistic Theory. Chapter III. The Origin of the Soul. 1. Theory of Preëxistence. 2. Traducianism. 3. Creationism. 4. Concluding Remarks. Chapter IV. Unity of the Human Race. 1. Meaning of the Word, or the Idea of Species. 2. Evidence of Identity of Species. 3. Application of these Crite”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part (Tertia Pars), Of the Mode of Union on the Part of the Human Nature, Art. 4: Article: Whether the Son of God ought to have assumed human nature abstracted from all individuals? I answer that, The nature of man or of any other sensible thing, beyond the being which it has in individuals, may be taken in two ways: first, as if it had being of itself, away from matter, as the Platonists held; secondly, as existing in an intellect either human or Divine. Now it cannot subsist of itself, as the Philosopher proves (Metaph. vii, 26,27,29,51), because sensible mat”
- CCEL (Eastern Orthodox) “John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, section 49: understand the name of the subsistence, not in the sense of one kind, but as signifying the existence of two natures. For in His own person He anointed Himself; as God anointing His body with His own divinity, and as Man being anointed. For He is Himself both God and Man. And the anointing is the divinity of His humanity. For if Christ, being of one compound nature, is of like essence to the Father, then the Father also must be compound and of like essence with the flesh, which is absurd and extremely blasphemous 1968 196”
- theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part (Tertia Pars), Of the Mode of Union of the Word Incarnate, Art. 6: Article: Whether the human nature was united to the Word of God accidentally? I answer that, In evidence of this question we must know that two heresies have arisen with regard to the mystery of the union of the two natures in Christ. The first confused the natures, as Eutyches and Dioscorus, who held that from the two natures one nature resulted, so that they confessed Christ to be "from" two natures (which were distinct before the union), but not "in" two natures (the distinction of natur”
- CCEL (Eastern Orthodox) “John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, section 54: man: and Him we worship along with the Father and the Spirit, with one obeisance, adoring even His immaculate flesh and not holding that the flesh is not meet for worship: for in fact it is worshipped in the one subsistence of the Word, which indeed became subsistence for it. But in this we do not do homage to that which is created. For we worship Him, not as mere flesh, but as flesh united with divinity, and because His two natures are brought under the one person and one subsistence of God the Word. I fear to touch coal”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 83: to be involved in the Lutheran doctrine of Christ’s humiliation. The idea is that after the incarnation the Logos is not extra carnem , that all his activity is with and through the activity of his humanity; and yet it is affirmed that the humanity did not exercise, while on earth, except occasionally, its divine perfections. This seems of necessity to involve the admission that the Logos did not exercise those perfections during the period of the humiliation. 416 That is, while Christ was on earth, the knowledge and power of the Logos we”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 50: because he is God, not God because he is man, and neither God nor man because he is both at once. Christ, therefore, as God and man, possessing natures which are united, but not confused, we conclude that he is our Lord and the true Son of God, even according to his humanity, though not by means of his humanity. For we must put far from us the heresy of Nestorius, who, presuming to dissect rather than distinguish between the two natures, devised a double Christ. But we see the Scripture loudly protesting against this, when the name”