The Personality of the Holy Spirit
Copyright © 2006 by Richard Hoot
All rights reserved
Trying to understand the nature of God is both a noble and daunting task. Humans are naturally curious and long to understand their Creator. Yet, as Augustine once noted, “in no other subject is error more dangerous, or inquiry more laborious, or the discovery of truth more profitable” (On the Trinity, 1.3.5).[1]
After the New Testament was written, early Christians scrutinized what God had revealed, almost incidentally as it were, about the nature of the Holy Spirit. At times, these investigations strayed into superficial and dubious concerns, which generated scandalous contentions, but the end result was the formation and general acceptance of certain statements as inferences from Scripture, which became part of the creeds of the Church and which the majority of Christians still embrace.[2]
Yet, in recent years, there has been less and less agreement about the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Philosophical discussions, outside the realm of the Christian Church, have modified the concepts of spirit and personality so much that there is a widespread conviction that the language of the ancient creeds is now inadequate and needs to be restated in modern terms.[3] In addition, the influence of theological liberalism has created considerable diversity of opinion concerning the personality of the Holy Spirit. The purpose of this paper is to survey the theological and historical background concerning the personality of the Holy Spirit.
The Hebrew term ruah (spirit) is extremely difficult to define because it has such a broad range of meanings and because invisible phenomena are inherently difficult to define. Depending on the context, ruah can denote wind, breath, transitoriness, volition, emotional disposition, temper, spirit, or Spirit.[4]
Ruah is a general term embracing elements collected from various sources through syncretism and therefore not derivable from one general principle. Ruah expressed “the metaphysical notion of causality, the principle of movement, energy, and life in the universe.”[5]
Essentially, ruah denotes something unseen so that the visible effect of an invisible force can be adequately understood.[6] Hoyle said that the primary meaning appears to be “air in motion” as wind or breath, while the general idea behind all of its uses is “power in manifestation, or energy.”[7] Similarly, Kamlah believes that the basic idea behind ruah is not just “air in motion” but rather the energy manifested by such movement.[8]
In the physical realm, ruah simply refers to the wind. Yet, this invisible and unpredictable force of nature is under God’s control (Num 11:31). It also came to denote the direction from which the wind might blow (Exod 14:21). Thus, “the four winds” suggests movement in every direction (Jer 49:36) and being “scattered to the winds” implies the most severe exile imaginable (Jer 49:32).[9] It also conveyed a figurative sense of vanity or emptiness (Eccl 1:14, Isa 41:29).[10]
In the physiological realm, ruah can also refer to the life-sustaining function called breathing or breath. It is the essence of life in the bodies of men and animals (Gen 6:17) and a direct result of God’s power (Ps 104:29-30). However, the ruah of God’s nostrils is probably a symbolic reference to the wind as an agent of God’s ominous power (Job 4:9, Isa 11:4).[11] Ruah also appears with neshamah (breath) and nephesh (soul) to denote the breath-soul in man.[12]
In the psychological realm, ruah can describe a mood, attitude, or inclination. Consequently, ruah involves a person’s character, nature, or condition. Thus, God can demoralize the spirit of the Egyptians (Isa 19:3).[13]
Since breathing is often a visible indication of intense emotions, ruah readily expressed the mental and emotional aspects of man’s inner life and was used with terms like nephesh and labe (heart). Ruah and nephesh both express the invisible and immaterial element in man as opposed to the flesh, but they are distinguished from each other as the “animating principle” and the “animated result.” Ruah denotes the vital energy, the causative principle in all actions, whether bodily or mental, while nephesh is the ego. The association of power with ruah may explain its use to denote the energy of personality in particular situations.[14]
As the seat of cognition and volition, ruah denotes activities involved in thinking, aptitude, and decision-making. For example, God enhanced certain creative abilities through the spirit of wisdom to facilitate the construction of the tabernacle (Exod 28:3) and enriched certain cognitive faculties through the Spirit of the LORD (Isa 11:2). Often, ruah refers to the mind (Isa 29:24), and frequently appears as a synonym of lebab (heart) when denoting intellectual activity (Ps 77:6).[15]
In the supernatural realm, ruah was used to describe a variety of agents acting on mankind from outside or above. Hoyle described this aspect as “extra-human” because Hebrew thought made no distinction between the natural and the supernatural. At times, these agents were distinctly personal (1 Kgs 22:19-26), while at other times, they were not (Judg 9:23). They were under God’s control and were responsible for sickness, insanity, and abnormal powers of body and mind (1 Sam 18:10).[16]
Theologically, the most important aspect is that of the divine ruah. In the Old Testament, the predominant designation for the divine Spirit is as the Spirit of Yahweh (25 times) or the Spirit of Elohim (11 times). Sometimes, the Spirit occurs with pronouns but only rarely as “the Spirit.”[17] The phrase “Holy Spirit” occurs in only two Old Testament passages (Ps 51:11, Isa 63:10-11); but in both places, Caulley maintains that God Himself is the referent and not the Holy Spirit who is encountered in the New Testament.[18]
The operations of God’s Spirit are both pervasive and diverse. For example, the “breath” of God can be simply a strong wind (Isa 40:7, 59:19 NASB), and His “spirit” may indicate nothing more than active power or mental activity (cf. Isa 40:13 with LXX and 1 Cor 2:16). At other times, the Spirit is distinct from both Yahweh and Moses; a portion can be taken from him and “placed” upon the elders in the wilderness (Num 11:17, 25). Yet, Isaiah, quoting the Messiah, appears to assume the distinct personality of the Spirit (Isa 48:16).[19]
The Spirit may be related to God’s activity in creation (e.g., Gen 1:2, Ps 104:30). However, Turner rightly notes that such assertions are rare and ambiguous; the breath of God’s mouth may refer to the word of His command (Ps 33:6), and God’s ruah might refer to the vitality He gives to living creatures (Ps 104:29, Job 27:3).[20] While the role of the Spirit in creation is not always clear, Old Testament authors speak of the Spirit as being omnipresent (Ps 139:7) and omniscient (Isa 40:13). Often, the divine ruah functions like the alter ego of God, dwelling in the midst of Israel like the divine Glory (Hag 2:5).[21]
The Spirit of God is also the agency by which God controls or empowers individuals. God’s people are energized (Ezek 2:2), transported (2 Kgs 2:16) or endowed with special gifts for sacred service (Exod 35:31, Judg 6:34). Evidently, the liquid anointing with oil symbolized the divine spiritual anointing (1 Sam 16:13), which provided the basis for David’s adoption as God’s son (Ps 2, cf. Matt 3:16-17, Rom 8:14-15).[22]
Similarly, the Spirit of God is the agent of inspiration. A prophet is literally a “man of the spirit” (Hos 9:7) who speaks on God’s behalf through the direction of the Spirit (2 Sam 23:2). Prophetic operations occur when the Spirit is “poured out” in the context of Israel’s restoration and covenant renewal (Joel 2:28-29).[23]
At times, the Spirit appears in anthropomorphic terms (either literally or metaphorically). In early poetry, the Spirit was God’s breath (Exod 15:8, 10, Ps 18:15), and the storm was the explosive blast of His breath (Isa 30:27ff, Job 4:9). Hoyle said that the Spirit usually denoted the higher activities of the divine nature and was regarded as similar to the energies of thought and volition in man.[24]
There is no way of tracing exactly how biblical authors connected the earlier, literal meaning of ruah as wind or breath with the divine Spirit. However, one can imagine how the original, narrower meaning gradually expanded into the larger and wider usage as vitality, feelings, intelligence, and general disposition.[25]
Biblical authors undoubtedly believed that God made man in His image. Since human breath was an invisible part of man that represented his vitality, energy, and life, it would have been easy to transfer that concept to God in an effort to represent His energetic and transitive action on man and nature.[26]
