Spirit Confusion
“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” Luke 11:13 NASB
Spirit – “The usage of the Word pneuma in Greek literature reveals nothing comparable to the Hebrew ruakh for ‘human spirit’ and for the powerful and active presence of God. The word pneuma in Greek stands essentially for a substance, fluidum, refined and ethereal, penetrating the entire cosmos, the substance of which God and the human spirit are composed . . . In the Greek world one could argue about ‘the substance of God,’ because the Greek word for ‘spirit’ indicated a substance. From the fourth century on, in Church councils, catechisms, and websites, Christians have argued about whether the Father and the Son are of the same substance or not. In arguing about the correct understanding of the Greek, they have split hairs and heads.
In the Hebrew Biblical world no such argument is possible. The Hebrew word ‘spirit’ does not indicate any substance in any way. The God of the Bible is not composed of any pre-existing substance. He simply IS.”[1]
Gruber’s comment helps us understand two crucial applications of the words pneuma and ruakh (ruach). Obviously, the first application is to the Christian confusion about the Holy Spirit. If we apply Gruber’s insight, we see that claims about the “person” of the Holy Spirit depend on a Greek understanding of the word. “Spirit” as substance allows us to posit “Holy Spirit” as a person. But if the biblical (Hebraic) view of ruach is the “powerful and active presence of God,” then the concept of “person” cannot be applied to the term ruach. Ruach is a verbal expression. It is the description of an action, not a substance. When the Church argued about God’s essence in three persons, it already made a category mistake—a mistake that precipitated a doctrine of confusion.
But let’s set aside all that theological history for the moment. The second crucial application of the distinction between pneuma and ruach involves us. We know that Hebraic thought does not divide Man into parts. Nephesh is the personal, active presence of the embodied breath of God as vice-regent in the creation. You and I are the living human reality of God’s powerful and active presence. We don’t come in parts either. We are the verbs God uses to accomplish His purposes in creation. And verbs exist only when they are active. You and I are expressions of His active purposes. That’s what it means to be in His “image.” This implies that we don’t exist as Greek pneuma. We are not “substances” of body, mind and soul, at least not in Hebraic thought. Perhaps this helps us understand why the biblical text concentrates on what we do, not what we claim about ourselves. Just as the Spirit of God is the active presence of God, so we are who were created to be when we are expressing the active presence of our Creator.
If you analyzed the actions you performed yesterday, what conclusions would you draw about who you are? Would you see God’s “image” in those actions? Would you find the fruit of the Spirit in what you did? Or would you have to admit that your claims to be a follower were not expressed in the real actions you performed?
What kind of verb are you going to be today?
Topical Index: Spirit, pneuma, ruach, Trinity, person, Luke 11:13
[1]Daniel Gruber, Copernicus and the Jews: The Separation of Church & Faith, p. 32.
so really what everything boils down to is the fact that Yaweh will be a part of our life if we ask. He is the one we are told to seek first, His righteousness, His way of doing and being right. Ask, seek and knock.
I was under the impression that the Greek word for pneuma was breath and it always made sense to me to have the breath of my Father active in my life.
In the 80+ page article on pneuma in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, the author does list breath as one of the meanings. Also wind, life, soul, spirit, mental and spiritual realities. But behind it all is the original Greek meaning of the “elemental natural and vital force which, matter and process in one, as as a stream of air in the blowing of the wind and the inhaling and exhaling of breath.” Notice the words “elemental and vital force.” It is this idea that Gruber notes as a kind of substance or fluidium. For the Greeks, the wind was but a physical symptom of the underlying “ether” of pneuma that permeated everything. It has physical reality, not personal expression. It is a THING, “something” of the physical universe, that explains movement and life. The Greek idea seems to be connected to the Egyptian god Amun-Re, the god of life-begetting. Lots to learn in this article.
Beautiful.
It is interesting this “war” between the Greek and the Hebrew, even though our very Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek! Part “A” and Part “B” BOTH make up the whole!
For some time now we have discussed just how “wrong” the Greeks are and how “right” the Hebrew is. Think like a Jew and all will be will. Proper paradigms anyone?
What do the scriptures say? uhh.. which ones- Hebrew or Greek? Which holds greater “weight”- the O.T. or the New(er)?
~ I will hear what God the LORD will speak for He will speak peace unto His people and to His saints ~ (it is written). Interesting.. (again)- We (as in all of us) have never heard the very words “it is written” until the Son of Man spoke them. (Never a man spoke like this Man!).
How many rabbit holes are there for us to fall into? A gazillion or so?
How about we chase this “rabbit” for a bit.
