HOLY SPIRIT. The OT word principally used to designate the Spirit of God is ruach (רוּחַ, H8120). The NT word is pneuma (πνεῦμα, G4460). Ruach refers to the atmosphere, esp. the wind, which is an invisible, irresistible power, sometimes benign and beneficial, sometimes raging and destructive (Gen 8:1; Exod 10:13, 19; 14:21; Num 11:31; etc.). By analogy, the word was applied to the breath of man, and since human breath is at once the evidence of animal vitality and the vehicle of thought and passion, the word means both the principle of animation and the distinctive spirtual principle in man (Gen 6:17; Job 17:1; Ezek 37:6). The OT writers also believed that man was made in the divine image, that he had received his vital breath from God, and at death, when he breathed his last, gave his spirit back to God. Thus God is described as being or having a ruach; as essentially Spirit, the source of that breath of life by which all living creatures are animated, and the Giver of those unique qualities that makes man like Himself.

Outline

I. The Spirit of God in the OT

A. His work in general. The Spirit of God, or the Spirit of the Lord, is repeatedly mentioned in all parts of the OT. The term was never used to clearly imply that the Spirit is a Person distinct from the Father and the Son. This Trinitarian meaning, which Christians commonly assume in using the term Spirit or Holy Spirit, presupposes and rests upon the events of the Incarnation and Pentecost. In the OT, the Spirit is holy (cf. Ps 51:11), not because He is “the Holy Spirit” in distinction to the Father and the Son, but because the Spirit pertains to God and comes from God who is holy. The Spirit of God is the divine nature viewed as vital energy. This vital energy that comes from God is related both to the world, which is His creation, and esp. to man, the crown of creation.

As for the world of nature, in the beginning (Gen 1) the Spirit of God brooded like a bird on the nest over the formless primeval chaos. As a result, from chaos there emerged the cosmos. The Spirit, as the source of all energy and life, impregnated, as it were, the deep nothingness or formless void, and out of it came forth at the divine behest the vast realm of the created order. Once the creation had been achieved, the same Spirit conserves, renews, and withdraws life by a continuous process in the realm of nature (Job 33:4; Ps. 33:6; 104:30). Thus the OT justifies the epithet, “the One who makes alive,” used to describe the Spirit in the Nicene Creed.

As for man, his very life depends on a special impartation of the “breath (neshamah) of life” (Gen 2:7) and the divine Spirit is behind all the unique powers that he possesses, in distinction to the animals. The Spirit, or Breath, of God is the source of man’s reason (Job 32:8); of his endowments and gifts (Gen 41:38; Exod 28:3); of his artistic skills as in the case of Bezalel (Exod 36); of his cunning in war as exemplified in Joshua (Deut 34:9); of his heroism as displayed in the Judges (Judg 13:25); of his wisdom, as celebrated in Solomon (1 Kings 3:28); of his religious and ethical insights as seen in the inspiration of the poets and prophets (Num 11:17, 25f., 29; 2 Sam 23:2; 1 Kings 22:24; Ezek 11:5; Dan 4:8, 9), and of his purity as seen in the strength and penitence of the righteous (Neh 9:20; Ps 51:11; Isa 63:10; Ezek 36:26; Zech 12:10).

In view of these passages, it is hardly possible to suppose that the “evil spirit” sent by the Lord as a judgment upon certain wicked men (Judg 9:23; 1 Sam 16:14; 18:10) is the Holy Spirit performing a mission of penal judgment. More likely, the thought is that even an evil spirit, who inspires lying or jealousy, is under God’s control as His creature, and accomplishes His purposes. One is reminded of the saying of Luther, “The devil is God’s devil.”

B. His saving work. The strand of OT revelation that most directly anticipated the NT doctrine of the Holy Spirit tells of the Spirit’s saving work. As early as the era of the judges, it is clear that salvation was wrought in Israel by the Spirit of the Lord. Without previous preparation or the possibility of resistance, unknown sons of peasants were stirred up and enabled to perform mighty acts of valor by the Spirit of God. Thus Israel was delivered from her enemies (Judg 3:10; 11:29; 14:6; 1 Sam 11:6). Chosen for a more lasting function, kings were anointed (1 Sam 16:13), a rite signifying a permanent endowment of the Spirit, investing them with a sacred character (1 Sam 26:11).

The salvation of Israel did not depend solely upon judges and kings empowered to deliver God’s people from their enemies. There were also seers and prophets, who by an equal charismatic endowment and sovereign constraint were lifted into communion with God and made interpreters of the divine will to their fellowmen. Primarily as a result of their teaching, Israel had a unique lit. containing a message of judgment and salvation (2 Sam 23:2; Ezek 2:2; 3:12, 14; Micah 3:8. Note the frequent use of the formula, “thus says the Lord,” in Isaiah and Jeremiah).

