the Third Week after Easter
Click here to learn more!
Bible Dictionaries
Spirit
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or SPIRIT (πνεῦμα).—This word occupies a very important place in the writings of the Evangelists, covers a wide area of thought, and is not always clearly defined as to the particular use it is put to in a given context. The prominent place thus assigned to the word may be considered as indicative of the position which the principal idea embodied by it fills in the general scheme of constructive Christian psychology. In this respect we have a good example of the almost instinctively creative power of Jewish, and especially of Christian-Jewish, religious thought. In classical writings πνεῦμα is found largely employed in a physiological sense (cf. τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ, 2 Thessalonians 2:8; and for a similar use see John 3:8, Hebrews 1:7), but in them it never appears as a psychological term, as it does so often in Biblical writings both of the OT and the NT (see Cremer’s Bibl.-Theol. Lex. s.v.).
The determining factor in the employment of this word by NT writers is the profound belief, inherited from the prophets and teachers of the OT, that there existed from the very beginning a unique fellowship between God and man (cf. πνοὴν ζωῆς, Genesis 2:7 [LXX Septuagint ]). In spite of much and repeated unfaithfulness on man’s part (cf. the difficult, though, for our present purpose, the sufficiently significant passage, ‘My spirit shall not remain [καταμείνῃ] for ever in man,’ Genesis 6:3), this fellowship continued to be realized more and more intensely as one generation succeeded another, and warriors and poets, prophets and priests, all found their inspiration in the firm belief that the Spirit of God was the living motive power animating their words and deeds.
There can be no doubt that the Incarnation formed the culminating point, as well as the final guarantee of the truth, of this historic realization. Henceforth there was established in the human consciousness a relationship between God and man which can be conveyed only in terms expressive of the closest mutual intimacy and communion. Not only can it be asserted that God’s Spirit ‘dwells in’ man, but the counterpart of that truth consists in the resultant abiding of man ‘in the Spirit’ (ἐν πνεύματι, Romans 8:9). The consequence of the Divine Spirit’s activity in this sphere is the co-operative activity of man’s spirit attesting the reality of the relationship and working towards ‘the righteousness of God’ (Romans 10:3, 2 Corinthians 5:21; cf. Romans 8:10-16). The Pauline identification of ‘the Spirit of Christ’ and ‘the Spirit of God’ is for us ultimately justified in the twofold story of the birth of Jesus, narrated, as we must think, from two distinct points of view. The Spirit of God was the operative agency by which the Incarnation was accomplished (Matthew 1:18; Matthew 1:20; cf. the interchangeable terms πνεῦμα ἅγιον and δύναμις Ὑψίστου, Luke 1:35). The revelation of the Sonship of Jesus followed immediately upon His anointing (ἔχρισεν, Acts 10:38) with the Holy Spirit, and the twofold connexion established by the Synoptists between this revelation and His Temptation seems to establish beyond doubt that, in their opinion, the consciousness of Jesus became then for the first time fully alive to the wondrous position which He occupied, and to the character of the work He was destined to undertake (cf. the burden of the heavenly message ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, and the implied doubt repeated in the Temptation εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ, as well as the part played by the Spirit in each of these incidents, Matthew 3:16; Matthew 4:1 ff., Mark 1:11 f., Luke 3:22; Luke 4:1 ff., also John 1:32 f.; see Plummer, ‘St. Luke,’ in ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , ad loc.).
The realization of the abiding presence of the Spirit continued to be for Jesus the dominating feature in His ministry of power (see Matthew 12:28; cf. the corresponding expression ἐν δακτύλῳ θεοῦ, Luke 11:20), and gives terrible force and point to His solemn warning against that continued deliberate opposition to His claims which springs from love of darkness and obedience to the spirit of evil. Here, too, lay the secret of that absolute conviction of the truth of His message to the world, resulting as it did in the astonished recognition of its inherent authority by those who heard it (cf. John 6:63; John 7:39; John 7:46, Matthew 7:28 f., Matthew 13:54; Matthew 22:33, Mark 1:22; Mark 6:2; Mark 11:18, Luke 4:32). Nor would Jesus confine this conviction to Himself. The descriptive title ‘the Spirit of truth,’ three times reiterated in the Johannine discourses, emphasized that side of His teaching which laid particular stress on the identity of the guiding principle of His life and work with that moulding the activity of His disciples. At the same time it guaranteed the continuity of the context of His message and theirs to the world (John 14:17; John 15:26; John 16:13, cf. the actual bequest in which His promises were, partly at least, fulfilled, John 20:22; see also John 7:39). That they might entertain no doubt as to the authoritative position they were to occupy in carrying out the work begun by Him, Jesus spoke of His own permanent return to them as practically identical with the continual abiding of the Holy Spirit in and with them (cf. the phrase ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς, John 14:18). ‘Christ is in fact from the moment of His Resurrection ever coming to the world and to the Church, and to men as the Risen Lord’ (Westcott, Gospel of St. John, on John 14:3). In fact the work of ‘the Spirit of truth’ is mainly the glorification of Jesus by gradually making Him known to the world as to His Person and work (ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λἡμψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν· πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ ἐμά ἐστιν, κ.τ.λ., John 16:14 f.; cf. ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ, John 15:26).
