Part 1, Chapter 02

CHAPTER II. THE SPIRIT OF GOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

WHAT our Lord Himself taught about the Spirit of Gocl is quite in harmony with the Old Testament promises, and the proclamation of His forerunner the Baptist; while it throws new light on what the earlier revelation still left dark. His more popular teaching, which was mostly given in Galilee, has been reported chiefly by the first three Evangelists. We learn from these, that he spoke of the Spirit of God being upon Him, as when in the synagogue at Nazareth he applied to himself the words of the Servant of Jehovah in Isaiah 61:1-11, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor,” etc. (Luke 4:18-20); and the truth of this claim was shown by the graciousness and power of his words causing astonishment to those who heard them, — an effect which is described also by Matthew 13:54 and Mark 6:2. More particularly, Jesus declared that it was by the Spirit of God that He cast out demons, and that this proved that the reign of God was come upon them, i.e. that God was really setting up His kingdom on earth (Matthew 12:28). In Luke’s account, the expression is “ by the finger of God “(Luke 11:20), which might merely denote divine power, but that Jesus meant to indicate the moral character of His power as holy, is clear from the obvious gist of His argument against those who ascribed His expulsion of demons to Beelzebub. Since the kingdom of God is, according to all the Old Testament representations, a kingdom of holiness, the Spirit by which it is established must be holy; and by its opposition to all unclean spirits is recognised as the Spirit of God. Hence the guilt of speaking against or reviling the Holy Spirit is immeasurably greater than that of speaking against the Son of man. The Messiah may be reviled ignorantly, by men who do not see His divine Sonship in the human nature which He wears; and for such sin there is forgiveness by God’s grace to those who repent: but if a man reviles that very spirit of holiness whereby God reveals himself, he sets himself against holiness itself, seen and known as such; and how shall such an one be delivered from sin and obtain forgiveness? Jesus thus distinguishes the Spirit of God from Himself the Son of man; while He speaks of both as the objects of blasphemy, i.e. reviling, an offence that can properly be committed only against a person, not against a mere power or influence.

It is also taught in the discourses of Jesus recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, that the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, that was on Him, was to speak in His disciples, and this seems to have been said by Him on more than one occasion. Matthew reports it in connection with the sending out of the twelve (Matthew 10:20); Luke gives it along with the warning against blaspheming the Holy Spirit in a somewhat loosely-connected series of discourses at a later time (Luke 12:12); and Mark embodies it in our Lord’s discourse to His disciples about the future on the Mount of Olives (Mark 13:11), in a connection in which Luke reports him as saying, “ I will give you a mouth and wisdom” (Luke 21:15). This is one of the indications in these Gospels, that Jesus gives the Spirit, or as the Baptist put it, baptizes with the Holy Spirit. He declares that the Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him (Luke 11:13); and Luke also records sayings of Jesus after His resurrection, that clearly point to the gift of the Spirit as bestowed by Him on His disciples according to the promise of the Father (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8). This is more fully declared in the great farewell discourse after the last Supper, recorded by John (John 14:1-31; John 15:1-27; John 16:1-33), in which Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as to be sent by the Father at His request, to supply to the disciples His own absence. There He not only uses the personal pronouns in reference to the Spirit (see especially John 14:26 and John 15:26), but promises that the Spirit will be to them what He had been in His earthly life, “ another Comforter.” The word in the original is Paraclete, and is only used elsewhere, as applied to Christ, by John in his First Epistle (1 John 2:1), where it is rendered Advocate in English. This is its literal meaning, one who is called in, to give instruction, encouragement, or help, or to appear and plead on our behalf before an adversary or a judge.