~ But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His own; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come ~ (John 16.13) John, (btw) is a N.T. book and a N.T. author and apostle.
So, shall we throw away or discount the O.T. or the New(er)? Friends, – it’s all good!- and..- it is all – the word of God! This Book, the Book God wrote, is His revelation of Himself- from stem to stern- from the end to the beginning- God reveals Himself to mank ind in His words. And?? And our Savior said, (are we listening?) ~ the words I speak unto you -(Mr.)- they are (life-imparting) Spirit/Breath and they are Life!! ~ (John 6.63)
Want to know God? Desire to know (real) life, health, happiness, blessing,prosperity, joy? (but wait!- there’s more!) Read the Book. – It’s in there!
The word of God has been (has been) incarnated in human flesh. His Name? (Revelation 19.13) – Worthy is the Lamb who was slain..
Right on, Carl!
It’s ONE Book. Part A is about the old man , Adam.
Part B is about the new man, Jesus.
And what a great ending!
Hi Skip, referring to what you wrote today, “We know that Hebraic thought does not divide Man into parts. Nephesh is the personal, active presence of the embodied breath of God as vice-regent in the creation. You and I are the living human reality of God’s powerful and active presence. We don’t come in parts either. We are the verbs God uses to accomplish His purposes in creation… ” how does this relate to what Paul said about how we are one body with many parts when he was referring to the body of believers? Does this correlate with today’s passage?
Body of believers is, of course, made up of many individual believers, so it has parts. But the person (you and me) isn’t “composed” (to use a term from Aquinas). Hebrew does not view the HUMAN person as a collection of separate parts like Greek does – mind/body/spirit.
It ought not to be a hard thing to understand what the Spirit is. Listen to the words of Yahshua.
the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, shall teach you all things, he shall testify of Me Joh 14:26
is the Spirit of your Father Matt 10:20
Spirit of Yah Matt 3:16
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men Matt 12:31
David said by the Holy Spirit Mark 12:36
John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb Luke 1:15
The Holy Spirit came upon Marry and that holy thing which was born shall be called the Son of Yah Luke 1:35
the Father gives the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him Luke 11:13
except we be born of the Spirit we shall not enter the kingdom of Elohim Joh 3:5
that which is born of the Spirit is spirit Joh 3:6
the Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth: .. and he will show you things to come Joh 16:13
the Spirit of truth dwelleth with you, and shall be in you Joh 14:17
Perhaps, rather than trying to understand what the essence of the Spirit is, it would be much more profitable to understand his ministry for those who accept Yahshua and receive the Spirit in order to live a life well-pleasing to the Father, in obedience to His Torah.
“What kind of verb are you going to be today?”
At the elementary level, verbs are distinctions of time. In the Western world this is understood as: past, present, and future. According to Georg Ewald this understanding evolved in later languages. In Biblical Hebrew the distinction of time is quite different.
“The simplest distinction of time in an action is, that the speaker first of all merely separates between the two grand and opposite aspects under which every conceivable action may be regarded. Man has first acted, passed through an experience, and sees before him something that is finished, or has taken place; but this very fact reminds him of that which does not yet exist,—that which lies behind, and is expected. The former, or positive side, is that of experience, objective contemplation of action; the latter, or negative side, is the higher, subjective side of individual human thought and inference. Hence, with reference to action, the speaker views everything either as already finished, and thus before him, or as unfinished and non-existent, but possibly becoming [Ger. werdend, Gr. γυγνόμενον] and coming: he states it as something that is, or denies that there already is such a thing.”(1)
As a man rowing backwards into the future, it seems to me that the discussion of what kind of verb I might be must begin with what is before me; finished and complete. It is here I will be reminded (zakar) by works already finished that what I do – my action – must continue or contribute to the same memorial (zakar), for I too am a zakar.
(1) “Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old Testament”. Ewald, Georg Heinrich August. Translated from the Eighth German Edition by James Kennedy, B.D. Edinburgh. 1891. p 2
Hi Roderick/Skip — I’ll bet I’m not the only one struggling with the differences between Greek and Hebrew time. Is there a simple way to explain? I suspect there isn’t, but I’m getting lost here.
Does this mean that if thinking Hebraically there is no concept of Greek present (i.e., static) time? In the rowboat, I’m either looking at God’s handiwork completed or I am rowing into what is incomplete/unfinished? The stumbling block for me seems to be that in Greek thinking I can only exist in the present moment, but in Hebrew I am always dynamically in transition between what I see before me (that which is completed) and what is to come behind me?
