was successfully added to your cart.


Holy Spirit

Note of the Day – August 27

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

Today’s note concludes this series of daily notes on 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16. For those just coming to this study, or who are interested in reading the prior posts, it began with the note for August 6. Of special interest in the study is the interpretation of Paul’s statement in 2:6a:

“And (yet) we (do) speak wisdom among the (one)s (who are) complete…”

There have been longstanding questions regarding the precise identity of both this “wisdom” (sofi/a) and the ones who are “complete” (te/leio$). In a prior note, I outlined some of the more common suggestions offered by commentators; here they are listed again for reference, with no priority indicated by the numbering:

  1. The basic Gospel message (wisdom) is given to all believers, but a more advanced (esoteric?) Christian wisdom (teaching, etc) is offered for those who are “complete”—mature and committed in the faith sufficiently to receive it.
  2. Paul is simply making a rhetorical contrast. There is only one wisdom—that of the person of Christ and his death/resurrection. The “complete” believers are able to recognize this and do not need to seek after any other “wisdom”.
  3. He is distinguishing between the Gospel proclamation and the teaching/instruction, etc., which builds upon the basic message, interpreting and applying it for believers as they grow in faith. For the “complete” this includes a wide range of “wisdom”—ways of thinking/reasoning, use of argument, illustration, allegory/parable, (creative) interpretations of Scripture, etc.
  4. Paul himself evinces certain gnostic/mystic tendencies whereby there are envisioned levels or layers in the Gospel—i.e. the basic proclamation and belief regarding the person and work of Christ—as in the Scriptures, the deepest of which involve the most profound expressions of God’s wisdom. Only the “complete” are able to realize this, and to be able to communicate something of it to the wider community.
  5. Paul is responding to gnostic/mystic tendencies among believers in Corinth. Here, as a kind of rhetorical approach, he is drawing upon their own thinking and sensibilities, trying to bring their focus back to the centrality of the Gospel and a proper understanding of the work of the Spirit. As such, the apparent distinctions he makes are somewhat artificial, perhaps running parallel to the (actual) divisions among the Corinthians themselves.
  6. The wisdom for the “complete” reflects a deep understanding of, and participation in, the work of the Spirit. Believers who are completely guided by the Spirit need no other instruction. Paul is essentially expounding this thought in vv. 9-16, only to make (painfully) clear to the Corinthians how far they still are from the ideal.

In the notes on the passage, running through 3:1-3, I have indicated certain conclusions which may be drawn from the text, that help clarify what Paul means here in 2:6. I list these as bullet points:

  • The wisdom spoken to the “complete” comes by way of the Spirit. No other source of “wisdom” is possible.
  • The revelation of the (secret) wisdom of God is fundamentally tied to the proclamation of the Gospel.
  • The hidden wisdom of God relates to the very depths (the deepest parts) of God’s own being.
  • The “wisdom” is not limited to the Gospel message, but ought to be understood more comprehensively as “all the (deep) things under God”.
  • It is dependent upon our having received the (Holy) Spirit
  • Through the Spirit we are able to know and experience this wisdom
  • It is “taught” by the Spirit to believers, and is to be communicated (“spoken”) to others in turn.
  • The ones who are “complete” essentially = the ones who “have the Spirit”
  • The ones who are “complete” are defined, in a negative sense by the opposite—those who think and act in a “fleshly” manner are “incomplete”.

I would summarize these points, in light of our study of the passage as a whole, as follows—first, regarding the wisdom, I isolate three primary aspects:

  • It is based on the proclamation of the Gospel, i.e. of the person and work of Christ
  • It includes all that the Spirit communicates to believers, which they receive as a gift to be shared/communicated to others
  • It extends to the working and guidance of the Spirit (= the “mind of God/Christ”) in all things

With regard to those who are complete, this can be defined even more simply:

  • They are those believers who consistently think and act under the guidance of the Spirit; this must be distinguished on two levels:
    • The reality of having/holding the Spirit (in us)
    • The ideal of living out this identity—i.e., “walking in/by the Spirit” (cf. Gal 5:16, 18, 25)

The very fact that Paul, like Jesus himself, exhorts believers to be “complete”, means that it is not automatically realized through faith in Christ and receiving the Spirit; rather, it reflects a process of growth and development which, in most instances, will take place over a lifetime. This, however, does not change the force and urgency of the exhortation. Jesus’ own exhortation (Matt 5:48) to his followers essentially takes the form of a promise—if you live according to the teaching (i.e. in 5:21-47, etc), “you will be complete [te/leio$], as your heavenly Father is complete”. In Gal 5:16ff, Paul expounds upon this idea, now in a decidedly Christian sense, with the force of an imperative; note the sequence of phrases, with its central (conditional) premise:

  • “Walk about in the Spirit…” (v. 16)
    —”If you are led in the Spirit…” (v. 18)
    —”If (indeed) we live by the Spirit…” (v. 25a)
  • “We should step in line in the Spirit” (v. 25b)

The statement in Gal 5:16 reflects the very issue Paul is dealing with in 1 Corinthians, and the lament he expresses in 1 Cor 3:1-3:

“Walk about in the Spirit, and you should not complete [tele/shte, related to te/leio$] the impulse of the flesh
“We speak wisdom among the (one)s (who are) complete… ”
“And (yet) I was not able to speak to you as (one)s (who are) of the Spirit, but as (one)s (who are) of the flesh

Is it possible that Paul, in some sense, does have a more precise and sharp division in mind, i.e. between the “complete” and the ‘incomplete’—two distinct groups or categories of believers? While this would seem to contradict much of his own argument in 1:18ff, it is conceivable that he is playing off of the very “divisions” which exist among the Corinthians. Certainly, it has been suggested from the distinction he makes in 3:2 between “milk” (ga/la) and “(solid) food” (brw=ma)—the Corinthians are behaving as immature “infants” (v. 1), and cannot be treated (i.e. spoken to) as mature adults. There are several possibilities for understanding this distinction:

  • “Milk” is the simple Gospel message, while the solid “Food” represents deeper (Christian) teaching and instruction
  • The difference is between the basic ‘facts’ of the Gospel, and its deeper meaning
  • Similarly, it is between the Gospel message and how it is (effectively) applied and lived out by believers in the Christian Community
  • It rather reflects a difference in the way believers respond—as immature infants or mature adults
  • It is simply a rhetorical image, drawn from the idea of the Corinthians as “infants”, and should not be pressed further

Something may be said for each of these interpretations, except perhaps the first. Insofar as it reflects a substantive distinction in Paul’s mind, the third and fourth best fit the overall context of the passage.

Finally, I would like to bring out a particular point of emphasis that is sometimes overlooked in this passage. When Paul speaks of the wisdom of God in terms of “the (deep) things” of God, he couches this within the general expression “all things” (pa/nta). In my view, this should be understood in an absolute comprehensive sense. Note how this is framed conceptually in chapters 2 & 3:

The wisdom of God encompasses “all things”, as Paul makes clear in 3:21-23, where he establishes a (hierarchical) chain of relationship, presented in reverse order—”all things” (pa/nta), he says:

belong to you (pl., believers), and you in turn
belong to Christ, who in turn
belongs to God the Father

If we allow ourselves to be guided by the Spirit and the mind of God/Christ, then we are free to study and examine all things (cf. 2:10, 15), and this itself becomes an integral expression of the “wisdom of God” which we speak.

Note of the Day – August 24

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

[This series of notes is on 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16; the previous note dealt with 2:16]

1 Corinthians 3:1-3

Before concluding this series of daily notes (on 1 Cor 1:18-2:16), it is necessary to study briefly the opening of the section which follows (3:1-4:21), in which Paul applies the arguments of 1:18ff more directly to the situation at Corinth. To begin with, the parallel between 2:6 and 3:1 is unmistakable, and must be noted:

“And we speak wisdom among the (one)s (who are) complete…” (2:6)
“And I was not able to speak to you as (one)s with the Spirit…” (3:1)

This allows us to supplement the earlier conclusions regarding a proper interpretation of 2:6a more precisely: the ones who are “complete” essentially = the ones who “have the Spirit”. However, the distinction in 2:6-16 was between those who have the Spirit and those who have (only) the soul/spirit of a human being—the contrast of the adjectives pneumatiko/$ and yuxiko/$ being that of believer vs. non-believer. Here in 3:1ff, on the other hand, Paul is speaking directly to believers, which means that he now gives a somewhat different nuance to the adjective pneumatiko/$ (“spiritual”). To the basic sense of “one who has (received) the Spirit”, we must add the connotation of “one who thinks/acts according to the Spirit“. This is confirmed by Paul’s use of the more familiar contrast between “Spirit” and “flesh”, with its strong moral/ethical implication. The Corinthian believers are not living out (i.e. thinking and acting according to) their identity as believers who have the Spirit. We can capture this through a careful translation of v. 1:

“And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as (one)s of the Spirit [pneumatikoi/], but (rather) as (one)s (still) of the flesh [sarki/noi], as infants in (the) Anointed {Christ}.”