Earthly kings, though anointed of God, were not always faithful or able to establish peace and justice in Israel. The greatest of the prophets found the people stiffnecked and unwilling to hear (Jer 17:19-23) and complained that none believed his message (Isa 53:1). Therefore, to accomplish God’s purpose of salvation, ultimately there must be one who would uniquely combine the roles of prophet, priest, and king, and who would be uniquely endowed with the Spirit of God, that is the Messiah, the Anointed One par excellence. This shoot out of Jesse’s stock, this branch out of his roots (Isa 11:1) would receive the gifts of the Spirit in their fullness (Isa 11:2; 42:1; 61:1). Thus Jesus became the ideal Prophet and King, because He was anointed with the Spirit of God above measure; this is what makes Him the Christ.

The OT anticipated that when the Messiah came, the Spirit would be poured out on all flesh like the rain that gives life to the earth (Isa 32:15), as the breath of life animated dry bones (Ezek 37). This effusion of the Spirit would transform the hearts of men, making them receptive to the voice of God and spontaneously obedient to His word (Isa 59:21; Ps 143:11). This vision of the age of the Spirit remained principally a hope, not a reality, in the history of Israel. The people rebelled and grieved God’s Holy Spirit so that He was turned into their enemy (Isa 63:10). That this hope be realized, it was necessary that God should do the impossible; that He should come Himself in person. “O, that thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains might quake at thy presence” (Isa 64:1).

The Apocrypha and other Jewish lit. between the Testaments add nothing significant. In the Palestinian lit., references to the Spirit are uncommon. In the Alexandrian lit., the activity of the divine Spirit is underscored particularly by associating the Spirit with wisdom, an association that culminated in the writings of Philo. The Spirit promoted clearness of vision and a capacity for an intellectual knowledge of God.

III. The Spirit in the NT

A. Introduction. The word for “spirit” in Gr. is pneuma, from the Gr. verb pneo, “to breathe” or “to blow,” after the analogy of the Heb. ruach. In the NT are references to the Spirit “of God,” or “of the Lord,” or “of the Father,” or “of Jesus,” or “of the Christ,” as well as the familiar “Holy Spirit,” or simply “the Spirit.” Some of these terms also occur in the OT, but there is a significant difference of proportion. Whereas the phrase “Holy Spirit” occurs in the Gr. OT only in Psalm 51 and Isaiah 63, in the NT it is found between eighty and ninety times. Other terms in the NT are altogether new, such as “Spirit of your Father” (Matt 10:20); “Spirit of his Son” (Gal 4:6); “the Spirit of Jesus” or “of Christ” (Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19; 1 Pet 1:11). Above all, it is significant that the Spirit now receives a personal name, in anticipation of His unique historical manifestation; He is the other “Comforter” or “Paraclete” (John 14:16-26, KJV, ASV).

B. Jesus and the Spirit. The Gospel age opened with a special moving of the Spirit. John the Baptist, the forerunner of the Messiah, is described as one who was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (Luke 1:15, 80). By the inspiration of the Spirit, Simeon divined the presence of the Messiah in the person of the infant Jesus (Luke 2:25). As for the Messiah Himself, His mother was informed by an angel that her son would be conceived “of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 1:20) and thus the prior statement is explained that she was found of child by “the Holy Spirit” (Matt 1:18). The Spirit was active in the creation of a new humanity, free from the taint of human corruption. (That which was begotten of the virgin is “holy” Luke 1:35.) The true immaculate conception is not that of the virgin, but of her Son.

When Jesus was about thirty years of age, He was baptized. As He had been sanctified in His humanity at birth by the Spirit, so at His baptism He was consecrated to the office of Messiah by the same Spirit, who descended upon Him in the form of a dove (Matt 3:16; Luke 3:22), an appropriate symbol for One who came as the “Prince of Peace.” Peter is prob. referring to this event when he spoke of Jesus in his first sermon to the Gentiles as the One whom God had anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power (Acts 10:38). John 3:34 emphasizes the plenitude of this endowment with the Spirit: “For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for it is not by measure that he gives the Spirit.”

From the time of His baptism, the life of Jesus was filled with manifestations of the Spirit’s power. Immediately after coming up out of the waters of Jordan, Jesus was driven by the Spirit into the wilderness where He encountered the tempter (Mark 1:12f. and parallels). In His victory as the second Adam, the true man, He overcame the power of the Evil One by the Spirit of God. The Lord later attributed His power to exorcise unclean spirits to the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:28). The same is true of His teaching; the Spirit had anointed Him to preach good tidings to the poor and to proclaim release to the captives (Luke 4:18).

Running through the Gospel account of Jesus’ public ministry are allusions to a strange power working within Him. He was seized by such a sense of urgency that men thought He was beside Himself (Mark 3:21); they were impressed with the authority of His teachings (1:22); He was sometimes seemingly forgetful of bodily needs (John 4:31); and some even supposed Him to be demon-possessed (8:48). When the seventy returned from a successful evangelistic tour, Luke relates how Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit (Luke 10:21).

The question might well be asked, Why, if Jesus is Himself God the Son, was the power of the Spirit so necessary to carry out His mission? A part of the answer must lie in the real humanity that Jesus assumed when He became incarnate. Jesus was no less a man because He was divine, as though He were divine omnipotence masquerading as human frailty. Since God had made man by His Spirit, and since man always lived in dependence upon God’s Spirit, therefore Jesus, if He was one with mankind, must also have depended upon the indwelling Spirit of God. That is why, in the economy of salvation, He assumed the role of the Messiah, the One who was anointed by the Spirit of God. Yet He was also conscious of His own divine, absolute authority. Unlike the prophets in their dependence upon the Spirit, He did not say, “Thus says the Lord,” but “truly, I say unto you.”

