The Holy Spirit -- In Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today

By Anthony C. Thiselton

This learned book by eminent scholar Anthony Thiselton is a detailed biblical, historical, and contemporary study of the Holy Spirit. Thiselton presents an up-to-date account of biblical teaching on the topic, including exposition of passages and hermeneutics; offers a comprehensive historical survey from the Apostolic Fathers to Jonathan Edwards; and engages a host of modern theologians.

In the last part of his book Thiselton discusses a remarkably wide range of writings on the Holy Spirit from the nineteenth century to the present day. He interacts explicitly with Pentecostals and the Renewal Movement in a sympathetic, positive, yet critical manner. The book as a whole is at once scholarly and readable, comprehensive and practical.

The Holy Spirit — in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today offers scholarly work on specific themes such as prophecy, tongues, the miraculous, the range and nature of the Spirit's gifts, and the Holy Spirit in relation to the Trinity, along with practical consequences for worship and life.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: Jun 1, 2013
• ISBN: 9781467437622

Anthony C. Thiselton

Anthony C. Thiselton is emeritus professor of Christian theology in the University of Nottingham, England, and a fellow of the British Academy. He has published twenty-five books spanning the fields of hermeneutics, New Testament studies, systematic theology, and philosophy of religion.

Book preview

PART I

The Holy Spirit in Biblical Teaching

1

The Spirit of God in the Old Testament

1.1. Introduction: Seven Practical Themes

The details of relevant Old Testament passages and themes are often complex. Hence it will help to offer a preliminary outline of themes which we shall then amplify and develop. Thus, before looking at the Old Testament in any detail, we may anticipate several practical theological points which we shall try to establish by more technical investigations of passages and themes.

(1) First, if spirituality is due to the workings of the Spirit of God within the human heart, the Old Testament sees the Spirit as transcendent or other, in contrast to innate human aspirations. As we shall see, the Spirit of God can act like a warrior. The Spirit guards the Israelites from marauders in the wilderness as if they were cattle (Isa. 63:14); the Spirit can breathe life into a dead Israel which has rotted into dry bones, and set it on its feet as a living human body (Ezek. 37:12–14); the Spirit can empower Samson, so that Samson can tear a lion apart with his bare hands, as if it was a young kid (Judg. 14:6).

(2) Second, although God gives the Spirit to chosen individuals to perform special tasks, the Spirit of God makes these tasks possible only within the framework of God’s wider purposes for the community of Israel. Both Testaments stress the individual and the community, even if with different emphases and purposes. Even the well-known gift of the Spirit to various judges has as its purpose the deliverance from oppression of a repentant Israel. Thus the judges in question are called saviors of Israel (Judg. 3:7–11, 12–30; 6:1–8:35; 13:1–16:31). Many current thinkers stress this corporate aspect, as we shall note later.

(3) Third, the Old Testament begins to represent the Spirit of God, along with Wisdom, as an Agent of God, or extension of God, who necessarily imparts revelation and inspiration, and who begins the long path toward holiness and renewal of the heart. Wisdom is given to Bezalel by the Spirit for craftsmanship in Exod. 31:3–5, and the Spirit inspires Micaiah to prophesy in 1 Kings 22:11–28. The Spirit who reveals and inspires does so because he is often understood as more than the Agent of God; he represents God’s presence. It would be anachronistic to suggest that Old Testament writers consciously anticipated the later doctrine of the Holy Trinity, but they certainly laid the groundwork for such a doctrine by associating God’s Spirit with God himself. This came about initially by closely associating angels with the functions of the Spirit. For example, a man … with a drawn sword appeared before Joshua as commander of the Lord’s hosts (Josh. 5:13–14), and Joshua fell on his face … and worshiped, and was commanded to remove his sandals, for the place where you stand is holy (5:15). God creates through the Spirit (Gen. 1:2; NRSV translates rûach, Spirit, by wind here). God’s Spirit is called your Holy Spirit three times in the Old Testament (Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10–11; rûach qodhshekā, your Holy Spirit; rûach qodheshô, his Holy Spirit). Holy is often referred to as that which belongs to God. To seek the Spirit is to seek God.

(4) Fourth, the work of the Spirit of God can usually be seen by the Spirit’s effects. Wind as such may be invisible; but when it blows over a field of corn, we know that the wind is blowing by looking at the effects on the field of corn, not on the wind. This is helpful in making the operation of the Spirit observable and concrete; but it can constitute a pitfall. Too often we make judgments about the Spirit by looking only at the phenomena which the Spirit produces. The Hebrews were familiar with the effects of wind. Isaiah declares, The heart of his people shook as the trees … shake before the wind (Isa. 7:2). The wind carries chaff away (Isa. 41:16). But we must not confuse the ultimate (acts of God) with the penultimate (the effects of his acts), as in different ways Paul Tillich and Karl Barth remind us. This would have the unwanted further effect of reducing the transcendence of the Spirit of God.

(5) The Spirit of God is creative, as Wolfhart Pannenberg, among others, stresses, and the image of the dove can mislead us. We speak of the dove of peace in everyday life. But in Gen. 1:2, swept over the face of the waters (NRSV) probably indicates the hovering or brooding of the creative Spirit, who is about to produce order out of chaos. It is strange that some associate the Spirit with chaos or lack of order, when from the first the Spirit is associated with order; and strange that peace often obscures creativity. The picture of Isa. 63:11–14 is that of a dynamic, powerful, creative Agent of God, who in the days of Moses brought them up out of the sea … who divided the waters … led your people. The Spirit is the Guide and Protector of onward-journeying Israel. Haggai exclaims, Take courage … for I am with you.… My Spirit abides among you; do not fear (Hag. 2:4–5).

(6) Sixth, the Spirit of God is life-giving. God breathes. Ezekiel has this theme: I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live (Ezek. 37:14; cf. vv. 1–14). The Spirit of God can animate the dry bones of a long-dead Israel (37:5; cf. vv. 6–14) into an undivided nation (vv. 15–22), cleansed and active (vv. 23–27). The Psalmist declares, When you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send forth your Spirit [NRSV, ‘spirit’], they are created (Ps. 104:29–30). The life in question is creative life, not merely existence. This is largely because God is seen to be the source of all life: Where can I go from your Spirit [NRSV, ‘spirit’]? Or where can I flee from your presence? (Ps. 139:7). Again, this is referred to creation: The Spirit [NRSV, ‘spirit’] of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life (Job 33:4).