This “fleshly” manner of thinking/acting is marked by the very divisions (“rips/tears”) in the Community mentioned in 1:10ff, along with jealously, quarreling and partisan/sectarian identity (“of Paul”, “of Apollos”, etc). Paul actually makes use of two related adjectives:

  • sa/rkiko$ (sárkikos)—generally belonging to, or characterized by, the flesh (sa/rc)
  • sa/rkino$ (sárkinos)—more specifically, something made of, or constituted by, the flesh

The second of these is used initially in v. 1, followed by the first (twice) in v. 3. The adjective sa/rkino$ (sárkinos) carries the more neutral sense of a physical human being (i.e. made of flesh). It is used by Paul, somewhat metaphorically, in 2 Cor 3:3, while in Rom 7:14 it preserves the moral/ethical sense of the spirit vs. flesh distinction; the only other NT occurrence is in Heb 7:16. The adjective sa/rkiko$ (sárkikos) is a bit more common, used by Paul in 1 Cor 9:11; 2 Cor 1:12; 10:4 and Rom 15:27; the only non-Pauline occurrence in the NT is 1 Pet 2:11. It is likely that the specific use of sa/rkino$ in 3:1 is due to the earlier usage of the adjective yuxiko/$ (psychikós) in 2:14. There would seem to be a progression of terms involved, which narrows the focus of Paul’s discussion:

  • yuxiko/$ (2:14)—one who has the inner life-breath (“soul”) of a human being, but has not received the Spirit of God
  • sa/rkino$ (3:1)—a human being who is “made of flesh”, i.e. in his/her physical and sensual aspect
  • sa/rkiko$ (3:3)—a person who thinks/acts “according to the flesh”—that is, fundamentally in a sinful, selfish or “immature” manner

The progression involves a kind of natural and logical consequence:

  • The person without the Spirit is merely a human being, and is not able to be guided by the power and direction of the Spirit
  • He/she is left to be guided by his/her own natural impulses and inclinations, which tend to be dominated by physical and sensual concerns
  • As a result, the person tends to act, and ultimately think, in a selfish and sinful manner

This again allows us to refine a basic conclusion regarding Paul’s terminology in 2:6a: the ones who are “complete” are defined, in a negative sense by the opposite—those who think and act in a “fleshly” manner are “incomplete”.

The discussion on 1:18-2:16 will conclude (in the next daily note) with a summary interpretation of 2:6a in context.

Note of the Day – August 21

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

[This series of notes is on 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16]

1 Corinthians 2:14-15

In yesterday’s note, I provided a fairly detailed study on two key words used in these verses (14-15)—the adjective yuxiko/$ (related to yuxh/) and the verb a)nakri/nw. This was necessary in order to give a proper translation and interpretation of the passage.

“And the man with a soul does not receive [i.e. accept] the (thing)s of the Spirit of God, for it is (all) stupidity [mwri/a] to him and he is not able to know (them), (in) that they are judged (carefully) with the Spirit. And the (one) with the Spirit judges all ([th]ese) things, and (yet) he is judged under no one.”

It will be helpful to offer notes on specific words and phrases as they occur in the passage:

“with a soul”—I have decided, as a practical necessity, to slant the grammar of my translation, in order to give a meaningful rendering of the adjectives yuxiko/$ and pneumatiko/$ (cf. the previous note). Fundamentally, Paul’s use of yuxiko/$ here (and in 15:44-46), means a human being with a soul, but not yet united to (i.e. having received) the Spirit of God. As the prior look at the usage of yuxiko/$ in James 3:15 and Jude 19 makes clear, the sense of the term as a whole is not limited to this—it also connotes a distinctly worldly, human way of thinking and acting. However, Paul captures this more negative aspect in 1 Cor 1:18-2:16 by specific use of “world” (ko/smo$) and “(hu)man” (a&nqrwpo$).

“receive”—It is worth noting the difference between the verbs de/xomai (here) and lamba/nw (in v. 12), both of which can be rendered “receive”. The verb lamba/nw basically means “receive” in the sense of taking (hold) of something, while de/xomai as accepting something offered as a gift, etc. This also touches back on verse 12, where the “things of God [lit. under God]” are said to be given (by God) to us as a favor or gift. The human being without the Spirit does not (indeed, can not) receive or accept the things offered to us (believers) as a gift.

“the (thing)s of the Spirit of God”—Paul’s use of a plural substantive with the definite article (“the [thing]s…”) is an important syntactical (and thematic) element of his argument in 1:18-2:16, and especially of 2:6ff, where the emphatic “wisdom” (sofi/a), i.e. of God, is given collective (and comprehensive) expression by the plural. It begins with the Scriptural citation(s) in verse 9—”the (thing)s which” (a%)—and continues on through the passage:

  • V. 10: “all (thing)s [pa/nta]”
  • V. 10-11: “the deep (thing)s of God [ta\ ba/qh tou= qeou=]”; “the (thing)s of God [ta\ tou= qeou=]”
  • V. 12: “the (thing)s under God [ta\ u(po\ tou= qeou=] given as a favor/gift to us”
  • V. 13a: “the (thing)s which [a%] we also speak”
  • V. 13b: “spiritual (thing)s [pneumatika/]”, or better, “(thing)s of the Spirit”
  • V. 14: “the (thing)s of the Spirit of God [ta\ tou= pneu/mato$ tou= qeou=]”
  • V. 15: “all ([th]ese thing)s [{ta\} pa/nta]”

“to him it is stupidity”—The noun mwri/a (“dullness, stupidity”), along with the related adjective mwro/$ and verb mwrai/nw, is a keyword of the entire section (cf. 1:18, 20-21, 23, 25, 27, and the notes on these verses; also 3:18-19; 4:10). Previously it described the world’s view of God’s wisdom as expressed specifically in the proclamation of the Gospel (and the death of Christ); now, it represents the world’s reaction to the wisdom of God taken as a whole—”all the (deep) things of God”. Note how the comprehensive plural is here put into the singular “it is [e)stin]”; Paul may be suggesting that the human mind/soul is inclined to dismiss all of God’s wisdom at a single stroke. I have tried to capture this with a parenthesis—”it is (all) stupidity”. The pronoun is emphatic in the phrase: “to him [i.e. the human] it is stupidity”.

“he is not able to know (them)”—The verb du/namai essentially means having the power, i.e. being empowered, to do something. Paul has already established the connection between the Spirit of God and power (du/nami$) in 2:4-5 (cf. also 1:18, 24; 4:19-20). The idea of knowledge (gnw=nai [ginw/skw], “to know”) is implicit under the arching theme of wisdom (sofi/a) in the passage (cf. 2:8, 11, 16; also 3:20; 4:19). Earlier, Paul applied this to believers with the verb ei&dw (“see”, i.e. perceive, recognize, know) in 2:2, 11-12. The object of the verb “know” here has to be supplied—I identify it with the comprehensive plural (“the [thing]s…”, i.e. “them”) relating to the wisdom of God (cf. above).

“judged/judges”—Paul uses the verb a)nakri/nw three times in vv. 14-15. Understanding the prepositional component (a)na) to the verb as an intensive, I render it as “judge (something) closely”, in the basic sense of “examine closely/carefully”. Each instance of the verb here has a slightly different nuance:

  • “the things of the Spirit of God…are judged with the Spirit”—they can only be examined (and understood) spiritually, by way of the Spirit of God, through the guidance of the Spirit; this may be related to the idea of the Spirit “searching out” the (deep) things of God in vv. 10-11.
  • “the one with the Spirit judges all (these) things”—the Spirit enables the believer to examine all the things of God closely. It is possible that Paul is beginning to shift the meaning slightly, with a play on pa/nta (“all things”); there may be an allusion here to the idea of believers judging the world (“all things”), as in 6:2ff.
  • “he is judged under no one”—here it would seem that Paul is drawing on a specific judicial meaning of the verb (interrogate, etc); i.e. believers stand under the judgment of no other human being, since we are truly judged only by God before the (heavenly) tribunal at the end-time. This emphasis would seem to be confirmed by the parallel discussion in 4:1-5.