The ancient Israelites spoke anthropomorphically of God’s arm, hand, or face; so they also spoke of His breath (i.e., His vital power) in a way that was as active and effective as God Himself. The ancients regarded the wind and the vitality of life as mysterious, powerful, and terrifying forces; consequently, manifestations of extraordinary, mysterious powers in man or nature were attributed to the breath or Spirit of God.[27]
If the Spirit sometimes appears to be distinct from God, it is because the breath of God acts in an exterior fashion (Isa 48:16, 63:11, 32:15).[28] Hence, the simple anthropomorphism of the biblical authors probably led them to think of the Spirit of God as the breath of God just as a man’s breath is part of the man and yet goes forth from him.[29]
Swete observed that, in the great majority of Old Testament passages, the Spirit of God is the vital energy of the divine nature, corresponding to the higher vitality of man. This energy is usually presented as a creative or vitalizing force and the source of reason and intellect in man (particularly in the case of special gifts or endowments).[30]
According to Swete, the divine ruah exhibits personal qualities and performs personal acts because, in the Old Testament, the Spirit of God is “God exerting power.” The Spirit is the principle of life within the divine nature and the presence of God in the world and in man. Since the truth, mercy, and light of God are partially personified in the Psalms (e.g., Ps 43:3, 57:3), the Spirit can also be regarded as quasi-personal.[31]
Therefore, Swete concluded that the Spirit of God rules, speaks, and guides because it is the living energy of a personal God. He said that the Spirit exhibits a quasi-independence that comes close to distinct personality (Isa 48:16) especially where the Spirit and the Word are contrasted, but, the distinction only applies to the external activities of these two divine forces. Thus, the distinct personality of the Spirit belongs to a later revelation.[32]
While the Old Testament does not discuss the nature of the Spirit in a metaphysical sense, the Spirit is always presented as energetic, never static; therefore, Hoyle concluded that “the Spirit of God is God at work manifesting effective power.”[33] In the Old Testament, the Spirit is viewed as the basis of the divine nature, the equivalent of deity itself (Isa 30:1, 31:3). Indeed, the presence of the Spirit is the presence of the LORD, and the departure of the Spirit is the departure of God (1 Sam 16:13-14, 18:12, 28:15).[34]
In the latter part of the Old Testament, there is an increased use of personification with respect to the Spirit. For example, the Spirit “spoke” through David (2 Sam 23:2) and was an instructor of Israel (Neh 9:20). Israel is said to have “rebelled against” and “grieved” His Holy Spirit (Ps 106:33, Isa 63:10).[35]
However, Hoyle rightly observed that this language should not be unduly pressed. The fact that the Spirit could be “grieved” was used by fourth century churchmen to prove the personality of the Spirit, but Isaiah also said that a forsaken woman could be “grieved in spirit” (Isa 54:6). In addition, “Wisdom” and the “Word” were both personified to such a degree that Wisdom itself had a spirit (Prv 1:23, Isa 55:11).[36]
Bushinski claims that the Old Testament does not present the Spirit as a person either in the strictly philosophical sense or in the Semitic sense; God’s Spirit is simply His power. He says that Old Testament authors rarely attribute mental or emotional activity to the Spirit of God; and when they do, such expressions are mere figures of speech reflecting the use of the term ruah as the seat of intellect and emotion.[37]
While there are no Old Testament passages that explicitly present the distinct personality of the Spirit in the New Testament sense, there are many passages that are in harmony with and prepare the way for it (Ps 139:7, Isa 63:10, 48:16, Hag 2:5, Zech 4:6).[38] According to Carter, many other doctrines are implicit in the Old Testament and explicit in the New.[39]
Indeed, many believe that the personality, attributes, and operations of the Holy Spirit are made known mainly in the New Testament. This is consistent with what appears to be a general rule of divine revelation that the knowledge of heavenly things is given more abundantly and more clearly in later ages.[40]
The Greek term pneuma (spirit) also denotes air set in motion with an underlying stress on its inherent power. It first meant wind or breath, but increasingly, it took on the functions of related concepts (i.e., vitality, thought, and intellect).[41]
In Stoic philosophy, it was the fifth element, an ethereal, fire-like substance that gave coherence to the different entities of creation. In its purest form, it was the Logos or God. As spiritual fire, it was the soul of man, and as “habitual” pneuma, it gave coherence to inanimate objects.[42]
Pneuma also had a supernatural aspect. Plutarch and others used it to denote prophetic inspiration. They considered it to be a material substance, which filled a man and enabled him to prophesy. It could also refer to a demon or other supernatural entity.[43]
The origins of ruah and pneuma are similar, stemming from associations with wind and breath, which ancient cultures connected to an invisible spiritual force.[44] In the LXX, the equivalent of pneuma is usually ruah. Only three times does pneuma correspond to the term neshemah (breath). Of the 377 instances of ruah in the Masoretic Text, 264 are translated as pneuma and 49 are translated as anemos (wind).[45] While the terms ruah and pneuma can refer to wind, breath, or spirit, the common image is that of invisible forces or life energies whose sources cannot readily be observed but whose effects are transparent and sometimes even violent.[46]
Consequently, there are some interesting parallels associated with these terms in the Old and New Testament. For example, an evil ruah was said to “come upon” men, and similar language is used about the Holy Spirit (1 Sam 10:6, Luke 1:35). Another group of phrases attributes fluid properties to ruah. God “mingled” a spirit of perverseness on Egypt (Isa 19:14) and “poured out” a spirit of sleep upon the people (Isa 29:10). Similarly, the Spirit of God was to be poured out (cf. Isa 44:3, Joel 2:28 with Tit 3:5-6), and a person could be “filled” with the Spirit (Exod 31:3, Luke 1:41).[47]
In the New Testament, pneuma denotes the power that humans experience in connection with the spirit realm. Within this broad definition, pneuma can refer to the human spirit (nearly 40 times), good or evil spirits (more than 40 times), or the Holy Spirit (more than 250 times).[48]
The transition from the Old Testament to the New Testament provides a fuller theology of the Holy Spirit. The writers of the New Testament employed phrases that were not seen in the LXX. The divine Spirit appears as the Spirit of the Father (Matt 10:20), the Spirit of His Son (Gal 4:6), and the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7 NASB). New attributes are also associated with the Spirit; in addition to being the Spirit of wisdom (Isa 11:2), the New Testament speaks of the Spirit of truth (John 14:17), life (Rom 8:2), grace (Heb 10:29), and sonship (Rom 8:15). Above all, the Spirit has a personal title, ho parakletos (the Paraclete or Helper).[49]
Various symbols of the Holy Spirit appear throughout the New Testament. Jesus breathed on the disciples to foreshadow the coming of the Holy Spirit, which builds on the Old Testament symbolism of the Spirit as the breath of God (John 20:22). Jesus also described the Spirit as rivers of living water flowing out from Him like water from the rock in the wilderness (John 7:37-39). Paul described the Spirit as a guarantee of God’s promises (2 Cor 1:20-22) and as a seal that identifies the believer as God’s property (cf. Eph 1:13-14, Rom 8:9).
Although theologians have often related oil with the Holy Spirit, Cherry rightly observes that there is little biblical evidence for this connection (e.g., 1 Sam 16:12-13, Isa 61:1-2). Yet, he also feels that oil symbolizes in the Old Testament what the Holy Spirit fulfills in the New Testament since the work of the Holy Spirit is to set apart and empower individuals for service.[50]
There are also some very significant manifestations of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove at the baptism of Jesus authenticating His messianic office (John 1:32-33). A mighty wind and tongues of fire preceded the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:2-3).
In many ways, the work of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament is an extension and culmination of Old Testament functions. The miracles of Jesus and the apostles reflect the astonishing creative power of the Holy Spirit; indeed, the role of the Spirit in the resurrection of Jesus and the saints is now prominent (Rom 8:11). The Holy Spirit is still an integral agent in prophecy, revelation, and inspiration, but there is now an explicit understanding that the writings of the apostles and prophets are God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:21).
