Edmund Fortman:
"The spirit of Yahweh was often described in personal
terms. The spirit was grieved, guided men, instructed
them, caused them to rest (Ps 143:10; Neh 9:20; Is
63:10, 14). But it seems quite clear that the Jews
never regarded the spirit as a person; nor is there
any solid evidence that any Old Testament writer held
this view. A few scholars today maintain, however,
that even though the spirit is usually presented as an
impersonal divine force, there is an underlying
assumption that the spirit was a conscious agent,
which 'provided a climate in which plurality with the
Godhead was conceivable'" (The Triune God, p. 6).
Acts 5:3-4 is not exactly what I would call an
"explicit" identification of the holy Spirit with God.
Granted, Peter does seemingly parallel the holy spirit
and God in these passages. But, again, we must read
texts in their historical context to avoid
skewing their semantic or pragmatic sense. John B.
Polhill, as he is wont to do, provides a nice
explanation:
"Ultimately, he [Ananias] had lied to God. Not that he
had not betrayed the community. Not that he had not
lied to the Spirit. Rather, to betray the community is
to lie to the Spirit that fills the community, and to
falsify the Spirit of God is an affront to God
himself" (Acts, p. 158).
Notice that Polhill does not say the holy spirit is
being called "God" in Acts 5:3-4.
David Hill adds:
"We may have here [in Acts 5] an illustration of
Luke's understanding of the 'sin against the Spirit'
(Luke 12:10) as speech or action against the
constitutive factor of the Church's life" (Greek Words
and Hebrew Meanings, p. 258).
Recall that Matthew also calls the spirit, God's
finger. This too would clearly explain why the spirit of
God is so closely identified with God in Acts 5:3-4,
although it is not called QEOS in this account. Karl
Rahner states:
"QEOS [in the NT] is still never used of the Spirit"
(Theological Investigations, 1:138, 143).
Trinitarian scholar Thomas F. Torrance
supplies this account of the Trinity:
"This does not imply that the New Testament presents
us with explicit teaching about the Holy Trinity, far
less with a ready-made formal doctrine of the Trinity,
but rather that it exhibits a coherent witness to
God's trinitarian self-revelation imprinted upon its
theological content in an implicit conceptual form
evident in a whole complex of implicit references and
indications in the gospels and epistles" (Christian
Doctrine, p. 49).
11 comments:
Edgar,
I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic, but it does have something to do with God's spirit, or here, a reference to a passage related to it. The recent Oxford Handbook of the Bible in America contains an article on JWs and the NWT, written by Michael Gilmour of Providence University College in Manitoba, Canada. The article is more favorable, or perhaps better, more tolerant, than most. Still it contains some unfair criticisms, one of which has been handsomely pointed out by the author this short four-page essay circulating on the net. Since you are familiar with ancient Greek, might you be willing to comment on its accuracy?
https://anonfile.com/mf34o3d5ba/1_Peter_1.11.pdf
Thanks,
Norman
Norman, I read the paper and it looks fine and reasonable to me. Time does not permit me to say much tonight, but I would say the author makes some good points about how the genitive is used in ancient Greek: it is complicated and should not be simplified to the "of" case although that is fine when one starts learning Greek. I also recall the passage from Homer, tell me about my father, etc. So far I can say the response to Gilmour looks sound.
Thank you, Edgar. Any other thoughts or observations on the essay you have would be welcome. I wonder if this note does make it to Gilmour, how he would react to it, like those in Acts 2:37 or Acts 7:54?
I should also take this opportunity to thank you for your blog. It's a place where more curious type brothers and sisters can turn for some faithful guidance on technical matters.
You're welcome, Norman, and thanks for reading this blog. I don't know much about Gilmour, but my experience with academics in religion has been that some are open-minded while others hold fast to their inveterate presuppositions. Professors can be overly picky when their views are challenged. So I would not expect a heart reception most of the time. I also checked 10-12 translations, only to find them all construing the Greek as "the Spirit of Christ."
One thing scholars consider is parallel instances of a construction; secondly, the probability that a particular construction has a particular meaning. I have not perused the grammars in this instance, but more work likely needs to be done for the genitive of connection.
I could be missing the point of Acts 2:37. Acts 7:54 seems to be a different use of the plural genitive.
Sorry if I was unclear. It wasn't a technical point on Greek, just one of principle clear in any translation. If Gilmour were to ever get this little essay, would he be humble enough to admit his error and change, like those who responded to Peter in Acts 2, or would he be hardened like Stephen's audience in Acts 7. That's all.
Thanks for your observation on professors. I wonder where Gilmour would fall here, as open-minded or inveterately holding to his stated position.
I too looked at some translations and found it just as the author of the essay put it and as you found it, either Spirit of Christ or Christ's Spirit. There were 2 or 3 that did not capitalize the 's', but that was the only variation, nothing like the NWT reads overall.
I realize that this is a blog, not a forum. I got another essay on a topic where the brothers disagree with mainstream scholars, but there are some who take the same position the brothers do. It's on the date of Herod the Great's death and thus on the date of Jesus' birth, whether that was in 4 BCE or 1 BCE. It's from a journal just 2 years ago so I assume the scholarship is pretty current. It gets a bit dense about half way in, and I found it difficult to follow. I was wondering if you would look at it, if you have the time. It's 9 and a half pages long. I didn't see an email address here. Should I post it here or somewhere else? It would be way off topic on the holy spirit. I don't want to hijack your post, and I could not find any post by you on this subject.
Norman, I see what you mean now. My tendency is not to generalize about professors or people in general. Having worked in academia for years and been a student, I can say that one finds attitudes across the spectrum. I don't know Gilmour or much about him, so it's hard to say. However, I've met humble instructors/scholars and some are very open-minded. But the field of religion seems to divide people more than most academic fields. I guess my caution would be not to expect much in terms of adjusting his thinking.
I'd also be glad to review the other paper you mention. Try sending it to my email address at Lenoir-Rhyne, which is edgar.foster@lr.edu
Here's something interesting about the leadings of the Holy spirit
https://matthew24verse14.wordpress.com/2020/12/21/a-standard-introduction-to-hermeneutics-in-evangelical-colleges-and-seminaries/
Thanks, T. I would like to write about hermeneutics in a future blog entry.
Doesn't 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Philippians 2:1 where it talks about having fellowship with the holy spirit means it is a person?
Neither verse exactly mentions having fellowship with the holy spirit.
NET note for Philippians 2:1-tn Or “spiritual fellowship” if πνεύματος (pneumatos) is an attributive genitive; or “fellowship brought about by the Spirit” if πνεύματος is a genitive of source or production.
The Greek is εἴ τις κοινωνία πνεύματος (THGNT)
There is a similar issue with the Corinthians text. Is it talking about fellowship produced by the holy spirit?
Numerous trinitarians claim 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Philippians 2:1 proves the holy spirit is the third person to the trinity you can talk or fellowship with.
Same with 2 Timothy 1:14, Romans 5:5, and Romans 8:16 in which some bible translations translate the holy spirit as who, whom, and himself.
Post a Comment