We should probably also understand a bit of word-play between a)nakri/nw and sugkri/nw in v. 13 (cf. below).

“with the Spirit”—As indicated above, I use this to render the adjective pneumatiko/$ (second instance in the translation above), but also the related adverb pneumatikw=$ (first instance above). This contrasts with the standard translation “spiritual(ly)”, which is accurate enough, but misses the comparison between the human soul and God’s Spirit. The adjective describes the person (the believer), who is characterized by the Spirit, while the adverb describes the action (judging/examining). There is almost certainly a close parallel to be drawn with the phrase in verse 13: “judging spiritual (thing)s with spiritual (word)s”. The verb sugkri/nw shares with a)nakri/nw the root verb kri/nw (“judge, examine,” etc), which is extremely wide-ranging, but usually retains something of the primitive sense (“separate, divide, sift/sort”). As believers examine the things of God (of his Spirit), by the Spirit, and begin to understand them, we are able to sift through them and bring them together, allowing us to express and communicate them to others in the body of Christ.

“all ([th]ese thing)s” ([ta\] pa/nta)—There is a textual question regarding this word. A number of important manuscripts (Ë46 A C D* al) include the definite article, while many others do not. If the article is original, it almost certainly means that Paul is referring specifically to “the (thing)s of God”, i.e. the wisdom of God in a comprehensive/collective sense (cf. above). Even if the article is secondary, it may indicate that scribes sought to make the same point clear, to avoid confusion—the word pa/nta (“all [thing]s”) being taken in a general sense. I believe that here, as in verse 10, Paul is playing on the two aspects of this word: (a) all things generally, and (b) the wisdom of God specifically. The dual meaning is more properly combined at the end of the chapter 3 (vv. 21-23), where “all things” (in creation, etc) are subsumed under Christ (the wisdom of God manifest), who is, in turn, under God (YHWH, the Father) himself.

“under no one”—The preposition u(po/ can carry an instrumental sense (“by [way of], through”), but more properly it means “under”; here specifically the reference is to believers being examined and judged (in a judicial sense) under a human authority. Only God truly has the authority to judge believers (in Christ), at the end time (cf. 4:1-5). Note an interesting kind of parallel in Paul’s use of u(po/:

The line of reasoning serves as a fittingly climax to the overall contrast of human vs. divine wisdom, etc, running through this section, and which culminates powerfully with the declaration in verse 16, to be discussed in the next daily note.

Note of the Day – August 20

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

[This series of notes is on 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16; the previous day’s note dealt with 2:13]

1 Corinthians 2:14-15

Before proceeding with the translation of these verses, it is necessary first to examine two important words which are central to a correct interpretation of the passage.

yuxiko/$ (psychikós)—An adjective here parallel to pneumatiko/$ (pneumatikós), the two being related to the words yuxh/ (psych¢¡, usually translated “soul”) and pneu=ma (pneu¡ma, usually translated “spirit”), respectively. The fundamental meaning of both words is of something blowing (cf. the primary verbs yu/xw and pne/w)—especially of wind (as a natural phenomena) or breath (of a living being), the two concepts or images being related in the ancient mind (wind as the ‘breath’ of the deity). The main difference between the word-groups can be described this way:

  • yu/xw refers to blowing in the sense of cooling—i.e. a coo(ling), cold breeze
  • pne/w refers primarily to movement—a stream of air (i.e. wind) with its visible effect (causing motion)

Each aspect, however, could be (and was) related to the life-breath of a (human) being. The ancient conception is preserved in Genesis 2:7, in which God breathes (blows) a wind/breath into the first human being; according to the Greek version (LXX), God breathes/blows in (e)nefu/shsen) a “living breath [pnoh/]” and the man becomes a “living breath [yuxh/]”. Here we see the two words used in tandem—pnoh/ (pno¢¡, closely related to pneu=ma pneu¡ma) and yuxh/ (psych¢¡). John 20:22 records a similar process (a “new creation”), when Jesus blows/breathes in(to) the first believers and they receive the Holy Spirit [pneu=ma]. The distinction between the two nouns can be defined generally as follows:

  • yuxh/ is the “life-breath”—that is, the invisible, inward aspect of a person, marking him/her as a living, breathing being (i.e., “soul”)
  • pneu=ma is the life-giving “breath” which animates and sustains a (human) being (i.e. “spirit”)

The two terms overlap in meaning, and the relationship between them in Greek thought is rather complex. Paul uses them each to refer to the inner dimension of a human being, but they are not to be understood as separate “things”, as though a person has “a spirit” in addition to “a soul”. Earlier in 1 Cor 2:11, Paul refers to the “spirit/breath [pneu=ma] of man th(at is) in him“, and distinguishes it from the Spirit/Breath of God—that is to say, every human being has a “spirit” in him/her, but only believers (in Christ) have the “Spirit (of God)”. Now here in verse 14, a similar contrast is made—i.e., between the believer and the “ordinary” human being. This time, Paul establishes it, not by playing with the two senses of pneu=ma (“spirit”), but by playing on the difference between the two words pneu=ma and yuxh/ and their corresponding adjectives; which brings us to the problem of translation:

  • pneumatiko/$ (pneumatikós)—something belonging to, or characterized by, pneu=ma “spirit” (i.e. “spiritual”), only here it refers specifically to the “Spirit (of God)”
  • yuxiko/$ (psychikós)—something belonging to, or characterized by, yuxh/ “soul”, that is, the human soul

Unfortunately, there is no appropriate English word corresponding to this last adjective. A formal equivalence would be something like “soulish”, but that is exceedingly awkward. Most translators tend to use “natural”, for lack of any better option; however, while this manages to get the meaning across, and preserves a meaningful comparison here in verse 14, it distorts the original Greek and the fine word-distinction being used. Based on Paul’s vocabulary elsewhere, we might expect him to use the adjective sarkiko/$ (sarkikós, “fleshly”) here (see esp. 1 Cor 3:3, also Rom 15:27; 1 Cor 9:11; 2 Cor 1:12; 10:4). Only that word carries a definite negative connotation in Paul’s thought (associated with sin); here he wishes to preserve the more neutral, quasi-scientific sense of a normal, living human being. The adjective yuxiko/$ appears in only three other passages in the New Testament; in Paul’s letters, the only other occurrences are in 1 Cor 15:44-46, which I will touch on below. The other two instances are in James 3:15 and Jude 19 and may help us to understand its usage by Paul here:

  • James 3:15—As in 1 Cor 1:18-2:16, a contrast is made between the wisdom (sofi/a) of God (“from above”, a&nwqen) and earthly (e)pi/geio$) wisdom. The adjective “earthly” (lit. “[from] upon earth”) is followed by yuxiko/$, and then daimoniw/dh$ (“of the daimons“). Here yuxiko/$ means essentially human, as part of a triad of terms characterizing this inferior “wisdom”—earthly–human–demonic. In verse 16, the author (“James”) mentions jealousy and strife/quarrels associated with this worldly “wisdom”, which is also an important aspect of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians.
  • Jude 19—Again the adjective yuxiko/$ is the second of three descriptive terms, characterizing the ‘false’ Christians of vv. 5ff:
    (a) oi( a)podiori/zonte$ “the (one)s marking (themselves/others) off from”, i.e. separating (them) from the rest of the (true) believers
    (b) yuxikoi/—i.e. “ordinary” human beings, the term being glossed by
    (c) pneu=ma mh\ e&xonte$ “not holding/having the Spirit (of God)”

Paul uses the adjective yuxiko/$ in much the same sense as Jude—referring to human beings who possess a soul/spirit but who have not (yet) received the (Holy) Spirit. Without the guidance of the Spirit, they are led by their own human (or animal) desires and impulses.