According to Swete, the question of the Spirit’s relationship to God is never formally raised in the New Testament and receives only a partial answer; instead, the Holy Spirit is discussed mainly in relation to the Church and the Christian life.[51] The Holy Spirit is the chief agent in the regeneration and sanctification of the saints so they can walk in the Spirit (Rom 8:4, Gal 5:16). Indeed, the transformation of the heart is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). The Holy Spirit not only reveals the truth but also takes an active role in missionary activity throughout the Book of Acts. The Holy Spirit selects leaders within the body (Acts 20:28) and empowers them with gifts for service (1 Cor 12:1-11).
Similarly, Hoyle felt that the Synoptics present the Spirit much as the Old Testament did; the Spirit is correlated with God but not as a distinct person. The Holy Spirit can be blasphemed, which is an unpardonable sin (Matt 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-30, Luke 12:10), and in times of trial, the Spirit would “speak” through the disciples (cf. Matt 10:20, Mark 13:11 with Luke 12:12, 21:15).[52] Swete also believed that blasphemy of the Spirit indicated His deity but did not exceed the limits of Old Testament revelation in that respect.[53]
According to Mullins, the validity of Matthew 28:19 has been called into question, but there are insufficient grounds for its rejection. Up to this point, he says, there is almost no direct hint of the personality of the Holy Spirit in the Synoptics, but here is “a very suggestive hint” of a doctrine of the Spirit that attains more complete development later.[54]
Hoyle argued that the personal activities predicated of the Paraclete, the careful selection of masculine terms for the neuter substantive (pneuma), the steady use of the personal pronoun ekeinos, and the functions which the Spirit discharges all imply personality.[55] Swete argued that the Holy Spirit was to be Christ’s substitute on earth fulfilling the role of an advocate and that no function more characteristic of personal life could have been attributed to the Spirit.[56]
According to Swete, the personality of the Paraclete was essential to Christ’s reasoning since an impersonal influence could not supply the personal guidance and probation that the apostles needed when the Lord was taken from them. Therefore, Christ’s description cannot be compared with the Old Testament personification of the wisdom of God as a personal (female) agent.[57]
Indeed, Swete held that the notion of personification breaks down in view of Christ’s own recorded words. Jesus promised a personal Advocate, not a mental abstraction, and that is exactly what the apostolic Church experienced. The distinct personality that began at the Last Supper is consistently maintained in the Book of Acts and the epistles. The Spirit commands, forbids, helps, and leads the Church; in addition, He can be resisted and grieved.[58]
Moreover, Owen argued that the same logic that is used to prove that the Father and the Son are persons applies equally to the Holy Spirit as well. The Holy Spirit guides the Church and appoints overseers to govern it (Act 13:2-4, 20:28). He discerns and judges all things (John 16:8), comforts and strengthens the weak, and is grieved and provoked by sin (Eph 4:30). He works, orders, and disposes all things according to His own will and council (Act 8:29, 15:28, 1 Cor 12:11). Whatever is ascribed to the other persons is equally ascribed to the Holy Spirit.[59]
Swete observed that Christ could not be speaking of a new operation of divine power in man or of His own spirit perpetuating itself in the lives of His disciples because He distinguishes the Paraclete from Himself and the Father. The differentiation is “perfect.” The Spirit is not the Father or the Son; He is distinct from both. He proceeds from the Father but is sent by both.[60]
The Paraclete is not simply the spiritual presence of Christ because the Spirit is designated as “another Helper” (John 14:16) distinct from Christ. He is sent by Christ and bears witness to Him; He speaks what He hears and glorifies Christ. If language means anything, personality is clearly implied.[61] Richards observes that allos (another) here does not refer to “another of a different kind” but rather “another of the same kind.” The Holy Spirit is certainly of the same nature and origin as Jesus and thus one with the Father.[62]
While the personality of the Spirit is clearly implied by the language of John 14-17, Mullins admits that there is no formal teaching on the metaphysical side, no ontology in the strict sense of the word. Those who reject the personality of the Holy Spirit make much of this fact, but they have no difficulty claiming that the authors of the New Testament saw God as a personal being.[63]
Indeed, there is little in the way of metaphysics or ontology concerning the nature of God in either Testament. His personality is deduced from the same kind of language that is used for the Spirit. From a strictly ontological point of view, therefore, one should also reject the personality of God on the basis of biblical teaching. Those who believe in the personality of the Spirit are not insisting on finding metaphysics in Scripture when it is absent, but they do insist on consistency when interpreting the popular and practical language of Scripture.[64]
Hoyle said that Paul did not attempt to define the nature of the Holy Spirit; instead, he was more concerned with the presence and work of the Holy Spirit, which was described in both personal and impersonal terms. For example, Paul referred to the Spirit metaphorically as a seal (Eph 1:13) or a pledge (2 Cor 1:22).[65]
However, Mullins argues that the impersonal references reflect the Old Testament concept of the Spirit, while the personal references represent the more developed concept of both John and Paul. Personal attributes appear so often, he said, that it would be unwarranted to let the earlier and lower concept take precedence over the later and higher view.[66]
Indeed, Hoyle observed that attributes such as thought, choice, and volition (1 Cor 12:11) suggest a self-conscious agent in the modern sense of the term. The frequent coordination of the Spirit with the Father and the Son (Rom 8:9-11, 1 Cor 12:4-11) and the “supernatural” quality of the Spirit’s work (renewing, sanctifying, and indwelling) indicate that this language is more than just personification. The Spirit is described as the self-consciousness of God, which goes forth from Him (Gal 4:6) and intercedes on behalf of the saints with Him (Rom 8:27).[67]
Hoyle cited additional evidence in the Book of Hebrews. The Spirit speaks directly through Scripture (Heb 3:7, 9:8, 10:15) and not through intermediaries as in the Old Testament (cf. Matt 22:43, Acts 1:16). The Spirit can also be insulted (Heb 10:29).[68]
According to Bushinski, most New Testament passages mentioning the Spirit of God reflect the Old Testament notion of God’s power. The Spirit is associated with Mary’s pregnancy (Luke 1:35), the expulsion of demons (Matt 12:28), spiritual gifts (1 Cor 12:4-11), the miracle of “tongues” (Acts 2:4), and prophetic revelation (Luke 1:67). Believers also experience renewal and sanctification through the Spirit (Tit 3:5).[69]
He feels that most New Testament texts reveal the Holy Spirit as something, not someone. This is especially evident in the parallelism between the Spirit and the power of God. Although quasi-personal activities such as speaking are ascribed to the Spirit, the same expressions are used of rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas (Rom 7:17, 8:6-7). Thus, the context of the phrase “blasphemy against the spirit” shows that this is a reference to God’s power.[70]
Yet, Bushinski maintains that there is a gradual revelation of God’s Spirit as a person. In his opinion, the only passage among the Synoptics that clearly speaks of the personality of the Spirit is the baptismal formula of Mathew 28:19, and while the Spirit is often mentioned in the Book of Acts, the only statement that seems to imply full personality is Acts 15:28. He says that Paul’s Trinitarian formulas indicate a real personality (e.g., 2 Cor 13:14), as well as John’s use of the masculine pronoun (ekeinos) to refer to the Spirit (John 16:8, 13-16).[71]
According to Walvoord, the early Church understood the major aspects of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit from the beginning and expressed this understanding in various ways. However, the technical terms associated with this doctrine developed very gradually, and many writers struggled to understand more fully what they believed but had not yet articulated in precise theological language.[72]
The Ante-Nicene period (AD 100-300) provides considerable testimony about the deity of the Holy Spirit, although the period as a whole was still formative and preparatory. While their language was not always technically correct, the writers of the second and third centuries obviously tried to remain close to the Scriptures and also attributed praise and honor to the Holy Spirit. The Church also promptly rejected many early errors about the Holy Spirit and generally excluded the Gnostics, Ebionites, and followers of Simon Magus from their fellowship.[73]
Hoyle explained that, in the post-apostolic era, there were four different views concerning the nature of the Holy Spirit. At various times, the Spirit was described as an attribute of God without distinct personality, as an impersonal energy or operation, as a gift expressed in impersonal terms, and as a distinct person.[74]
For example, in the early Christological speculations, the Spirit was viewed as a divine essence and was frequently identified as the Son (cf. Justin Martyr Apology 1.33, Hermas Similitude 5.6, 9.1, 2 Clement 9.5, 14.3 in the Appendix). Second century apologists used well-known philosophical terms (like Wisdom and Logos) to explain the providential operations of God and the inspiration of Scripture. However, like Philo before them, they found it difficult to keep the concept of the Spirit distinct from the Logos.[75]