(7) The seventh striking characteristic of the work of the Spirit of God is the Spirit’s capacity for being shared out from one figure to others. The classic example is that of Moses and the seventy elders. Moses has been anointed by the Spirit for the task of serving as leader of the people, but later complains that the burden of leading such a large number of people has become a heavy strain. Hence the LORD … took some of the Spirit [NRSV, ‘spirit’] that was on him and put it on the seventy elders; and when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied (Num. 11:25). Similarly, Joshua derives the Spirit through Moses and the laying on of hands (Deut. 34:9), and Elisha from the gift of the Spirit to Elijah (2 Kings 2:15; cf. 2:9, 13–14). This principle will have considerable consequences in the New Testament for the sharing of the Messianic Spirit by all Christians.

These are the most striking themes which became a practical basis for the gift of the Holy Spirit to Christians in the New Testament. We have not yet discussed every aspect comprehensively. Other themes concern the ambiguity of the precise meaning of the Hebrew term rûach, which at different times and in different contexts may mean not only the Spirit of God, but also wind, breath, or the human spirit. This is why from now on we propose to translate the Hebrew rûach by Spirit when it denotes the Spirit of God, even when the NRSV translates the term as spirit (lowercase letter). We have also not fully discussed the renewal of God’s people by the Spirit, the future promises of the gift of the Spirit in the New Age, and the Messianic Spirit. We shall now explore these seven themes in greater detail, investigating, when necessary, how they interact with some scholarly opinion.

1.2. The Otherness or Transcendence of the Spirit from Beyond

The usual Hebrew term for Spirit is rûach. This word is regularly translated as Spirit or spirit, but also as breath or wind.¹ Rûach occurs about 387 times in the Old Testament. The Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) translates it uniformly as "pneuma some 264 times, except when it translates it as anemos, wind" (49 times).

One of the popular misconceptions of today is that spiritual or spirituality denotes a religious human aspiration or capacity. If the term denotes, in a biblical sense, what is of the Spirit (as it does usually in Paul), nothing could be further from the truth. In Paul we shall see this more clearly, where the adjective spiritual (Greek, pneumatikos) denotes precisely what issues from God, not from humankind, especially in 1 Cor. 2:6–16, and most explicitly in v. 12: We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God (Greek, to pneuma to ek tou theou).

As we have already seen, the Spirit in Ezek. 37:7–14 is specifically put (v. 14) within Israel as it were from outside, to give Israel life which the community does not possess. Cyril Powell comments on the Spirit: "It does not belong to him whose native sphere is that of bāśār, that is, flesh."² In the Old Testament context, flesh (bāśār) represents humankind in its earthly frailty (not the mind of the flesh in Paul in its more theological sense). A contrary notion could arise only by unwisely confusing spirit of human beings with Spirit of God. This then makes spirit or Spirit seem to denote a merely human capacity. Even under the heading The Spirit of God as the Principle of Life, Walter Eichrodt’s normally judicious Theology of the Old Testament confuses passages about the Spirit of God with many about the human spirit. Thus Eichrodt cites Gen. 45:27, When he [Jacob] saw the wagons that Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of their father Jacob revived.³ In the same note he cites Judg. 15:19, When he [Samson] drank, his spirit returned, and he revived. The refreshment of water patently has nothing to do with the return of the Spirit of God but with the disposition of Samson’s spirit. His third example in the same note follows this pattern: When he had eaten, his [the Egyptian’s] spirit revived (1 Sam. 30:12). Eichrodt is admittedly making a general comment about rûach, but rûach denoting Spirit of God must not be confused with rûach when the term denotes the human spirit. Similarly, in Josh. 5:1 there was no longer any spirit in them is in synonymous parallelism with their heart melted. So also in Isa. 65:14 anguish of spirit is parallel with pain of heart.⁴

The Hebrew rûach, spirit, often denotes the human spirit as a disposition or even as evidence of life, although nephesh (life, or more rarely soul) and neshāmâ (breath) are used in a similar way. Neshāmâ occurs as the principle of life in at least nine of twenty-four uses, but even blood (Hebrew, dām) is said to be every creature’s life (Lev. 17:14). Of the son of the widow of Zarephath it is said, "There was no neshāmâ left in him (1 Kings 17:17). Job states, All my neshāmâ is still in me" (Job 27:3). Although it is claimed that nephesh occurs 754 times, the word sometimes perhaps means soul; but it may also denote life (like the Greek psychē), or do duty for a personal pronoun, for example, me, and even once denotes a dead body.

The Old Testament can speak of the spirits of all flesh (Num. 16:22), or of the "breath (rûach) of every human being (Job 12:10). On occasion the term spirit seems to approach the Greek, German, and English notion of spirit as the psychological, cognitive, intellectual, and nonmaterial core of a human being, as in Ps. 77:6: I meditate and search my spirit, which is in poetic parallelism with I commune with my heart in the same verse. But contrary to its use in Greek, it does not convey a sharp dualism between body and spirit. Both terms, flesh and spirit," denote different modes of being, or functions, of the same self in a unitary way. When rûach, spirit, is used of a human person, the term may also denote a human disposition, as we have begun to see. In Hosea God condemns his people, for a spirit of whoredom has led them astray, and they have played the whore, forsaking God (Hos. 4:12 and 5:4). Isa. 54:6 speaks of being grieved in spirit. Hos. 4:12 speaks of the spirit of lust.

We can easily see how far these anthropological meanings have taken us away from the properly transcendent meaning of Spirit in much of the Old Testament. By contrast, the translation of rûach as wind in appropriate contexts can have the opposite effect of enhancing the transcendence of rûach, even when it does not denote Spirit. The scorching east wind can represent the wrath of God (Jer. 18:17: Like the wind from the east I will scatter them); while the west wind may bring relief from hardships: A very strong west wind … lifted the locusts (Exod. 10:19).