a)nakri/nw (anakrínœ)—Paul uses this verb several times in vv. 14-15, but it does not allow for easy translation. The primary verb kri/nw I have consistently rendered with the semantic range “(to) judge”, sometimes with the nuance of “decide, examine,” etc, though its original meaning was something like “(to) separate, divide, distinguish”. The prepositional component a)na/ is best understood here as “again”, in the sense of doing something again (i.e. repeatedly); however, in the verbal context it essentially functions as an intensive element. Perhaps the best translation of the verb is “examine closely“; in a judicial setting, it can refer to an interrogation or investigation. More than half of the NT occurrences (10 of 16) are in 1 Corinthians, the only letter of Paul where the verb is used; 6 are in 1 Cor 1:18-4:21 (2:14-15; 4:3-4), being neatly divided:

  • 3: 2:14-15—the reference is to the “complete” believer, “the spiritual (one)” (see v. 6)
  • 3: 4:3-4—the reference is to Paul himself as a minister of Christ

On 1 Cor 15:44-46—Returning to the word yuxiko/$ (cf. above), it may be useful to consider briefly Paul’s use of it in 1 Cor 15:44-46, where the context is the (end-time) resurrection. Here, too, it is contrasted with pneumatiko/$; the human being is:

  • scattered [i.e. sown, in death] (as) a yuxiko/$ body—i.e., as body in which there is a life-breath (yuxh/, “soul”)
  • raised [i.e. from the dead] (as) a pneumatiko/$ body—i.e., as a spiritual body, transformed by the Spirit of God/Christ

In verse 45, Paul explicitly cites Gen 2:7 (cf. above), making the contrast more definite—between the human soul [yuxh/] (Adam) and the Spirit [pneu=ma] (Christ). It is not simply the Spirit of God (YHWH), according to traditional Jewish thought; following his resurrection, Christ himself becomes a life-giving Spirit. The two passages, using the yuxiko/$/pneumatiko/$ contrast, reflect the two ends of early Christian (and Pauline) soteriology:

  • Regeneration—The believer experiences a “new creation” in Christ, whereby the human soul/spirit is united with the Spirit of God/Christ
  • Resurrection—The human soul (and body) of the believer is completely transformed by the Spirit of God/Christ

In 1 Cor 2:14-15, Paul has the first of these in view. The analysis above should go far in helping us gain a solid understanding of what Paul is saying in these two verses. A translation and (brief) interpretation will be offered in the next daily note.

Note of the Day – August 19

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

[This series of notes is on 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16; the previous day’s note dealt with 2:12]

1 Corinthians 2:13

“…which we also speak not in words taught of [i.e. by] (hu)man wisdom, but in (words) taught of [i.e. by] (the) Spirit, judging spiritual (thing)s together with/by spiritual (word)s.”

It must be emphasized that this verse, along with much that follows in vv. 14-15, is difficult to translate accurately into English, for a variety of reasons. Here, especially, translation and interpretation go hand-in-hand. To begin with, verse 13 builds upon (and concludes) the declaration in v. 12 (cf. the prior note). The relative pronoun form a% (“which”) refers back to the concluding expression of v. 12: “the (thing)s under God given as a favor to us”. In the note on v. 12, I pointed out the parallel between this expression and “the deep (thing)s of God”, and connected both to the “wisdom of God” mentioned previously—and especially at the beginning of verse 6. This is confirmed by Paul’s language here at the start of v. 13:

  • “we speak (the) wisdom [of God]” (vv. 6-7)
  • “which (thing)s we also [kai/] speak” (v. 13)

The particle kai/ should be regarded as significant here, since it may be intended to draw a distinction between what it is that “we” speak in vv. 6-7 and 13, respectively. There are two ways to place the emphasis:

  • “these things also we speak“—as it is have been given to us to know them, so also we speak/declare them
  • “these things also we speak”—not only the Gospel do we proclaim, but all the deep things of God given to us by the Spirit

Most commentators opt for the first reading, according to the immediate context of vv. 12-13; however, the overall flow and structure of Paul’s argument in vv. 6-16 perhaps favors the second. More important to the meaning of the verse is the continuation of the comparison/contrast between worldly/human wisdom and the wisdom of God. Here Paul formulates this with a specific expression: “in words of… [e)nlo/goi$]”. I have regularly been translating lo/go$ as “account” (i.e. oral, in speech); but here it is perhaps better to revert to a more conventional translation which emphasizes the elements or components of the account (i.e. the words). Earlier, in 1:17 and 2:1ff, Paul uses lo/go$ in the sense of the manner or style of speech used (in proclaiming the Gospel); here he seems to be referring to the actual content (the words) that a person speaks. The contrast he establishes is as follows:

  • “in words taught of [i.e. by] (hu)man wisdom” (e)n didaktoi=$ a)nqrwpi/nh$ sofi/a$ lo/goi$)
  • “in (word)s taught of [i.e. by] (the) Spirit” (e)n didaktoi=$ pneu/mato$ [lo/goi$])
    Note: I include lo/goi$ in square brackets as implied, to fill out the comparison, though it is not in the text

The contrast is explicit—”not [ou)k] in… but (rather) [a)ll’] in…” Especially significant too is the use of the adjective didakto/$ (“[being] taught”, sometimes in the sense “able to be taught”, “teachable”), rare in both the New Testament and the LXX. The only other NT occurrence is in the discourse of Jesus in John 6:45, citing Isa 54:13, part of an eschatological prophecy where it is stated that the descendants of God’s people (“your sons/children”) “…will all (be) taught [didaktou\$] by God”. This same reference is certainly in the background in 1 Thess 4:9, where Paul uses the unique compound form qeodi/dakto$ (“taught by God”). This passage is helpful for an understanding of Paul’s thought here:

“And about the fondness for (the) brother(s) [i.e. fellow believers] you hold no occasion [i.e. there is no need] (for me) to write to you, for you (your)selves are taught by God [qeodi/daktoi] unto the loving of (each) other [i.e. to love one another].”

If we ask how believers are “taught by God”, apart from Paul’s written instruction, there are several possibilities:

  • The common preaching and tradition(s) which have been received (including the sayings/teachings of Jesus, etc)
  • The common witness and teaching of the believers together, in community
  • The (internal) testimony and guidance of the Spirit

Probably it is the last of these that Paul has primarily in mind, though not necessarily to the exclusion of the others. For a similar mode of thinking expressed in Johannine tradition, cf. 1 John 2:7-8, 21, 24; 3:10ff; 4:7-8ff, and the important passages in the discourses of Jesus in the Gospel. Here, in 1 Cor 2:13, it is clear that Paul is referring to the work of the Spirit. That the Spirit would give (“teach”) believers (and, especially, Christian ministers/missionaries) the words to say was already a prominent feature of the sayings of Jesus in Gospel tradition (Mark 13:11 par, etc), depicted as being fulfilled with the first preachers of the Gospel in the book of Acts (2:4ff; 4:8, 29ff; 6:10, etc). However, the underlying thought should not be limited to the (uniquely) inspired preaching of the apostles, but to all believers. Paul’s use of “we” in this regard will be discussed in more detail in an upcoming note (on 1 Cor 2:16).

Particularly difficult to translate is the verb sugkri/nw in the last phrase of verse 13. A standard literal rendering would be “judge together” or “judge [i.e. compare] (one thing) with (another)”. However, in the case of this verb, it is sometimes better to retain the more primitive meaning of selecting and bringing/joining (things) together. Paul’s phrase here is richly compact—pneumatikoi=$ pneumatika\ sugkri/nonte$. He (literally) joins together two plural forms of the adjective pneumatiko/$ (“spiritual”), one masculine, the other neuter. The first is in the dative case, but without any preposition specified, indicating a rendering something like “spiritual (thing)s with/by spiritual (one)s”. However, given the expression e)nlo/goi$ (“in words of…”) earlier in the verse, it is probably best to read this into the context here as well. I would thus suggest the following basic translation:

“bringing together spiritual (thing)s in spiritual (word)s”

I take this to mean that the “spiritual things” are given expression—and communicated to other believers—through “spiritual words”, i.e. words given/taught to a person by the Spirit. The “spiritual (thing)s [pneumatika]” almost certainly refer to “the deep (thing)s of God” and “the (thing)s under God” in vv. 10 and 12, respectively. The Spirit “searches out” these things and reveals or imparts them to believers. This is especially so in the case of ministers—those gifted to prophesy and teach, etc—but, according to the view expressed throughout chapters 12-14, in particular, all believers have (or should have) gifts provided by the Spirit which they can (and ought to) impart to others. This allows us to draw yet another conclusion regarding the “wisdom” mentioned in verse 6a: it is “taught” by the Spirit to believers, and is to be communicated (“spoken”) to others in turn. It is also worth noting that all throughout the discussion in verses 9-13, there is no real indication that this “wisdom” is limited to the proclamation of the death/resurrection of Jesus. We should perhaps keep an eye ahead to Paul’s discussion of the “spiritual (thing)s” in chapters 12-14.