C. The coming of the Spirit upon the disciples

1. Introduction. John the Baptist associated Jesus’ receiving the Spirit in His fullness and His baptizing others with the same Spirit. “I myself did not know him: but he who sent me to baptize with water, said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’” (John 1:33). Two events following the Resurrection mark this extension of the Messianic unction to the whole body of the disciples. The first occurred shortly after the Resurrection when Jesus breathed on the disciples, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22). The other is the well-known descent of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). In an effort to harmonize these two, it has been suggested that the former event refers to the latter, as if the Lord had breathed on them saying, “You shall receive the Holy Spirit in the near future.” It seems preferable, however, to suppose the real communication of the Spirit when Jesus breathed on His disciples, which anticipated the larger effusion of the Spirit upon the whole body of believers gathered in the upper room with the apostles fifty days later. Perhaps the “breathing on them” looked back to the original divine inbreathing of the Creator (Gen 2:7) and symbolized the infusion of a new principle of life by the risen Lord into the redeemed race, present in embryonic form in the little band of disciples.

2. Pentecost. Pentecost is an event that can hardly be overemphasized; an event of the order of importance in redemptive history as the Incarnation. The symbolism of a rushing mighty wind is clear enough in the light of the basic meaning of the word Spirit (ruach, breath) not to mention Jesus’ word to Nicodemus in John 3:8, which likened the Spirit to the wind that blows where it will. At the same time, there appeared also tongues as of fire, resting upon the heads of all, in fulfillment of the prediction of John the Baptist that Jesus should baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Matt 3:11). The tongues as of fire were distributed to indicate that none should be without His portion in this new age of the Spirit, for the same Spirit divides “to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor 12:11). The gift of the Spirit, then, is both collective and individual, for the whole body of the Church and for each individual member.

Empowered by the Spirit, the apostles began to proclaim the mighty works of God. Devout Jews from Parthia on the one hand, from Rome on the other, were amazed to hear these men speaking the mighty works of God in their own languages (Acts 2:7-12). In response to Peter’s Spirit-inspired sermon, many were baptized, confessing Christ; thus the Christian Church was born. With this Pentecostal outpouring, what may be called the “dispensation of the Spirit” began. The promise of the prophet Joel that God would pour out His Spirit upon all flesh was fulfilled (Joel 2:28f.), and the saying of our Lord Jesus Christ that the Holy Spirit would come to teach the disciples how they ought to speak (Mark 13:11; Luke 12:12). The most elaborate account of the Lord’s teaching regarding the coming of the Spirit is in John 14 to 17, where it is made plain that the primary work of the Spirit was to illumine the minds of the disciples in their teaching in order that Christ may be glorified. This is exactly what happened at Pentecost and throughout the Book of Acts. By the preaching of the apostles through the power of the Spirit, men were everywhere convicted in respect of sin and of righteousness and of judgment (John 16:8; Acts 2:37).

According to Acts, the entire historical movement, beginning at Pentecost and resulting in the founding of the Church universal, took its rise from the baptism of the Spirit (Acts 1:5, 8) and was under His direction and control. The presence of the Spirit became the distinctive mark of the Christian society. The Spirit directed Philip to the Ethiopian eunuch and then “caught up Philip” (8:29, 39). At Joppa, the Spirit spoke to Peter and led him to Cornelius in Caesarea (10:19; 11:12). The Spirit enjoined the church at Antioch to set apart Paul and Barnabas for the missionary task (13:2) and guided the church in its deliberations over the most crucial question arising out of that mission (15:29). The Spirit would not allow Paul to enter Asia (16:6) and warned him esp. through the prophecy of Agabus about the evil intent of the Jews in Jerusalem (20:23; 21:11). Paul told the Ephesian elders that the Holy Spirit had made them bishops to feed the church (20:28), and presumably he would have said this of all churches. Therefore, the church age may be called the age of the Spirit, and the time that preceded it may be cited as a time when the Spirit was “not yet given” (John 7:39). The difference between the Spirit’s manifestation before and after Pentecost was so great that it may be stated in absolutes, though such absolutes should not be pressed literally.

D. The Holy Spirit in the epistles of Paul. The epistles of Paul contain the fullest treatment of the doctrine of the Spirit in the NT. In harmony with the teaching of the Book of Acts, which gives great prominence to the place of the Spirit, Paul associated the gift of the Spirit with spiritual power (1 Thess 1:5), with inward joy (1 Thess 1:6), with moral purity (1 Thess 4:4-8), and with religious consecration (2 Thess 2:13). As for the gift of prophecy, Christians were admonished neither to despise this gift, which would be to quench the Spirit (1 Thess 5:19), nor to accept gullibly every teaching that purports to be inspired of the Spirit, when such was not the case (2 Thess 2:1, 2). Over and beyond these considerations, Paul wrote certain things about the Spirit that are not clearly expressed elsewhere and may be looked upon as new revelation. It is the Holy Spirit who bears witness to human spirits that they are God’s children (Rom 8:16), and enables them to call God their Father (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). He likewise assists them in prayer with sighs too deep for words (Rom 8:26).