Gradually, the distinction between the Spirit and the Son became clear. Justin placed the Spirit in third order within the divine name (Apology 1.13), and Theophilus of Antioch used the term Triados (Triad) while differentiating Wisdom (i.e., the Spirit) from the Logos (To Autolycus 2.15). While Athenagoras considered the Holy Spirit to be an effluence of God, he also affirmed the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and their distinction within that unity (A Plea for the Christians 10, 12). And, while Valentinus diminished the status of the Son and the Holy Spirit, Irenaeus united them as God’s “Hands” in the creation of mankind (Against Heresies 4.pref.4).[76]
The early Church clearly treated the Holy Spirit as a distinct person. Hoyle cited three particular examples: the threefold baptismal formula (cf. Matt 28:19, Justin Martyr Apology 1.61, Didache 7.1, 3), the various early forms of the so-called Apostle’s Creed, and the constant association of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son as an object of faith and worship (e.g., Justin Martyr Apology 1.6).[77] Indeed, Swete noted that the devotional language of the early Church was more advanced than its doctrinal system. He said, “The worship of the Trinity was a fact in the religious life of Christians before it was a dogma of the Church.”[78]
Origen concluded that the Holy Spirit possessed the same honor and dignity as the Father and the Son and that there could be no subordination within the Trinity (First Principles Pref. 4, 1.3.7). He was unsure if the Spirit was begotten or unbegotten (the Eunomian dilemma), and in his freer speculations, he had considered the Spirit to be subordinate to the Son. Yet, his doctrine of the generation of the Son as an eternal, immanent relation within the Godhead provided a solution to subordinationism; it explained the consubstantiality of the Father with the Son, and thus, by inference, of the Holy Spirit with both.[79]
The rising tide of heresy eventually forced the Church to define the doctrine of the Holy Spirit more clearly. In the early part of the third century, Sabellius taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were actually three different modes by which God manifested Himself; Sabellianism gained a significant foothold within the Church but was halted when Sabellius was finally excommunicated in AD 261. In the early fourth century, an Alexandrian presbyter named Arius taught that the Father had created the Son and that the Son, in turn, had created the Holy Spirit. He also denied the consubstantiality of the Son and the Holy Spirit with the Father. Later, he denied both the deity and personality of the Holy Spirit.[80]
New theological terms and phrases gradually began to appear. For example, Hippolytus applied the Greek term prosopon (face) to the persons of the Trinity. Tertullian originated the term “Trinity” and the formula “three Persons, one substance,” which spread throughout the West (Against Praxeas 11-13).[81] He believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were distinct and yet “of one substance” (Against Praxeas 2, 9). In this economic Trinity, the Spirit was third in order of divinity (Against Praxeas 30) but also subordinate to the Son.[82]
The terms “person” and “substance” were borrowed from Greek philosophy and given specific theological definitions that differed from their original meanings.[83] When the term “person” is applied to the Godhead, it is not being used in its ordinary sense to denote a separate being. It represents the Latin persona or the Greek prosopon, which refers to that which stands under or is the subject of certain attributes or properties; therefore, three “Persons” are not three parts of one God or three Gods. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not simply three names but distinct hypostases with characteristic attributes.[84]
In addition, the meaning of the term “person” changed significantly over time. The Latin term persona originally denoted the mask worn by an actor. It was then applied to the role he played, and finally, to any character on the stage of life, to any individual.[85] It is equivalent to the Hebrew term panim (face) and was used in 2 Corinthians 1:11 to refer to an individual. After some initial hesitation by Tertullian and Novation, the West adopted the use of this term. In the first century, the biblical term hypostasis (Heb 1:3) originally meant a common substratum, or ousia, that could be shared by several individuals, but later, it came to mean a concrete individual with definite characteristics.[86]
In the period leading up to the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), the Church was preoccupied with debating the nature of Christ and paid little attention to the Holy Spirit. The Nicene Creed recognized the Holy Spirit without developing the idea of the Spirit’s divinity or essential relationship with the Father and the Son; that became a major issue in the late fourth century.[87] The Nicene Creed positively affirmed the deity and consubstantiality of the Father and the Son but simply concluded with “I believe in the Holy Spirit.”[88]
In the Post-Nicene period (AD 325-451), another outbreak of heresy forced the Church to address the deity of the Holy Spirit. Between AD 340 and AD 360, various Arian or semi-Arian synods recognized the personal existence of the Holy Spirit but anathematized those who regarded Him as a part of God or confused Him with the Father and the Son (i.e., Sabellianism). They acknowledged only a unity of agreement among the persons of the Trinity and would not affirm the deity of the Spirit. Around AD 358, a deposed bishop of Constantinople named Macedonius taught that the Spirit was a created being subordinate to the Son. He and his followers were known as Macedonians or Pneumatomachoi (i.e., “fighters against the Spirit”).[89]
The reaction against the Macedonians was decisive and far-reaching. By AD 363, Alexandria had affirmed the deity and consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son. Antioch and Rome endorsed similar positions shortly thereafter. Finally, in AD 381, the Council of Constantinople anathematized the Macedonians, confirmed the Nicene Creed, and enjoined the worship of the Spirit as co-equal with the Father and the Son.[90] They described the Spirit as “the Lord and Giver of Life, proceeding from the Father, to be worshiped and glorified together with the Father and the Son.”[91]
During the Trinitarian disputes, the use of the word persona led to controversy between the East and West. The precise Greek equivalent was prosopon, which also originally referred to an actor's mask and then to the character he represented; however, prosopon had not yet acquired the general meaning of an individual, as had that of persona. Consequently, the formula tres personae, tria prosopa (three persons) sounded like Sabellianism to the Greeks. On the other hand, the Greek term hypostasis, from hypo-histemi, was taken to correspond to the Latin substantia, from sub-stare. Therefore, tres hypostases appeared to conflict with the Nicene doctrine of the unity of substance in the Trinity.[92]
Gregory of Nazianzus brought about the final reconciliation between the conflicting terminologies of the East and West (Orations 42.16). The Greek terms ousia and hypostasis were equivalent to the Latin terms substantia and persona. In the Godhead, ousia denoted what was common to all three, such as goodness and divinity, while hypostasis signified the special property of Fatherhood, Sonship, and sanctifying power (Basil Letters 214.4).[93]
By the time the First Council of Constantinople convened, both sides recognized that the terms hypostasis, prosopon, and persona were equally applicable to the three divine realities. The West recognized that the true equivalent of hypostasis was not substantia but subsistentia, and the East realized that using the term prosopon, in the sense of the Latin persona, precluded the possibility of Sabellianism.[94]
The Council of Constantinople had settled the question of the deity of the Holy Spirit. The Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), which included Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Constantinople, confirmed the findings of the previous councils. After this, theological debate centered on the procession of the Spirit from the Son; the deity of the Holy Spirit was no longer an issue.[95]
However, this verdict rested on the prior work of many notable individuals. Athanasius, the Cappadocian triumvirate,[96] Didymus the Blind, and Epiphanius had opposed Eunomianism, refuted the Macedonians, and worked out a doctrine of the Trinity. Gregory of Nazianzus concluded that the Spirit possessed the properties and prerogatives of God, and therefore, that the Spirit must be divine. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit shared a community of essence and were inseparable in every operation. Consequently, the order of the divine names in the baptismal formula implied co-numeration not subordination.[97]
Moreover, their discussions included several important caveats. While biblical exegesis provided the raw material of their doctrine, the formal arguments were based on Neo-Platonic metaphysics. In addition, the “personality” predicated of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was not the modern concept of a self-conscious, self-determining ego.[98] Instead, “the three subjects ranked neither as separate persons, nor as attributes of the real divine being, but as three special bearers or independent foci [centers] of all attributes and activities of their common divinity, and also of a peculiar and characteristic property.”[99] They were theoretical or conceptual entities that were equally divine and yet distinct from one another.