Ezekiel’s emphasis is on the transcendent. He provides a peak of references to the Spirit of God in the postexilic period. Ezekiel has been called the Prophet of the Spirit, not least because he mentions the Spirit some forty-two times. The throne of God is carried along with the speed of lightning by four fearsome living creatures, who moved straight ahead; wherever the Spirit would go, they went (Ezek. 1:12). The creatures were full of eyes (1:18), which in the book of Revelation implies the Spirit’s omniscience. In his vision of the awesome and transcendent throne of God, he writes, The Spirit lifted me up and bore me away (Ezek. 3:14), while he also recounts the sound of loud rumbling … the wings of the living creatures brushing against one another (3:13). He also says, Wherever the Spirit would go, they went … for the spirit [Spirit?] of the living creatures was in the wheels (1:20). The imagery of apocalyptic throne-visions represents the transcendence of God himself, not simply the stage setting of the throne. The Spirit of God now lifts the prophet Ezekiel, and bears him, as the Spirit bore Elijah (Ezek. 3:12, 14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 37:1).

One of the most debated translations of rûach arises in Gen. 1:2: "The rûach [NRSV, ‘wind’] from God swept over the face of the waters. The KJV/AV translate the same verse, The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters; and the RSV, The Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. In the earlier, traditional translation, the Spirit of God brings order out of chaos, or perhaps acts in creation like a mother bird brooding over a creative process, like the appearance of a dove at the baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:10 parallel to Matt. 3:16; Luke 3:22). Chaos or formless wasteland" translates the well-known Hebrew phrase tōhû wābōhû, which signifies unproductive empty space. Even if rûach is translated as wind, it signifies what Vawter calls a wind that was superhuman, almighty, and inconceivable in ordinary terms.⁵ In this light, Spirit or wind acts as a transcendent, more-than-human Agent of God, representing the action of God, as so often in the Old Testament. C. K. Barrett adopts the rendering the Spirit in Gen. 1:2, which he sees as suggesting the brooding or hovering of a bird. He strongly associates this creative Spirit with the Spirit who will initiate the new creation in the conception of Jesus in the Virgin Mary.⁶ This creativity is seen elsewhere. For example, Ps. 33:6 declares: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all their host by the rûach [NRSV, ‘breath’] of his mouth. Ps. 104:30 affirms: When you send forth your Spirit, they are created. Job exclaims in 33:4, The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life."

Although the Old Testament ascribes many meanings to rûach, there can be little doubt that a major theme is that of the Spirit of God as creative, dynamic, and transcendent. Some popular uses of Spirit of God today seem to suggest the very opposite, even seeing the dove in Genesis and the Gospels as gentle rather than creative and awesomely from Beyond. If spirituality is understood as a natural human disposition toward religious aspiration, this may seem to have more in common with the Greek Stoics than with the Old Testament. We explore this notion elsewhere in these pages. A typical sentence which underlies this idea is found in Isa. 31:3: "The Egyptians are human, and not God; their houses are flesh, not spirit (rûach). The whole point of the passage in Isaiah is to indicate that those who go down to Egypt for help and who rely on horses, who trust in chariots" (Isa. 31:1), are placing their confidence in human beings, who are weak and vulnerable, in comparison with God and his Spirit. Rûach is strong and transcendent, not frail and feeble, like bāśār, flesh (or humanity). Spirituality, even if such a term has any currency with reference to the Old Testament alone, comes from Beyond, not from within humankind; and the Spirit in the Old Testament comes to humanity as God’s transcendent action.

1.3. The Anointing of the Spirit of Chosen Individuals for Particular Tasks

Many writers set the Old Testament view of the Holy Spirit in sharp contrast to that of the New Testament. It is often said that the Old Testament depicts the Spirit as a temporary gift for chosen individuals only, who are empowered for special tasks, whereas the New Testament depicts the Spirit as a permanent gift for the whole community of God’s people. Yet the gift of the Spirit is given to individuals only to promote the welfare of the community of Israel. There can be no question that this Spirit of God is identified as the same Holy Spirit when Jesus identifies the Spirit of the LORD [who] is upon me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to proclaim release to the captives … the year of the Lord’s favor (Luke 4:18–19) with the Spirit of the Lord [who] shall rest upon him … (Isa. 11:2). This is confirmed by Peter’s sermon at Pentecost, where I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh … (Acts 2:17) is seen as the fulfillment of Joel 2:28–29, both of which speak of the last days and of a communal gift of the same Holy Spirit. In Isa. 11:2 the Spirit of God rests on the Messiah, is creative and transforming, and transforms hearts of stone into hearts of flesh (Ezek. 36:26–27).⁷

Without doubt, the most characteristic gift of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament is to empower and inspire chosen individuals to perform special tasks. Many of these tasks further God’s redemptive purposes within the wider frame of the history of Israel. Hence, although there are gifts for an individual at a particular moment in time, their ultimate function and purpose relate to the good of the community in a permanent way. These gifts range from wisdom, administration, craftsmanship, and military leadership to prophecy and physical strength. They are not dissimilar to gifts of the Spirit in the New Testament. The divine Spirit gives wisdom and insight to inspire Bezalel with ability, intelligence, and knowledge in every kind of craft to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver and bronze, and in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood (Exod. 31:3–5). This is the kind of intelligence and craftsmanship which led to what today we might think of as the design of great cathedrals. Here, however, our main point is that this is not merely an individual gift, but a gift to an individual for the benefit of the whole community. Incidentally, it can hardly be charismatic or spontaneous, for good craftsmanship requires many years of patient training and learning.

The book of Judges shows how all the elements identified in the above paragraph blend together. Judges mainly concerns individual deliverers: Othniel (Judg. 3:7–11), Ehud (Judg. 3:12–30), Deborah and Barak (Judg. 4:1–24), Gideon (Judg. 6:1–8:35), Abimelech (Judg. 9:1–57), Jephthah (11:1–12:7), and Samson (Judg. 13:1–16:31), as well as some minor judges in the intervening verses. With the exception of Abimelech, who is a victim of his own ambition, at least seven of the judges receive the enabling of the Spirit of the Lord to perform salvific functions on behalf of the whole community of Israel. They are explicitly called saviors. Each receives the enabling of the divine Spirit, but each is also marked by human weakness. In this interim period between the leadership of Moses and Joshua and the anointing of kings, namely, Saul and David, the disarray and survival of the community of Israel are traced to Israel’s sin and to God’s saving Spirit.