One of the more difficult aspects of Paul’s teaching about the Spirit concerns his concept of the relation of the Spirit to Christ. As will be seen later, the universal teaching of the Church has always been that the Spirit is a distinct Person of the Godhead, as the third member of the Holy Trinity. However, upon examination of what Paul wrote about the Spirit, it is obvious that the “metaphysical” question of how God, Christ, and the Spirit are related is not a primary concern. In Romans 8:9, 10 Paul uses the expressions “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ” and “Christ” as interchangeable. To “walk in the Spirit” is the same as “minding the things of the Spirit,” which is the same as “being in the Spirit.” All of these expressions are broadly synonymous with being “in Christ.” That is to say, the Spirit is the sphere in which the believer lives, a sphere of power and newness of life where “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:2). Is the Spirit simply the power of the risen Lord as it is manifest in the life of the Christian and in the Church? One recalls Paul’s words, “Now the Lord is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:17). Some have suggested that this sentence be reversed to read, “Now the Spirit is the Lord,” and see in it an affirmation of the sovereignty and divinity of the Holy Spirit. The context, however, shows plainly that the word “Lord” refers to Christ. He who is Lord is Himself the Spirit (see the close of v. 18). Hence it would be difficult to establish any great difference in Paul’s thought between the formula “in Christ” and “in the Spirit.” The Spirit is the glorified Lord, the Christ, as He is present and active in His Church.

If this is the case, why did Paul invoke upon his converts “the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit” (2 Cor 13:14)? Using a Trinitarian benediction, he implied there is as much of a distinction between Christ and the Spirit as there is between Christ and God His Father. The best resolution of this difficulty is to remember that in Paul’s writings the Spirit is also called the Spirit of God. “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” (1 Cor 3:16). Or, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God?” (1 Cor 6:19). Paul conceived of the Spirit as the essential being of God. Where the Spirit dwells and works, God is at work, for as the spirit of man knows the things of a man, so the Spirit of God knows the things of God (1 Cor 2:11). This does not mean that there is no distinction in His mind between God, as He has revealed Himself to be the Father, and God who, as the Spirit, enables believers to cry from the depth of their hearts, “Abba, Father.” No one need suppose that Paul so identified Christ and the Spirit as to make no distinction between the Lord and the One who enables men to call Jesus Lord, that is, the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). It is because of the oneness of the work of Christ and the Spirit that his langguage reflects an identity between them. It is a dynamic identity; it is through His Spirit that the risen Lord dwells in His Church and works in the lives of men. Christ may do everything that the Spirit does; and the formula “in the Spirit” can mean the same as “in Christ.”

The majority of references to the Spirit in Paul’s epistles are concerned with His work in the spirit of men. When the Spirit “indwells” a man, there is manifest in his life the fruits of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal 5:22, 23). With these virtues and graces, which adorn the Christian life and make a man the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 3:16), there is the firm hope of the resurrection: “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you.”

Where Paul was concerned with the work of the Spirit in man’s spirit, it is not easy to determine when he was speaking of the Spirit of God or when he had in mind the human spirit under the influence of the divine Spirit. This is esp. true in passages contrasting the flesh and the Spirit. The flesh lusts against the Spirit (spirit) and the Spirit (spirit) against the flesh (Gal 5:17). Flesh may be understood as the weak and sinful aspect of human nature, whereas spirit may be interpreted as the human spirit, empowered by the divine Spirit in its struggle against the flesh. In other words, those whose spirit struggles against the flesh are those who live “according to the [Holy] Spirit, [and] set their minds on the things of the [Holy] Spirit” (Rom 8:5). A similar antithesis is found in 1 Corinthians 3:1f., where Paul distinguished between “spiritual men” and “men of the flesh.” A man “of the flesh” is one who is dominated by his lower nature. The spiritual man, by contrast, is one who lives by the higher nature, the spirit, as guided and dominated by the Holy Spirit. The human spirit and the divine Spirit are one in their operation (not in their essence, for Paul is not a mystic). The “Spirit-filled” man is one in whom the Holy Spirit so assumes the ascendancy that at every point his life is guided and sustained by the Holy Spirit. He is a citizen of that kingdom that is “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17); he is a man who abounds in hope through the Holy Spirit (Rom 15:13).

The doctrine of Christian perfection, which is commonly regarded as the hallmark of the Wesleyan tradition, is so basic to the NT concept of the Christian life that it can be suppressed only by doing violence to the Christian message. Those who feel an antipathy for all forms of “perfectionism” may indeed quote the verse, “You have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col 3:3). Though the root of the tree be hid from view, the fruit is there for all to see. The same apostle admonished his readers, “Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph 5:18). If anyone is drunk, people will know it. Should they not also be able to see the difference that the Spirit makes in the life of one who is controlled, not by the destructive power of inebriation, but by the greater redemptive power of the Spirit? The note of caution that needs to be sounded is that there is no easy formula for achieving this perfection, as some who have talked about the “higher” or “victorious” Christian life have implied. Although in this life, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made men free from the law of sin and death (Rom 8:2); there yet remains another law (7:21f.). Delivery from the strength of this subtle and sinister “law of sin” is not so instantaneous and dramatic as some teachers of perfection maintain.

