The Spirit is Moving: New Pathways in Pneumatology: Studies Presented to Professor Cornelis van der Kooi on the Occasion of His Retirement 9004391738, 9789004391734

Table of contents :
Contents
Notes on Contributors
Introduction: Believing in the Holy Spirit Today • Gijsbert van den Brink, Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, and Maarten Wisse
Part 1: Who Spoke by the Prophets: Spirit and Bible
1 The Spirit as Critical Biblical Scholar • Eep Talstra
2 The Spirit of Holiness in Romans 1:4 • Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte
3 The Spirit(s) from before the Lord: Pneumatology in Targum Jonathan • Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman
4 Spirit and Scripture: From Theopneustos through Inspiratus to God-Spirited • Erik A. de Boer
5 Allegory within the Bounds of the Letter: Toward a Pneumatological Reorientation of Protestant Interpretations of the Old Testament • Arnold Huijgen
Part 2: And from the Son? The Spirit and the Christ
6 Pneuma-Christology as Applied Christology: Intimacy and Immediacy in the Odes of Solomon • Henk A. Bakker
7 Spirit-Christology and Theandric Language: A Protestant Perspective • Gerrit C. van de Kamp
8 The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me: Pneumatological Christology with and beyond Barth • Bruce L. McCormack
9 Barth and the Charismatics: How Can They be Reconciled? • Abraham van de Beek
10 Substitution as a Pneumatological Concept • Martien E. Brinkman
Part 3: The Lord: Spirit and World
11 The Spirit and Wisdom • Jan Veenhof
12 The Spirit of God and Creation: Towards a Pneumatological Interpretation of Biological Emergence • Gijsbert van den Brink
13 Discerning the Spirit in World Religions: A Neocalvinist Approach • Richard J. Mouw
14 Discerning the Spirit in World Religions: The Search for Criteria • Benno van den Toren
Part 4: And Giver of Life: The Spirit and the Human Person
15 Retrieving Jonathan Edwards’ Doctrine of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit • Willem van Vlastuin
16 Transforming Spirit: Oepke Noordmans’ Pneumatological View on Being a Human Person • Akke van der Kooi
17 He Created Us for a New Beginning: Spiritus Creator and Human Creativity • Gerard C. den Hertog
18 Theodicy, Creation, and Suffering: Drawing on God’s Spirit and Love • Michael Welker
19 Setting Free and Bringing to Purpose: The Work of the Spirit in Cultivating the Virtues • Pieter Vos
Part 5: One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church: The Spirit and the Christian Community
20 Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus and the Church • Carl J. Bosma
21 Christ’s Presence through the Spirit in the Holy Supper: Retrieving Abraham Kuyper • Maarten Wisse
22 The Spirit of the Supernatural: The Rise of Apostolic Networks in the Netherlands • Miranda Klaver
23 Of Muddy Boots & Roadways: Becoming Theologians of the Word and the Spirit • Cory B. Willson
24 Spirit, Chaplaincy, and Theology: Why Should a Chaplain Read Dogmatics? • Margriet A. Th. van der Kooi-Dijkstra
Index of Authors
Index of Biblical Citations

Citation preview

The Spirit is Moving: New Pathways in Pneumatology

Studies in Reformed Theology Editor-in-chief Eddy Van der Borght (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam)

Editorial Board Abraham van de Beek (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) Martien Brinkman (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) George Harinck (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) Dirk van Keulen (Theological University Kampen) Daniel Migliore (Princeton Theological Seminary) Richard Mouw (Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena) Emanuel Gerrit Singgih (Duta Wacana Christian University, Yogjakarta) Pieter Vos (Protestant Theological University, Amsterdam) Conrad Wethmar (University of Pretoria)

volume 38

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/srt

Cornelis van der Kooi

The Spirit is Moving: New Pathways in Pneumatology Studies Presented to Professor Cornelis van der Kooi on the Occasion of His Retirement

Edited by

Gijsbert van den Brink Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman Maarten Wisse