A cycle of five similar events occurs repeatedly. In the story of Othniel, for example, (1) The Israelites did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, forgetting the LORD their God (Judg. 3:7); (2) Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled …, and he sold them into the hand of King Cushan-rishathaim … eight years (3:8); (3) But "when the Israelites cried out to the LORD, (4) the LORD raised up a deliverer [Hebrew, wayyāqem YHWH môshîyʿa) for the Israelites, who delivered them, Othniel …, Caleb’s younger brother. The Spirit of the LORD came upon him …, he went out to war …, his hand prevailed (3:9–10); (5) So the land had rest forty years (3:11). The same cycle of events occurs in the case of Ehud. The Israelites again did what was evil (3:12). (2) The Lord delivered Israel to King Eglon of Moab, with the Ammonites and Amalekites, and they served King Eglon for eighteen years (3:12–14). (3) Israel cried out to the LORD; the LORD raised up … Ehud" (Hebrew, wayyāqem YHWH lāhem môshîyʿa, as above) (3:15). (4) Ehud delivered Israel with the sword, and they killed about ten thousand Moabites (3:16–29). (5) And the land had rest eighty years (3:30). The cycle is repeated. Israel did evil (4:1). (2) The Lord delivered them to King Jabin of Canaan (4:2). (3) Israel cried to the LORD for help (4:3). (4) Deborah, the judge, summoned Barak, the general, while she and Jael seduced Sisera, the general of Jabin’s army (4:4–22), and God subdued Jabin of Canaan (4:23). (5) Deborah and Barak exult in a victory song (5:1–31).

We need not repeat the cycle for all those whom we have named. Gideon constitutes our final example. (1) The Israelites did what was evil (6:1). (2) The Lord gave them over to the hand of Midian for seven years (6:1). (3) Israel cried to the LORD (6:7). (4) The Lord commissioned Gideon to deliver Israel from the hand of Midian (6:14); The Spirit of the LORD took possession of Gideon (6:34), and Gideon put the enemy army to flight (7:22–25). (5) A vast store of booty was won for Israel (8:26–27), and the land had rest forty years (8:28). But as soon as Gideon died, a new cycle began: the Israelites relapsed … [and] did not remember the Lord their God, who had rescued them … from all their enemies (8:33–34).

Three factors deserve to be noted for an understanding of the work of the Spirit of God. In Part III we will see that Michael Welker stresses these, and their diversity.

(1) First, every judge has a human weakness or frailty. Ehud is left-handed (Judg. 3:15), which was regarded in the ancient world as a weakness in battle. Deborah was a woman, who would hardly be expected to show military leadership. A degree of guile was needed for Deborah and Jael (4:7, 9, 18–21). Gideon was commanded by God to reduce the size of his army (7:2), first from twenty-two thousand to ten thousand (7:3); then from ten thousand to three hundred. Clearly the reason was to give credit for victory to God and the Spirit of God, not to Gideon and his army.

Abimelech was too obsessed with personal ambition to be an agent of good: God sent an evil spirit (9:23). In the case of Jephthah, the Spirit of the Lord came upon [him] (11:29), but he made a rash and foolish vow, which led to the death of his daughter (11:31, 34). The Spirit of the Lord rushed on [Samson], and he tore the lion apart barehanded, as one might tear apart a kid (14:6). But for much of his life he played the fool (15:4–5), pursued revenge, and lusted after foreign women. In the end Delilah was his downfall (16:4–22). Yet one last time he called to the LORD and brought down the house in which many Philistines gathered, in addition to three thousand on the roof (16:27–30).

(2) The second point is that each of these manifestations of the Spirit of God ultimately preserved Israel from broadly the era of Joshua to that of Saul or the kings, while in those days there was no king in Israel (Judg. 18:1). Even if the Spirit anointed chosen individuals, this served the people of God as a whole. We may study the individual gifts of military powers, or (in Samson’s case) brute strength, but these served a redemptive end for Israel, which, even in relation to ancient narratives, was interwoven with Israel’s moral and spiritual conduct. The Hebrew word for savior applies to the judges, and constitutes an early model of what salvation means. Hence, while there is some justification for claiming that in the Old Testament the Spirit is given to individuals on a temporary basis, this is not the whole picture, and it should be firmly qualified.

(3) Third, writers often speak of empowering leaders and judges by the Spirit of God. I use the word enabling because we shall note in due course that certain problems arise over the excessive use of the word power. Later I shall argue that power is often misinterpreted as an analogy from the industrial age, where it is seen in quasi-mechanical terms in analogy with steam power or electrical power. Karl Barth and others rightly see this enabling in terms of effectiveness or efficaciousness. It is true that, as Norman Snaith declared, Men are able to do those things, which of themselves and in their own strength, they are incapable of doing.⁸ But this speaks of ability, effectiveness, and heightened capacity, not of raw power. Even among biblical scholars the term power can rest on older, now discredited, notions of power. When he speaks of the empowerment of humans in the Old Testament, Cyril Powell works with an old-fashioned notion of being charged with psychic power in blessing and cursing, which we have exposed as false.⁹ Moreover, he quotes Gerhard von Rad’s criticism of J. Pedersen for providing a predominantly magical interpretation … of power.¹⁰ Powell then frequently uses energy as a synonym for power. The contrast is not only, or perhaps even primarily, between strength and weakness, but rather between effective and ineffective, and possible and impossible.

Our main objective in this section, however, is to discuss the relation between the gift of the Spirit to individuals and its wider context in the welfare, even salvation, of the community. This becomes especially important when we consider the gifts of the Spirit in the Pauline writings. When he sums up the relation between the two Testaments with special attention to Paul, Floyd Filson declares, It is likewise true that chosen individuals are given the Spirit for special tasks; but this does not mean that some are left without the Spirit (i.e., in the New Testament).¹¹

1.4. The Spirit as an Extension of God: Revelation, Inspiration, and Holiness

Like the Wisdom of God and the Word of God (and perhaps also the angel of God, the glory of God, and the Law of God), the Spirit of God is both distinct from God, and yet can convey God’s presence or face (Hebrew, pānîm). To seek the Spirit is to seek God, as Gordon Fee insists. God’s face can denote his gracious attention. While the Old Testament insists that no one can literally see God, in a metaphorical sense to see God means to experience God’s gracious presence or face (Ps. 17:15; Job 33:25–26).¹² Indeed, to seek the face of God becomes a biblical phrase (Ps. 24:6; cf. 1 Chron. 21:30). Wisdom and Word can become what Eichrodt calls a form of self-manifestation of the transcendent God.¹³ This foundation becomes important when, on the basis of a later theology of the Holy Spirit, some seem to seek or pray to the Spirit as if he were somehow different from God, or independent of God. In the same vein, statements about the Word … in many cases overlap with those about the Spirit.¹⁴ Both Word and Spirit reveal the divine will and purpose, which otherwise might remain hidden.