Another contrast beside that of “flesh” and “Spirit,” is that which Paul drew between the Spirit and the letter (gramma). Having died to the law (the written code), “we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” (7:6). He styled himself a minister “of a new covenant, not in a written code, but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6). Not that the law is without spiritual worth (“the law is spiritual,” Rom 7:14), but viewed as an external code of conduct by which a man can be justified before God, it can only minister death; for man, being a sinner, the law can bring only the knowledge of sin, never deliverance from sin (Rom 3:20). Viewed as the Judaizers understood it, the law is in opposition to the Spirit and the Spirit to the law. He who is renewed by the Spirit and so united to Christ by faith, has died to the law as a way of salvation. Paul reminded the Galatians: “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Gal 5:18).

Before leaving the teaching of Paul on the Holy Spirit, a word must be said about the Spirit and the Church. The Spirit is the bond of catholic unity which has been regarded as one of the marks of the true Church (Eph 4:3). It is helpful to associate Paul’s thought here with his figure of the Church as a body (1 Cor 12:12-27). The Holy Spirit is the One who animates the body. By one Spirit “all were baptized into one body and made to drink of one Spirit” (12:13). The gifts of the Spirit are for the edification of the Church (14:12). Christians love one another in the Spirit (Col 1:8); they have fellowship in the Spirit (Phil 2:1); they worship God in the Spirit (Phil 3:3); the Church is comprised of Christians who are built up together as a habitation of God in the Spirit (Eph 2:22); thus the Church becomes an epistle of Christ, written not with ink, but by the Spirit of the living God (2 Cor 3:3).

E. The doctrine of the Spirit in the non-Pauline documents of the NT. Although the other writings in the NT speak freely of the Spirit, they add little to Paul’s teaching. The author of Hebrews stressed the role of the Spirit in the inspiration of Scripture. When he quoted Scripture, he often did so as though it were the direct Word of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the One who says what the Scripture says, and the Scripture says what the Holy Spirit says (Heb 3:7; 9:8; 10:15). In this light one should understand the familiar verse where the “word of God” is described in personal categories, having the power to penetrate man’s inmost being and to discern the thoughts and intents of his heart (Heb 4:12). This power is not in the Word as such, but only as it is the Word inspired by the Spirit, and the Spirit, who inspired it, uses it as a means to convict and convert those who hear. (Note Paul’s reference to the Word of God as the sword of the Spirit, Eph 6:17.) Peter reflected the same view of the Spirit’s relation to Scripture as did the author of Hebrews, when he stated that the Spirit of Christ was in the OT prophets, bearing witness both to the sufferings and coming glories of the Christ (1 Pet 1:11). Like the author of Hebrews, Peter gave the priority, not to the human author, but to the Holy Spirit in the writing of Scripture. No prophecy ever came by the will of man, but men spoke from God being moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21).

In the Epistle to the Hebrews it is said of the Lord’s atoning death that He offered Himself through the eternal Spirit without blemish to God (Heb 9:14), a phrase difficult to interpret. It is prob. best understood of His own Spirit as the eternal, preexistent Son of God. Unlike the animals of ritual sacrifices, He voluntarily offered up Himself, thus acquiescing in the redemptive purpose of the Father (note Paul’s reference to Christ as a “life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15:45).

The last book of the Bible, the Apocalypse, speaks of the Spirit from the perspective of His role in OT prophecy. The author, like the prophets of old, was “in the Spirit” on the Lord’s Day (Rev 1:10), and he wrote a message in which the Spirit spoke to the churches (2:7). “The testimony of Jesus,” said the angel, “is the spirit of prophecy” (19:10); i.e., it was the same Spirit who inspired the prophets that enabled the angel to show John these things, and who enabled John to receive and write them; hence, the angel was John’s fellow servant. The Apocalypse refers repeatedly to the “seven spirits” of God (1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6). The number seven is generally understood as a symbol of the perfection of the Spirit in the plenitude and perfection of His universal efficacy in the Church. This interpretation is the basis of the well-known lines of the Latin hymn Veni, Creator Spiritus

Come, Holy Ghost, our souls inspire,
And lighten with celestial fire.
Thou the anointing Spirit art,
Who doest thy seven-fold gifts impart.

The Holy Spirit not only speaks to the Church, but joins His voice with the Church in calling for Christ’s return (Rev 22:17).