Suzanne,
I believe the revelation is in your question. Be encouraged. All of us that are influenced by Western thought will wrestle with the Hebraic worldview; but rejoice. Just as Jacob grappled with the Messenger at the Jabak and was blessed so will we who contend with LORD. More valuable than “right” answers is the journey of the wanderer.
You are confusing TENSE with TIME. Tense is the way a verb works in the language. But time is the perception of change in the culture. Now in Hebrew there is no word for “time.” There are words for all the temporal relationships (day, week, age, day of the Lord, etc.) but there is no general, theoretical word for time as there is in Greek. This should tell you something.
Tense in language is the way the language handles the relationship between the subject and the action/object. Tense is about temporal positioning. In Hebrew, tense expresses something that is presently being done or will be done vs. what has already been done (incomplete vs. complete action), but in Greek the temporal relationships are much more complicated (as they are in English). Both languages have concepts of the present – what is occurring now – but what they mean for the SUBJECT is different. Greek has static states which are descriptions of attribute qualities like “God is good,” where Hebrew has no copula (no “is”) but instead sees the object “good” as essentially included in the subject “God,” not “accidentally” attributed to the subject. Anyway, it gets complicated. Boman says that the basic idea of Hebrew is the MOVEMENT or activity whereas Greek expresses the “state of being” or neutral description.
You might want to look at two classics in the field. Thorleif Boman Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek and James Barr Biblical Words for Time.
Thanks Skip. I’m struggling through Boman’s book now. As if the reading matter isn’t hard enough, the font is like a 4 with a 2 in the footnotes. Not easy for aging eyes. But I think it will help now that I know what I am confusing.
(Being tense about time is an old habit. :-J Time to break it. )
Skip,
So, i had a pastor state that the reason that he believed in the pre-trip rapture was because Revelation FIVE came before Revelation SIX.
Without going into the rapture, because i’m not even interested, can you explain why that is pure greek thinking and in no way relevant to making a decision based on whether or not the action in chapter FIVE comes before the actions in chapter SIX?
Because i’m betting the order things happen in Revelation, as it is recorded, is totally irrelevant.
Thanks
Barbara, the whole book is a chiasm. Very elegantly done. And NOT taught well in christendom, that’s for sure.
Chiasm? Huh?
and YOU, young lady, are supposed to be fixing dinner!
So is the Holy Spirit embodied in the Trinity or not?
Tom
Not.
“What kind of verb are you going to be today?”
Excellent question-rightly spoken. God’s choice is Love – what is ours?
I think I’ll get a headache now!
“Just as the Spirit of God is the active presence of God, so we are who we were created to be when we are expressing the active presence of our Creator.”
Having the active presence of our Creator reveals the fruit of “being filled with the Ruach” which lifts up the beauty of His character in us walking in obedience of Torah principles, and not merely having information/knowledge that will not inspire others.
That is the Perfect answer
I’m curious where Gruber found the idea as expressed in the first paragraph of this TW. Yes, apparently Plato and Aristotle defined pneuma in this way, what others have called the aether, a panentheistic concept that all is interconnected by this ‘substance’ (Alice Bailey in her New Age works uses aether in this manner, specifically stating it made ‘God’ omnipresent); however, Biblical usage has nothing to do with this. To claim that this underlies NT (and by extension the LXX as well as the Patristic) usage is to fall prey to the etymological fallacy – a fallacy that any word must be inextricably linked to its initial, or at least a former, usage. This would be akin to claiming that calling anyone today “nice” would be implying that they were not very intelligent (“simple” or “stupid”) or even “foolish”. [For those unaware, look up the etymology of “nice”.]
For the sake of clarifying the record here, I’ll provide all the definitions (though omitting some of the sub-definitions) found in the definitive Greek-English lexicon known by the shorthand BDAG (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature 3rd ed. revised and edited by F. W. Danker, based on Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker):
1. air in movement, blowing, breathing
2. that which animates or gives life to the body, breath, (life-)spirit
a. when used with σάρξ, the flesh, it denotes the immaterial part
b. as the source and seat of insight, feeling, and will, gener[ally] as the representative part of human inner life
c. spiritual state, state of mind, disposition
3. a part of human personality, spirit
4. an independent noncorporeal being, in contrast to a being that can be perceived by the physical senses, spirit
a. God personally
b. good, or at least not expressly evil spirits or spirit-beings
c. evil spirits
5. God’s being as controlling influence, with focus on association with humans, Spirit, spirit
a. the Spirit of God, of the Lord (=God) etc.
b. the Spirit of Christ, of the Lord (=Christ) etc.
c. Because of its heavenly origin and nature this Spirit is called (the) Holy Spirit
6. the Spirit of God as exhibited in the character or activity of God’s people or selected agents, Spirit, spirit
7. an activating spirit that is not fr. God, spirit
8. an independent transcendent personality, the Spirit, which appears in formulas that became more and more fixed and distinct
Under each definition and sub-definition are Bible verses and other works exhibiting the stated definition, most of which include the Jewish pseudepigrapha in Charlesworth’s (and R. H. Charles’) two volume set.
