The Spirit of the Lord

[dean198]

2 Cor. 3:17:
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

What does this mean? It appears to be teaching modalism - that there is no distinction between the Spirit and the Son. Most of the older commentators got around this by saying that the 'spirit' here is not the Holy Spirit, but the gospel spirit, but I don't find this as convincing as I'd like, though it's better than nothing.
Any comments?

[Paidion]

No, this passage is not teaching modalism. But it doesn't allow for Trinitarianism either. Rather it reflects the position of primitive Christianity.

We read in the New Testament about "The Spirit of God" (the Father) and also of "The Spirit of Jesus". Jesus and the Father shared the same Spirit, but the Spirit was not a third divine Person. Rather the Spirit was the extension of the Personality of the Father and the Son.

The Father is in Heaven, and the Son is seated at His right hand. But Jesus said:

"If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him." John 14:23

So how do the Father and the Son make their dwelling with people who love Jesus and keep His word? They are in Heaven! They do it by the extension of Their Personalities (or should I say "Personality" since They are so unified?), in other words their Spirit. That is what the Holy Spirit is. Yes, the Holy Spirit is personal, and not a mere force --- the very Persons of the Father and the Son ---- not a third divine Person.

Jesus said, "But I tell you the truth, it is profitable to you that I depart, for if I do not depart, the Encourager [Holy Spirit] would not come to you. Now if I carry over [ i.e. complete the journey I started, that is, depart from this life], I will send Him to you."

So would the Encourager not come to the disciples while Jesus still lived? Is it not because Jesus' divine Personality was confined to his earthly body prior to His resurrection? But after He was raised He became "a life-giving Spirit" (I Corinthians 15:45), or in the words of Paul that you quoted "The Lord is the Spirit".

This understanding of the Holy Spirit continued right into the second century. Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165), in His Dialogue with Trypho spoke of the Holy Spirit, and so did Trypho. Being of the Jewish religion, Trypho certainly didn't have in mind another divine Individual. He had in mind simply "the Spirit of God" as the phrase itself suggests.But did Justin have in mind a third divine Individual? The following evidence shows that he didn't.

Justin asked, "Do you think that any other one is said to be worthy of worship and called 'Lord' and 'God' in the Scriptures, except the Maker of all, and Christ, who by so many Scriptures was proved to you to have become man?"

Trypho replied, "How can we admit this, when we have instituted so great an enquiry as to whether there is any other than the Father alone?" ---- Dialogue ch 68

In reply to this, did Trypho say, "I want you to know there is one other One, namely the Holy Spirit of which we have been speaking"?

NO! He said, "I must ask you this also, that I may know whether or not you are of a different opinion from that which you admitted some time ago."

[dean198]

Paidion, I remember you saying this in a brief exchange we had on the older forum (those posts were all lost I think). I had some problem with it, and still do, but I'm a lot more open to it then I was, and it is beginning to make sense. Where does one go to church though if one is binitarian? If you have any more information from the early Christians, I'd like to hear it. I have a friend in the UK who says the exact same thing you did - the Spirit is personal but not a person. I also ran across an article by Daniel Wallace conceding that the personality of the Spirit could not be proven from the passages in John's gospel. I did come across a quote from Gregory Naziansus, and was surprised that even as late as his day, he stated
"But of the wise men amongst ourselves, some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him."

[Troy]

In Ephesians 4:30 where it says "do not grieve the Spirit of God, the Greek actually says "the Spirit, the Holy One of God". Also, why the specification of grieve not the Spirit, if Spirit is an inanimate personality? Why not simply "do not grieve God"? If the Spirit is the personality of the Father and the Son, how can the Spirit be grieved, since to be grieved is to experience an emotional sensation?

For whoever may be interested, I have asked Nick Norelli, a friend of mine, to tell me what he thinks of Paidion's view on the Holy Spirit. He has done so here. Paidion, If you would like to comment on his blog, he would enjoy dialoging with you on this subject. Trinitarian Theology is one of his favorite studies.

[dean198]

In Ephesians 4:30 where it says "do not grieve the Spirit of God, the Greek actually says "the Spirit, the Holy One of God".

I looked it up, and though perhaps it could read like that, the far more natural reading, in my opinion, is 'the Holy Spirit of God'. In fact I doubt that it could even read as you have suggested, since the second 'the' further defines what was spoken of by the first, but I'm open to correction if a Greek scholar says otherwise.

Also, why the specification of grieve not the Spirit, if Spirit is an inanimate personality? Why not simply "do not grieve God"? If the Spirit is the personality of the Father and the Son, how can the Spirit be grieved, since to be grieved is to experience an emotional sensation?

I don't see that as a problem at all. Paul's spirit was 'grieved' when he saw Athens given to idols; that argument might work against the JWs who only see the Spirit as an active force, but I can't see how it goes against the position Paidon has given.

For whoever may be interested, I have asked Nick Norelli, a friend of mine, to tell me what he thinks of Paidion's view on the Holy Spirit. He has done so here. Paidion, If you would like to comment on his blog, he would enjoy dialoging with you on this subject. Trinitarian Theology is one of his favorite studies.