F. Conclusion. Scripture reveals that the Holy Spirit is divine (not a created intelligence superior to the angels but inferior to the Son, as Arius maintained); in some sense one with the Father and the Son, in another differing from them. In His work, the Holy Spirit is intimately involved in the creation of all things, and sustaining all things, esp. those creatures in which is found the breath of life. He is also intimately involved in the redemption of man, being not only the author of moral purity, but the Spirit who inspired the prophets to tell of the coming Savior. It is He who in due time anointed the Savior, resting all His fullness upon Him. In the last days He extended His gifts to the whole world that He might raise up a new Israel, an elect nation, the Church catholic, which He empowered to bear witness to Christ, and which He leads into all truth. This is accomplished by the renewal of the hearts of individual men, whom He indwells, making them His temple, purifying them inwardly, and identifying with them in their struggle against the world, the flesh, and the devil, and in their aspiration for God. By His mighty power, with which He raised up Jesus from the dead, He will raise up the saints in the last day, a glorious company resting from their labors, whose works shall follow after them (Rev 14:13).

III. The Holy Spirit in the theology and life of the Church

Certain questions concerning the teaching of Scripture about the Holy Spirit have been omitted or only briefly touched upon in the above survey—matters for which more especial treatment has been reserved because of their importance or difficulty, or because they are matters on which the Christian Church has been divided, or concerning which it has an uncommon interest.

A. The Holy Spirit and the Trinity. The Spirit of God is holy in the OT, but there is no doctrine of the Holy Spirit as the “third person of the Trinity.” This mode of expression, however, has had a large and varied history in Christian theology, and it is necessary to review briefly the meaning of the phrase and seek to outline the Biblical basis for a Trinitarian understanding of God.

To say that the OT contains no doctrine of the Spirit as a distinct person, does not imply that the Spirit in the OT is a vague, impersonal force. The Spirit is God’s Spirit, and because the God of Israel is a personal God, His Spiriit is invested with personal qualities and involved in personal acts. As the living energy of a personal God, the Spirit broods, rules, guides, quickens, and moves. “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” asked the psalmist (Ps 139:7), implying that where God’s Spirit is, there He is personally present. The Holy Spirit of God was grieved by the rebellion of Israel (Isa 63:10).

In view of this personalistic language, the promise of Jesus that when He departed from them (John 16:7), the Father would send another Comforter (Paraclete), even the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 28), is a promise in keeping with the OT teaching concerning the Spirit. Furthermore, since He had fellowship with His disciples as a person, the implication is that the Spirit, who shall take His place, must also be a person like Himself. Otherwise the promise of the Paraclete would offer little comfort to the disciples in the contemplation of their Master’s departure. Not that they would have had any clear understanding of these matters before Pentecost, but given that great revelational event, they were prepared by what they had learned from Jewish Scripture and the Lord Himself, to regard the Spirit, not simply as God’s presence, much less as some vague influence, but as a personal manifestation of God. Hence, Peter could accuse Ananias of lying to the Holy Spirit, who is God (Acts 5:3, 4). This side of the Incarnation and Pentecost, Peter could use the term Holy Spirit as distinct from both the risen Lord, who had been taken up from them into heaven (1:9), and the Father, to whose right hand Jesus had been exalted and from whom He had received the promise of the Spirit (2:33). This same hypostatic, or personal, distinction of the Spirit appears in Paul’s pronouncing of a threefold benediction upon the Corinthians: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor 13:14).

The clearest Trinitarian statement in the NT is the Lord’s commission to His disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19). One passage concerning the Spirit, which has figured largely in the debate of the Church, is John 15:26: “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me.” As far as the doctrine of the Trinity is concerned, this passage has classically been appealed to as establishing the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. As the Son is “begotten of” the Father, so the universal Church confesses that the Spirit “proceeds from” the Father. (Under the influence of Augustine, the Western church, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, confesses that He also proceeds from the Son, filioque, but this is not expressly stated in Scripture.)

In interpreting this text, note should be taken of the two clauses. It was the Paraclete whom the Son would send, and it is the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. The former clause seems definitely to refer to the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost in His role, or office, as Sanctifier. Since this sending of the Spirit as the Paraclete was yet future at the time Jesus spoke, He used the future tense, referring to the Spirit as the One whom “I will send.” In technical theological language, this is an “economical” clause, that is, it describes the role of the Spirit in the “economy” of redemption. The latter clause, “who proceeds from the Father,” describes, by contrast, the essential nature of the Spirit Himself, that is, it is an “ontological” clause. The Holy Spirit is the One who eternally proceeds from the Father. Not all scholars are agreed on this last point. Some would understand the proceeding from the Father and the future sending by the Son as both referring to the Spirit’s coming at Pentecost. In this case it may be maintained that from the plainly revealed fact that the Spirit was given by the Father and the Son to the Church at Pentecost, it is proper to describe His mysterious intertrinitarian relation to the Father and the Son in an analogical way. Hence, the Church speaks of His “eternal procession” from the Father and the Son after the analogy of His proceeding into the world at Pentecost from the Father and the Son.