Relatedly, here’s a translation of Genesis 2:7 from the LXX (Greek OT translated by 70 Jewish rabbis ca. 200BC):
enephysēsen eis to prosōpon autou pnoēn zōēs, kai egeneto ho anthrōpos eis psychēn zōsan
He breathed into [the] face/body of him breath of life and he became the man into psyche-living.
He breathed into his face/body the breath of life and the man became a living soul.
A number of things about this verse are important to note. First, the initial verb is a verbal form of the noun psyche, used at the end. How might that fact nuance that verb and, similarly, how might that alter our understanding of the use of its noun form at the end? This same verb is also used in Philo. In addition, notice the similar spelling of the Greek word translated breath (its lexical, nominal form is pnoē) to pneuma
When the Church spoke of God’s ‘essence’ or ‘substance’, the word employed was not pneuma, but homoousios, which means “one essence/substance”. In the context of the Trinitarian formulation, ousia does not connote tangibility. In fact, the word is a form of the Greek “to be” (eimi) being. This word may not be found in the NT or LXX, but it was used prior to that as Liddell and Scott’s lexicon bear out.
The prefix homo was used because Arius claimed that the Son was homoIousios, with homoi meaning “similar”, so only a “similar essence” as compared to the Father’s. Athanasius argued vigorously against this, against the popular understanding, even including Eusebius of Caesarea, the great historian.
I’ll title this follow-up comment “soul/breath confusion”. I made an error I should correct. In Gen 2:7, the initial verb is NOT related to psyche at all. I’ll provide as an excuse the fact that there appears to be a giant balloon in my head that has been inflated near the bursting point, as I’m attempting to ward off a cold…or something (lots of soup, honey, tea with lemon, other food [I’ve been hungry!] and copious amounts of vitamin C has been my diet today).
The lexical form of that first verb is physaō, which simply means “breathe on” – something someone infected with whatever it is I have apparently did to me. I believe in community, in sharing; but sometimes, it’s better not to share.
Where was I again? Oh yeah. So, the only things to note in the LXX of Gen 2:7 are the of use pnoē, and the use of living-psyche. The text does not say that a psyche was deposited in adam, but that YHWH’s breathing into him caused him to become a living psyche.
Dear Craig, I am empathetic with your cold situation, and I like your humor.
That is how I read that text, too. We do not ‘possess’ souls or psyches or even that breath. That would make them into nouns. We become verbs with that life.
I think we in the West read Genesis as if there was a giant Noun in the sky verbing things. I am becoming more suspicious that it could have been more like a Verb nouning things. English really is a poor language for Hebrew concepts…
I’m fortunate in that I rarely get sick…and I ain’t calling myself sick just yet! I’m-a fight this thing!
How’s this for community: I went over to a friends’ house last night, whose place I was intending to eat Thanksgiving dinner, in order to help them prepare; however, since I felt this thing coming on this morning, I told them that I should probably stay home so as not to get anyone else sick. Who knows, maybe one of them infected me? Or maybe it was a former co-worker I ran into recently – he and I didn’t exactly see eye-to-eye – and in the context of the conversation he asked me if I ever get a cold, then proceeded to tell me his homemade remedy (he’s a vegan – I’m an omnivore, though a relatively healthy eater). I shook his hand; he was probably a carrier…
Yes, English is not a good receptor language for either Greek or Hebrew. And this is why I’ve been self-studying Greek (don’t have time for both Greek and Hebrew, so I chose NT Greek).
I should say, though, that some of the Greek Patristic authors did fall prey to neoplatonism.
Okay Craig if breath of life means something else and living soul implies something other than being alive, Laurita… What would the nostrils be into which God blew this breath spirit?
The ones that got made out of dirt.
Seeker,
I’m not exactly sure what you’re asking, but I’ll try to answer. The way I read the text from the LXX (which, though I don’t know Hebrew, biblehub.com seems to indicate it’s a pretty faithful translation, with psychē = nephesh), the man (haAdam), the one made from dirt, was animated, brought to life, by the ‘breath of life’ of YHWH. This ‘breath of life’ made him into a ‘living soul (living nephesh)’. [It’s clear to me that on biblehub.com nephesh is a noun and the word for ‘living’ is an adjective modifying that noun.]
