κυριε 2962 N-VSM τους 3588 T-APM προφητας 4396 N-APM σου 4675 P-2GS απεκτειναν 615 5656 V-AAI-3P και 2532 CONJ τα 3588 T-APN θυσιαστηρια 2379 N-APN σου 4675 P-2GS κατεσκαψαν 2679 5656 V-AAI-3P καγω 2504 P-1NS-C υπελειφθην 5275 5681 V-API-1S μονος 3441 A-NSM και 2532 CONJ ζητουσιν 2212 5719 V-PAI-3P την 3588 T-ASF ψυχην 5590 N-ASF μου 3450 P-1GS
Vincent's NT Word Studies
3. They have killed thy prophets - and digged, etc. Paul gives the first two clauses in reverse order from both Septuagint and Hebrew.Digged down (kateskayan). Sept., kaqeilan pulled down.. The verb occurs only here and Acts xv. 16. Compare on Matt. vi. 19.
Altars (qusiasthria). See on Acts xvii. 23.
Alone (monov). Sept. has the superlative monwtatov utterly alone. Life (yuchn). From yucw to breathe or blow. In classical usage it signifies life in the distinctness of individual existence, especially of man, occasionally of brutes. Hence, generally, the life of the individual. In the further development of the idea it becomes, instead of the body, the seat of the will, dispositions, desires, passions; and, combined with the swma body, denotes the constituent parts of humanity. Hence the morally endowed individuality of man which continues after death.
SCRIPTURE. In the Old Testament, answering to nephesh, primarily life, breath; therefore life in its distinct individuality; life as such, distinguished from other men and from inanimate nature. 55 Not the principle of life, but that which bears in itself and manifests the life-principle. Hence spirit (ruach, pneuma) in the Old Testament never signifies the individual. Soul (yuch), of itself, does not constitute personality, but only when it is the soul of a human being. Human personality is derived from spirit (pneuma), and finds expression in soul or life (yuch).
The New-Testament usage follows the Old, in denoting all individuals from the point of view of individual life. Thus the phrase pasa yuch 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, illustrate 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 limits the term to a mere animal life-principle. See Eph. vi. 6; Col. iii. 23; the compounds sumyucoi with one soul; ijsoyucon like-minded (Philippians i. 27; ii. 20), where personal interest and accord of feeling are indicated, and not lower elements of personality. See, especially 1 Thess. v. 23. As to the distinction between yuch soul and pneuma 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 yuch 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 yucikov natural has reference to the faculty of discerning spiritual truth. In both cases the antithesis is pneuma spirit in the ethical sense, requiring an enlargement of the conception of yucikov natural beyond that of sarkikov fleshly.
3. That yuch soul must not be distinguished from pneuma; spirit as being alone subject to the dominion of sin, since the pneuma 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. iv. 23.
4. Yuch soul is never used of God like pneuma 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. Spirit 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 yuch soul is akin to sarx, 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 contradistinction to God." Hence the distinction follows that of the Old Testament between soul and spirit as viewed from two different points: the soul regarded as an individual possession, distinguishing the holder from other men and from inanimate nature; the spirit regarded as coming directly from God and returning to Him. "The former indicates the life-principle simply as subsistent, the latter marks its relation to God." Spirit and not soul 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. Yuch soul is thus:
1. The individual life, the seat of the personality.
2. The subject of the life, the person in which it dwells.
3. The mind as the sentient principle, the seat of sensation and desire.
Robertson's NT Word Studies
11:3 {They have digged down} (kateskapsan). First aorist active indicative of kataskapt", to dig under or down. Old verb, here only in N.T. (critical text). LXX has katheilan "pulled down." Paul has reversed the order of the LXX of #1Ki 19:10,14,18. {Altars} (qusiasteria). Late word (LXX, Philo, Josephus, N.T. eccl. writers) from qusiazw, to sacrifice. See #Ac 17:23. {And I am left alone} (kag" hupeleiphthn monos). First aorist passive indicative of hupoleipw, old word, to leave under or behind, here only in N.T. Elijah's mood was that of utter dejection in his flight from Jezebel. {Life} (yucen). It is not possible to draw a clear distinction between yuce (soul) and pneuma (spirit). yuce is from yucw, to breathe or blow, pneuma from pnew, to blow. Both are used for the personality and for the immortal part of man. Paul is usually dichotomous in his language, but sometimes trichotomous in a popular sense. We cannot hold Paul's terms to our modern psychological distinctions.