God is a Spirit- John iv. 24.
My subject this evening is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Last Sunday I attempted to show that the doctrine of the Divine Unity, unqualified and undivided, is taught by the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures; that God is our Father, and that the Father is the only true God, – the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the foundation on which we rest our faith.
Those who impugn this doctrine, or who modify it by a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, attempt to prove that Christ, the Son of God, is equal with the Father, and, in some sense, the same with the Father; also, that the Spirit of God has a personality and attributes, separate from God the Father and God the Son. Having thus asserted these points separately, they join them together, under a modified doctrine of the Divine Unity, as a Trinity of persons in one God. The most important step in their argument is to prove the Deity of Christ, that is, his equality or identity with the Father, and it might naturally be expected that this would form the next subject of our inquiry. Such is the usual course; but I have two reasons for departing from it by taking the doctrine of the Holy Spirit first. In the first place, I think that sufficient prominence is not given to this doctrine in the Trinitarian controversy. It is too often taken for granted, or accepted with almost no proof. Trinitarians, if they can satisfy themselves of the Deity of Christ, consider that their whole work is done. Very few are aware upon what slender proof the separate personality of the Holy Spirit rests. Very few are aware of what is the fact, that this doctrine was not even asserted in the Christian Church, nor made a part of the creed, until the end of the fourth century, by the Council of Constantinople. I wish this to appear; both that the importance of the doctrine, and the difficulty of receiving it in any other way than that in which we receive it, may be known.
I wish it to appear that the Scripture language concerning the Holy Spirit confirms our view of the Unity; that no doctrine of the Holy Spirit can be found such as is necessary to establish the Trinity. If I can succeed in this, we shall then come to the consideration of Christ's nature, with a strong presumption that our view of him is correct; for I think that, if it plainly appears that a third person in the Trinity cannot be proved, very few persons will undertake to prove the second, and the doctrine of the Divine Unity will therefore become more impregnable.
I take this course also for another reason. There is no subject upon which Unitarians are more misrepresented than this of the Holy Spirit. Because we deny a separate personality, we are thought to deny the Holy Spirit itself, that is, to reject all belief in divine influences for the regeneration of the heart and guidance of the life. Many persons hold to the doctrine of the Trinity because they suppose that its denial would involve an error like this. They shrink from the Unitarian belief for the same reason. They feel the necessity of those heavenly influences which are the workings of the divine spirit, and from their faith in such influences their chief enjoyment in religion proceeds. Shall they give it up? Even if overthrown in argument, shall they yield all the blessedness of their religion? We say no. If such were the alternative, let the doctrine of the Trinity be adhered to, with or without proof. The necessity of the heavenly influence which the heart acknowledges would be proof enough.
But there is no such alternative. To deny the personality of the Holy Spirit, separate from that of the Father, is not to deny the Holy Spirit itself. So far as the doctrine is a practical one, or of any practical importance in the formation of the religious character, all Christians are agreed upon it. In God we live and move and have our being. He works within us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. He is more ready to give his Holy Spirit to those that ask him, than an earthly parent is to bestow good things upon his children. But all this is as true to the Unitarian as to the Trinitarian. Indeed, it seems to me more true; for we believe that the gift comes directly from a Father's love. There is no intermediate doctrine of a third person to confuse the thoughts. When we pray to the Heavenly Father, we feel that we are in living communion with him and he with us.
The Greek word translated Spirit in the New Testament is Pneuma, the literal meaning of which is wind or breath. The corresponding word in the Old Testament has the same meaning. Both words occur very frequently in this sense. When applied to God, or to any intelligent being, they are commonly translated Spirit, sometimes by the word Ghost, which, as you know, had exactly the same meaning at the time when the translation of the Bible was made. To give up the ghost is the parting of the spirit from the body, and the Holy Ghost is only another name for Holy Spirit. The Greek or Hebrew word is exactly the same in both cases. Now the question in controversy is, What does this term Holy Spirit mean according to Scripture usage? Is it a person in the Godhead separate from the Father, or is it intended to express as its general meaning the influences which proceed from the Father? This question must be decided by a careful examination of the Scripture.
There are three principal uses of the term Holy Spirit when applied to God in the Scripture which we must examine. 1. Sometimes it means God himself; 2. Sometimes the power, or some other attribute, of God; and 3. Sometimes (which is the most common use) the various influences which proceed from God.
First: It is sometimes used as another expression for God himself, just as the spirit of man is sometimes used for the man himself. Of this we have an instance in 1 Cor. ii. 11, “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” As we should not think of saying that the spirit of man is here any thing but the man himself, so the Spirit of God is God himself. So it is said, Ps. cxxxix. 7, “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there”; where the phrase “thy Spirit” evidently means the same as thy presence, or thyself. Again, Isa. xl. 13, “Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him?” where the Spirit of the Lord evidently means the Lord himself. This is in accordance with the words of our text, “God is a Spirit.”