All this Jesus had done for His disciples during His earthly ministry. He had taught them the secrets of the kingdom of God; He had been ever at hand when called for to give help in clanger, as in the storm on the sea of Galilee, or to solve difficulties, as when they brought questions that perplexed them to Him to answer; He had spoken in their defence when they were accused by the Pharisees of breaking the Sabbath and neglecting the traditions of the scribes; He had prayed for them to God when they were exposed to the temptations of the world and its prince. But now that His bodily presence was to be no longer with them, He promises to send another advocate to do for them what He had hitherto done in person. They felt not only the want of His powerful help in view of the difficulties that stared them in the face as they were to carry on the work He had begun, but more especially the loss of His affectionate loving fellowship, and this feeling, which chiefly filled their hearts, could not be met by the promise of a mere impersonal divine influence that would give them wisdom and courage. To speak, in such an hour, of a mere power or influence from God in figurative language that would naturally suggest a person, would be a cruel mockery of their sorrow, which we cannot ascribe to Jesus. He must have meant His words to be understood, in their obvious literal meaning, of a divine Agent as truly personal as Himself. The presence of the Holy Spirit was to be, in a true and higher sense, Jesus’ own presence. He speaks of His coming to them, and of the Spirit’s coming, as if these expressions both referred to the same thing (John 14:16, John 14:18, John 16:13, John 16:16). He was to be with them by the Spirit. Hitherto He had been with them in the flesh; they had known Him, just as men know their fellow-men, through the body He had assumed; they had seen its form and heard His voice with their bodily senses. This was no longer to be; but He was to manifest Himself to them in a higher and better way than that, by the Spirit, w’T ho should take of His and show it to them, so that He should really be with them again, by His Spirit having fellowship with their spirits. His coming thus to them would also be the coming of the Father (John 14:23-24), as when they really knew Him they should know the Father also.

It is remarkable, that the evangelist who has recorded those sayings of Jesus does not in his own writings speak of the Spirit in such a way as clearly to imply personality; but uses figures, such as the anointing (1 John 2:20, 1 John 2:27), and God giving us of His Spirit (1 John 4:13), which seem to refer to a power or influence. This may prove that John did not so fully unfold the revelation given by Jesus as we might have expected: but it shows us all the more how true and faithful is his record of Jesus’ words. In the Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, there is a similar indistinctness of teaching. The brevity and practical character of these letters sufficiently account for little being said of the Holy Spirit; and while there is nothing that certainly implies His personality, there is nothing in the slightest degree inconsistentwith it. In the Book of Acts and in the Apocalypse the Spirit is described as speaking and using personal pronouns of Himself (Acts 8:29; Acts 10:19-20;Acts 11:12; Acts 13:2; Revelation 2:7; Revelation 14:13; Revelation 22:17). In the Epistle to the Hebrews, whose great theme is the contrast of the Jewish and Christian dispensations, the Holy Spirit comes into view as given in the former to prophets and other inspired men, and in the latter to all the people of God, but chiefly as manifested in miraculous gifts. But the fullest teaching about the Spirit in the New Testament is to be found in the Epistles of Paul, which most distinctly unfold the nature of Christianity, especially in its inward and experimental aspects. In these Epistles there are attributed to the Holy Spirit various things that can belong only to a personal being, such as “mind,” in the sense of purpose or intention as expressed in intercession (Romans 8:27), “searching all things” (1 Corinthians 2:11), “dividing to every man severally as he will” (1 Corinthians 12:11), “being grieved “ (Ephesians 4:30). Paul calls the Spirit, the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of God’s Son (Galatians 4:4); speaks of Christ being in us, and Christ’s Spirit being in us as the same thing (Romans 8:9-10); and ascribes the same work indifferently now to God, now to Christ, and now to the Holy Spirit. In the teaching of Paul the Holy Spirit is represented as dwelling in Christians as the principle of moral and religious life. This is found in all his Epistles, from the earliest (1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 4:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:13), through the central group (Romans 8:2-17; Galatians 5:1-26; 1 Corinthians 2:12-16) on to the latest (Ephesians 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:7, 2 Timothy 1:14), while in them all the Spirit is also recognised as the source of supernatural gifts, such as prophecy, tongues, miracles. But it is hardly correct to say, as some have done, that the former of these representations is peculiar to Paul, and that the other New Testament writers only speak of the Spirit as the source of miraculous gifts. The notion of the Spirit of God as the giver, not only of prophetic or miraculous gifts, but of holiness, is found even in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 36:27); and is implied in the words of John the Baptist, that the Messiah should baptize with the Holy Spirit.

It could hardly be absent from the mind of any devout Israelite, and seems to be involved in the very name, the Holy Spirit, which is not found in the earlier Old Testament writings, but which is used by all the penmen of the New Testament. There are also express recognitions of this function of the Spirit of God in 1 Peter 1:2; 1 Peter 4:14; Jude 1:19-20; 1 John 3:11 and 1 John 4:16 and perhaps in James 4:5; as well as in our Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus (John 3:3-8). These passages show at least that the idea was not unknown, though it is undoubtedly true, that Paul has unfolded it much more fully than the other New Testament writers; and that in the Epistle to the Hebrews views of the Christian life are given which do not require the consideration of this function of the Holy Spirit.