Backing up just a bit, there are a few different theories on the composition of humankind. Some say we are body/soul/spirit, three parts. Others say we are body/soul, two parts. These are, according to this TW, strictly Greek concepts. The assertion of this TW is that we are just one ‘body’, if I understand it correctly. Apparently, the metaphysics are debated; and, the way I see it, this passage can be interpreted a few different ways. However, I’ve not tried to work this out systematically, using the Biblical record.
I note that Philo, a Hellenized Jew, interpreted Gen 2:7 such that humankind is made up of more than one part, though I’m not sure if he believed in two or three.
The reason I stated that the text does not say that a psychē was deposited into Adam, is to counter one view that once human bodies are formed preexistent souls are then deposited into them – a view that can imply the eternality/divinity of man and/or can lead to reincarnation.
Seeker,
Interestingly, and somewhat coincidentally (I was searching out Philo’s conception of anthropology), I came across the following that I think answers your question. It’s the last paragraph of page 58, which carries over to 59 here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3154642?seq=6#page_scan_tab_contents
Thank you Craig,
You have done me an honour again by sharing your progressive enlightenment.
Here is how I see it with zero Hebrew or Greek knowledge.
We are equal to beast earth with oxygen providing natural surviving instincts… created instrument with reproduction ability. Nothing godly or holy here. Body
God comes and blows in breath of life, this be talent, will or purpose… mind knowledgeable of creation and how use God’s creation
This provides us with choices and acting these choices out determines what kind of a living soul we are… first Adam flesh. Job and his friends where we are today. Discussing God’s records no human records of how they experienced God’s presence.
God did not give me life by blowing into my mind he provide a talent or purpose or soul
Where does your life come from, then, Seeker?
Science recognizes that there is a ‘life force’ inherent in all living things that cannot be accounted for either biologically (for instance, the molecular composition of DNA is not able to answer for the life represented by what that DNA builds) or physically (in physics, there is recognized that the sum of energy in atoms of living things cannot account for the energy output of those living things). Life is being superimposed upon matter, in an unending stream. We are not the source of our own existence. The purpose of that existence, then, is to return that life back to its Giver as a natural (as in all nature except us does this) reaction. Only the hearts of us humans on this planet are so deluded as to attempt to think and act otherwise.
Have a beautiful day and may you find perfect peace (shalom), Seeker. You are a beautiful person, and we are all better off for you being here!
Laurita
Thank you for the wonderful respose. Some say I am part of the living dead…
All life comes from God. All glory is to God.
The way to progress in life is Torah the promise to find God through what we do. It disciplines us to Christ.
YHVH is the creator of all things both seen and unseen. He blesses the visible things so that we may desire to seek the unseen… His power and glory His kingdom etc.
So we differ not in this view.
The process for this search may be what we have differently and that is wonderful for then we can grow to a perfect man (announcer of God will) measured against the fullness of Christ (power and wisdom of God)… Eph 4
We do not live to please mankind we live to gain Christ fullness.
The difference between Jew and Christian some may claim…Skip said it correct the Hebrew in us must come to life…
Do I follow Moshe Torah as being led out of Egyptian lifestyle, or Joshua guidance into the place for redemption the promised way of living or recorded as the promised land. Or do I follow Yeshua crossing of teachings or the apostleship the manifestation of God will.
Where we are on our journey towards being in Christ…will be determined by how zealously we sacrifice our conceptions once we learn something new…
This community provides that safe place to reflect and share without contact. For which we should always be grateful to our host Skip.
DNA determines my physical attributes. The ability to breath God’s confirmation that we are part of the natural creation. A soul if you please. Applying the principles shared by Moshe, followed through by Joshua and confirmed by Yeshua as a prerequisite to find the kingdom or to progress into the fullness of Christ. Being a living soul so that we can become part of the life giving entity the church of reborn, renewed or called servants..
As for science it is but the conclusion of a suggestion”s defined possibility. Then we give credit to the scientist making the Creator less worthy contributor. The same with psychology. While the truth is and remains nothing new not even gravity theory or medical progress. No aids research will cure aids. As no cancer research will cure cancer they are the plagues of the era and lifestyle created before human beings but only revealed when we distance to far from the lifestyle God provided. And as Skip refers to these things the redemptive measures… I add put in place for this era since the being of creation if Skip’s theory or theology be correct.
I trust this answer helps you understand my view of life, living, being alive and renewed into Christ through the gift of faith.
Love the brave manifesto, to which I can say wholeheartedly “Amen”!