Tomorrow’s note will examine verses 14-15.

Note of the Day – August 18

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

[This series of notes is on 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16; the previous day’s note dealt with 2:10]

1 Corinthians 2:12

“And (so) we did not receive the spirit of the world, but the Spirit th(at is) out of [i.e. from] God, (so) that we should see [i.e. know] the (thing)s under God given as a favor to us.”

This declaration follows upon what has been stated in vv. 10-11 (cf. the prior note). The first half of the verse continues the running contrast between God and the world—only Paul now shifts from wisdom (sofi/a) to spirit (pneu=ma):

  • “the spirit of the world” (to\ pneu=ma tou= ko/smou)
  • “the Spirit th(at is) out of [i.e. from] God” (to\ pneu=ma to\ e)k tou= qeou=)

Note the slight difference in terminology:

(1) the first phrase uses an expression with the genitive (of the world), which can either be subjective (belonging to the world) or objective (consisting of [the things of] the world)—both are possible, but the former perhaps fits the context (and the comparison) better
(2) the second phrase uses the preposition e)k (“out of, from”), indicating primarily the source of the spirit (God himself)

The “spirit of the world” builds upon “the spirit of man” in v. 11:

  • “the spirit of man” (to\ pneu=ma tou= a)nqrw/pou)—the invisible, inner aspect (“th[at is] in him”) of a human being, corresponding roughly with our concept of “soul”; the relation between the terms pneu=ma (“spirit”), yuxh/ (“soul”), and nou=$ (“mind”) in Greek thought and anthropology is complex, and Paul uses all three terms in the verses which follow.
  • “the spirit of the world” (to\ pneu=ma tou= ko/smou)—this expression is parallel to “the wisdom of the world” in 1:20 (and 3:19), with the term “world” (and “of the world”) appearing repeatedly throughout the passage (cf. 1:20-21, 27-28). The Greek ko/smo$ fundamentally refers to an (orderly) arrangement, sometimes emphasizing decorative beauty; commonly it applies to the order of creation or the world. Paul, and other New Testament writers draw upon a basic three-fold meaning for the term:
    (a) the created order, along with the powers which govern it
    (b) the human institutions, authorities, etc, which govern and dominate the operation of society, and
    (c) humankind, or human society, treated collectively
    Often in early Christian thought ko/smo$ has a decidedly negative connotation—signifying the corrupt/sinful condition of humankind (and creation at large), and especially human thought and endeavor which is opposed to God or seeks to function apart from him. The expression “spirit of man” is essentially neutral, while “spirit of the world” draws upon this negative meaning.

There are several points to consider in the second half of the verse. First, we should note the connecting particle i%na (“[so] that”), indicating purpose—we received the Spirit from God so that we might see, etc. The verb form ei)dw=men (from ei&dw, “see”) is a rare occurrence of a perfect subjunctive; there are only 10 occurrences in the New Testament (apart from several participial forms), and always with the verb ei&dw (Mark 2:10 par; 1 Cor 13:2; 14:11, etc). Rendered literally, the phrase would be “so that we might have seen…”, but this is misleading in English; the (intensive or consummative) force of the phrase is perhaps better translated, “so that we might surely/truly see…”. In Greek idiom, to “see” (esp. with the verb ei&dw) essentially means to know (i.e. perceive, recognize). And what is it that we might come to see/know?—this is expressed in the final phrase of the verse: “the (thing)s given as a favor to us under God”. The verb xari/zomai is derived from the noun xa/ri$ (“favor”) and means “give/grant/do (something) as a favor”. It is relatively frequent in the Pauline letters (16 of the 23 occurrences in the NT), though the noun xa/ri$ (typically translated “grace”, or, more accurately, “gift”) is much more common. The preposition u(po/ (“under”) means that the things given as a favor to believers are under God’s control and come through his guidance and generosity. Note the important parallel with verse 10:

  • “the deep (thing)s of God” (ta\ ba/qh tou= qeou=)
  • “the (thing)s under God” (ta\ u(po\ tou= qeou=)

In a locative sense, u(po/ indicates “beneath”, making the connection with the “deeps/depths” of God more obvious. There is no way in English to translate the plural literally without adding in a word like “thing”—”the (thing)s…”—and yet it is perhaps not entirely appropriate to the Greek idiom. We should perhaps understand the formal expression in a collective, comprehensive sense—i.e., “(all) the depths of God”, “(every)thing under God” (cf. ta\ pa/nta, “all [thing]s” in v. 10a). In terms of Paul’s thought here, it also would not be inappropriate to combine the expressions—”all the deep (thing)s under God”—to summarize what it is that God, through the Spirit, gives to us as a favor (or gift). We might outline this as follows:

This analysis also allows us to draw several additional conclusions regarding the interpretation of verse 6a (cf. the previous daily notes):

  • The “wisdom” is not limited to the Gospel message, but ought to be understood more comprehensively as “all the (deep) things under God”.
  • It is dependent upon our having received the (Holy) Spirit
  • Through the Spirit we are able to know and experience this wisdom

It will be possible to expand upon these points as we proceed through vv. 13-16 in the upcoming notes.

Note of the Day – August 17

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

[This series of notes is on 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16; the previous day’s note dealt with 2:6]

1 Corinthians 2:10

“And (yet) to us God has uncovered (this) through the Spirit—for the Spirit searches out all (thing)s, and (even) the deep(est thing)s of God.”

The statement in verse 10 is the culmination of the line of argument in vv. 6ff. It may be helpful to outline the thematic (and logical) development:

  • There is a wisdom spoken to the believers who are “complete”—it is different from the wisdom of this Age and its rulers/leaders (who have no effect for believers and will be without power in the Age to Come) [v. 6]
    • instead (“but/rather”, a)lla), this wisdom (of God) is spoken in a secret hidden away from the world [v. 7a]
      • which [h%n] God established (“marked out”) before the beginning of this Age, for the honor/glory of believers [v. 7b], and
      • which [h%n] none of the rulers/leaders of this Age knew (or understood) [v. 8] —demonstrated by the fact that they put Jesus Christ (“the Lord of honor/glory”) to death

        • instead (“but/rather”, a)lla), this secret was prepared beforehand, only to be revealed for “those who love God” [v. 9, citing Scripture]
          • and (de) God has revealed this to us (believers) through the Spirit [v. 10]

The thrust of this argument is clear: the wisdom of God has been kept secret, hidden away from the world, and is only revealed now to believers through the Spirit. The emphasis on the Spirit (of God) here is vital to Paul’s discussion. With regard to a correct interpretation of verse 6a (cf. the previous note), it is possible to make at least one firm conclusion—the wisdom spoken to the “complete” comes by way of the Spirit. No other source of “wisdom” is possible. Based on the context of vv. 6ff, we may assume that apostles and ministers (such as Paul), are the immediate (proximate) source, as chosen/inspired preachers and teachers, to communicate this wisdom. The wording in v. 6 (“we speak…”) is slightly ambiguous—it could refer to (a) Paul primarily, (b) Paul and his fellow ministers, or (c) believers generally. Probably the first person plural should be understood as inclusive of all three points of reference, in the order given here: Paul (founding Apostle)–Ministers–Believers.