Often the Spirit of God is found in synonymous parallelism with God, for example, in do not take your Holy Spirit from me (Ps. 51:11). The parallel, Do not cast me away from your presence, makes Holy Spirit and your presence synonymous. The confession of sin (prompted traditionally by Nathan’s parable) and restoration depend wholly on God, and communion with God constitutes a key theme. Ps. 104:29–30 has a similar emphasis on God’s presence and his Spirit. It reads: "When you hide your face [Hebrew pānîm, also ‘presence’], they are dismayed.… When you send forth your Spirit (rûach), they are created; and you renew the face of the ground. These verses associate creation and renewal with the work of the Spirit of God as well as with the presence of God. Similarly, God’s Spirit is in synonymous parallelism with your presence in Ps. 139:7: Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence?"

After the Exile during the period of the Restoration, God’s people needed assurance and reassurance that God was still with them. Thus Haggai assures the people, My Spirit abides among you; do not fear (Hag. 2:5). God will remain true to his covenant promises, hence Zerubbabel and Joshua must take courage (Hag. 2:4). Again, My Spirit abides with you (v. 5) is parallel with I am with you (v. 4). The Spirit of God is clearly a mode of God’s activity, whose nature and identity are inseparable from God. Indeed, many begin to define or to explicate the Spirit as God in action. A famous verse appears in another writer of the same era, Zechariah: This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: ‘Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,’ says the LORD of hosts (Zech. 4:6). By the Spirit of God mountains become plains (v. 7). Zerubbabel, therefore, may lay the foundation of the temple (v. 9). The Spirit represents the omniscient God, symbolized by the seven eyes (or complete knowledge) of God (v. 10). Perhaps even the oil from the olive trees conveys the notion in symbol of Zerubbabel’s anointing by the Spirit, together with Joshua’s (the two anointed ones, who stand by the Lord, v. 14; cf. vv. 11–13).

The Spirit’s identification and conceptualization as an angelic being is less clear. Joshua saw a man with a drawn sword (Josh. 5:13) who shared in his commissioning and anointing. The angel of the LORD appeared to Manoah (Judg. 13:13). The NRSV often translates entities or agents denoted by the Hebrew śārāph (burning ones, seraphim) as fiery serpents (Isa. 14:29; 30:6). More directly associated with the presence of the Lord are the angelic cherubim (Exod. 25:18–22), where cherubim are associated with the Ark of the Covenant and God’s presence. In 2 Sam. 22:2–20 David sings of the LORD my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer, who is of awesome majesty: Thick darkness was under his feet. He rode on a cherub, and flew; he was seen upon the wings of the wind. The kerûbîm are winged beings who may transport the Lord and guard the divine throne (Ezek. 1; Rev. 4:8–10). Their functions are like those of the Spirit, especially in Ezekiel.

The notion of the Spirit as an Agent of revelation persists in rabbinic thought, and into the New Testament and Church Fathers. Theodore Vriezen writes, The Spirit of God may occur in the Old Testament as a means to grant revelations, but this happens far less frequently than we might think on a superficial view.¹⁵ Isa. 40:13 asserts what is later quoted by Paul: Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or as his counselor has instructed him? (cf. also 1 Cor. 2:16). The close association of the Spirit with God can be seen in the synonymous parallelism of Ps. 139:7: Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence? In later writings communion with God came to receive more attention than the miraculous.¹⁶ Hence an emphasis on renewal finds expression in Ezek. 36:23–33: I will sanctify my great name (v. 23). This leads to: A new heart will I give you.… I will remove from your body the heart of stone.… I will put my Spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes (vv. 26–27). Eichrodt observes, Man’s relationship with God is no longer left to his own efforts, but is given him by the spirit.¹⁷ Hence, he adds, the Spirit now becomes a permanent influence.

This enables us to grasp and to clarify a fundamental difference between revelation and inspiration. The revealing of God can be an event which God enacts through his Spirit, through his Word, through his angel, or even through theophany. But the appropriation and understanding of this revelation require the inspiration of the human subject or person who receives it. Long ago this distinction was proposed by James Orr.¹⁸ He argues that therefore inspiration may include the making of records of divine acts of revelation. This may even take permanent or authoritative forms. He comments, Those who produce the record possess in an eminent degree the Spirit of the revelation.¹⁹ Revelation, he argues, lies in the provision of truth about God; inspiration lies in the use made of it. The most delicate question on these matters which confronted Israel was that of true and false prophecy. This claim to be inspired by the Spirit remained only a claim until it was tested and verified.

George Montague sees the Spirit as the instigator and the animator of prophecy.²⁰ An early example of inspired prophecy occurs perhaps in Numbers. Although some date parts of Numbers later, there is archaeological and other evidence that the story of Balaam (Num. 22–24) rests on an early tradition. Numbers depicts this non-Israelite prophet as defying Balak of Moab by blessing Israel, when King Balak had hired him to curse Israel. Num. 24:2 declares, The Spirit of God came upon him (Balaam), and he uttered his oracle as one who heard the words of God (22:4). This finds a parallel in Num. 23:16: The LORD … put a word into his mouth. This is a clear example of the Spirit of the Lord’s revealing words of God, and inspiring the prophet. This theme develops into the Spirit’s inspiring both the prophets and Scripture in later passages and in Judaism.

The reference in Isa. 11:1–2 appears to associate wisdom gifts with the anointing of a ruler whom many Christians regard as a Messianic figure: A shoot shall come forth from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. The Spirit of the LORD shall rest on him; the Spirit [perhaps spirit] of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit [spirit?] of counsel and might.… However we define the figure who is envisaged, as a Messiah or a king on David’s throne in historical terms, or as Christ in Christological terms, this figure receives the Spirit permanently. Indeed, this figure suggests a possible plurality of fulfillments. He will vindicate the poor and oppressed (v. 4), and will bring in a cosmic vision of peace, justice, and well-being or salvation (11:6–10). Clearly this refers to his restoration of the remnant of God’s people (v. 11). Spirit occurs four times, although in vv. 4–5 the word may be anthropological, to mean quality or mind-set of wisdom, or it may be God’s Agent, the Spirit who gives wisdom. Isa. 28:6 repeats Spirit [or spirit] of justice (Hebrew rûach mishpāṭ, and Isa. 32:15 speaks of the pouring out of the Spirit, who will bring justice and peace.