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: Stained Glass—The Holy Spirit by Jerry Horbert (Shutterstock). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kooi, Cornelis van der, honouree. | Brink, Gijsbert van den,  1963– editor. Title: The spirit is moving : new pathways in pneumatology : studies  presented to Professor Cornelis van der Kooi on the occasion of his  retirement / edited by Gijsbert van den Brink, Eveline van  Staalduine-Sulman, Maarten Wisse. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2019. | Series: Studies in reformed  theology, ISSN 1571-4799 ; volume 38 Identifiers: LCCN 2018058084 (print) | LCCN 2019005098 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004391741 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004391734 (pbk. : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Holy Spirit. Classification: LCC BT121.3 (ebook) | LCC BT121.3 .S645 2019 (print) |  DDC 231/.3—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018058084

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 1571-4799 isbn 978-90-04-39173-4 (paperback) isbn 978-90-04-39174-1 (e-book) Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Notes on Contributors xi Introduction: Believing in the Holy Spirit Today 1 Gijsbert van den Brink, Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, and Maarten Wisse

Part 1 Who Spoke by the Prophets: Spirit and Bible 1 The Spirit as Critical Biblical Scholar 23 Eep Talstra 2 The Spirit of Holiness in Romans 1:4 36 Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte 3 The Spirit(s) from before the Lord: Pneumatology in Targum Jonathan 52 Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman 4 Spirit and Scripture: From Theopneustos through Inspiratus to God-Spirited 64 Erik A. de Boer 5 Allegory within the Bounds of the Letter: Toward a Pneumatological Reorientation of Protestant Interpretations of the Old Testament 77 Arnold Huijgen

Part 2 And from the Son? The Spirit and the Christ 6 Pneuma-Christology as Applied Christology: Intimacy and Immediacy in the Odes of Solomon 93 Henk A. Bakker

viii

Contents

7 Spirit-Christology and Theandric Language: A Protestant Perspective 109 Gerrit C. van de Kamp 8 The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me: Pneumatological Christology with and beyond Barth 124 Bruce L. McCormack 9 Barth and the Charismatics: How Can They be Reconciled? 138 Abraham van de Beek 10 Substitution as a Pneumatological Concept 156 Martien E. Brinkman

Part 3 The Lord: Spirit and World 11 The Spirit and Wisdom 171 Jan Veenhof 12 The Spirit of God and Creation: Towards a Pneumatological Interpretation of Biological Emergence 186 Gijsbert van den Brink 13 Discerning the Spirit in World Religions: A Neocalvinist Approach 200 Richard J. Mouw 14 Discerning the Spirit in World Religions: The Search for Criteria 215 Benno van den Toren

Part 4 And Giver of Life: The Spirit and the Human Person 15 Retrieving Jonathan Edwards’ Doctrine of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit 235 Willem van Vlastuin

Contents

ix

16 Transforming Spirit: Oepke Noordmans’ Pneumatological View on Being a Human Person 251 Akke van der Kooi 17 He Created Us for a New Beginning: Spiritus Creator and Human Creativity 266 Gerard C. den Hertog 18 Theodicy, Creation, and Suffering: Drawing on God’s Spirit and Love 280 Michael Welker 19 Setting Free and Bringing to Purpose: The Work of the Spirit in Cultivating the Virtues 293 Pieter Vos

Part 5 One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church: The Spirit and the Christian Community 20 Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus and the Church 309 Carl J. Bosma 21 Christ’s Presence through the Spirit in the Holy Supper: Retrieving Abraham Kuyper 331 Maarten Wisse 22 The Spirit of the Supernatural: The Rise of Apostolic Networks in the Netherlands 346 Miranda Klaver 23 Of Muddy Boots & Roadways: Becoming Theologians of the Word and the Spirit 362 Cory B. Willson 24 Spirit, Chaplaincy, and Theology: Why Should a Chaplain Read Dogmatics? 378 Margriet A. Th. van der Kooi-Dijkstra