B. The sin against the Holy Spirit. Although the NT is full of the message of mercy, pardon and reconciliation, which is the Gospel, there are some sobering statements about a “sin unto death” (1 John 5:16 KJV), to have “outraged the Spirit of grace” that invites the divine vengeance (Heb 10:29), about blaspheming the Holy Spirit, a sin that shall never be forgiven (Mark 3:28, 29, and parallels), neither in this world nor in the one to come. The particular offense, which is called blaspheming against the Spirit in the gospels, is attributing Jesus’ power of exorcism to Beelzebub, the prince of the demons, as though Jesus Himself were possessed of an unclean spirit. There are many nuances of interpretation of this passage, but it surely seems that the unpardonable nature of the sin must be related to the hopeless warping and perversion of the moral nature, which would make one capable of such blindness to the truth as to attribute works of mercy having their origin in the power of God’s Spirit to a diabolic source, a malignity so deep-seated as to make one insusceptible of redeeming grace. It is not clear that the Church has the insight infallibly to perceive such a sin, much less the power to invoke the anathema upon it; but the warning clearly implies that a person may be guilty of such a sin and that he will surely have to reckon with God.

This is essentially what the apostate does (Heb 6:4f. RSV, 10:29) when having been one of “those who have become partakers of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,” he falls away, having “spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified and outraged the Spirit of grace.” The man who does this is one who says that the witness that the Spirit bears in his own soul is a lie, and he will not live by his original confession, and by his life declares that he does not believe what the Spirit says. Such a person cannot be renewed to repentance. On such a background one can appreciate a little more the seriousness of the sin of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) and the swift judgment that befell them. As mentioned earlier, this contributes to the evidence that the Spirit is a person. One cannot sin against an influence; sin is meaningful only in the personal dimension, in the sphere of personal relationships.

Since the sin against the Holy Spirit is the most aggravated form of sin, the conclusion is obvious, that it is a sin against a most sacred, holy, and divine person.

C. The Holy Spirit and spiritual gifts. The word charisma is principally a Pauline term used technically for the gifts of the Spirit bestowed upon Christians for the edification of the Church. None of the various lists in Paul’s epistles is exhaustive, but by collating and combining the texts, it is possible to form an impressive list of spiritual gifts. Some of the gifts are connected with the proclamation of the Word and the preserving and inculcating of the truth (prophecy, Rom 12:6; 1 Cor 12:10; discerning of spirits, 1 Cor 12:10; 1 John 4:1; teaching, Rom 12:7; 1 Cor 12:28; tongues and their interpretation, 1 Cor 12:10, 28, 30; miracles, 12:10, 28, 29; the word of wisdom and the word of knowledge, 12:8); others have to do with rendering service, some of it quite mundane in character, to the Christian brotherhood (healings, 1 Cor 12:9, 28, 30; governments, 12:28; helps, 12:28). The scope of these gifts illustrates that according to the NT, the Spirit animates the whole Church as a body, so that nothing is done except by His enabling power. Evidently the apostles exercised all these gifts, but Paul wrote to the Corinthians (12:4f.) as if, for the most part, gifts were distributed among the individual members of the church according to the Spirit’s sovereign will (12:11), looking to the building up of the church. These gifts are to be received with thanksgiving and exercised with due consideration, but they are not abiding nor universal, as are faith, hope, and love (13:13). These normal fruits of the Spirit—“love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control,”—make up the fullness of the Christi an life (Gal 5:22, 23).

In keeping with the sovereignty of the Spirit, whom Jesus likened to the wind “that blows where it wills” (John 3:8), there seems to be no uniform modus operandi by which these gifts are given. In the initial outpouring of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, as the disciples were gathered in an attitude of expectation, suddenly the Spirit came with the sound as the rushing of a mighty wind and appeared in the form of tongues as of fire resting upon each one of them (Acts 2:1-4). At another time, while Peter was preaching the Word, the Spirit fell upon the house of Cornelius (10:44). At other times, the Spirit in His charismatic manifestations comes not by the hearing of the Word but by the laying on of hands. It is esp. interesting to note that in Samaria, Philip was endowed with certain charismata as he preached—demons were exorcised, the sick were healed (Acts 8:7, 8)—yet those who believed and were baptized did not have the Spirit fall upon them until Peter and John laid hands upon them (8:17). The Spirit was similarly mediated by Paul’s laying hands on twelve disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus (19:1-7).

The laying on of hands has become the received custom in the Christian Church for symbolically conveying the Spirit in confirmation and ordination, and in those communions where charismatic endowment is sought and manifested, this receiving of the gifts of the Spirit is generally accompanied by the laying on of hands. The hands have always been expressively used by man, and their imposition has been from ancient times a means of conveying a blessing or benediction (Gen 48:13-16; Mark 10:16). It is appropriate then that receiving this supreme blessing of the Spirit’s presence and power should be symbolized by the laying on of hands.

As for the range of spiritual gifts, they extend all the way from the most striking displays of power to humble and menial matters. Acts 19:12 reports healings by a touch of handkerchiefs and aprons used by the apostle Paul. Paul listed “helpers” and “administrators” among those gifted by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:28). It does not seem, however, that any overt, miraculous endowment is necessarily involved. Rather, those in the fellowship of believers who were endowed with wisdom in practical affairs and whose spiritual strength made them a worthy example to the weak, were regarded as having received such endowments from the Spirit as a gift, to be employed in the establishing of the Church.