It has also been thought by some, that Paul’s conception of the Holy Spirit, as the principle of the Christian life, does not require a recognition of anything more than a power proceeding from God; and that the passages where Paul ascribes knowledge, purpose, and will to the Spirit, are merely personifications. But it seems clear that what Paul meant to teach was not merely that a power from God is at work in believers, but that God Himself works in them. The Spirit of God is not indeed in his view an independent personality; that is not implied in the doctrine of the personality of the Spirit; but as the spirit of a man is to the man, so according to Paul the Spirit of God is to God, in one sense the same, but in another sense distinct. The principle of the Christian life is not a mere impersonal power, but God Himself in a mysterious way dwelling and working in the soul. But it is God working in man to lead him to God as He is above him; hence the Spirit of God that works in him must be distinguished from God, yet not as a different being, but just as the spirit or mind of a man may be distinguished from the man, and may be said to know the things of a man (1 Corinthians 2:10-16).

Paul’s doctrine of the Spirit in this place is parallel to John’s doctrine of the Word (John 1:1-18); and both point to an analogy between the nature of man and that of God. In man we must distinguish the soul itself from its functions of understanding, feeling, and will, which are yet one with it; and in the divine Being, revelation teaches us to distinguish the Father, His Son or Word, and His Spirit, who are yet one God. The doctrine of the Spirit of God as a divine person rests on the more clearly revealed doctrine of the Word or Son of God who became incarnate in Jesus Christ. If we are satisfied that the Word is the same as the Son of God, and is not merely a divine power or influence moving and strengthening the man Christ Jesus, nor yet a created and finite being, but one possessing all the attributes and receiving the worship proper to God; then we must conceive the Deity as not absolutely simple in all respects, but having a certain mysterious distinction in the manner of subsistence, on the one hand as Father, and on the other hand as Son; the Father being God as He is the source of all being, and the Son, or Word, God as He knows and manifests Himself. But if any such distinction is recognised in the Deity, then the way in which Jesus and His apostles speak of the Holy Spirit requires us to regard the Being so described as similar in nature to the Word; and so to recognise, not merely a twofold, but a threefold distinction in God. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit depends upon that of the person of Christ, and comes after it, both historically and logically. Jesus taught His disciples to believe in Him as the Son of God, before He spoke to them of the Holy Spirit, as another Advocate; and while the Church implicitly believed in both from the first, it was not till after she had, by much discussion, come to a distinct understanding of her faith in Christ as divine, that she arrived at similar clearness in regard to the Holy Spirit.

When, too, the doctrine of the Spirit came to be discussed, appeal was made to the previously ascertained doctrine of the true deity of Christ. If it were possible to believe that Jesus was a mere man, then there would be no antecedent reason to recognise any distinction in the deity beyond that of attributes or powers, such as the Platonists and Alexandrian Jews held; and what is said about the Spirit might be regarded as mere figurative or exaggerated descriptions of a divine influence. But if, as we believe to be the fact, we cannot do justice to the character and claims of Jesus or to the worship paid Him by His disciples, without acknowledging Him to be truly God; then we see from His relation to the Father, that the sayings which speak personally of the Spirit may be taken more literally, while at the same time, if they are the teaching riot merely of a man sent from God, but of one who is Himself God, they cannot be so freely handled as on the other theory they must be. Were we to confine our view of the New Testament doctrine on this subject to passages that speak especially of the Holy Spirit; we might be apt to think, that those which distinctly suggest a personal being are but few, and balanced by others which point rather to an impersonal power; and that where cxegetical considerations are so doubtful, the preference is due to the view which implies no transcendently mysterious doctrine, and only requires allowance to be made for some rather bold personifications. But the matter will appear differently, if we consider, that the understanding of what is meant by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament depends on the answer to the larger question, What is the Christian idea of God? If that implies, that the divine Being is not an absolutely simple unity, but is distinguished in itself as Father and Son; if Christians are consecrated in baptism to the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19); if in the bestowal of spiritual gifts on the Church there are recognised one Spirit, one Lord, one God and Father of all (1 Corinthians 12:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6); and if blessings are invoked from the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit as well as from God (2Co.13:14); the evidence that the New Testament represents the Spirit as a person, in the same sense as the Word, is seen to be much more extensive and conclusive.