Well, you didn't invite me to comment, but if you don't mind anyway, I did have some issues with his papers. Right now I think I'm leaning heavily to Paidion's view: this is something that has been going on inside of me for a long time, though reading Paidion's post last night seems to have perhaps 'pushed me over the edge'. Today I feel like a weight is off me, as I'm free just to be honest with Scriptures that have troubled me. I accepted the early Christian and Nicaean view of Christology a long time ago (and still do), but certain things have bothered me - the verse 'the Lord is that Spirit' being one of them, because with a trinitarian understanding of three persons, that cannot do otherwise but teach modalism - or so it seems to me. The early commentators understood this, and so suggested the Spirit was other than the Holy Spirit, but many moderns, not appreciating that they have walked into modalism without realizing it, use this verse as a proof text - in fact the gentleman you refer to did just this in his paper 'the Trinity seen systematically'. While stating that 'the Spirit is called Lord', the text he uses says 'the Lord is that Spirit', which is quite different, and problematic. The article seems to be scraping the barrel somewhat when it uses a verse from Job in support of the view that the Father, Son and Spirit create: 'By his wind the heavens were made fair'. In the NT, the Father creates through or by the Son: same with the early creeds: 'we believe in One God, the Father, maker of heaven and earth' etc.
I guess the biggest issue with all this is that it could be very limiting in terms of where I go church, and with respect to my current church membership if I express my thoughts openly.

[dean198]

From the link:

The interpretation given of John 16:7 aside from being strange is negated by the fact that Jesus speaks of “sending” the Spirit. One does not “send” himself.

No-one is saying that; but on this reasoning, Paul could not have written:
"For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?" This verse 'distinguishes' between a man and his spirit, but does not make the spirit a second person. I think there needs to be higher brow argumentation than this to establish the conventional view.

2Corinthians 3:16 is a reference to Exodus 34:34 which speaks of Moses going in “before the Lord” (kyrios in the LXX). Vs. 17 explains that the Exodus passage was referring to the Spirit of the Lord. In other words, this is not identifying Jesus as “the Spirit.” But let’s suppose that this does have reference to Christ, is this verse alone a smoking gun in the modalist’s arsenal? I think not.

This is a verse that has been bothering me for a while. However, the verse does identity the Lord as the Spirit:
and whenever they may turn unto the Lord, the vail is taken away. And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty; and we all, with unvailed face, the glory of the Lord beholding in a mirror, to the same image are being transformed, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.
Young's Literal

I can't see how this can be accounted for in the trinitarian system. Unless I missed something, it seems to me that the link sidestepped this issue.

I would really like to see a paper or book on exactly what the early Christians thought. The two quotes from Justin did little in my opinion, to establish the matter either way. I would be very reluctant to abandon the traditional view if it could be shown to be the predominant or universal view of the church of the first few centuries.

[Suzana]

Where does one go to church though if one is binitarian?

I'm not a trinitarian, and I have attended traditionally trinitarian churches for years (and been an AOG pastor's wife), without it being an issue; I guess it might be different if I had a doctrinal teaching role.
To me belief (or not) in the trinity is not the most important consideration in choosing a church - but I don't think there is a lot of choice where I am anyway.

[Troy]

Dean, I urge you to submit your thoughts on his blog, and perhaps we can keep the discussion recorded over here too. Since I am both acquaintted with Nick and am familiar with the character of most who post regularly on this forum, I am confident it would be a benefitial discussion carried out in a mature and edifying manner.

[dean198]

Where does one go to church though if one is binitarian?

I'm not a trinitarian, and I have attended traditionally trinitarian churches for years (and been an AOG pastor's wife), without it being an issue; I guess it might be different if I had a doctrinal teaching role.
To me belief (or not) in the trinity is not the most important consideration in choosing a church - but I don't think there is a lot of choice where I am anyway.

That's interesting that you are able to still be a part of that. Do the members know that you don't hold that teaching? When it comes to Christology, I'm still have a very high view, believing in the full deity of the Son, but I also have believed for a long time now that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and begotten before the worlds. So I don't expect I'll be moving from that, since I really think my views on the HS are an outworking of that. So I don't think I'm going to find a non-trin church that I'll be comfortable with. But since most trin churches demand belief in their views, I think my membership options are going to be very limited from now on. I also have to decide when and how to tell my pastor.

[dean198]

Dean, I urge you to submit your thoughts on his blog, and perhaps we can keep the discussion recorded over here too. Since I am both acquaintted with Nick and am familiar with the character of most who post regularly on this forum, I am confident it would be a benefitial discussion carried out in a mature and edifying manner.

Hi Troy,
There was a lot of information in those posts, and it would take a lot of time to go over them all. I also thought that the arguments tended to be pretty poor. For example, somewhere I read that the Father, Son and Spirit are all credited with having raised up Jesus, and there were proof texts given. However out of the dozens of times the NT states that the Father raised him, there is only one or two verses where the Son says 'destroy this body and I will raise it up'. Does that necessarily mean he will resurrect himself, or simply that he would raise it up after the Father restored life to his body? In light of the dozens of references to the Father having raised up Christ from the dead throughout the NT, I think the answer is clear. When we proof text like this, we hide the fact of the dozens of verses that say that the Father raised him. And if the apostles taught that the Father raised up Christ from the dead, that seems to exclude anyone else being responsible for it. Also, he appeals to the early church fathers, but they also attributed the resurrection to the Father, called the Father the 'only true God', and where otherwise quite 'untrinitarian' in their language, though like myself they did believe in the full deity of the Son, whom they called the Son of God, not 'the God' - ho theos.
I guess I think your friend needs to take a step back - he's so eager to support his view, he's proof-texting and using questionable arguments. And I really don't want to get involved in what could be a long and drawn out process - I just don't have the time and energy for endeavors like that right now - especially when it involves someone who appears to have never struggled with the difficulties, and who thinks it's all so easy and straightforward. It really isn't.