Among human prophets, however, there soon emerged the need to distinguish between true and false claims to prophecy in the name of the Spirit of the Lord. This issue comes to light in the complex story of Micaiah ben Imlah in 1 Kings 22:11–28. Micaiah claimed, Whatever the LORD says to me, I will speak (22:14). His message appears to be, Go up and triumph (v. 15). But when Ahab presses him, he admits, I saw all Israel scattered.… These have no master (v. 17). In vv. 21–22 a spirit says, I will entice him.… I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets (repeated in v. 23). Finally, Zedekiah replies, Which way did the Spirit of the LORD pass from me to speak to you? and the king put Micaiah in prison (22:24, 27). In his definitive book on this subject, Prophecy and Discernment, Moberly discusses the Micaiah passage for some twenty pages.²¹ It occurs in a sequence of passages which largely depict Elijah’s confrontations with King Ahab. Ahab depends on the direction of a prophetic voice (22:1–4). Ramoth-gilead is a disputed frontier town, near the Golan Heights, which Syria and Israel still dispute. The story follows that of Naboth’s vineyard, which may alert the reader to Ahab’s greed for territorial gains.

The decision was virtually taken, so the question for Ahab was a pseudo-question. But Jehoshaphat does not want simply to rubber-stamp the king’s decision, so for him the question is genuine. The four hundred prophets (of Baal?) confirm Ahab’s decision. The king already knows that Micaiah does not simply rubber-stamp his policies. The scene is set for a drama like that of Washington, DC, or Westminster, England. Micaiah must face the public stage. When the king asks his question (22:15a), he at first gives the required answer (v. 15b). But both Ahab and the prophet know that it is not what he believes. This comes in v. 17, and warns of disaster. But the prophet’s sarcastic answer has caught the king off-guard. It is similar to Nathan’s seductive strategy before David (2 Sam. 12:1–7). He avoids simply stating the obvious. The conclusion of this indirect communication is clear: the Lord has decreed disaster, as declared by the heavenly court. This God-centered aspect conveys the theological meaning. Zedekiah intervenes as a leader of the court prophets, but Micaiah does not flinch. He has won the contest between self-will and integrity, as well as its fulfillment.²²

The problem of false prophecy again occurs in Deuteronomy. The whole subject concerns Deut. 18:9–22. But the conclusion in 18:20–22 carries the utmost challenge to anyone who claims to speak in God’s name today. If the prophet is a true prophet, I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet (v. 18). But v. 20 reads: Any prophet … who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die. Verse 22 repeats that if he speaks a word that the LORD has not spoken, the prophet has spoken presumptuously. In the broader context, Moses is described as a prophet (Hebrew nābhîʾ), and in later Judaism and in Calvin he becomes preeminently the prophet, passing God’s words to the people. Moberly calls him the model for Israel’s other prophets, and says that he is exercising a ministry which is explicitly based upon his proximity to God.²³ But Deut. 18:9–22 pictures people’s bewilderment when they had no easy way of knowing which prophet was telling the truth.²⁴ Deut. 18:15–22 depicts such a case. This dilemma persists until New Testament times, when the Church must weigh what is said (1 Cor. 14:29), or test the words of prophets (1 Thess. 5:21).

The ease with which false prophets can claim to speak in the name of the Lord may largely account for the relatively few references to the Spirit of God in eighth- and seventh-century canonical prophets. A partly alternative argument is that their sayings were collected and eventually published under their name.²⁵ This would not preclude their appealing to speak by the Spirit. The first of the writing prophets, Amos, virtually omits any reference to the Spirit of God, but stresses the ordinariness of his vocation (Amos 1:1). Hosea also prefers to speak of the word rather than of the Spirit. In Hos. 4:19 rûach means wind, and in 4:12 and 5:4 the term is used anthropologically to mean mindset. The Isaiah of Isaiah 1–39, who is usually said to be contemporary with Micah, does not use Spirit to describe his own inspiration. J. E. Fison captures the mood of the classical prophets when he comments, There is all the difference in the world between ‘hearing the word of the Lord’ and working yourself up into an ecstasy of mystical rapture.²⁶

Micah prophesied in Judea and the South, while Amos and Hosea ministered to Israel in the North. Like Amos, his emphasis was especially ethical and social. Yet he did lay claim to inspiration by the Spirit of God. He acknowledged the power and deceptiveness of false prophets who lead my people astray (Mic. 3:5). He declared, The seers shall be disgraced (3:7). But this does not prevent Micah from asserting: But as for me, I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the LORD, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression (Mic. 3:8). The appeal to the Spirit of God, however, is conjoined with the consequent concern for justice and righteousness. This is a vital condition.

A century later, in the seventh century, the Spirit is virtually absent from Jeremiah. Jeremiah attacks false prophecy frequently (Jer. 2:8; 5:13, 31; 6:13; 14:11–16; 23:9–40; 28:1–17). These prophets lead my people astray (23:32), and they prophesy lies in my name (23:25). I did not send them (v. 32); I did not send the prophets.… I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied (v. 21). The prophets are prophesying lies in my name (14:14). Montague comments, Never before have we met such a strong opposition of word to spirit …; later in Paul we will find a trace of this Jeremian reaction … (1 Cor. 14:13–19).²⁷ Jeremiah has visions (Jer. 1:11–14), but normally attacks them. His emphasis remains on the word of the LORD (2:1; 7:1; 14:1), while visions may denote interpreting ordinary objects (an almond tree, or a boiling pot) as part of a divine message (Jer. 1:11, 13). For the rest, in Jer. 51:11 spirit may simply denote mind-set, as in the LORD has stirred up the spirit of the Medes. Vriezen actually claims: The major prophets never connect revelation with the operation of the Spirit, except Ezekiel (once) and Deutero-Isaiah.²⁸

Yet in spite of terrible and widespread abuses, God continues to speak through prophets, even if the more reflective prophets show misgivings about the phenomenon. The lesson to be learned is that we should approach prophecy with openness but also with extreme caution. When we examine Paul, we shall consider carefully whether Paul understands the term in the sense in which it is widely understood today.