In the centuries that followed, the East and West divided over the Filioque controversy. The Constantinopolitan Creed had sidestepped the Eunomian dilemma (that the Spirit was either generated or ungenerated) by simply asserting that the Spirit “proceeds” (ekporeuetai) from the Father (John 15:26). This language preempted the kind of criticism often leveled against the unscriptural Nicene term homoousios (of the same essence) that was used during the Trinitarian debates.[100]
In the West, Augustine asserted that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father “and the Son” (filioque), while in the East, procession was solely from the Father. The unilateral insertion of the Filioque clause into the Constantinopolitan Creed by the West was a contributing factor in the rupture with the East in AD 1054.[101]
Augustine understood the term “Person” in the Trinity to mean a subsistent relation. Hence, the mutual relations in the Godhead were taken as eternal begetting, being begotten, and proceeding.[102] In the Augustinian social analogy, the Father loves the Son, the Son is beloved, and the Spirit is the love between them. In the psychological analogy, God is similar to the memory, intellect, and will of the mind.
Boethius, an Italian philosopher-statesman of the 6th century, provided the classic definition of a person: Naturae rationalis individua substantia (an individual substance of a rational nature).[103] Substance, in this case, denoted a subsistent subject or hypostasis. Hence, a person is a subsistent and incommunicable subject of an intellectual nature.[104]
Aquinas, however, explained it in terms that essentially constituted a new definition. Individua substantia, he said, signified substantia, completa, per se subsistens, separata ab aliia (i.e., a substance, complete, subsisting per se, existing apart from others).[105]
Meyer claims that the Trinitarian doctrine of classical Scholasticism, which influenced Catholic pneumatology until recent times, originated in a rather strange amalgam of New Testament data, Platonic Gnosticism, and Aristotelian metaphysics. The presupposition of the system was that God is an adequate object of human cognition and that, in addition to the Bible, the speculations of metaphysics could be predicated about His nature. He could be understood by way of analogy and negation. In Scripture, God is a father, husband, and judge, only more so. The philosopher’s way was that of negation; God is immutable, uncreated, and infinite.[106]
Scholastic theology viewed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as formal relations grounded in the common divine essence. When the relationship is considered, the three persons stand in opposition or distinction to one another; when the divine essence is considered, there is no distinction or opposition. Thus, the persons of the Trinity are constituted essentially by subsistent, substantial relations. The Father is constituted through paternity and spiration, while the Son is graced with filiation and spiration. The Holy Spirit is awarded only one relation, that of passive spiration.[107]
With the exception of the Socinians, the Reformers accepted the traditional views concerning the personality of the Holy Spirit. The Reformers and their successors were concerned with justification by faith and the sufficiency of Scripture alone apart from tradition. Socinianism revived Arianism by asserting that the personal activities of the Spirit were figures of speech and that the Spirit was a property of God without hypostatization. Although the Socinians were vigorously opposed, the arguments for the personality of the Spirit showed no real advance over earlier discussions.[108]
John Wesley relied on the Bible for his doctrine of God and paid little attention to metaphysics and philosophy. His position was practical rather than speculative. He did not think that it was wise to attempt an explanation of God’s nature because it could lead to confusion rather than clarification and did not believe that people should be burned at the stake if they did not use the word “trinity.” He acknowledged the deity and unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and considered it foolish to reject what God had revealed merely because one did not comprehend what God had not revealed.[109]
The deists of the eighteenth century tried to reconcile the existence of a supremely good and powerful Creator with the presence of evil in the world. Therefore, they concluded that God was transcendent, but not immanent; He had created the world but did not control it.[110]
The nineteenth century produced many notable works about the Holy Spirit, but the advent of Rationalism undermined many traditional positions throughout continental Europe. Abraham Kuyper and George Smeaton made important contributions to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, while Friedrich Schleiermacher denied the personality of the Spirit, and Albrecht Ritschl ignored the subject altogether.[111]
At the turn of the century, Henry Barclay Swete became the leading voice of his time concerning the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Swete held that, in both the Old and New Testaments, the Spirit of God is God at work in the world. And, while God is spirit in an ontological sense, the Spirit of God is differentiated from God because the Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. He concluded that the distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in conjunction with the personal attributes that are assigned to each, points to some profound mystery in the Being of God that makes it possible to say that the Spirit of God is God, yet not the Father nor the Son.[112]
He also observed that, while the Holy Spirit is not definitively hypostatized in the New Testament as a person within the unity of a tri-personal Essence, personal qualities are freely attributed to the Spirit as an agent in the field of human experience. The ideas of personality and tri-personality, he said, are foreign to the intensely practical purposes of the New Testament, and in its closest approach to a metaphysical theology, it stops short at such a revelation of God as answers to the needs and corresponds with the facts of the spiritual life in man.[113]
However, the fact that this Advocate is invisible and purely spiritual does not negate His personality because “it is in that which is most spiritual in ourselves that we find evidence of our own personal life.” Since He fulfills all of Christ’s personal functions toward the Church and belongs in the category of a Paraclete, He is invested with all of the essential attributes of personality.[114]
Hence, the Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son, although He is God. In His works and gifts, He is regarded as a power and a gift rather than as a person and is described under figures borrowed from external and inanimate nature; yet in His own divine life, it is impossible to doubt that He possesses that which, in some higher and incomprehensible way, answers to personality. With respect to the Church and the world, He bears a personal name and fulfills the role of a personal office, but the Apostolic age did not venture beyond these lines of thought. It was occupied with the work of the Spirit rather than with the doctrine of His personality or His relationship to the Father and the Son.[115]
In the end, Swete concluded that the essential nature of the Holy Spirit is, in the strict sense of the word, divine. While the Bible is also decisive concerning the personality of the Spirit, it is not equally clear in the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament attributes personality to the Spirit to the degree that it identifies the Spirit of God with God Himself, present and operative in the world and in men. The teaching of Christ and the apostles accentuates the personal attributes of the Spirit while distinguishing the Spirit from the Father and the Son. The baptismal formula encompasses the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the unity of the name that consecrates and claims for itself the life of man.[116]
The dominance of liberal theology in German universities in the early twentieth century seriously undermined confidence in the Bible. Theological liberals brushed aside the doctrine of inspiration and assumed that belief in biblical inerrancy was no longer tenable. Subsequent contributions by crisis theologians, like Barth, and the adherents of neo-orthodoxy have done little to reverse this trend.[117]
Having rejected the incarnation and deity of Christ, liberal theologians considered the Holy Spirit to be a divine manifestation without the quality of personality. Contemporary theologians view the concept of three persons in one God as a fundamental contradiction; consequently, there has been an inevitable tendency toward Unitarianism in which God is one though His manifestations are many.[118]
Liberal theologians in the twentieth century took the opposite position of the deists who had preceded them. They believed that God was immanent rather than transcendent; however, since a good and omnipotent God would not allow evil to exist, they concluded that God was not all powerful.[119]
The darkness and despair of World War I forced Swiss theologian Karl Barth to revise the tenants of liberal theology. He found that liberalism was completely inadequate for the needs of his congregation. The horrors of war demonstrated mankind’s utter helplessness and forced a re-examination of biblical theology to see if there was a divine answer to human need. Barth concluded that liberalism had erred by denying the transcendence and omnipotence of God. He solved the problem “by attributing to God the power of immediate divine revelation to man and direct intervention in supernatural ways into human problems.”[120]
