Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
The Soul Of God Part 2
A Question Worth Asking
Does God have a soul?
In one sense, Scripture does apply soul-language to God. His nephesh loves, hates, delights, grieves, desires, and wills.
Yet Scripture is equally clear that God is Spirit.
Therefore, while the language of soul reveals genuine aspects of God’s inner life, the language of communion consistently directs us elsewhere.
God is Spirit. Man possesses both soul and spirit.
The soul makes man conscious of himself and the world around him.
The spirit makes man conscious of God.
The soul relates man to creation.
The spirit relates man to the Creator.
Therefore, when Scripture speaks of worship, communion, witness, discernment, union with Christ, and the life of God, it consistently directs our attention not to the soul, but to the spirit.
The Incarnation and the Divine Nature
A thoughtful objection has been raised at this point.
Christ is God.
Christ possessed a true human soul.
Does it therefore follow that the divine nature itself possesses a soul?
The question deserves careful consideration.
Orthodox Christianity has always maintained that Christ possessed a complete human nature. He did not merely appear to be human. He possessed a human body, human emotions, human experiences, and a human soul.
“My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death...” (Matt. 26:38)
Yet we must distinguish between what belongs to Christ’s assumed humanity and what belongs to the divine nature itself.
The incarnation did not transform deity into humanity. Rather, the eternal Word took humanity unto Himself.
This distinction is illustrated by the body.
Christ possesses a human body.
Yet no Christian concludes from this that the divine nature itself possesses flesh, bones, arms, legs, or physical limitations.
Christ having a body does not prove that deity possesses a body.
The body belongs to the humanity assumed in the incarnation.
Likewise, Christ possessing a human soul does not automatically establish that the divine nature itself possesses a soul in the same sense that man does.
The soul belongs to His true humanity just as His body belongs to His true humanity.
The question therefore remains open:
Does the divine nature possess a soul, or does Scripture use the language of God’s soul in some other sense?
The incarnation by itself does not settle the matter.
The question of God’s soul existed before Bethlehem and therefore cannot be resolved solely by appealing to the humanity assumed in the incarnation.
If the possession of a human body by Christ does not require a bodily divine nature, then the possession of a human soul by Christ does not necessarily require a soul-bearing divine nature.
The distinction between the Person of Christ and the natures united in that Person must be carefully maintained.
A Further Consideration
When Scripture speaks of God’s soul, many immediately classify the language as anthropomorphic. An anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to God in order to communicate divine realities. For example, Scripture speaks of God’s hand, arm, eyes, and face, not because the divine nature literally possesses flesh, bones, arms, or eyes, but because such language communicates aspects of His power, knowledge, presence, and activity.
That is certainly possible.
Yet another possibility deserves consideration.
Because man was created in the image of God, the language may be analogical rather than merely anthropomorphic. In that case, Scripture is not projecting human qualities onto God. Rather, human qualities reflect, however imperfectly, realities that exist first and perfectly in God.
The human soul may therefore be viewed as the created container through which attributes such as love, delight, purpose, affection, intention, and will are reflected in the creature. God does not possess these qualities because man possesses them. Rather, man possesses them because they exist first and perfectly in God.
Man was created in the image of God.
Therefore man’s capacities for love, delight, grief, purpose, intention, and holy affection do not originate in man and then become projected onto God.
Rather, they originate in God and are reflected in man.
The copy should not be used to define the original.
The image does not create the archetype.
The creature reflects the Creator.
If this is so, then references to God’s soul need not suggest that God possesses a human soul.
Nor need they be dismissed as mere figures without corresponding reality.
Instead, they may signify that those qualities associated with personality, delight, purpose, affection, and intention exist first and perfectly in God, while man’s soul reflects them imperfectly as part of the divine image.
In that sense God’s soul would not be an imitation of man’s soul.
Rather, man’s soul would be a finite reflection of realities that exist eternally in God.
Non anima ad animam, sed spiritus ad spiritum - Not soul to soul, but spirit to spirit.
~Tony
© A.K. Pritchard 2026 - Free to use with proper attribution.