x

Contents

Index of Authors 393 Index of Biblical Citations 401

Notes on Contributors Abraham van de Beek (1946) is Professor emeritus for the Symbols of the church at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and extraordinary professor at the University of Stellenbosch (South Africa). Previously he was a minister in the Netherlands Reformed Church and professor of systematic and biblical theology at Leiden University. He is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Arts and authored a six-volume dogmatics ‘Spreken over God’ (Speaking about God) next to many other books and articles in systematic theology. Besides this he earned a doctorate in botany and has continued writing articles in this field as well. Henk Bakker (1960) is Chair holder of the James Wm. McClendon Chair for Baptistic and Evangelical Theologies at VU University Amsterdam. He is also Lecturer of Theology at the Dutch Baptist Seminary (Amsterdam), and at the International Baptist Theological Study Centre (Amsterdam). Dr. Bakker is Fellow Researcher at the Centre for Patristic Research (Utrecht) and Fellow Researcher at the Herman Bavinck Centre for Reformed and Evangelical Theology (Amsterdam). Erik A. de Boer (1957) (Ph.D. Université de Genève, 1999) is professor of Church History at the Theological University Kampen, extraordinary professor for the history of the Reformation at VU University Amsterdam, and research associate at Free State University Bloemfontein, South Africa. His publications include a critical edition of Jean Calvin, Congrégations et disputations [Ioannis Calvini opera denuo recognita, Series: Varia, VII/1] (Genève: Librairie Droz, 2014) and The Genevan School of the Prophets. The congrégations of the Company of Pastors and its Influence in 16th Century Europe (Genève: Librairie Droz, 2012). Carl J. Bosma (1944) was born in Eastermar (or Oostermeer, Friesland), the Netherlands, and emigrated with his parents to the USA in 1956. He graduated from Calvin College (1962–1966) with a BA in Classical Languages. After serving two years in the US Army (1966–1968), one of which was spent in the former Republic of South Vietnam (1968), he studied at Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids (1969–1973). Upon graduation, he and his wife Anneke moved to Amsterdam in September 1973 for post-graduate Old Testament studies with

xii

Notes on Contributors

Dr. N.H. Ridderbos at the Vrije Universiteit. Next, they moved to Brazil to serve as church planters. In Brazil, Carl also taught at the Presbyterian Seminary of the South in Campinas (1985–1987). In 1990, Carl accepted the invitation to teach Old Testament at CTS, a position he held until his retirement in 2014. Gijsbert van den Brink (1963) studied theology and philosophy of religion at Utrecht University, where he graduated in 1993. He became a minister and held teaching positions at the universities of Groningen and Utrecht. Becoming a full-time lecturer in 2001, he moved to Leiden University before being appointed at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2008), where he serves as University Research Professor for Theology and Science (2015). He spent the academic year 2010–2011 at the Center for Theological Inquiry, Princeton NJ. His latest work is on Reformed theology and evolutionary theory. Martien E. Brinkman (1950) is professor emeritus of ecumenical/intercultural theology of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He is honorary professor of the Reformed Seminary of Sarospatak, Hungary and research fellow of the faculty of theology of Stellenbosch University, South Africa. From 2005 till 2015 he was the director of the International Reformed Theological Institute (IRTI). His main recent publications in English are The Tragedy of Human Freedom (2003), The Non-Western Jesus (2009), Jesus Incognito (2013) and A Reformed Voice in the Ecumenical Discussion (2016). Gerard C. den Hertog (1949) studied from 1967–1974 theology in Utrecht, Apeldoorn and Kampen, where he obtained his doctorate with a dissertation on the doctrine of the bound will in the theology of Hans Joachim Iwand. After having been a minister in the Christian Reformed Churches, he was a professor in systematic theology at the Theological University of Apeldoorn from 2001–2017. He published widely in the fields of dogmatics and theological ethics. Arnold Huijgen (1978) is Professor of Systematic Theology at the Theological University Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. Previously, he was a minister in the Christian Reformed Churches. He has published on divine accommodation in John Calvin’s theology and on the theology of the Reformed confessions, particularly