While Barth accepted the deity of the Holy Spirit, his main contribution was a new doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit, which led to a re-examination of the definition of His personality. He rejected the definition of the Holy Spirit as a distinct person of the Trinity and the concept that the Spirit is simply a mode of manifestation. He objected to the term “person” as implying tritheism (three Gods) but also rejected ordinary modalism (divine manifestation) in three ways as equally inadequate.[121]
Barth’s definition of the Trinity is a threefold mode of divine existence or being, which is less than that of distinct persons but more than that of mere modes of manifestation. His definition was an attempt to avoid the problem of using the term “person” to refer to the members of the Trinity. Consequently, his view is acceptable to some who are formally orthodox.[122]
Like Barthianism, neo-orthodoxy was a reaction against liberalism that brought a renewed sense of realism to both philosophy and theology. The chief spokesmen were Emil Brunner, Reinhold Neibuhr, and Paul Tillich. They replaced the liberal tendency to naturalize religion and deny the miraculous with the concept of a transcendent and supernatural God. While still suspicious of biblical miracles, neo-orthodoxy regards the work of God in revealing Himself and extending grace to man as supernatural acts.[123]
As a group, neo-orthodox theologians do not have a clearly delineated doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit. While Brunner is more emphatic about the personality of the Spirit than Barth, Tillich rejects His personality, and Neibuhr never constructs a doctrine of the Holy Spirit in a Trinitarian sense.[124]
Instead, the Holy Spirit is an activity of God, supernatural and gracious, but not a person of the Trinity in the orthodox sense. Unlike Barth, they usually deny the distinct personality of the Spirit and affirm His deity only in a Unitarian sense as a divine manifestation.[125]
For example, C. F. D. Moule steadfastly resists the personality of the Holy Spirit. He says there is no uniform treatment of the Spirit in the New Testament and insists that it is inappropriate to try to squeeze New Testament references to the Spirit into the straight jacket of later doctrinal formulation; however, by examining the implications of New Testament experience, it may be possible to understand why later generations came to a Trinitarian concept of God’s nature.[126]
He feels that the closest that the New Testament comes to Trinitarian language is in the passages where “the Father” and “the Son” are almost used as technical terms. When these terms are used almost as titles (e.g., Matt 28:19, 1 John 2:22), some kind of eternal relationship is apparently being indicated.[127]
And, while there are numerous passages containing words for God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, he argues that they are not an indication of an eternal, threefold nature in the one Godhead. For example, outside of Christianity, Plato’s Timaeus drew many commentators who developed various transcendental triads (i.e., “father, creator, artificer” or “mind, artificer, cosmos”), but none of these implied a strictly Trinitarian interpretation. In the New Testament, threefold phrases are not confined to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit; Paul mentioned God, Christ, and the holy angels (1 Tim 5:21). Even less significant is the “trishagion” or thrice holy cry of the seraphim (Isa 6:3, Rev 4:8, 1 Clement 34:6), which some viewed as an indication of the threefold nature of God but is more likely just reverential repetition.[128]
Moule claims that the doctrine of the Spirit that developed in the centuries following the New Testament was derived from and dependent on the doctrine of Christ that developed during the same period. In effect, the doctrine of the Trinity was the by-product of a binitarian interpretation that preceded it.[129]
And, while the Spirit is never anything less than awe-inspiring, divine, and mighty in Scripture or subsequent Christian writings, it is not immediately obvious to him that the Spirit should be understood as an eternal and distinct aspect within the Godhead. Indeed, he says that creedal statements and ancient hymns mentioning the Spirit are conspicuously brief.[130]
According to Moule, the deity of the Spirit first began to take shape when the Arian heresy was defeated by the main stream of orthodoxy. Arius taught that Christ was divine but on an inferior level to the supreme Deity, just as a demigod in Greek mythology was subordinate to Zeus. Arius said that Jesus was “of a different essence” (heteroousios) with the Father while others held that He was “of similar essence” (homoiousios); the final consensus was that the Father and the Son were “of the same essence” (homoousios). In subsequent debates, Arius’ questions about the nature of the Son were applied to the Holy Spirit; but this proposal was also rejected, and the Spirit was declared to be in no way inferior to the Father or the Son.[131]
In Moule’s opinion, the appeal to Scripture made by Athanasius, Serapion, and Basil proves nothing as to the eternal “being” of the Spirit; it only shows that the term “Spirit” refers to a personal God’s personal activity. If “Holy Spirit” means “God at work among men,” it would be easy to quote Scriptures showing that the Spirit is spoken of as divine and personal. After all, “Spirit” is only one of several terms denoting divine action, intention, or immanence. God’s “Word” (or Logos) and Wisdom can perform the same function, and in certain contexts, so can His “Name,” “hand,” or “finger.”[132]
In the end, the main stream of the Church did not stop at a binitarian view. It explicitly set the Holy Spirit as a third entity in the same category as the Father and the Son and described the Spirit as “one in being” (homoousion) with the Father. While the unilateral insertion of the Filioque into the Nicene Creed led to dissention between the East and West, both sides expressed the firm conviction that the Spirit was distinct from the Son and that God must be described in Trinitarian terms.[133]
Moule also contends that Augustine’s social analogy fails to justify this view because a relationship between two persons cannot properly be described as possessing personality in itself. This is further underscored by the tendency to speak of the Spirit in neuter terms and the fact that Christian art avoided personal depictions of the Spirit by using the symbol of the dove or rays of light.[134]
According to Moule, the fact that Spirit is the mode by which a personal God is present does not seem to require that Spirit should be recognized as essentially personal. There is a good case for personal language, he says, when Spirit is the mode of God’s presence in the hearts and minds of His people, but this does not indicate a third, eternal “Person” (in the technical sense) within the Godhead.[135]
Therefore, he concludes that two things are clear and striking about the experience of the earliest Christians. First, Jesus Christ was understood to be not just an historical figure but also a transcendent Being; He was one with God in a binitarian sense, and therefore, eternally existent. Second, there was the experience of Christ’s character being imparted and reproduced in each Christian as the work of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Christian experience led to the recognition of at least two distinct “modes” of God’s presence with humanity: Christ as Mediator and the Holy Spirit creating Christ’s likeness in them.[136]
Turner, on the other hand, sees the Holy Spirit as a reference to God Himself, especially as an expression of His power in the world. He claims that idealism and classic liberalism emphasized the “Spirit” as God’s mode of immanence in creation. As a result, pneumatological studies have tended to go in pantheistic directions and have lost sight of the biblical focus of the Spirit as the redeeming presence of God among His people.[137]
He describes the Spirit in the Old Testament as a mode of God’s presence (Pss 51:11, 139:7). He also dismisses the personal attributes of the Spirit (e.g., teaching, leading, and speaking) as an apparent literary device and considers references to God’s “arm” or “hand” to mean God’s Spirit rather than God the Spirit.[138]
He points out that, in the New Testament, the Spirit of the LORD has become the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7 NASB). And, just as the Spirit had been the channel of communication between Yahweh and Israel’s leaders, the Holy Spirit, operating in the realm of prophecy, became the link between the risen Jesus in heaven and His church on earth. Indeed, the Paraclete mediates the presence of the Father and the Son just as Jesus had represented the Father (John 14:7-11, 23).[139]
Haroutunian laments that theologians have been unable to find a firm and logical place for the Holy Spirit within the Godhead. While the terms “Father” and “Son” readily function as personal symbols, the term “spirit” refers to wind, breath, or moving air, which is not clearly personal. Personal and impersonal references to the Holy Spirit by biblical authors have produced endless confusion until the Spirit has become an “oblong blur.”[140]
In spite of recent efforts, he says that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit remains a puzzle to many. When theologians describe the Holy Spirit as God in action, the power of God, or the presence of God, it is hard to think of Him as the third person in the Trinity. Analogies with the human spirit or references to the Spirit of Christ have failed to improve the situation.[141]
Thus, while orthodox theologians have continued to argue for the personality of the Spirit on biblical and traditional grounds, liberals have fallen into Unitarian or binitarian positions because tradition without logic has ceased to be binding for them. However, orthodox and liberal theologians have been so preoccupied with the doctrines of God and Christ that the Spirit has all but vanished from the mind of the Church.[142]