It is significant that the work of the Spirit essentially reverses the process established by God—the (secret) wisdom is, first:

  • hidden from [a)pokekrumme/nhn] the world [v. 7], and then
  • the cover is removed from [a)peka/luyen] it [v. 10], revealing it to believers

The first verb (a)pokru/ptw, “hide [away] from”) is a passive perfect (participle) form, indicating action which began at a point (in time) and the force or effect of which continues into the present. It is an example of the “divine passive”, with God as the one performing the action (unstated). As a participle it modifies the noun “wisdom” (sofi/a), emphasizing its character as hidden/secret wisdom; this is especially clear from the precise Greek syntax and word order:

  • wisdom of God
    —in (a) secret
  • hidden from (the world)

The second verb (a)pokalu/ptw, “take/remove the cover from”, i.e. “uncover”) is a simple aorist indicative form with God as the subject. The aorist would suggest a past action performed by God (through the Spirit); there are several possibilities for a specific point of reference here:

  • The resurrection and exaltation of Jesus
  • The preaching/communication of the Gospel
  • The receipt of the Spirit by believers (associated with the baptism ritual)
  • Post-conversion work/manifestation of the Spirit to believers

The second of these—the proclamation of the Gospel (by Paul and his fellow ministers)—best fits the context. This allows us to draw a second conclusion regarding the interpretation of v. 6a: the revelation of the (secret) wisdom of God is fundamentally tied to the proclamation of the Gospel. However, I believe we will gain additional insight by a careful consideration of the last half of verse 10, which describes more generally the work of the Spirit:

“…for the Spirit searches out all (thing)s, and (even) the deep(est thing)s of God”

Two phrases are combined, the second of which builds on the first:

  • “for the Spirit searches out [e)rauna=|] all things [pa/nta]
    • even the deep things [ta\ ba/qh] of God

The essential activity of the Spirit is described by the verb e)reuna/w, which means to search out (or after) something. The searching of God’s Spirit is all-powerful and all-inclusive—it searches out all things. The second phrase narrows this to “the deep things” of God. The idea is that the Spirit, in its searching, travels (steps) all the way to the “depths” of God himself, in a manner (somewhat) similar to the functioning of the human “spirit” (v. 11). By inference, we may draw a third conclusion in relation to verse 6a: the hidden wisdom of God relates to the very depths (the deepest parts) of God’s own being. It is an extraordinary thought (and claim) that the Spirit might communicate to believers the deepest wisdom of God himself. Perhaps this suggests something of what Paul means when he states that such wisdom is spoken to “the ones (who are) complete” (in this regard, see esp. the famous words of Jesus in Matt 5:48). For a more immediate exposition (and explanation), in the context of this passage, we now turn to verse 12, to be discussed in the next daily note.

Commentators have had difficulty identifying the Scripture Paul cites in verse 9. The citation formula (“as it has been written”) clearly indicates that he regards it as coming from the Scriptures, yet it does not quite correspond with anything in the books of the Old Testament as they have come down to us. There are two possibilities:

  1. He freely quotes or alludes to parts of a number of passages, combining them in a creative fashion. Perhaps the most likely passages would be Isa 52:15; 64:4; 65:17; Jer 3:16; Sirach 1:10. New Testament authors frequently cite or allude to the Scripture very loosely, adapting them freely—either from memory, or intentionally in order to fit the circumstances in which they are writing.
  2. Paul is quoting from a book otherwise unknown or lost to us today. Origen (Commentary on Matthew 5:29) states that it comes from an “Apocalypse of Elijah”, but it is impossible to verify this one way or the other. It is also found in the Ascension of Isaiah 8:11, but that work has been heavily Christianized and probably is simply citing 1 Cor 2:9.

The first option is much more likely; probably Isaiah 64:4 is most directly in Paul’s mind.

Note of the Day – June 7

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

John 14:16-17, 26; 15:26; 16:7, 13

In the previous daily note, I surveyed the passages in the Gospel of John which mention the (Holy) Spirit; today I will focus in a bit more detail on the so-called “Paraclete” passages in chapters 1416 (Jn 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; cf. also 1 Jn 2:1). Of all the references to the Holy Spirit in the Gospels (and Acts), it is here that we perhaps come closest to the idea of the Spirit as a distinct person. This will be addressed further below, at the end of the note.

The Greek noun para/klhto$ (parákl¢tos) is derived from the verb parakale/w (parakaléœ, “call alongside”). Literally, the noun means “one (who is) called alongside” (passive) or “one (who) calls alongside” (active). The “calling alongside” normally implies the sense of giving help—i.e. aid, comfort, encouragement, etc. Sometimes it carries the technical meaning of a legal advocate. This semantic range has made interpretation and translation of para/klhto$ somewhat difficult in these passages, being rendered variously as “Comforter”, “Counselor”, “Advocate”, or simply transliterated as “Paraclete”. In ordinary English, the word is probably best translated as “Helper”.

A number of (critical) commentators have felt that, in the underlying Gospel tradition, this Paraclete/Helper originally referred to a being or figure separate from the Holy Spirit (as understood by early Christians). This is rather questionable, though it must be admitted that, in all three passages, the Paraclete is identified by the title “the Spirit of Truth”, and only once as “the Holy Spirit”. The expression “Spirit of Truth” is not found elsewhere in the New Testament outside of the Johannine tradition (1 Jn 4:6; cf. 5:6; Jn 4:23-24), but it does appear several times in the Qumran texts (Dead Sea Scrolls), especially in the so-called Community Rule [1QS] 3:18-19; 4:21, 23, the portion sometimes referred to as the “Treatise of the Two Spirits” (cf. also 4Q177 12-13 i 5; 4Q542 1 i 10, and note in 1QM 13:10). These “Spirits”—one of Truth, and one of Falsehood/Deceit—correspond to heavenly beings, i.e. Angels (cf. 1QS 3:24), opposed to one another, according to the dualistic worldview expressed in the Qumran texts (as also in the Testament of Judah ch. 20). Thus, at the time of Jesus (and early Gospel tradition), the expression “Spirit of Truth” as referring to a guarding/helping Angel, would have been current and familiar to some. It is also thought that the Paraclete idea in Jn 14-16 may have been influenced by Jewish Wisdom tradition, in which Divine Wisdom, personified or described as a person, gives help and guidance to the righteous. For a convenient survey and discussion of these topics, cf. R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 29A, pp. 1135-43 (Appendix V).

There are three basic Paraclete passages in John 14-16:

1. John 14:15-24 (& v. 26)—the Spirit in the disciples.

Here the emphasis is on the abiding presence of Jesus (the Son)—and, by extension, God the Father—in believers. Jesus is going away (back) to the Father, but will come again and be seen by his followers:

  • The world will no longer see (physically)
    —but believers will see (through the Spirit), v. 19 (cf. 9:39; 20:29, etc)
  • The world cannot receive the Spirit, v. 17; only those who trust in the Son can/will do so

The Paraclete/Helper is called:

  • The Spirit of Truth“—whom the Father sends, at Jesus’ request (v. 17), and also
    The Holy Spirit“—whom the Father will send in Jesus’ name (v. 26)

The last reference gives specific emphasis on the Spirit/Paraclete teaching the disciples, so that Jesus’ words will remain/abide in them.

2. John 15:18-16:4a—the disciples speaking by the Spirit.

In this passage, the emphasis is on the Divine presence, i.e. of the Son (and the Father), for believers in the face of persecution (hatred by the world), so that they may testify on Jesus’ behalf—i.e., believers as Jesus’ representatives (cf. Mark 13:9-13 par; Matt 10:16-23; Luke 12:10-12). The disciples (indeed, all believers) are chosen out of the world, and do not belong to the world (v. 19).

The Paraclete/Helper is called:

  • The Spirit of Truth“—whom Jesus will send from the Father (v. 26)
3. John 16:4b-15the Spirit speaking through the disciples.

Here, in this third section, the emphasis is on the witness by the Spirit (against the world), through the testimony of believers. It is Jesus (the Son), and, by extension, the Father, who is speaking by way of the Paraclete (Matt 10:20; Lk 21:15). This is a profound reflection of the relationship between Father and Son (vv. 12-15), which, through the Spirit/Paraclete, results in the triadic unity: Father—Son—Believers (cf. 14:20-21, 23; 15:9-10; 17:20-26).

The Paraclete/Helper is called:

  • The Spirit of Truth“—who will come, from the Father and Son together (implied) (v. 13)
Reference to the Trinity?