As time passed on, the inspirational aspect of the ministry began to recede in favor of the institutional in the form of the offices of presbyter and deacon, and many of the supernatural manifestations of the Spirit disappeared altogether. There can be no doubt that this trend impoverished the Church, and the struggle to keep the Church from becoming a merely institutional structure within human society, with the loss of that vital inspiration that only the Spirit can give, remained a constant factor throughout the centuries of Christian history. The rise and rapid growth of Pentecostalism at the present time is a striking testimony to the need of the institutional church for spiritual renewal. Without the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, the Church is simply a sociological phenomenon.

D. The gift of tongues. In the discussions of the sovereignty of the Spirit in bestowing His gifts, of the renewal of the Church, and of the wide range of the charisma, no subject will more quickly reveal a difference of opinion on all these questions than that of the gift of tongues. Because of the present recrudescence of interest in this subject, a brief discussion is necessary from the point of view of the general treatment of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Some dismiss this question on the score that Paul evidently found the gift an embarrassment, placing it last in a list where apostleship was first (1 Cor 12:28), and exhorted his readers to covet the greater gifts (12:31), saying that he would rather speak five words in church with his understanding than a thousand in a strange tongue (14:19). On the other side, however, is the obvious fact that Paul, the chief of the apostles, recognized the gift as given by the Spirit (12:11), and thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than anyone else (14:18). The gift of tongues, furthermore, was central in the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit and the founding of the Christian Church.

Whether the initial gift of tongues at Pentecost was the same as that later manifested in Corinth is not altogether clear. The same word, glossa, is used in both instances, and the same inspiration of the Spirit is presupposed. Even the same reaction on the part of unbelievers is possible. Some mockingly accused the apostles of being inebriated (Acts 2:13), and Paul feared that unbelievers would consider the Christians as lunatics (1 Cor 14:23). There is, however, the plain testimony in Acts that the Jews of the Diaspora heard the apostles speaking in their native dialects (Acts 2:8). Whereas the sound was described as a “tongue” from the speaker’s standpoint, it was called a “language” from the hearer’s standpoint. Such, however, was not the case with the glossolalia of Corinth. There the phenomenon was described as an “unknown tongue” both from the speaker’s and the hearer’s point of view, for an interpreter was necessary for the edification of the hearers. That Paul spoke of the ecstatic experience of tongues as praying in the spirit while the mind was “unfruitful” (1 Cor 14:14) has led many to feel that the Corinthian gift is not “language” at all, but gibberish, though this is perhaps to use a word that is too pejorative. (Some have argued that glossalalia are unknown tongues in the sense of very obscure languages, but linguistic analysis does not support this thesis.)

Unbelief will, of course, dismiss all such manifestations as mere enthusiasm, there being no need to invoke the supernatural to explain them. It must indeed be granted that the emotions are radically involved in the use of tongues, just as the glands are radically involved in the exercise of love and anger. But even as the experience of love is more than glandular secretion (“a cold sweat in propinquity”), so speaking in tongues may be more than emotion. It may be emotion evoked by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.

The popularity of the gift both in the Ancient Church and in certain circles today is understandable. As a man is drawn up into an ecstasy, he feels his spirit suffused with the divine Spirit, hence he is intensely aware of being in favor with God and in closest fellowship with Him. Against such a spiritual experience there is surely no law, and it is a hollow prejudice that would deny the right of a Christian thus to “speak to himself and to God” (1 Cor 14:28). Nonetheless, the gift is obviously a showy one in public and gratifying to anyone who craves personal prominence. In his classical evaluation of the gift (chs. 12-14) Paul recognized tongues as a divine gift (12:10), and expressed gratitude for this gift in his own personal experience (14:18). Yet it is a gift by no means indispensable, and the more excellent way is the way of love (12:31). Speaking in tongues without love is like “sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal” (13:1). Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue renounce all self-glorification and seek the edification of the body (14:4). When such rules are observed, there is no reason to demean the use of tongues. It is not so much the presence or absence of a particular gift as much as the lack of spiritual power in the lives of individuals and the Church that is at issue. This is the summons which the Pentecostal movement addresses to the whole Church: Do not quench the Spirit, but earnestly desire His gifts. Where has it ever been shown that 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 are for the apostolic age alone? Only let those who claim to have discovered the neglected gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 not neglect the love of 1 Corinthians 13, which is the best and only commendation of the Spirit-filled life.

E. Baptism and the Holy Spirit. One reason that the Church in its more institutional form has shown little interest in the demonstrative evidence of the presence of the Spirit, is that the theology of the Spirit’s role in the Church and the Chrstian life has been intimately bound up with the theology of baptism. One receives the Spirit at the time of his baptism, it is taught, and needs, therefore, no other experience of the Spirit. On first consideration this might seem anomalous, since John the Baptist expressly contrasted his baptism in water with the baptism in the Holy Spirit and in fire that his successor (Christ) would perform (Matt 3:11, and parallels). How then can these two baptisms, which are so sharply contrasted by the Baptist, be associated in the teaching of the Church?

First, it must be recognized that the prophecy of baptism in the Spirit and in fire had its fulfillment at Pentecost, when the Spirit descended upon the disciples with the manifestation of tongues as of fire (Acts 1:5). There is no reason to associate this experience in