Notes on Contributors

xiii

the Heidelberg Catechism. His research interests include the theology of John Calvin, the Trinity and the Old Testament, and hermeneutics. Gerrit C. van de Kamp (1946) is emeritus minister in the Protestant Church in the Netherlands. In 1983 he obtained his doctorate with a thesis on Spirit Christology in the preNicene period and the way later theologians took advantage of it in developing their own theology. In addition to the great dogma historians Adolf von Harnack, Reinhold Seeberg and Friedrich Loofs, he paid attention to among others Piet Schoonenberg. Recently he wrote an article on the pneumatological Christology of David Coffey. Miranda Klaver (1962) studied cultural anthropology as well as theology and obtained her PhD at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam with an interdisciplinary study on the meaning of conversion among Evangelicals and Pentecostals in the Netherlands: This is My Desire (Amsterdam 2011). Kees van der Kooi was one of her supervisors. She is assistant professor in the anthropology of religion and holds the research position Charismatic and Pentecostals Christianity at the faculty of Religion and Theology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Akke van der Kooi (1949) was Senior Lecturer for Systematic Theology at the Protestant Theological University in Kampen and Groningen until her retirement in 2014. Her main area of research is the theology of the twentieth century, in particular the work of the Dutch theologian Oepke Noordmans. A German translation of her thesis was published in 1998: Einführung in die Theologie Dr. O. Noordmans. She is President of the O. Noordmans Foundation. Besides publications on the fields of pneumatology and ecclesiology, she writes about topics within urban ministry and gender studies. Margriet A.Th. van der Kooi-Dijkstra (1953) obtained her master’s degree in Theology at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in 1980, and has since been working as a chaplain in several hospitals and psychiatric departments. She has published many articles and books on a wide variety of topics, including pastoral care issues, grief, ethics and Christian upbringing. She recently published a book together with her husband Cornelis van der Kooi on the urgency of theology for pastoral care. Cornelis and Margriet van der Kooi are the parents of four children and grandparents of six.

xiv

Notes on Contributors

Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte (1963), PhD Leiden (1995), is professor of New Testament at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He has published on eschatology and apocalypticism in early Judaism and early Christianity as well as on Paul, and has conducted a major research programme on the history of New Testament Conjectural Emendation. He is one of the three General Editors of the Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (with David Hunter and Paul van Geest, forthcoming). He has been visiting professor at Yale Divinity School, and research affiliate at the universities of Pretoria and Heidelberg. Bruce L. McCormack (1952) is Charles Hodge Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, where he previously (1989) earned his PhD. He also holds an MDiv from Nazarene Theological Seminary and an honorary doctorate of theology from the Friedrich Schiller Universität in Jena, Germany. His work focuses on the history of modern theology, from Schleiermacher and Hegel through Karl Barth. A member of the Karl Barth-Stiftung in Basel, Switzerland, he is North American editor of the Zeitschrift für Dialektische Theologie, published in the Netherlands. He is the author or editor of many volumes, including his widely acclaimed Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology (1995). Richard J. Mouw (1944), who sees Abraham Kuyper as a personal hero, studied at Western Theological Seminary (Holland MI). He was awarded an MA from the University of Alberta, and his PhD from the University of Chicago. Mouw was Professor of Christian philosophy at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, for seventeen years. He has also served as a visiting professor to the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He was appointed Professor of Christian Philosophy and Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary (Pasadena) in 1985. In 1993 he was elected president of Fuller Theological Seminary, retiring after the 2012–2013 academic year. Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman (1964) is professor of Reception History of the Hebrew Bible in Antiquity at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. She investigated Targum Samuel in her dissertation, The Targum of Samuel (Leiden: Brill, 2002) and in a project to compose a new, critical edition (see www.targum.nl). In the last years she looked into the reception history of the Targum within Christian scholarship of the sixteenth and seventeenth century. This issued in the book  Justifying Christian Aramaism (Leiden: Brill, 2017).