Commentators and readers are often anxious to find expression of the orthodox formulation of the Trinity in the pages of the New Testament. In all fairness, it must be admitted that is really only present in a very rudimentary, seminal form—e.g., in passages such as 1 Cor 12:4-6; 2 Cor 13:14; 1 Pet 1:2; and Matt 28:19 (on this last, cf. my earlier notes). The basis for the orthodox belief, however, is found in the various statements which relate Jesus to the Father and/or the Spirit. There are two main sources in the New Testament which would shape the development of Christological and Trinitarian thought—(1) the letters of Paul, and (2) the Gospel (and First letter) of John, i.e. Pauline and Johannine theology. The Paraclete passages in the Discourses of Jn 13-17 are central to the Johannine view, which, I believe, may be summarized as follows:

  • The Spirit/Paraclete essentially represents the abiding (spiritual) presence of Jesus in believers, while he himself remains in heaven with the Father. Elsewhere in the New Testament, the expression “Spirit of Jesus” or “Spirit of Christ” is effectively synonymous with the “Spirit of God” or the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 16:7; Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19; 1 Pet 1:11; and note also “Spirit of the Lord” in Acts 5:9; 8:39; 2 Cor 3:17).
  • The Son (Jesus) was sent by the Father; once he returns to the Father, he, in turn, will send the Spirit/Paraclete to his disciples in his place. The Son will continue to act and work alongside the Father (in Heaven), but will, at the same time, be present with believers through the Spirit. This is described at several points within the Discourses (cf. above), and in the narrative context of Gospel is referenced (briefly) in Jn 20:17, 22.
  • The (reciprocal) relationship between Father and Son is such that the Son, in turn, does what the Father is doing (or has done). This is expressed throughout the Discourses in the Gospel, and is emphasized all the more in the context of the Son returning to a position alongside the Father in chs. 14-17. An interesting effect of this is that the sending of the Spirit can alternately be said to take place: (a) by the Father, in Jesus’ name (or at his request), or (b) by Jesus, from the Father.
  • This same relationship is extended to believers, in a two-fold manner:
    (1) The Father comes to abide in believers, just as the Son (Jesus) does—the presence of both (together) is realized for believers through the Spirit
    (2) The Son ‘prepares a place’ with the Father in Heaven for believers—he is the way to the Father and believers, insofar as they are faithful, will follow the Son to abide in union with the Father. This is marked by the other side of the Spirit’s presence—just as the Son abides in believers, so also believers abide in the Son.

Thus, we do not see a Trinitarian formula, properly speaking; but rather a triadic unity marked by the Spirit, which one might diagram (however imperfectly) in the following manner:

Note of the Day – June 6

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

This series of daily notes on the Holy Spirit in the Gospel Tradition, begun in celebration of Pentecost, concludes with a survey of passages dealing with the Spirit in the Gospel of John. For the most part, these references occur in the Discourses of Jesus which make up the core of the Gospel. It is not possible to discuss all of these in detail here; several of the passages have been treated extensively in earlier notes and articles. I would organize the references into five categories which highlight the Johannine view and presentation of the Holy Spirit.

1. John 1:32-33—In relation to Baptism

These two verses combine distinct pieces of early Gospel tradition, also preserved in the Synoptic Gospels and within the book of Acts: (a) the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism (vv. 32-33; Mk 1:10; Matt 3:16; Lk 3:22; Acts 10:38); and (b) the saying that Jesus will baptize people in the Holy Spirit (v. 33; Mk 1:8; Matt 3:11; Lk 3:16; Acts 1:5; 11:16). The latter saying sets a contrastive parallel between water and the Spirit.

2. John 3:5-6, 8—”New Birth”, believers born of the Spirit

Central to the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus in Jn 3:1-15ff is the idea of people coming to be born “out of [i.e. from] the Spirit [e)k pneu/mato$]”. The following points should be noted:

  • It is parallel and synonymous with being “born from above [a&nwqen]”, which can also be understood as “born again” (v. 3)—the dual-meaning serving as the source of Nicodemus’ misunderstanding in the narrative.
  • It is contrasted with physical/biological birth from the mother’s womb [i.e. “water”] (v. 4), and from flesh (v. 6). Indeed spiritual birth has an ineffable, invisible character (v. 8).
  • There is likely also an allusion to baptism—”water and (the) Spirit” (v. 5, cf. 1:32-33; Mk 1:8 par).

This spiritual birth is clearly connected with trust/faith in the Son, who has come down from heaven, sent by God—vv. 11-15, 16-21. Elsewhere in the New Testament, coming to be born “out of [e)k] the Spirit” relates to the birth (conception) of Jesus (Matt 1:18, 20, cf. Lk 1:35), though similar language is applied to believers in Gal 4:29 (cf. also 1 Pet 1:23). In the Johannine tradition, believers are typically said to be born of God (Jn 1:13; 1 Jn 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18), but certainly this should be taken as synonymous with “born of the Spirit“.

3. John 6:63; 7:39—Symbolic of trust/faith in Jesus, the image of eating and drinking

John 6:63—The contrast between Spirit and flesh, similar to that in 3:5-6; for the dualistic idea in Paul, cf. Rom 8:4-6, 9, 13; Gal 3:3; 4:29; 5:16ff; 6:8; Phil 3:3. Note the phrasing:

  • “The Spirit is the (one/thing) making (a)live [i.e. giving life]”—(by contrast) “the flesh makes nothing useful” (v. 63a)
  • “The utterances/words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and Life” (v. 63b)

This declaration by Jesus comes at the close of the great “Bread of Life” discourse in chapter 6, in which Jesus identifies himself as the bread (of life) that has “come down out of heaven” (vv. 32-33, 35, 41, 48, 51, 58), parallel to his identity as the Son who has come down from heaven, being sent by God the Father (Jn 3:13-18, etc). It is trust in the Son which leads to eternal life (vv. 64-65ff), and this is principally what is symbolized in the image of eating the bread of life. Actually, Jesus gives to the metaphor the added dimension of eating and drinking, with the bread representing his body and blood. There is very likely a eucharistic allusion here, but, in my view, commentators have given this far too much weight; verse 63 makes clear that this eating is spiritual, and applies fundamentally to Jesus’ words. However, as the Johannine depiction of Jesus shows him to be the incarnate ‘Word’ of God, accepting Jesus’ words is essentially the same as trusting in his person and his sacrificial death (body/blood).

John 7:39—Here also we find the similar image of drinking, with the Spirit symbolized specifically as water. Again, the symbolism refers to trusting in Jesus, i.e. his words and his person (v. 38). It is the Gospel writer who interprets the water, which will flow out for the believer, as referring to the Holy Spirit (v. 39). In passing, it is worth mentioning that the “writing” (Scripture) Jesus apparently cites in v. 38b remains uncertain; it does not correspond exactly with anything in the Old Testament, though commentators have suggested Psalm 78:15-16; Isa 58:11; Zech 14:8; and Prov 5:15; 18:4 (cf. also Sir 24:30-33) as possibilities.

On the (triadic) conjunction of Spirit, water, and blood, cf. also 1 John 5:6, 8.

4. John 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13—Promise of sending the Spirit for believers

These are the famous “Paraclete” passages in the Discourses of chapters 1317—the sending/coming of the para/klhto$ (parákl¢tos) in 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7, also called “the Spirit of Truth” (14:17; 15:26; 16:13), and once “the Holy Spirit” (14:26). The basic context of chapters 14-16 is Jesus’ impending departure to the Father; actually the language of departure/return takes place at several levels in the (narrative) structure of the discourse:

  • The disciples will no longer see Jesus—
    • 1: He will be put to death
    • 2: He will return to the Father, i.e. remaining in heaven for a time
    • 3: He will go away (depart/return) to his place with the Father
  • They will see him again—
    • 1: He will rise again and appear to them
    • 2: He will come again to them (at the end-time)
    • 3: He will be present with them through the Spirit (i.e. they will see him spiritually)

#1 fits the traditional Gospel narrative context, of Jesus’ impending death and resurrection.
#2 accords with early Christian eschatology, i.e. the end-time return of Jesus.
#3 corresponds to what is often called “realized” eschatology—Jesus’ “return” takes place for believers, even at the present time (at least in part), through the abiding presence of the Spirit.

The Discourses of Jesus in the Gospel of John seem to blend together all three of these strands of tradition/interpretation. The Paraclete passages will be discussed further in the next daily note.

5. John 20:22 (and 3:34)—The sending/giving of the Spirit to believers

John 20:22 records—briefly and succinctly—Jesus’ sending/giving the Holy Spirit to his disciples. Based on Jn 17:20ff, it may be inferred that other believers would (similarly) receive the Spirit through the work and ministry of the disciples. The Gospel of John has nothing matching the Pentecost narrative in Acts 2:1-4ff; however, it essentially holds the same place in the Gospel narrative—i.e., a record of the coming of the Spirit upon the first believers, which Jesus gives/sends from the Father (Lk 24:49; Acts 1:4, 7-8 || John 14:1-7, 16, 19-24, 26, 28; 15:26; 16:4-7; 17:11ff; 20:17, 22). I have discussed this in some detail in short series of articles from Pentecost last year (see esp. Part 3 on the account in John).