The only intelligent idea that we can form of God the Father is of a spiritual being, or of an infinite mind, partly made manifest to us through his wonderful works. Just as our idea of a man is chiefly that of a spirit or soul, which for the present is joined to the body as the means of its development. In both cases the idea is indistinct and imperfect. We cannot perfectly apprehend the nature of spiritual existence, and in our efforts to do so we may easily become puzzled. But so far as we have any distinct conception of the being of God the Father, we think of him as an infinite, omnipresent Spirit. How much, then, is our difficulty increased, and how hopeless does the confusion of our minds become, when we try to think of a Spirit of God, having a personal existence separate from God the Father! For if the Father is himself a Spirit, it is to speak of the Spirit of a Spirit, and in fact conveys no idea to the mind. But if in such cases we take the Spirit of God as another expression for God himself, there is no difficulty.
The second use of the term “Spirit of God” is to express God's power, or some other attribute. When the Saviour said, Matt. xii. 28, “If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils,” he meant by the power of God; as we find in the corresponding passage by another Evangelist, Luke xi. 20, “If I by the finger of God cast out devils”; in both cases meaning exactly the same. So in Luke i. 35, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee,” the exercise of the Divine power is intended.
Such modes of expression are quite common in the Bible. They are intended simply to express the exertion of God's power. Whatever God himself does, he is said to do by his spirit, or by his word, or by his hand, or by the breath of his mouth; all of which means substantially the same thing. See, for example, Job xxvi. 12, “He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth through the proud. By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.” Or in Ps. xxxiii. 6, “By the word of Jehovah were the heavens made, and all the hosts of them by the breath or Spirit of his mouth; he spake and it was done, he commanded and it stood fast.” All such language is perfectly intelligible if we receive it as different modes of expressing the exercise of God’s power and wisdom; but if in such language we try to find evidence that the Spirit of God is a person separate from God the Father, it all becomes obscure. We might as well attribute personality to the Finger or the Hand of God. Here also, as before, the natural use of language leads us to the more intelligible doctrine.
There is one other principal use of the term Holy Spirit, to which I have referred. It is that which means the Holy Influence of the Deity on the minds of his servants, with the accompanying gifts and powers. This is by far the most common use of the term in the Bible, – perhaps in nine cases out of ten where it occurs. It is a use which confirms our view of the doctrine in dispute, and I think is inconsistent with any other. While I read a few of the passages, I would ask your close attention, that you may decide for yourselves upon this point, to which doctrine the language is most favorable. The Scripture says, that the Holy Spirit was “put within” Moses; that the spirit of the Lord was “put upon” the prophets, and other inspired persons; that the spirit of the Lord “fell upon” Ezekiel; that to the Apostles the Holy Spirit was “partially given,” but that to Christ it was “given without measure”; that they “received” the Holy Spirit; they were “baptized” with the Holy Spirit and with fire; they were “supplied” with the spirit of Christ, and were made “partakers” of it. The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, was “poured out” or “shed forth” both on Jews and Gentiles. Believers were “sealed” with the Holy Spirit of promise. Jesus “breathed on them,” and said, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit.” In Luke xi. 13 it is said, “How much more shall the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those that ask him”; and in the parallel passage, Matt. vii. 11, the words are, “How much more shall your Heavenly Father give good things to them that ask him”; so that the Holy Spirit in this case is the same with the “good things,” or the spiritual blessings, promised. We are taught to “walk in” the spirit, and that the “fruit of the spirit” is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, and the like.
There are two instances in which the descent of the Holy Spirit was accompanied by a visible demonstration. Both of them are referred to as a proof of the personality of the Spirit of God, separate from the Father. They are undoubtedly the strongest instances to that effect which can be alleged. The first of them is at the baptism of Jesus, and the second at the day of Pentecost. In the former, it is said that “the Spirit of God descended like a dove, lighting upon Jesus, and a voice came from heaven saying, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’” It was an outward token of God’s approbation; the visible appointment of Christ as the Messiah. It was to this that the Apostle referred when he said, speaking of this very incident, “That God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power.” Acts x, 38. Observe that expression, which is used as descriptive of Christ's baptism: “That God anointed him with the Holy Spirit.” Is it not perfectly inapplicable to the idea of separate personality?
The other instance is at the day of Pentecost, of which we find similar language used. The event is described by Peter as the pouring out of God's Spirit, and he declares that “Jesus, being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, had shed forth that which was seen and heard.” And he exhorts his hearers to “receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, the promise of which had been made to them.” You will observe how strongly all this language confirms the view which we take of the doctrine, and how difficult to be reconciled with any other.
These, therefore, are the three meanings which belong to the “Holy Spirit,” according to Scripture usage: 1. It is sometimes only another expression for God himself, as the spirit of man is another expression, in some instances, for the man himself. 2. Sometimes it expresses the power of God, or some other attribute; as when we read, “By his Spirit he hath garnished the heavens.” 3. Sometimes, which is the most common use, it means the spiritual blessings, or influences, or good things, which the Heavenly Father bestows upon those who ask him. We have no hesitation in asserting most positively, that there is no passage in the Bible in which the words may not be explained under one of these meanings. There is no passage in the Bible where the Holy Spirit is spoken of as a Self-existent, Almighty, or Omnipresent Person, distinct from the God and Father of Jesus Christ. But, on the contrary, the language is generally such that it cannot be spoken of a person at all, but must mean the influences which proceed from God the Father.