Hendry, on the other hand, says that while the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the New Testament, it contains the materials out of which the doctrine took shape. In particular, he sees the outlines of a Trinitarian pattern in the thoughts of John and Paul.[143]
He describes the Trinitarian character of Pauline theology as a paradoxical combination of unity and diversity. The unity of the Trinity is primarily functional in nature, so that the names of the three “persons” are interchangeable, while the distinction between them centers on their respective spheres of activity. “The Father is present and active in the Son, who in turn continues to be present and active in the Spirit.”[144]
The personality of the Spirit is important, he concludes, not because the Spirit is a person in relation to God but because the Spirit is a person in relation to humanity. Therefore, the Spirit is not merely a divine influence or force because, through the Spirit, God meets with and deals with mankind personally.[145]
Similarly, Meyer notes that one’s identity is usually defined in terms of the role that one plays in life; consequently, he believes that the identity of the Holy Spirit must be sought in the economic Trinity. Essential Trinitarianism deals with the Trinity of persons in itself, while economic Trinitarianism deals with the three persons in relation to human salvation.[146]
In economic Trinitarianism, theologians speak of personal missions and appropriations. Missions are earthly processions of the persons for a particular salvation task corresponding with the essential processions by which the Father is able to send the Son or the Holy Spirit. Appropriation is the parceling out of the various tasks of creation and salvation to the divine persons with the understanding that each job is done by all three acting in consort through the divine nature.[147]
Pinnock complains that there has been a marked unwillingness among theologians to acknowledge the social character of the Trinity. While the Cappadocian brothers saw personal communication as something central to God’s nature, Augustine sent out mixed signals; he would sometimes speak of three persons as distinguishable subjects, while at other times he would hesitate to give such distinctions a place. Augustine was similarly ambivalent over whether the social or psychological analogy was most appropriate.[148]
Pinnock maintains that Augustine was influenced by the neo-Platonic doctrine of simplicity, which posits an ideal of undifferentiated unity in God. While any form of Trinitarian doctrine challenged Hellenistic thinking, the cultural influences of that day encouraged people away from the biblical portrait of God as dynamic, relational, and open to the world.[149]
Although cultural pressures have changed, Pinnock believes that this uncertainty concerning the personality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has continued to the present day. Modern theologians evidently think of God as a single, divine subject existing in three (undefined) modes.[150] They are reluctant to speak straightforwardly of three persons, not because of neo-Platonism, but because of modern notions about what the term “person” means.[151]
Pinnock will have none of this and calls on theologians to stop sending out mixed signals concerning the persons of the Trinity. For him, the Spirit is not an unspecified mode in a unipersonal God but a self-conscious person who fellowships with the other persons of the Godhead. He also notes that, in recent years, there has been renewed interest in the social analogy by many theologians (e.g., Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jurgen Moultmann, and Cornelius Plantinga).[152]
Modern philosophy has generally not discussed the Holy Spirit in a specific theological sense. The God of Hegelianism was scarcely personal; Hegel used the expression “Holy Spirit” to refer to the spirit of logic, and any similarity to Christian doctrine was merely superficial. Kantian philosophy limited reason to the phenomenal and fostered agnosticism within theology.[153]
However, modern philosophy has played an important role in the critical analysis of self-consciousness, which has influenced the discussion of the doctrine of the Spirit. The reaction against Kant traced out the meaning of personality by examining the ego in terms of cognition and volition. Consequently, the traditional interpretation of personality in terms of substance and accident is now considered inferior to that of self-conscious spirit. Yet, Hoyle rightly observed that the concept of personality has not been fully explored, and the use of one mystery to understand another can hardly bring much light.[154]
According to Swete, the Holy Spirit is not merely personal but a person in God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit possess the same divine life, each with a different mode. These modes are referred to as “Persons,” but the analogy of human personality is deficient. Therefore, it is not surprising that untrained minds have a concept of the Trinity that borders on tritheism.[155]
Yet, as Swete also candidly admitted, the definition of divine personality is unavoidably ambiguous.
The idea of the One Undivided Essence, subsisting eternally after a threefold manner and in a threefold relation, finds but very partial correspondence in the nature of man or in any finite nature. When we try to express it in precise language, our terminology is necessarily at fault; the “hypostasis” of the philosophical East, the “persona” of the practical West are alike inadequate; in the things of God we speak as children, and we shall continue to do so until “that which is perfect is come.” Yet our imperfect terms represent eternal [truths]. The currency may be base, but it serves for the time to circulate amongst men the riches of God's revelation of Himself.[156]
Consequently, the theological definition of personality has some significant caveats. As Torrey cogently observed,
Oftentimes when you say that the Holy Spirit is a Person, people understand you to mean that the Holy Spirit has hands, and feet, and fingers, and toes, and eyes, and ears, and nose, and mouth, and so on. No, not at all. These are not the marks of personality; these are the marks of corporeity. THE MARKS OF PERSONALITY ARE, KNOWLEDGE, FEELING AND WILL, AND ANY BEING WHO KNOWS, THINKS, FEELS, AND WILLS, IS A PERSON WHETHER HE HAVE A BODY OR NOT.[157]
Indeed, some say that human language cannot adequately express the mutual relations of three hypostases in one substance. “That which transcends thought can never find expression by the tongue.” Analogies are insufficient, they claim, because God is unique, and there is no way to test the comparison. However, analogies do show that the personality of God is possible, and a non-personal God is inconceivable.[158]
Many European theologians, inspired by Rudolf Bultmann, believe that all human language about God is symbolic and mythical. Meyer concludes that if there is no analogy of being, then God has to be totally Other and not at all describable in terms of human subjects and objects. Thus, God can be objectified in human thought and language only through the use of symbol and myth, which simultaneously encapsulates some significant truth related to the mysterious and preserves the aura of mystery about that truth. As Augustine stated, long before Bultmann, if someone thinks that they have arrived at a concept of God, one thing is certain: they have not.[159]
The fact that God’s nature is incapable of complete human comprehension is both logical and understandable. Humanity can never fully comprehend the limitlessness of deity. To comprehend God fully would require possessing the infinite wisdom of God, in which case, one would no longer be human but divine.[160]
Humans are able to know something of God’s personality because they are made in His image, yet Champion points out that one must not mistake likeness for identity. It has often been assumed that personality is practically the same in both God and humanity, but he believes that each type of personality (human, angelic, and divine) should be considered in itself and that failure on this point has led to a great deal of confusion about the nature of God. For example, divine personality is uncreated and infinite and is always perfect in the finality of eternal attainment, which is not true of humanity.[161]
And, since human persons are able to reveal themselves more fully to those with whom they are in full accord, the art of knowing God consists largely of being led by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:14) and hungry for the Word of God. Champion rightly concludes that, without these two elements, even the brainiest and most scholarly of men may wander the fens and moors of foolishness and self-deception.[162]
The argument that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person within the one Godhead rests on three lines of reasoning. The first is that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son. The second is that the Holy Spirit possesses the essential attributes of personality. The third is that the Holy Spirit is God. Since similar arguments can be made for the Father and the Son, theologians conclude that the Holy Spirit must be a divine person within the Trinity.
First, Scripture distinguishes the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. They are listed separately in the baptismal formula (Matt 28:19), which is redundant if the Spirit is a mere mode or manifestation. They are differentiated in various administrations and blessings (1 Cor 12:4-6, 2 Cor 13:14, 1 Pet 1:1-2) and are as unique as the one body, one faith, and one baptism that define Christianity (Eph 4:4-6).
