I will not be giving a full account of the presence of the Spirit of God throughout the Old Testament (or the New) – just enough to give a sense of how the Spirit seems to have been widely understood in a range of authors. The short story: biblical authors seemed to understand that one way God manifested himself and provided his power to specially chosen people was to send his Spirit upon them.
In this understanding, the spirit is simply the divine force that God sends. It is not seen as a separate “person” from God. In an undefined sense (that probably the authors didn’t think about much), the spirit is both part of God (as your breath is part of you) and yet is separate from God (remember: spirit and breath and wind are all the same word in Hebrew).
As an analogy: when you blow out a candle it is your breath doing it, and that act, the tool used to achieve it (the breath itself), and that which is actually achieved are all intimately connected with you; it involves something you do with an element of you (your breath) which then takes on its own power and has its own effect. So your breath is separate from you in a sense. But it also can’t exist apart from you, and it expresses your will doing what you direct it to do, and only what you direct it to do. But your breath is not the same as you. The “breath” or “spirit” of God is kind of like that for the biblical authors.
In some passages of the Old Testament,
To see the rest of this post, you will need to be a blog member. Joining is simple and cheap. And every nickel of your small membership fee goes to help those in need. So JOIN! Click here for membership options
If I had religious inclinations, I might say that the compulsion to KNOW, to EXPLAIN, to UNDERSTAND God was pure folly– just what you’d expect from creatures who’d fallen. In the beginning, we simply accepted, and lived simply in the presence of sublime mystery. After the fall that was never good enough. Hence the impossible and futile efforts to KNOW, and EXPLAIN, and UNDERSTAND, things that can’t be known, or explained, or understood. Behold the fallen man!
Richwen90,
I don’t know about the fall, but as a religious person, I agree with you. My spirit guide tells me “it’s on a need-to-know basis and you don’t need to know.” Which is fine with me. Spiritual things are of the soul, the ear of the heart, and not of the mind for many of us.
Many of the discussions around here are “ but that doesn’t make sense, is not consistent or whatever. But you can never use your brain instead of other sensors.. sight, smell, taste, why would it be necessary to use it instead of spiritual sensors?
Inconveniently, perhaps, for spiritual moderns the intellect (in ancient Hebrew) was not separate from the heart but seated in the heart. Jews tend to believe both are needed and that gaining the knowledge of good and evil was basically an enrichment of human life. One must still use one’s discrimination and realize that that does not mean we can know the answer to everything. As Bonhoeffer wrote in his Ethics, some questions were not meant to be answered, but transcended.
Interesting to say the least. I had a conversation with my mom the other week. She’s an evangelical, apologetic, Baptist, etc. She checks all the born again boxes. We were talking about the gospels, and I told her that they weren’t written by MMLJ, but by anonymous authors, in Greek. She said that they were written by men named MMLJ, and that she knows they are all true (even though I pointed out that there are discrepancies between them, many of which cannot be reconciled…but I digress) because the Holy Spirit came into these men, and inspired / told them what to write. I had to shake my head, and change the subject. How about that local sports team? Boy, they sure did sport bigly yesterday.
Very interesting read. Thoroughly enjoyed the last 2 pieces.
Off-topic question… Mark 2: 10 But so that YOU may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— 11 “I say to you, stand up, take your mat and go to your home.” … is the “YOU” in this verse referring to me the reader? I’m asking because it seems to go along with Jesus being a mystery as you show in your textbook?
It appears to be referring to the people around him who have been questioning his ability to forgive sins.
Is it possible in the Hebrew Bible to understand the spirit of God or a sent spirit by God as an angel? Would this have been the first step towards the concept of the spirit as an individual force/being sent by God for a mission?
The Hebrew Bible does not portray God’s spirit as sent from him as an angel, no.
Matthews version:
“Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.” 3 Then some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.” 4 But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Stand up and walk’? 6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”
Dr, When Matthew says “some of the scribes said to themselves” was this a CONVERSATION which could be heard? if yes, then matthews jesus hears a conversation and then says “these guys are thinking evil about me” not that jesus was doing mind reading?
1. is jesus mind reading in matthew or is the audible reaction by the scribe prompt jesus to say “why you thinking evil about me” ?
2. so we have a difference between matthew and mark on this ?
1. Yes, Jesus is said to “perceive their thoughts” 2. And yes, it’s a great exercise to compare Matthew and Mark on points like this, and then try to figure out why Matthew has changed it, if he has.
Dr. Ehrman:
You write: Through this servant, then, God will give his covenant to others and the servant will be “a light to the nations, to open the eyes of the blind.”