1.5. Remaining Themes: Effects, Creativity, Life, and the Derived or Shared Spirit

Our examination of prophecy and inspiration adds point to our earlier claim that, like the wind blowing a field of corn, or shaking trees, we see the wind only by its effects, and likewise we see the Spirit in terms of visible effects. Thus if a prophet claims to reveal what is patently false, or what conflicts with God’s will or earlier revelation, we shall not accept his claims. Isa. 7:2, as we noted, declares: The heart of his people shook, as the trees of the forest shake before the wind. As chaff is blown out of the wheat, You shall winnow them, and the wind shall carry them away (Isa. 41:16). Under the Spirit’s transcendence, we could not avoid seeing the Spirit as creative. He does not represent a human aspiration, but that on which humans are dependent, as they are for their creation. Increasingly this will lead in the Bible to the Spirit’s role in transformation and the new creation.

Similarly, we have in effect already perceived aspects of the work of God’s Spirit as life-giver. Ezek. 37:1–14, with its vision of the valley of dry bones, offers an instructive example. The bones were very dry (v. 2). By his Spirit, God takes these lifeless, long-dead bones and causes them to become a living person, with flesh and skin (v. 6). They lived, and stood on their feet, a vast multitude (v. 10). The Lord says, I am going to open your graves, and bring you up from your graves (v. 12). This is all because I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live (v. 14). Not for nothing does Jürgen Moltmann call his book on the Spirit The Spirit of Life.²⁹

One gap in what we have considered so far concerns applying further the derived or shared gift of the Spirit, which we have already noted in connection with Moses. The seventy elders of Num. 11:16–25, we saw, derive this gift from Moses. The gift is given through Moses. He complains about the burden of leading such a large number of people. We noted, The LORD … took some of the Spirit that was on him [Moses] and put it on the seventy elders; and when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied (Num. 11:25). Similarly, Joshua derives his gift of the Spirit through Moses and the laying on of hands (Deut. 34:9). Likewise, Elisha derives his share of the Spirit of God from Elijah: The Spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha (2 Kings 2:15; cf. 2:9, 13–14). Christians in a later era will derive their gift of the Holy Spirit from Christ’s anointing by the Spirit of God, just as their sonship is directly derived from Christ as the Son of God (Gal. 4:4–7; Rom. 8:9–11; cf. 8:26–27). This makes these Old Testament passages especially significant for Christians. Many would see this as also prefigured in the language of the Servant Songs. In Isa. 42:1, 5, we encounter the first of the Servant Songs. The Servant is my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him. Charles Cranfield observes, "The words of the bath-qôl (the voice from heaven at Jesus’ baptism) are reminiscent of Isa. 42:1" (in Mark 1:11).³⁰ Matt. 12:18 includes (in Greek) ho agapētos mou eis hon eudokēsen hē psychē mou, my Beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased, and adds, I will put my Spirit upon him (NRSV); and Matt. 3:16–17 speaks of the Spirit descending and anointing Jesus, while the voice from heaven exclaims, This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased. Luke’s parallel in Luke 3:22 has almost identical words. The conclusion in Isa. 42:7, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring the prisoners from the dungeon, is taken up on the lips of Jesus in Luke 4:18–19. Both Isa. 42:1–7 and the Gospels show how God’s chosen Agent acts and ministers through the anointing of the Spirit. It embraces both Jesus Christ and corporate Israel, from a canonical perspective.

The reference to the Spirit is not in conflict with other Servant Songs (Isa. 49:1–6, 50:4–9, and 52:13–53:12), although these contain an abundance of Messianic language, and the ability of the Servant is regularly ascribed to God himself (Isa. 50:4–5, 7–9; 53:10, 12). Yet Isa. 61:1–3 is startling: The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me; he has sent me to bring the good news to the oppressed, to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the LORD’S favor …; to give them [those who mourn] a garland instead of ashes.… In Luke 4:17–19 Jesus explicitly quotes from Isaiah. It is a composite quotation from Isa. 40:3–5 and Isa. 61:1–2. L. T. Johnson claims, Luke offers here a mixed citation from the LXX of Isa. 61:1, 58:6, and 61:2.³¹ I. H. Marshall comments, The functions of the Old Testament figure are now fulfilled in Jesus, who has been anointed by the Spirit for this purpose.³²

Isaiah 63:10–14 also associates the Spirit of God with God’s past deeds for the people of Israel. 63:10 explains that Israel’s rebellion grieved his Holy Spirit. This is of the utmost importance. In using the word grieved (the Holy Spirit; Hebrew weʿiṣebhû ʾeth-rûach qādeshô; Greek LXX, parōxynan to pneuma to hagion autou), this implies a personal or suprapersonal Agent since a force or sheer power cannot be grieved. Second, this is one of only three references in the Old Testament with the explicit double term Holy Spirit. The Hebrew, rûach qōdhshekā, your Holy Spirit, also occurs in Ps. 51:13 (11), this time referring to the community of Israel, while Isa. 63:10–11 refers to the Holy Spirit within the individual. Usually, however, Spirit of the LORD occurs without further qualification, although in Dan. 4:8 he is the Spirit of the holy God. Isa. 63:14, again, refers to the Spirit of the LORD providing security for Israel in the wilderness. Isa. 59:21 speaks of my Spirit in a speech from God, who will not depart and is therefore no temporary endorsement, but who acts as the Spirit to sustain the covenant, or God’s terms concerning his relationship with Israel.

One other important feature concerns prophetic promises about the eschatological or future New Age. This occurs especially in Jeremiah 31 and in Joel 2. Jer. 31:31 promises a new covenant whose law is written on their hearts (v. 33), but it does not explicitly appeal to the work of the Spirit. Joel 2:28 is explicitly quoted by the apostle Peter on the Day of Pentecost in his first sermon: I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men see visions (Acts 2:17). Joel declares, Even on the male and female slaves, in those days, I will pour out my Spirit (2:29). The term all flesh denotes everyone without distinction, even if Luke’s idiom, in which he follows the Septuagint, denotes all types of people. The allusion to dreams and visions, and to the darkening of the earth, sets these events in a cosmic and apocalyptic context. The event constitutes the beginning of the new creation, which is an earth-shaking event. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood (v. 31) is standard apocalyptic imagery for the dawning of the last days, or of the new creation. The hearers or readers would understand the imagery to mean that it was a major event in the world’s history, of genuinely cosmic proportions. Hence the apostle Peter may repeat the imagery (Acts 2:20) without suggesting an event that concerns astronomy. Such events also indicate that this was in no sense the work of men: it is solely the work of God.³³ The gift of the Spirit of God comes as both judgment and grace, for everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved (Joel 2:32).