Upon what ground, then, are we required to renounce our belief in the Unity of God, or, at least, to modify it by the admission of a third person in the Godhead? The arguments are so few, that it will not take long to answer them.
I have already given the meaning of the words used in baptism, Matt. xxviii. 19, as expressing our belief in God as our Father, in Christ as our Redeemer, and in the Holy Spirit as the sanctifying influence which comes from God.
The only other text to which I need refer is found Rom. viii. 26: “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered; and he that searcheth the hearts knoweth the mind of the Spirit, because it maketh intercession for the saints, according to the will of God.” “It is surprising,” says Mr. Peabody, “that this text should ever have been quoted as favoring the idea of the supreme independent divinity of a Spirit, which intercedes, that is, offers prayer, of course to some superior being.” It is one of those texts which are difficult to explain, word for word, but of which the whole meaning is perfectly evident. The idea of the passage is, that “the devout soul, in all its infirmity and ignorance, will still be sustained, for it will still press to the mercy-seat; and that if it knows not what to ask for, and cannot shape its own supplications, God, knowing the earnestness and rectitude of its desires, will satisfy all its real wants.”
The principal argument for the separate personality of the Spirit is found in the four passages which I have read to you this evening from John xiv., xv., and xvi., in which the divine influences promised by Christ to his disciples are personified under the name of the Comforter. I think that if it can be shown that this personification does not, according to common Scripture usage, imply literal personality, very little argument will be left.
What is the Scripture usage in this respect? A brief examination will show us that no mode of expression is more common than that in which inanimate objects and qualities are spoken of as if they were living beings, having personal properties and performing personal actions. Thus, “the sea and the mountains are represented as having eyes; the earth as having ears; a song, a stone, an altar, water, and blood, the rust of gold and silver, are spoken of as witnesses. The sword and arm of Jehovah are addressed as individuals, capable of being roused from sleep. The ear, the eye, and the foot, the law, righteousness, and the blood of sprinkling, are exhibited as speakers; and destruction and death, as saying that they had heard with their ears. In the language of Holy Writ, the sun rejoiceth and knoweth his going down; the deep lifts up his hands, and utters his voice; the mountains skip like rams, the little hills like lambs; wisdom and understanding cry aloud, and put forth their voice; the heart and the flesh of the prophet cry out for the living God. The Scripture is a seer and preacher; the word of Jesus is a judge; nature, the heavens, the earth, are teachers. God's testimonies are counsellors, his rod and staff are comforters; the light and the truth, and the commandments of God, are leaders or guides. Sin is described as a master, and death as a king and an enemy. Flesh and the mind are treated of as having a will; fear and anger, mercy, light, and truth, the word and commandments of God, are exhibited as messengers. Charity is represented as in possession of all the graces and virtues of the Christian character.”” [Wilson's Illustrations.]
Such is the usage of Scripture. It is so common that I may almost call it universal. Some of the instances to which I have now referred are also much stronger as personifications than that in which the Holy Spirit is personified as the Comforter. For instance, if you will read the thirteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, you will find that charity is spoken of as a living person, who “suffereth long and is kind, who envieth not, who seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.” I refer you also particularly to the ninth chapter of the book of Proverbs.
It is evident, therefore, that personification is a very common figure of speech in the Scripture, and we are perfectly justified in this mode of interpreting those passages in which the influences of the Holy Spirit are called a Comforter. We can fully account for the language, without the necessity of supposing literal personality; and we are confirmed in this view, because we find that the Apostles regarded the “shedding abroad” of the divine influences at the day of Pentecost as a fulfilment of the Saviour's promise. (Acts ii. 33.) These influences were to them “the Comforter,” which brought all things to their remembrance, and qualified them to be the ministers of Christ.
It may perhaps still further confirm us in this view of the language, that, even if we should admit that the Comforter is a literal person, he is evidently not upon an equality with the Father or the Son; for he is given by the Father, he is sent by the Son, he is to speak only what he shall hear, he shall receive of Christ whatever he teaches; all of which expressions imply inferiority. And accordingly it is a fact in the history of the Church, that, for two hundred years after the personality of the Spirit was taught, his inferiority to the Father and to the Son was universally admitted. We feel justified, therefore, in rejecting the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit as a third Person in the Godhead. The Scriptures do not teach it, but just the contrary. We reject it as a human device, by which great confusion is introduced into our ideas concerning God, and which is of no practical utility. Let me again say, however, that we do not reject the true and Scriptural idea of the Holy Spirit. We believe in the reality and necessity of a Divine Influence in the soul, and upon it we place our chief dependence. Our prayer is, that the Spirit of God may guide us aright, so that our present seeking after the truth as it is in Jesus may be blessed to our eternal salvation.
No comments:
Post a Comment