A Question Worth Asking
Does God have a soul?
In one sense, Scripture does apply soul-language to God. His nephesh loves, hates, delights, grieves, desires, and wills.
Yet Scripture is equally clear that God is Spirit.
Therefore, while the language of soul reveals genuine aspects of God’s inner life, the language of communion consistently directs us elsewhere.
God is Spirit. Man possesses both soul and spirit.
The soul makes man conscious of himself and the world around him.
The spirit makes man conscious of God.
The soul relates man to creation.
The spirit relates man to the Creator.
Therefore, when Scripture speaks of worship, communion, witness, discernment, union with Christ, and the life of God, it consistently directs our attention not to the soul, but to the spirit.
The Incarnation and the Divine Nature
A thoughtful objection has been raised at this point.
Christ is God.
Christ possessed a true human soul.
Does it therefore follow that the divine nature itself possesses a soul?
The question deserves careful consideration.
Orthodox Christianity has always maintained that Christ possessed a complete human nature. He did not merely appear to be human. He possessed a human body, human emotions, human experiences, and a human soul.
“My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death...” (Matt. 26:38)
Yet we must distinguish between what belongs to Christ’s assumed humanity and what belongs to the divine nature itself.
The incarnation did not transform deity into humanity. Rather, the eternal Word took humanity unto Himself.
This distinction is illustrated by the body.
Christ possesses a human body.
Yet no Christian concludes from this that the divine nature itself possesses flesh, bones, arms, legs, or physical limitations.
Christ having a body does not prove that deity possesses a body.
The body belongs to the humanity assumed in the incarnation.
Likewise, Christ possessing a human soul does not automatically establish that the divine nature itself possesses a soul in the same sense that man does.
The soul belongs to His true humanity just as His body belongs to His true humanity.
The question therefore remains open:
Does the divine nature possess a soul, or does Scripture use the language of God’s soul in some other sense?
The incarnation by itself does not settle the matter.
The question of God’s soul existed before Bethlehem and therefore cannot be resolved solely by appealing to the humanity assumed in the incarnation.
If the possession of a human body by Christ does not require a bodily divine nature, then the possession of a human soul by Christ does not necessarily require a soul-bearing divine nature.
The distinction between the Person of Christ and the natures united in that Person must be carefully maintained.
A Further Consideration
When Scripture speaks of God’s soul, many immediately classify the language as anthropomorphic. An anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to God in order to communicate divine realities. For example, Scripture speaks of God’s hand, arm, eyes, and face, not because the divine nature literally possesses flesh, bones, arms, or eyes, but because such language communicates aspects of His power, knowledge, presence, and activity.
That is certainly possible.
Yet another possibility deserves consideration.
Because man was created in the image of God, the language may be analogical rather than merely anthropomorphic. In that case, Scripture is not projecting human qualities onto God. Rather, human qualities reflect, however imperfectly, realities that exist first and perfectly in God.
The human soul may therefore be viewed as the created container through which attributes such as love, delight, purpose, affection, intention, and will are reflected in the creature. God does not possess these qualities because man possesses them. Rather, man possesses them because they exist first and perfectly in God.
Man was created in the image of God.
Therefore man’s capacities for love, delight, grief, purpose, intention, and holy affection do not originate in man and then become projected onto God.
Rather, they originate in God and are reflected in man.
The copy should not be used to define the original.
The image does not create the archetype.
The creature reflects the Creator.
If this is so, then references to God’s soul need not suggest that God possesses a human soul.
Nor need they be dismissed as mere figures without corresponding reality.
Instead, they may signify that those qualities associated with personality, delight, purpose, affection, and intention exist first and perfectly in God, while man’s soul reflects them imperfectly as part of the divine image.
In that sense God’s soul would not be an imitation of man’s soul.
Rather, man’s soul would be a finite reflection of realities that exist eternally in God.
Non anima ad animam, sed spiritus ad spiritum - Not soul to soul, but spirit to spirit.
~Tony
© A.K. Pritchard 2026 - Free to use with proper attribution.