Notes on Contributors

xv

Eep Talstra (1946) studied theology and Semitic languages at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. In 1977 he became research coordinator of the newly founded Werkgroep Informatica at its theological faculty, in 1991 extraordinary professor of “Bible and Computer” and in 2002 professor of the Old Testament. The main focus of his work is on methods of exegesis, computer-assisted linguistic analysis of the Hebrew Bible and the dialogue between biblical studies and systematic theology. His publications include Oude en nieuwe lezers. Een inleiding in de methoden van uitleg van het Oude Testament (Kampen 2002) and “Data, Knowledge and Tradition: Biblical Scholarship and the Humanities 2.0,” in: K. Spronk (ed.) The Present State of Old Testament Studies in the Low Countries (Leiden 2016), 228–247. Jan Veenhof (1934) studied theology in Kampen and Göttingen (1951–1959). He worked as a freelance journalist for the local press and as a guest preacher. He graduated with a voluminous dissertation on Herman Bavinck’s views of revelation and Scripture as compared to those of the so-called “ethical theologians.” From 1971–1973 he worked as a pastor in the Reformed Church of Basel, in order to then become full professor for dogmatics and the history of dogma at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (1973–1989). From 1990 until his retirement in 1999 he once again worked as a pastor in Switzerland (Thun). He also was a temporary lecturer of dogmatics at the theological faculties of Basel, Bern and at Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids. Willem van Vlastuin (1963) worked initially as a pastor. In 2002 he finished his PhD-thesis on Jonathan Edwards’ doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the context of revival. At present he is professor for the Theology and Spirituality of Reformed Protestantism at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He is also Dean of the seminary of the Hersteld Hervormde Kerk at this university. In 2014 he published Be Renewed. A Theology of Personal Renewal and his Catholic Today. A reformed conversation on catholicity is forthcoming. Pieter Vos (1970) is Lecturer in Ethics at the Protestant Theological University (Amsterdam) and Director of the International Reformed Theological Institute (IRTI). He received his PhD from the PThU (2002, Kampen). His research is focused on virtue ethics, moral formation, professional practices, and Søren Kierkegaard. His publications include De troost van het ogenblik: Kierkegaard over God en het

xvi

Notes on Contributors

lijden [The Solace of the Moment: Kierkegaard on God and Suffering] (2002), Søren Kierkegaard lezen [Reading Søren Kierkegaard] (2010), The Law of God: Exploring God and Civilization (2014, edited with Onno Zijlstra), Liturgy and Ethics: New Contributions from Reformed Perspectives (2018, ed.). Michael Welker (1947), Dr. theol.; Dr. phil.; Dr. theol. h.c., Dr. phil. h.c.; Senior Professor at the University of Heidelberg (since 2013) and Director of the Research Center for International and Interdisciplinary Theology (FIIT Heidelberg, since 2005); Honorary Professor at Seoul Theological University, member of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Karl Barth Preis 2016. Invitation to give the Gifford Lectures in Edinburgh 2019/20. Guest-professorships: McMaster University, Canada; Princeton Theological Seminary; Senior Consultant Scholar at the CTI Princeton; Harvard Divinity School; Cambridge Divinity School; Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University. Author of ca. 350 articles in academic journals and books. Author or editor of about 50 books. Cory B. Willson (1977) is the Jake and Betsy Tuls Associate Professor of Missiology and Missional Ministry and Director of the Institute for Global Church Planting and Renewal at Calvin Theological Seminary. In 2016 he graduated at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and Fuller Theological Seminary, having Cornelis van der Kooi as one of his supervisors. He is the co-founding editor of the Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue Journal. His current research interests are in the areas of World Christianity and inter-religious engagement. He is working on a book on work, worship and the mission of God. Maarten Wisse (1973), PhD Utrecht University (2003), Habil. University of Tübingen (2011), taught systematic theology at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (2009–2017) and is now Professor of Dogmatics at the Protestant Theological University in Amsterdam. He has published in the areas of theological hermeneutics, Trinitarian theology and Reformed systematic theology. His most recent scholarly book is Trinitarian Theology beyond Participation: Augustine’s De Trinitate and Contemporary Theology (T&T Clark International, 2011). Benno van den Toren (1966), PhD Theological University Kampen (1995), taught theology at the Faculté de Théologie Evangélique de Bangui (Central African Republic,

Notes on Contributors

xvii

1997–2005) and Wycliffe Hall, Oxford (2005–2013). He was Professor by special appointment for the Theology of Charismatic Renewal at the Vrije Universiteit (2010–2014). He is currently Professor of Intercultural Theology at the Protestant Theological University, Groningen. His current research interests include the possibility and nature of interreligious apologetic witness, the relationship between science and religion in Africa and the nature of intercultural theology.