This reminds me of a point by Kevin Burrell on the Cushites in Biblical Archaeology Review (Winter 2020). (Please bear with me) Dr. Burrell reports that the Cushites gave military aid to Israel at one point and asks why the Bible does not heap lavish praise upon the Cushites for everything they did. The answer proposed is that Isaiah did not praise the Cushites because he wanted to place all trust in God, not a military power. Burrell writes: “All foreign peoples—Cushite or otherwise—must in the end submit to the sovereign rule of the God of Israel and to his chosen people.”
I find this puzzling because if all peoples ultimately submit to the God of Israel, wouldn’t Judaism have been a proselytizing religion? To my knowledge, Judaism has not been a proselytizing religion with some notable exceptions (e.g. Jonah to the people of Nineveh). Proselytism seems more a function of Christianity rather than Judaism.
I’d appreciate your thoughts. Thank you.
I think you’re right, ancient Israelites and then later Jews in the times of early Christianity (and later) simply were not interested in proselytizing for the most part (a good book on this is Mark Goodman, Conversion). THe reason appears to be that they were interested in maintaining their own religious practices, customs, beliefs, etc. but were not concerned that others adopt them. In part because they say the God of Israel as the God of *ISRAEL* — not of the other nations; the others can do what they want. And since they didn’t believe there were any repercussions — e.g., no afterlife — then there was no harm in others doing whatever they wanted. But Jews certainly wanted their own group to survive and thrive, and thought God made that happen. Burrell appears to be claiming that even so, Jews thought that since they were worshiping the one true God, he ihn the end would bring all others to agree with them and worship him as well. But that would be God’s doing, not human. I talk about all this in my book Triumph of Christianity, where I explain why Christians but not Jews were evangelistic.
Unrelated, but I was reading your old blog post about 1 Peter. You said that there wasn’t much dictation of letters in the ancient world. But I remember you writing that Paul dictated his letters. I’m confused.
Ah, right. No, there was a *lot* of dictation in the ancient world. Dictation is when you speak word for word what you want someone to write down, and they do it. What doesn’t happen in the ancient world to our knowledge (ever), is for someone to give instructions to someone to write a letter-essay for you or dictate a letter=essay in one language and have someone translate it into another (People often say that’s what the author of 1 Peter did; my point is that we have no indication taht that sort of thing *ever* happened)
Do you think Paul dictated his letters due to not being able to write well?
Possibly. IN Galatians he says the he has to write with “large letters.” Did he have a problem seeing? Or maybe it was just easier?
According to Trinitarians, which member of the Trinity is the “Spirit of God”? Is it the father, son or holy ghost?
The Holy Ghost is simply an older way of saying the Holy Spirit.
So the old testament, “Spirit of God” is the new testament “Holy Spirit”?
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. What the OT calls the Spirit of God in later times among Christains came to be called the Holy Spirit, yes.
In 1 Samuel 19 there is an amusing story of the “spirit” coming upon Saul. He keeps sending messengers to the prophets but they end up “prophesying” as well. Finally Saul goes and he ends up lying around naked all day prophesying (poetry and song?) with the prophets. Sounds like a drug party to me, which is probably how the ancients achieved their transcendent states!
> And how could the spirit as a divine entity exist if there is only one God?
Because it’s an angel? A divine messenger existing as an separate entity that is charged with carrying out the will of God, but is subordinate to God?
filioque!
Could that Mark Goodman book you referenced be Martin Goodman, “Mission and Conversion: Proselytizing in the Religious History of the Roman Empire”?
Sorry, that’s it. Terrific book.
Dear Bart,
What would be the meaning of “spirit” in Mt. 26:41; “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.”
Thanks.
You really want to do what is right on the inside but you just can’t help yourself.
“For them, the Spirit of God is simply God’s active presence on earth that he sends down on occasion; it’s not complicated.”
My conclusion as well regarding the pneumatolgy of both OT and NT authors (despite literary devices used in John…).
Additionally I note that we never see a picture of the spirit of God in heaven (despite those wild 7 spirits in Rev 1. 5 which are before the throne rather than in the throne).
Likewise again we never see the Spirit of God in the grand eschaton in Rev 21 and 22….
Likewise somehow the poor Spirit is omitted from the Pauline introductions…🤔
Etc
There are vast chasms between the received text of Chalcedon and the actual writings of the professed cannon…. No wonder evangelicals believe that democrats were able to stuff millions of ballots without being seen by election officials….😖🥺😢
With regard to the holy spirit is there any biblical passage in which the spirit acts independently of father and son and initiates something of its own volition or does it always have to be sent by God or Jesus, please?
There are lots of passages that don’t indicate one way or the other.
I take it Acts 13::2 (the Holy Ghost said….) needs to be reinterpreted by JWs to deny the Spirit is NOT a person?
I”m afraid I don’t know.