During the Last Supper, Jesus was explicitly clear on this point. The Father sends the Holy Spirit at the behest of the Son (John 14:16-17). If the Paraclete is sent by the Father and by the Son (John 14:26, 15:26), then clearly He must be distinct from both. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is “another Helper” or Advocate sent to take the place of Jesus (John 14:16, 1 John 2:1).
References to the Holy Spirit are not simply circumlocutions for the Father or the Son nor are they references to the human spirit of Jesus. The differentiation is too pronounced and goes beyond the simple anthropomorphic descriptions of the Spirit of Yahweh found in the Old Testament. The Spirit of the Father (Matt 10:20) and the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9) are not two separate spirits but one Holy Spirit (Eph 4:4); therefore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally divine and consubstantial yet distinct from one another.
Second, the Holy Spirit possesses all the basic attributes of personality. Here, the hypostasis of the ancient creeds has been superseded by the modern definition of a person as a self-conscious subject that possesses intellect, volition, and emotion. In addition, the Holy Spirit carries out functions that are normally associated with personality.
For example, the Holy Spirit has a mind. The Holy Spirit makes decisions (Acts 15:28). In addition, God knows the mind or intent of the Spirit (Rom 8:27). Indeed, Paul did not say that the Holy Spirit is the mind of God but that the Holy Spirit possesses intellect. Likewise, the Spirit of God knows the thoughts of God (1 Cor 2:11 NASB) showing that there is communication between them.
Moreover, the Holy Spirit exhibits volition. The Holy Spirit issued commands and selected leaders in the early Church (Acts 8:29, 10:19-20, 13:2-4, 20:28). The Holy Spirit distributed spiritual gifts according to His will (1 Cor 12:11). Finally, biblical prophets spoke as they were moved or prompted by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:21), which required thoughtful supervision in order for their words to be considered God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).
The Holy Spirit exhibits emotions. The Holy Spirit groans while interceding for the saints, which indicates His passion and concern (Rom 8:26). Paul warned the Ephesians not to grieve the Holy Spirit (Eph 4:30). In addition, the Holy Spirit can be insulted (Heb 10:29).
Moreover, the Holy Spirit exhibits all the functions that one would normally associate with personality. Since the Father and the Son exhibit many of the same personal activities, the Holy Spirit must be just as personal.
For example, John used the term parakletos to describe the role that the Holy Spirit would play in the life of the Church (John 14:26). Although often translated as “Helper” or “Comforter,” this term also implies a counselor, intercessor, or legal advocate, which requires true personality to fulfill; therefore, the Spirit cannot be a mere influence or power. This conclusion is borne out in John’s description of the Paraclete.
According to Jesus, the Paraclete was to teach, testify, and convict (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:8), which are intrinsically personal activities. According to Paul, the Spirit “testifies with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom 8:16 NASB). In addition, the Paraclete was to inform the Church of future events (John 16:13), and Paul wrote that the Spirit had clearly explained what would come to pass in the latter times (1 Tim 4:1).
Indeed, the Paraclete can hear and speak (John 16:13). Luke wrote that the Holy Spirit gave audible commands to Philip, Peter, and Paul (Acts 8:29, 10:19-20, 13:2). Old Testament prophets spoke to God’s people saying, “Thus says the LORD.” In the New Testament, Agabus revealed Paul’s future saying, “Thus says the Holy Spirit” (Acts 21:11).[163] Jesus explicitly said that the Holy Spirit would be “another Helper” sent in His place to minister to the needs of the Church (John 14:16, 1 John 2:1), which underscores the divine origin and personal qualities that were needed to fulfill Christ’s role in ministering to the disciples.
Moreover, lying to the Holy Spirit also clearly indicates His personality, since one cannot lie to an impersonal influence (Acts 5:3-4). The fact that Ananias and Sapphira received such a swift, severe, and miraculous punishment for their blatant impiety is a stern reminder that God knows the thoughts and feelings of every person and He rewards accordingly (Jer 17:10).
Many cite the use of masculine pronouns as evidence for the personality of the Holy Spirit. Greek words have a grammatical gender that is not necessarily related to natural gender. For example, the Greek term paidion (child) takes neuter pronouns in the original text, but these pronouns are translated as either masculine or feminine (depending on the context) to be consistent with the rules of English grammar (e.g., Matt 18:2).
The Greek term pneuma (spirit) is grammatically neuter, but the Bible occasionally appears to use masculine pronouns when speaking about the Holy Spirit. For example, John repeatedly used the masculine demonstrative pronoun ekeinos (that one) to refer to the Holy Spirit (John 15:26, 16:7-8, 13-14). Martin says that this is a figure of speech called heterosis, in which one gender is used in place of another to emphasize something.[164]
However, there are some significant problems with this argument. Ryrie concedes that the clearest example only occurs in John 16:13-14, since the other passages may be referring to the term parakletos (Helper), which is also masculine.[165] Paul may have used the masculine relative pronoun hos (who) when referring to the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:13-14), but the evidence is not compelling. Ryrie points out that hos in Ephesians 1:14 may refer to the word “guarantee” (“earnest” in the KJV), which is also masculine.[166] Similarly, Comfort says that the earliest manuscripts (P46, B) use a neuter pronoun.[167]
Third, Scripture supports the deity of the Holy Spirit. Various passages either equate the Holy Spirit with God or show that the Holy Spirit possesses the unique attributes of deity. Since these statements cannot apply to a created being, the Holy Spirit must be God.
For example, in the Old Testament, the Spirit of Yahweh is synonymous with the invisible presence of Yahweh, the God of Israel (1 Sam 16:13-14, 18:12, 2 Sam 23:2-3). This link also appears in the parallelism of Hebrew poetry (Ps 139:7ff). Indeed, David associated the departure of the Holy Spirit with being cast from God’s presence (Ps 51:11). Since David understood that God is omnipresent, this must refer to a loss of fellowship and favor with God as the earlier episode with Saul plainly indicates (1 Sam 28:6, 15).
Similarly, in the New Testament, lying to the Holy Spirit is synonymous with lying to God (Acts 5:3-4). Paul equated “God’s temple” with “a temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 3:16-17, 6:19-20). Indeed, the voice of the Lord in the Old Testament is the voice of the Holy Spirit (cf. Heb 1:1, 2 Pet 1:21 with Acts 28:25-27, Isa 6:8-10) so that what was spoken by Yahweh was spoken by the Holy Spirit (Heb 10:15-16, Jer 31:33). Thus, Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and also God-breathed (2 Pet 1:21, 2 Tim 3:16).
In addition, the Holy Spirit possesses all the attributes of deity. Unlike humans and angels, God alone is all-powerful, ever present, all knowing, and uncreated. Since the Holy Spirit has these attributes, the Holy Spirit must also be divine.
For example, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. God promised Zerubabbel that His plan would succeed, not by (human) might or power, but by His Spirit (Zech 4:6). The Holy Spirit facilitated the signs and wonders performed by Paul (Rom 15:18-19) and is instrumental in the spiritual rebirth and renewal of the saints (John 3:5-6, Tit 3:5).
Some cite Genesis 1:2 and Psalm 104:30 as evidence of the Spirit’s role in Creation, but these passages are ambiguous. Psalm 104 celebrates the same creative acts that are mentioned in Genesis 1, but the context seems to emphasize God’s providential role in animating or replacing animal life upon the earth (cf. Ps 104:29 with Job 33:4, 34:14-15), which illustrates the power of the Spirit nonetheless.
Moreover, the Holy Spirit is omnipresent, omniscient, and eternal. The Spirit of God is synonymous with God’s presence, which fills heaven and earth (Ps 139:7-12, Jer 23:24). The Holy Spirit investigates all things and knows the thoughts of God, which no one else can know unless God reveals them (1 Cor 2:10-11, Isa 40:28). And, like God who is everlasting, the Spirit always exists having no beginn