introduction

Believing in the Holy Spirit Today Gijsbert van den Brink, Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, and Maarten Wisse 1

The Pneumatological Renaissance

In the past decades, both in grassroots movements of Christian believers and in various areas of theological reflection a new interest in the person and work of the Holy Spirit has gradually emerged. Looking backwards from where we are now in this process, some discern a long period of Geistvergessenheit (‘forgetfulness of the Spirit’) in Western history and theology—it has even become commonplace to lament about this phenomenon.1 In any case, it is over now—the Holy Spirit is back on stage, both in particular practices and rituals associated with the gifts of the Spirit as in renewed theological reflection on his identity and manifestations. A couple of contemporary developments are usually highlighted in current literature that may help explain why this period of spiritual oblivion came to an end in what has been called a ‘pneumatological renaissance.’2 In particular, four recent transitions are often mentioned in this connection.3 First, in Western societies the (partial) shift from modern to postmodern ways of thinking comes with a new recognition of the meaning and significance of transcendence. In the eyes of many, the rationalist and scientistic reduction of life to what can be tested, measured and commodified does insufficient justice to the multiple layers and fundamental mysteries of reality as it 1  Often, the comparison with Cinderella is used in this connection: the young lady who was left home when her two older sisters went to the ball; see e.g. Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 8; Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 240. As far as we know, this metaphor was first used by G.J. Sirks, “The Cinderella of Theology: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” Harvard Theological Review 50 (1957), 77–89 (we are grateful to our colleague Miranda Klaver for this reference). 2  Cf. e.g. Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Pneumatology. The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 11. 3  Cf. e.g. Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 524–530. Cornelis van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force. The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 6–17.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_002

2

van den Brink et al.

appears to us. Dominant trends in modern culture, such as the rationalization and instrumentalization of the human life sphere, seem to have led to a neglect of deep-felt existential human needs and desires. Surely there must be ‘more things between heaven and earth’ as the saying goes, and many people long for meaning, for personal fulfillment and for the ability to make sense of things in terms of some higher perspective that transcends the individual’s micro-cosmos. In this climate, talk of a spiritual dimension of life and personal spiritual growth has become quite fashionable. It goes without saying that in this atmosphere pneumatology fares better as a possible pathway to finding God than Christology. God is not locked up in the past, let alone that the divine is to be identified with the Jewish man who bequeathed us the church— that most ambivalent of all institutions. Rather, the divine is all around us, as the spiritual dimension of reality that is present to everyone, in all creatures and religions. Taking their cue from this sentiment, contemporary theologians have attempted to redefine the entire doctrine of God in terms of pneumatology, developing what has been called a ‘pneuma-theology.’ The Spirit of God, or, rather, God as Spirit permeates all reality and undergirds all living beings—in Him we live and move and have our being.4 The latter phrase, of course, is a quote from Acts 17 (verse 28), which suggests that this way of thinking is entirely in line with the biblical testimony. But is it? How exactly is the Spirit of God related to creation, to the cosmos, to adherents of the many religions in the world? It is this group of questions that will be examined in part 3 of this volume. Second, the ecumenical movement which arose in the course of the twentieth century came with an increased attention to the doctrine of the Trinity in general and the Person of the Holy Spirit in particular. Especially the encounter between churches in the West with Eastern Orthodoxy in the second half of the twentieth century led to a new awareness of the relevance of trinitarian and pneumatological issues for the life of the church. Although this continues to be a heavily debated issue in segments of Western theology, it appeared that Augustine’s emphasis on the unity of God and his seminal characterization of the Spirit as ‘the bond of love’ between Father and Son had resulted in a de-personalizing of the Spirit in the subsequent history of the church in the West. Despite the rediscovery of the Spirit in parts of the Reformation as mediator of salvation (applying the work of Christ to the individual believer), the full equality and distinct personhood of the Spirit continued to be largely obscured. Eastern Orthodox theologians such as Vladimir Lossky harshly 4  Cf. Philip Clayton and Arthur Peacocke (eds.), In Him we Live and Move and Have Our Being. Panentheistic Reflections on God’s Presence in a Scientific World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

