This Sunday is “Trinity Sunday” in the Christian calendar. With this worship service focus in mind, I have a confession to make. I have never been comfortable with the Orthodox view of the Trinity – specifically the Holy Spirit. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in the power and in the product of the Holy Spirit, just perhaps not the “person.” I have heard plenty of explanations and metaphors to describe the Trinity (the egg, a river, different roles of the same person, states of matter, etc.), yet none seem overly supported by the Biblical revelation (as the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible either). Nowhere in the Bible do I see the Spirit as a physical entity, or part of the “Godhead.” Rather, the Holy Spirit seems to be a metaphor describing the extension of God’s power and action in the world.Let me a give a few examples that support such a view:
In the Genesis 1 creation account, the Spirit of God hovered over the water. The picture here is that the power of God contained the mythological waters of chaos. From there, God transformed this chaos into something useful and “good.”
When Jesus quotes the Isaiah scroll in Luke 4, Jesus makes it clear that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him to accomplish a restructuring of the world order. It was the power of the Spirit in Jesus and his actions that would accomplish this, and not some entity.
Acts 2 provides an interesting example. In this story, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit actually makes a physical appearance. The Spirit, in the form of tongues of fire, comes down and allows the apostles to speak in different languages. Again, the tongues are a physical representation of what the Spirit is doing by empowering the apostles.
Finally, though the word “Trinity” is not used in Scripture, people often sight the usage of the phrase “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” to point to a 3rd “person” of the Godhead. But using such logic, if Jesus is seated at the right hand of God, wouldn’t we expect the Spirit to be on the left? Yet no description of the heavenly realm contains such a depiction – the Spirit is not mentioned in such contexts.
I could go on, but the point I am trying to draw out of these examples is that I believe the Spirit of God/the Holy Spirit is simply a manifestation of God’s power. Or to put it a different way, the Holy Spirit is a term to describe the presence of God at work in this world in various means and ways. When we ask for the presence of the Holy Spirit in our lives we are asking for God to move in a powerful way in our lives. We are not praying to the Spirit but rather for the Spirit.
You may say to yourself, “Okay. This is not overly helpful.” On the contrary. I think it alleviates the burden of explaining an unexplainable concept. I believe this understanding also sheds light on what God is actually up to.
Posts
5 comments:
I don't know. Interesting, because it is new. But I don't think it is very convincing. Your argument about the Spirit not being by the throne is an argument from silence. When would that have been mentioned? And who is the comforter? And what do you with "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" passage?
I would also add the 1 John passage:
5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And at the baptism of Christ the Spirit of God made a presence.
Sorry it took so long for me to respond to you. I have been in Kentucky all weekend.
First, let me start with Troy’s post. The 1 John 5:7 passage is from a late manuscript and probably not original. In fact, though it shows up in Latin texts, it did not appear in Greek texts until the 16th century. The King James translation includes it because of its usage of Latin texts. It should read, “There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.” So, I don’t think that passage lends itself to the Spirit as a separate entity.
In the case of the Spirit making a presence at Jesus’ baptism, I liken it to the Acts 2 passage where we see a physical manifestation of the power of God coming upon a person. This passage has more to do with the Israelite practice of acknowledging the authority (through the testimony of witnesses) than with describing the Trinity.
Another passage that I did not quote in this regard is found in Luke 1:35: "The angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.'" This idea of the Spirit coming upon us is the power of God. One might even say it is the way in which God can interact with a fallen world. Which leads me to Shannon’s question, “Who is the comforter?” Similarly, I believe the Comforter/Advocate is God – God’s presence in our lives to change mold, comfort, etc.
Shannon also asked what I do you with "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" passages? On the one hand, I can’t do much with it. It seems to be an early worship formula. On the other hand, it also seems like flimsy evidence to produce an entire theology of the “Trinity”. Shannon asked, “When would the Spirit be mentioned in heaven?” and said that my argument is from silence. The question and the critique are both good, but it seems to me that if the Trinitarian theology were that tantamount in the early church, they would have conveyed this idea more. Instead, most of what we get in the writings lends itself to what I see as the power of God enacted in the world, which they labeled “The Holy Spirit.”
You are welcome to continue to challenge this theology because I am trying to continually form my theology and reevaluate traditional orthodoxy in light of the Biblical revelation. Sometimes I agree. Other times I don’t. Thanks for the input.
What do you do with John 16:5-11? I (Jesus) am going to Him who sent me (God) and will send the Spirit.
I just always find it funny how quickly we can throw away "orthodoxy" which has developed for good reason over thousands of years without something really solid in it's place. I have no problem with seeing God as trinity. In His very nature community. I think if you toss out the three-in-one concept you lose alot more about the nature of God than you may think.
I think we need to spend as much time reevaluating neo-orthodoxy as we do traditional orthodoxy.
"but it seems to me that if the Trinitarian theology were that tantamount in the early church, they would have conveyed this idea more." That's the argument used by the pro-homosexual and pro-pologmy crowd. :)
Sorry it took me so long to respond Barry. In regard to the John passage, again I see the sending of the Spirit as a personification of the presence and power of God in their lives. In the same way that the "hand of God" was on Elijah and clearly the power and presence of God was on Jesus, it would now reside with the disciples (and subsequent followers) so that could do "even greater things" than Jesus by this power.
Though your final comment was sort of tongue in cheek, though I haven't done the research, there probably is more reference to homosexuality than there is clear description of the Spirit.
Post a Comment