To conclude this chapter: we may acknowledge that many uses of rûach are anthropological, denoting the human spirit, especially in the Wisdom literature (Prov. 11:13; 15:13; 16:18; 18:14; 29:23; Eccl. 1:14, 17; 2:11, 17; 3:21; 4:4, 6; 10:4; Job 7:11; 10:12). But the very different uses of rûach should not be confused. Although the Spirit functions as an intermediary with God, like Wisdom and the Word, for the most part the Spirit of God is a transcendent influence on humans from without. The least that we can say is that even in the Old Testament the Spirit is the Beyond who is within. This radically affects our notions of spiritual and spirituality, as the New Testament material will confirm. Second, even where specific gifts are given to individuals, this is for the benefit of the whole community. This, too, will be confirmed by the New Testament. Third, to seek the Spirit, or to hear the Spirit, is to seek and hear God. This will be confirmed by later Trinitarian doctrine. Other features include holiness, revelation, creativity, and life. But the feature most akin to the New Testament is the principle of a derived or shared gift. In the New Testament, all Christians possess the Spirit of God because they are in Christ and share his Messianic anointing. The center of the stage in the New Testament is the Christ to whom the Spirit witnesses (John 16:13). At the very least, in time this focus will embrace the whole Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Many late-twentieth- and early-twenty-first-century writers have amplified some of these points. But we have postponed referring to them in this chapter for two reasons. First, we wanted to avoid the use of too many footnotes at this early stage; second, we want to consider their comments in the context of their own writings. Hence we will consider particular issues further in Part III.

1. Francis Brown, with S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs (eds.), The New Hebrew and English Lexicon (Lafayette, IN.: Associated Publishers, 1980), pp. 924–26; G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (TDOT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), vol. 2, p. 836; W. Van Gemeren (ed.), New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE), 5 vols. (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), vol. 3, p. 1073.

2. Cyril H. Powell, The Biblical Concept of Power (London: Epworth, 1963), p. 26.

3. Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (London: SCM, 1964), vol. 2, p. 47, n. 4.

4. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, p. 47, n. 3.

5. Bruce Vawter, On Genesis: A New Reading (New York: Doubleday, 1977), p. 40; cf. E. A. Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1964), pp. 10–13; and Gordon Wenham, Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1987), pp. 15–17.

6. C. K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK, 1958), pp. 18–24.

7. Friedrich Baumgärtel, "Pneuma," in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76), vol. 5 (1968), p. 365.

8. Norman Snaith and Vincent Taylor (eds.), The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Headingly Lectures (London: Epworth, 1937), p. 11.

9. Powell, The Biblical Concept of Power, p. 20. See Anthony C. Thiselton, The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings, JTS 25 (1974): 282–99; repeated in Thiselton on Hermeneutics: Collected Works with New Essays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), pp. 53–68.

10. Powell, The Biblical Concept of Power, p. 22.

11. Floyd V. Filson, The New Testament against Its Environment (London: SCM, 1950), p. 78.

12. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, pp. 35–39; cf. Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), pp. 6–9.

13. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, p. 38.

14. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, p. 79.

15. T. C. Vriezen, An Outline of Old Testament Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), p. 249.

16. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, p. 58.

17. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2, p. 59.

18. James Orr, Revelation and Inspiration (London: Duckworth, 1909), esp. pp. 155–74.

19. Orr, Revelation and Inspiration, p. 156.

20. George T. Montague, The Holy Spirit: The Growth of a Biblical Tradition (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1976), p. 45.

21. R. W. L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 109–29.

22. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, pp. 125 and 128.

23. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, pp. 8 and 9.

24. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment, p. 17.

25. Montague, The Holy Spirit, p. 33.

26. J. E. Fison, The Blessing of the Holy Spirit (London and New York: Longmans, Green, 1950), p. 67.

27. Montague, The Holy Spirit, p. 43.

28. Vriezen, Old Testament Theology, p. 250.

29. Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation (London: SCM, 1992).

30. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), p. 54.

31. Luke T. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: Glazier, 1991), p. 79; cf. Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 209–13.

32. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 183.

33. Johannes Weiss, Jesus’ Preaching of the Kingdom of God.

2

The Spirit in Judaism

2.1. Introduction: Practical Themes

Because the situation and themes of Judaism between the Testaments are, like those of the Old Testament, varied and complex, we shall begin again with a general summary, but especially with Christian readers in mind, who may be looking for the practical thrust of this section. Otherwise we shall endeavor to keep this chapter as short as we can, without undue oversimplification.

First, it is often mistakenly argued that Judaism expected the Spirit to be silent during the period. Many, however, argue the contrary, that this is almost entirely based on a misunderstanding of a single text, namely Tosefta Soṭah 13:2–4. This passage apparently states: "When Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the last of the prophets, died, the Holy Spirit ceased [from] Israel. Nevertheless, a bath-qôl [literally, ‘daughter of the voice’] was heard by them.… they heard a bath-qôl saying, ‘There is a man here who is worthy of the Holy Spirit.’" This man, it is suggested, was Hillel, and he enables the Spirit to be present again. At best, we may conclude that a single text of perhaps the third or fourth century A.D., whose significance is disputed, can hardly be decisive, and indeed many other texts in Judaism suggest a different conclusion.

In general, three themes seem to emerge from the Old Testament, which are also taken up in the New Testament. (1) First, in the Dead Sea Scrolls (see below) 1QS 8:15–16 takes up Neh. 9:30 and Zech. 7:12 to suggest that the Spirit was active in inspiring the prophets of the Old Testament and the study of the Law. Jubilees 31:12 conveys a similar perspective. (2) Second, the Holy Spirit begins to be associated more distinctly with holiness or purification. Some debate whether the Spirit is seen as the cause or the effect of purification. (3) Third, the community becomes a clearer focus of the Spirit’s activity, especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS 3:7–8), though it is not always clear that this denotes the Spirit of God.

On the other hand, in Greek-speaking Judaism (discussed below) the Spirit of God becomes much more immanent, or overlaps with the rational spirit in human beings. This characterizes much Greek philosophy, rather than Paul or the rest of the New Testament. Considerable contrasts emerge between Philo and Paul, and many popular assumptions today perhaps owe more to this Hellenistic thought