There is a relatively close parallel to Jn 20:21-22 in 3:34:

  • 20:21b—”even as the Father set me forth [i.e. sent me], I also (am) send(ing) you”
    3:34a—”the one [i.e. the Son] whom God [i.e. the Father] set forth [i.e. sent] (from Him)…”
  • 20:22—”(Jesus) breathed in/on (them) and said to them, ‘Receive (the) holy Spirit'”
    3:34b—”he [i.e. the Son/Jesus] does not give the Spirit out of (a) measure [i.e. he gives the Spirit without measure]”

On the Spirit having been given to believers, cf. also 1 John 3:24; 4:13.

Note of the Day – June 5

By | Note of the Day | No Comments

No survey or study of the references to the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts is complete without some mention of the unique passages in the so-called ‘Western’ text of Acts. For those unfamiliar with the terminology, in New Testament textual criticism, ‘Western’ refers to manuscripts and versions which share a specific set of textual readings (or tendencies), distinct from other text-groupings (Alexandrian) and/or the ‘Majority’ text (the reading of the majority of manuscripts). In particular, it refers primarily to the readings common to the Codex Bezae [D] and a good number of Old Latin manuscripts. However the term “Western” is something of a misnomer, since ‘Western’ readings are also shared by various Greek MSS presumably covering a relatively wide/disparate geographical range, as well as by Syriac, Coptic (Egyptian), Georgian, etc, versions. While ‘Western’ readings are attested in the Gospels and other New Testament books, the distinctive readings in the book of Acts are extensive (and different) enough to constitute an entirely separate recension, or version, of the book. The relation of this recension to the Alexandrian/Majority text has been the topic of discussion and debate among commentators and textual scholars for decades. The ‘Western’ version is longer and more extensive, containing more (and more verbose) literary/historical detail, especially in the introductory and summary portions of the narrative episodes. Of the many theories scholars have put forward, the most noteworthy (and interesting) are:

  • The Alexandrian/Majority text is the original (or more closely so), while the ‘Western’ text represents a secondary expansion by scribes or an author/editor
  • The ‘Western’ text is closer to the original, while the Alexandrian/Majority text is a truncated or redacted version (by a later scribe or author/editor)
  • The original author (trad. Luke) produced two versions or drafts of the book, each of which (somehow) was published or came into circulation
  • The original work was incomplete, surviving in a draft form which included notes/annotations by the author; subsequent scribes/editors created the two versions working from this draft text

The last theory is especially intriguing and offers an attractive explanation for several especially difficult passages; however, it remains highly speculative. Most scholars today would opt for the first theory, that the ‘Western’ text is a secondary expansion. Generally, this would seem to be correct, since the scribal tendency was to expand/add to the text rather than reduce/omit from it—hence the text-critical rule of thumb lectio brevior potior (“the shorter reading is preferred”). Also, many of the longer narrative sections seem to have the purpose of clarifying the context in detail, to the point of becoming excessively redundant and pedantic.

Some scholars have also thought that the ‘Western’ version shows distinctive doctrinal/theological tendencies (including an anti-Jewish bias); this has been discussed in a number of studies, most notably in Eldon J. Epp, The Theological Tendency of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis in Acts (Cambridge: 1966). One feature of the ‘Western’ version of Acts is an increased emphasis on the Holy Spirit—including at least 10 distinct references, in addition to the 50+ in the Alexandrian/Majority text. It has been argued that this difference is theological as well—e.g., (a) the ‘Western’ author/editor wished to give greater prominence to the role of the Spirit (perhaps under Montanist influence), or (b) the Alexandrian/Majority text may have wished to reduce the role of the Spirit due to an anti-charismatic (or anti-Montanist) tendency. Matthew Black expounds this latter point in his article “The Holy Spirit in the Western Text of Acts” (in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honor of Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Eldon J. Epp & Gordon D. Fee [Oxford: 1981], pp. 159-70). I find such theories to be rather unlikely. Most of what I see in the ‘Western’ version can be explained simply as the result of a tendency to clarify and (over)explain the narrative context. If anything, there may have been a pious interest to enhance the role and prestige of the apostles by including reference to the Holy Spirit whenever possible.

Below I summarize the unique/distinctive passages in the ‘Western’ text which mention the Holy Spirit. I have made use of Black’s study as it provides a convenient compilation of the passages (the Western ‘additions’ are in italics):

  • Acts 6:10 (of Stephen)—”and they did not have strength to stand against the wisdom th(at) was in him and the holy Spirit in which he spoke” (D et al). The shorter text could be taken to mean “the wisdom and spirit“, but the Western version makes clear that this is a reference to the (Holy) Spirit; also the phrase “that was in him” likely is meant to emphasize the divine inspiration which resides within the early believers through the presence of the Spirit. There is a similar variant involving the specific adjective “holy” in Acts 8:18.
  • Acts 8:38—”and when they stepped up out of the water, the holy Spirit fell upon the chamber-official, and the Messenger of the Lord snatched up Philip” (Ac 1739 [and other minuscules] p w, the Harclean Syriac, and other versions/witnesses). It is perhaps incorrect to categorize this as a ‘Western’ reading, since it covers a rather wide and diverse range of textual witnesses. As noted previously, baptism in the book of Acts is always connected with believers receiving the Spirit, so the lack of any such reference in the Majority text of 8:38 is somewhat unusual. This could easily be the reason why a scribe or editor might have added it here; but it also could be an argument in favor of the longer text.
  • Acts 11:17 (Peter speaking)—”who was I powerful (enough) to [i.e. how could I possibly] cut off [i.e. block/prevent] God (so as) not to give (the) holy Spirit to them, the (one)s trusting in Him?” (D p vgms syrh etc). The longer text is curious in that it seems to misunderstand the context and central issue of the narrative in Acts 10-11—the inclusion of Gentile believers as part of the Christian Community. I.e., since the Holy Spirit came upon them miraculously (as a work of God), they certainly should be allowed admission to baptism and entry into the Community. Possibly the sense of Peter’s words underlying the longer reading is, “If I could not prevent God from giving them His Spirit, how could we (other Jewish Christians) dare to prevent them from being baptized?”
  • Acts 15:7—”Peter, standing up in the [holy] Spirit, said…” (D et al)
    Acts 15:29 (The decree)—”…from which [i.e. the things prohibited in the decree] watching (over) yourselves carefully, you (will) perform well carrying (yourselves) in the holy Spirit” (D etc)
    Acts 15:32 (of Judas/Silas)—”…and they, being Foretellers [i.e. Prophets] full of (the) holy Spirit, called the brothers along [i.e. encouraged them] with many words” (D)
    These additions (if such they be) presumably were intended to enhance the status and Spirit-inspired character of the Jerusalem Council, so central to the book of Acts and the account of the early mission to the Gentiles.
  • Acts 19:1—”Paul was wishing to travel unto Jerusalem according to his own plan/counsel (but) the Spirit said to him to turn back into Asia, and coming through…” (Ë38 D syrh mg etc). This is an example of the more expansive narrative introductions typical of the Western text; here it emphasizes the Spirit’s direction (and intervention) in Paul’s travels.
  • Acts 20:3 (of Paul)—”he wished to take up sail into Syria but the Spirit said to him to turn back through Macedonia…” (D syrh mg etc). A similar expanded introduction emphasizing the guiding direction of the Spirit.
  • Acts 26:1—”then Paul stretched out the hand, giving an account of himself, {confident and receiving help/encouragement in/by the holy Spirit}…” (syrh mg [the underlying Greek text is uncertain])

For more on the ‘Western’ version of Acts, consult any reputable critical Commentary. One of the earliest (and best) is The Beginnings of Christianity (5 vols), eds. F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake (1920-33), also available from Biblesoft in electronic form. A popular, compact and very readable modern Commentary is that of J. A. Fitzmyer in the Anchor Bible [AB] series (Vol. 31, 1998). Cf. also the commentaries by E. Haenchen (Westminster/Oxford: 1971) and F. F. Bruce (Tyndale: 1951, and in the NICNT series, 1954/1988), among others. There is a convenient summary of the topic in the Metzger/UBS Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edition), pp. 222-36.