The profound oneness of Jesus and His followers is nowhere more insistently dwelt on than in these passages, and that not alone in the character of the aims which He and they have in view, but also in the motive power helping and the underlying principle guiding them, which are identified by Him as the forces at work in His own life and Person. By an argument a fortiori He gives them an assurance that He will bestow the Holy Spirit on those who recognize their need of His guidance (Luke 11:13). To such the gift will always be proportionate to their immediate needs (Luke 12:12). We must not forget that the peculiar Lukan phrase πνεύματος ἁγίου ἐπλήσθη (Luke 1:15; Luke 1:41; Luke 1:67) is used in connexion with the spiritual experiences of three people whose work lay in the preparatory stage of the coming Kingdom of the Incarnation.
Notwithstanding the transcendent relationship in which Jesus stood to the Holy Spirit, we are not left without witness that even in this sphere of His life He was like us in all things (see Westcott, Gospel of St. John, on John 11:33). It is this word (τὸ πνεῦμα) that is used to describe the death on the cross by three of the Evangelists (cf. Matthew 27:50, Luke 23:46, John 19:30), although in other places we find ψυχή employed in a sense very similar (see John 10:15; John 10:17, cf. John 15:3; John 10:11). It is possible, however, to see in the use of the former word a wider range of thought, as if it was intended to include the latter in its scope. It is as if Jesus desired to commend to His Father’s keeping not only the spirit, the principle of His highest and Divinest life, but also the soul, the seat of His personal earthly life (cf. Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible , vol. iv. 612a).
That ψυχή is, nevertheless, sometimes found to denote more than this is evident from references by Jesus Himself to its indestructibility and its incomparable value as the goal of all human progress, where we should have expected either τνεῦμα or πνεῦμα and ψυχή to convey His full meaning (cf. Matthew 10:28; Matthew 10:39, Luke 17:33, Mark 8:35, John 12:25). The distinction and confusion, however, in these two words are in accordance with OT usage, where ru̇ah (NT πνεῦμα) denotes the Divinely imparted principle of life, and nephesh (NT ψυχή) the result of the impartation (see 1 Corinthians 15:45; cf. Genesis 2:7, where nephesh hayyâh occurs, an expression which is also used of the lower life of the animal creation, Genesis 1:20). The indiscriminate use of these two words to denote the same idea is found, e.g., in Isaiah 26:9 (LXX Septuagint ), a parallel to which we have in the Song of the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:46 f.). See Soul.
In other places where this word is used in connexion with the Personality of Jesus, we find it employed somewhat vaguely and in loose contrast with the outward or physical senses. He is said to have perceived the gist of the murmured reasonings of His critics ‘in his spirit’ (ἐπιγνοὺς τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ, κ.τ.λ., Mark 2:8; cf. Gould, ‘St. Mark’ in ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , ad loc.). There is here an evident contrast implied between that intuitive knowledge gained by inference and deduction, and that acquired by direct hearing with the ears. Again, He is spoken of as sighing inwardly, as distinct from audibly (ἀναστενάξας τῷ πνεύματι αὐτοῦ, Mark 8:12), and being indignant ‘within himself’ or ‘in his spirit,’ without expressing His feelings in words (cf. ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι, John 11:38, and ἐν ἑαυτῷ, John 11:38). An interesting example of a subtle psychological distinction between πνεῦμα and ψυχή is found in the personal experiences of Jesus with two distinct sources of trouble and sorrow. As the cross drew near, His ‘soul’ (ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται, John 12:27) revolted from the horrors of the vision; while we, as we read the narrative of self-revelation, perceive the origin and cause of His sympathy with ‘the feeling of our infirmities’ (Hebrews 4:15). On the other hand, and in close connexion with His approaching death, there was the dark treachery of Judas; and when we remember the profound joy and holy satisfaction with which Jesus reviewed the success of His work in keeping near Him those committed to His charge (see John 17:12), we can understand the grief caused by the loss of ‘the son of perdition.’ With reference to this fact, St. John notices that Jesus ‘was troubled in spirit’ (Ἰησοῦς ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεύματι, John 13:21), as though he would wish us to infer that He was stirred to the very depths of His being by the sight of a soul hurrying to its doom.
