"Man has a twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily one. According to the spiritual nature, which men refer to as the soul, he is called a spiritual, inner, or a new man. According to the bodily nature, which men refer to as flesh, he is called a carnal, outward, or old man" (Luther Freedom of a Christian).
"It is evident that no external thing has any influence in producing Christian righteousness or freedom, or in producing unrighteousness or servitude... It does not help the soul... [if the body] is occupied with sacred duties or prays, fasts... or does any work that can be done by the body and in the body" (ibid.).
Although it is common to hear about a spirit nature vs. a sin nature (or flesh nature), I think this is poor hermeneutics. Enough Pauline scholarship has been done to argue that Paul in Romans and Galatians is not talking about two distinct internal natures warring inside a single individual. In fact, the locution 'sin nature' and its analogues are not found in Scripture. Rather, Paul is referring to the mode of life under the spirit (which has been made most manifest after Christ) in contrast to the mode of life in the flesh (sarx), in particular the life of living under the Law of Moses and the traditions that followed thereafter. One of the best scholarly pieces on this controversy that I have read is by Protestant theologian, Walt Russell (who hails from Biola University), arguing against interpretations like the one Luther held (and quite a bit Christians today)--anyone interested should read Russell's The Flesh/Spirit Conflict in Galatians. It is also important to know the literary style of ancient texts so that one can gain a deeper understanding of what Paul is doing by pitting the spirit against the flesh, especially in Romans 7 (Russell claims that Paul may not be describing an actual internal struggle in himself). Luther's starting framework, then, has an unstable Biblical basis.
From a philosophical perspective, I have no idea what is meant here by the expressions 'nature', 'inner', 'outward', 'external', or 'soul'. I won't even begin to list my worries regarding the term 'nature', but what do 'inner', 'outward' and 'external' mean? Is the spiritual person "inside" somehow? And my body is "outside" of me (what a weird phrase)? Does 'inner' refer to the soul, and if so, in what sense is the soul inside my body if the soul is supposed to be non-spatial? Or is the soul a spatial thing, and is it literally inside the body? If not literal, then what can it mean to say the soul is inside the body? What are non-influential external things supposed to be? Non-mental acts? So are only mental acts capable of affecting my soul? Or if not all mental acts, then which proper subset of mental acts are capable of affecting my soul? And what is a soul? Whatever it is, what is my relationship to it? Am I identical to my soul, or am I (partly or completely) composed or constituted by my soul?
All this to say, I am not sure what to make of these statements that use these terms. Of course the Bible uses expressions such as 'soul', 'inner' and 'outer'. However, the term used for 'soul', psuche, often just means life, or living thing. And the outer/inner concept isn't always referring to a duality of two entities (body and soul) but at times refers to the kinds of motivations, intentions and actions that are publicly known vs. the ones that are known by God. Now this won't do for every passage, and one should look at every passage individually and try to interpret it in context (the study of Scripture never ceases--life is fun!). However, Luther, like many others, takes passages from the Bible and beefs-up some of the terminological meanings that [i] may not have Scriptural warrant, and [ii] are either difficult to comprehend or just plain confusing.
From a philosophical perspective, I have no idea what is meant here by the expressions 'nature', 'inner', 'outward', 'external', or 'soul'. I won't even begin to list my worries regarding the term 'nature', but what do 'inner', 'outward' and 'external' mean? Is the spiritual person "inside" somehow? And my body is "outside" of me (what a weird phrase)? Does 'inner' refer to the soul, and if so, in what sense is the soul inside my body if the soul is supposed to be non-spatial? Or is the soul a spatial thing, and is it literally inside the body? If not literal, then what can it mean to say the soul is inside the body? What are non-influential external things supposed to be? Non-mental acts? So are only mental acts capable of affecting my soul? Or if not all mental acts, then which proper subset of mental acts are capable of affecting my soul? And what is a soul? Whatever it is, what is my relationship to it? Am I identical to my soul, or am I (partly or completely) composed or constituted by my soul?
All this to say, I am not sure what to make of these statements that use these terms. Of course the Bible uses expressions such as 'soul', 'inner' and 'outer'. However, the term used for 'soul', psuche, often just means life, or living thing. And the outer/inner concept isn't always referring to a duality of two entities (body and soul) but at times refers to the kinds of motivations, intentions and actions that are publicly known vs. the ones that are known by God. Now this won't do for every passage, and one should look at every passage individually and try to interpret it in context (the study of Scripture never ceases--life is fun!). However, Luther, like many others, takes passages from the Bible and beefs-up some of the terminological meanings that [i] may not have Scriptural warrant, and [ii] are either difficult to comprehend or just plain confusing.
No comments:
Post a Comment