Believing in the Holy Spirit Today

3

criticized this Western undervaluing of the Spirit, suggesting that it goes back all the way to the inclusion of the filioque-clause in the Western version of the Creed.5 Whether or not this is exaggerated (as many hold), it became clear that in the Eastern tradition the role of the Spirit in liturgy and theology is much more conspicuous than in the West. In response, Western theologians, becoming aware of the oblivion of the Spirit in their history, started a quest for the specific nature of the Spirit’s personality as distinct (though not separated) from the Father and the Son.6 The developments and debates on these issues give us reason to examine once more how exactly the Spirit is related to the church and the churches—a theme that will be picked up in part 5 of this volume. Third, the rise of interest in the Holy Spirit was by no means confined to the realm of academic or official church theology but also surfaced at the grassroots level. In the course of the twentieth century, the rise of Pentecostal and Charismatic movements became one of the most prominent developments in world Christianity. These movements as well are characterized by a special focus on the person and work of the Holy Spirit. In particular, the so-called extraordinary gifts of the Spirit (or charismata) are highly valued: speaking in tongues, prophecy, faith healing, prayer as a special ministry, et cetera. Ever since its beginning—and like Pentecost in the New Testament (Acts 2) this beginning can be pinpointed with precision: the Azusa Street Revival in Los Angeles, 1906—the Pentecostal movement continued to expand globally, not just leading to new groups but also heavily influencing existing churches and traditions. Ecclesiological reflection is traditionally less welldeveloped; despite the initial desire to overcome old-worn ecclesial divisions in the search for Christian unity, Pentecostalism became the most internally divided and fractured denomination ever.7 Both charismatic and evangelical forms of Christianity can to some extent be understood as ‘Pentecostalism 5  See e.g. Christoph Schwöbel, “Introduction. The Renaissance of Trinitarian Theology: Reasons, Problems, Tasks,” in: Trinitarian Theology Today, ed. Christoph Schwöbel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 3–4. 6  See most recently in the Dutch literature Willem Maarten Dekker and Andries Zoutendijk, De Geest onderscheiden. Een bijbels-theologische, theologiehistorische en dogmatische studie over de Heilige Geest als persoon [Discerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit as Person in Biblical, Historical and Systematic Theology] (Utrecht: Boekencentrum, 2017). See also Anthony Thiselton, The Holy Spirit—in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013). 7  Cf. e.g. Wolfgang Vondey, Pentecostalism: A Guide to the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 49–68; Vondey also points to a recent change in attitude, leading to a new sense of ecumenicity among Pentecostals. For the Dutch context, cf. well-chosen title of Cornelis van der Laan, Sectarian against His Will: Gerrit Roelof Polman and the Birth of Pentecostalism in the Netherlands (London: Scarecrow, 1991).

4

van den Brink et al.

light.’ Characteristic of all these movements is an emphasis on the individual experience of the Holy Spirit (usually interpreted as a being filled, or baptized, or anointed by or with the Spirit), which is often seen as the touchstone of authentic faith. These developments therefore raise the question how exactly the Spirit is related to the individual human person—a question which will be further explored in part 4 of this volume. Fourth, last but not least, contemporary biblical-theological scholarship contributed to a renewed focus on the role of the Spirit in the Bible and on its possible implications for the life of the church today. As a result of soundings in both the Old Testament (Joel 2:28–32 etc.) and the New (e.g. Rom.8:18–27), a new awareness emerged of the Spirit as the eschatological gift and liberating force par excellence. The Spirit is not primarily a formal object of abstract theological reflection, but manifests itself in very concrete ways in experiences of healing, liberation and salvation that anticipate the eschaton. Influential theologians such as Jürgen Moltmann transposed these findings into a theology of liberation which in turn inspired Christian groups in Latin America and elsewhere. Next to that, these biblical-theological investigations led to a retrieval of Spirit-Christology, either as an alternative or as an indispensable complement to the Logos-Christology that had been dominant in church theology ever since the decisions of Constantinople and Chalcedon.8 It dawned on many how deeply relevant it is from a theological perspective that according to the New Testament Jesus not only sent the Spirit, but was also himself equipped and anointed and inspired and sent by the Spirit. This fourth development leads to a double set of questions which requires further study and examination: How is the Spirit of God related to the Bible? And how is the Spirit related to Jesus of Nazareth and his messianic appearance? The first of these issues takes center stage in part 1 of this volume, the second in part 2. Interestingly, all groups of questions distinguished here can be linked to the age-old creedal formulations on the Holy Spirit that we find in the most ecumenical of all creeds, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381).9 Here, the Spirit is confessed as Lord (of the cosmos and the world), as Giver of life (a reference to John 6:63 and 2 Cor.3:6, where it pertains to the spiritual awakening of the individual believer), as the one who spoke through the prophets (in what became the Christian Bible), as the one who also proceeds “from the Son” (the hotly contested Western addition which shows how difficult it is to 8  Cf. e.g. J.P. Versteeg, Christus en de Geest [Christ and the Spirit] (Kampen: Kok, 1971); James D.G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM, 1975); Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002). 9  Cf. J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, Third Edition (Harlow: Longman, 1972), 296–331.