Instances are not wanting in the Gospels of contrasts, simple and definite, in which this word plays a part, though we have no example of the antitheses so familiar to students of the Pauline Christology. Perhaps the nearest to the latter is the reference by Jesus to the contrast between the strength and perseverance of the spirit and the weakness of the flesh (τὸ πνεῦμα πρόθυμου … ἡ σὰρξ ἁσθενής, Mark 14:39 = Matthew 26:41). When, in His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus refers to fleshly (ἐκ τῇς σαρκός) birth and spiritual (ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος) birth, He is not contrasting the limitations of the one with the inherent independence, as to time, space, etc., with their consequent imperfections, of the other. He has in His mind simply the two spheres of being to which man, quâ man, stands related. By his σάρξ he is in fellowship, spiritual, mental, and physical, with the whole visible creation. By his πνεῦμα he touches and enters the sphere of spiritual life in the entirety of his complete nature. Both orders of existence have their characteristic principles, and it is man’s unique privilege to unite the two in his complete life and experience. The perfect synthesis is accomplished only in the Incarnation, and it is only by keeping steadily in view the two great constituent elements in Jesus’ Person that we shall succeed in truly interpreting His language in His discourses at Capernaum, which were so vitally misunderstood. Neither the spirit alone nor the flesh alone can apprehend and appropriate the Christ, the Son of Man. ‘The flesh’ is of no avail (ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν, John 6:63), ‘the spirit’ alone has the power of conveying life (τό πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ ζωποιοῦν). At the same time, in order to a genuine participation, the life-giving message must be clothed in language which may be heard and, in part at least, understood (τὰ ῥήματα … πνεῦμά ἐστιν καί ζωή). The historic fact of the Incarnation was necessary to meet the needs of man both on his spiritual and fleshly side, and so we understand the force of the words of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (οὐ γὰρ δή που ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται, Hebrews 2:16). And while it would be going beyond the strict limits of certainty to say that Jesus on this occasion is making specific reference to the rite which He afterwards instituted in words of similar import, it will scarcely be disputed that in His Last Supper He embodied the principles referred to above. In it, too, ‘the flesh profiteth nothing,’ it is the spirit that giveth life; but the invisible, intangible spirit is clothed with a visible, tangible body, while man, working through and by the latter, reaches upwards and partakes of the former (cf. Westcott, Gospel of St. John, ad loc.).
When Jesus, in His conversation with the woman of Samaria, identifies Spirit with the Being of God (πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, John 4:24), He at once proceeds to foreshadow the abiding result, as well as the condition of man’s approach to Him. The arena, so to speak, upon which the activity of the Divine Spirit displays His manifold and world-wide character, is the human spirit. If we are to offer to God a spiritual (ἑν πνεύματι) worship, and apprehend clearly the methods by which He quickens human life, the first and last requisite is that we shall be in the Spirit (John 4:24; cf. Romans 8:15 f., Ephesians 2:18 etc.). It is not enough, though it is perfectly true, to say that ‘the spirit in man responds to the Spirit of God’ (Westcott, Gospel of St. John, on John 4:23). The spirit in man becomes the spirit of man (τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν, Romans 8:16), and acting, as it does, in harmony with the Spirit of God, is guided into all the truth (cf. the sequence τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας … εἰς τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν, John 16:13). Henceforth man’s, spiritual home is within the region of that absolute truth which the Person and the work of Jesus were destined to disclose and make real.
Just as we are led to believe in and hope for this co-operative activity of the Holy Spirit, so the Evangelists are insistent in the belief that the spirits of evil are ever watchful to make their home within us. In words of solemn warning Jesus implies that our need of spiritual guidance is so profound that we stand in constant danger of harbouring these active enemies (note εἰς τὸν οἰκόν μου, Luke 11:24), and that the only way of successfully guarding against their presence is to admit the Holy Spirit as the supreme and only Guest (cf. Plummer, ‘St. Luke,’ in ICC [Note: CC International Critical Commentary.] , on Luke 11:25). So close is the analogy between these conceptions that St. Mark does not hesitate to denote the presence and the relation of the evil spirits to the possessed by using the same preposition (ἐν) which he employs when speaking of the guiding influence of the Holy Ghost (Mark 1:24; Mark 3:22; Mark 5:2; cf. Mark 12:36, Luke 2:27). The diseases which these spirits were supposed to convey to their victims were often spoken of as belonging to them inherently (Mark 9:17; Mark 9:25 etc. See art. Demon).
We shall not be surprised, after these considerations, to learn that when men have the same ends in view, pursue them by similar methods of work, and betray the same general characteristics in their mental and spiritual outlook, they are said to have the same spirit. John the Baptist and Elijah, though separated by centuries of time, were believed to be so far identified that the former lived and acted ‘in spirit and in power’ (ἐν πνεύματι καὶ δυνάμει, Luke 1:17), i.e. under the shadow and guidance of the latter (cf. Jesus’ method of interpreting the popular belief in the pre-Messianic return of Elijah, Matthew 11:14). At the same time, the historian is careful to note that the Baptist’s childhood was marked by a gradual development and strengthening in spirit side by side with his bodily growth (Luke 1:80). See, further, artt. Flesh, Holy Spirit, Soul.
Literature.—In addition to the Lexx. and Dictionary artt. and the Lit. at Soul, see Laidlaw, Bible Doct. of Man, esp. 131 ff.; Weiss, Bibl. Theol. of NT, § 27; W. H. Hodge, ‘Bibl. Usage of Soul and Spirit’ in Pres. Ref. Rev. viii. (1897), 251; F. E. Brightman, ‘Soul, Body, Spirit’ in JThSt [Note: ThSt Journal of Theological Studies.] ii. (1900) 273; W. H. Schoemaker, ‘Use of Pneuma in NT’ in JBL [Note: BL Journal of Biblical Literature.] xxiii. (1904) 13.
J. R. Willis.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Spirit'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/s/spirit.html. 1906-1918.