Believing in the Holy Spirit Today

5

determine the relationship between Spirit and Son), and as the one who constitutes the Christian community (‘[we believe] in one holy catholic and apostolic church’). In this volume, we have decided not to follow the exact order of these various attributes ascribed to the Spirit in the Creed, but, perhaps in typically Reformed fashion, to start with the Bible—asking not only how the Spirit emerges from the Bible but also how the Bible emerges from the Spirit. In this way, we can open the present volume with the paper of our retired Amsterdam colleague Eep Talstra, who tirelessly reminds us of the fact that Christian theology does not start with the creeds but with the Bible. The title of this volume is derived from a well-known hymn composed by Roy Turner (1978): “All over the world / the Spirit is moving / All over the world / As the prophet said it would be.” To what extent is the Spirit moving indeed in the recent developments sketched above? In the Bible, the Spirit is strongly associated with freedom (cf. 2 Cor.3:17)—it is as the wind that “blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes” (John 3:7). For this reason, we should not dismiss the possibility that today the Spirit is finding new ways to guide the church “into all the truth” (John 16:22). Not every spirit is from God, however (1 John 4:1). Some phenomena may seem to originate in the Spirit, whereas in fact they give expression to some other spirit which is alien to the gospel. Therefore, what is needed is a further examination and ‘testing’ of the spirits that are moving in our days. It is this task to which this volume seeks to contribute in multiple ways. New pathways in pneumatology are explored here to find out where the Spirit is moving. We should add to that, however, that our points of view as contributors and editors are as contextual as those of anyone else. In particular, we acknowledge that the perspectives of most of us as friends and colleagues of Van der Kooi is largely shaped by Western Protestant traditions and less so by recent developments in, for example, the global South. Although some contributions (such as the one by Cory Willson) in creative and important ways explore voices that are often excluded from pneumatological discourse, the spiritual experiences of a significant part of Christianity could not be given proper attention within the confines of this volume. Most of its contributions are characterized by meticulous research on what is only a tiny part of the entire field, so we could not at all do full justice to the church’s (let alone the world’s) impressive diversity. We therefore hope that the papers in this volume will be augmented by many other detailed pneumatological studies, including more studies on the voices and experiences of often neglected ‘others.’ In any case, such inclusiveness— that can only be reached “with all the saints” (Eph.3:18)—is what the catholicity of the church requires.

6 2

van den Brink et al.

A Tribute to Cornelis van der Kooi

As intimated already, in publishing this research we pay a special tribute to the path-breaking work of our esteemed retiring colleague Cornelis—or Kees, as we Dutch usually abbreviate his name—van der Kooi, Professor of Systematic Theology at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. In important ways Van der Kooi has taken the lead in re-visiting pneumatology in response to pressing issues and current developments. Remarkably, as a Reformed theologian with Barthian leanings, Van der Kooi was one of the first to decry the dismissive attitude towards Pentecostalism which used to be common in many official manuals of theology.10 It was his view that this movement forcefully awakens the church out of its oblivion of the Spirit. In particular, along with others Van der Kooi has done much to bridge the gap between Reformed and charismatic understandings of the work of the Spirit.11 Here is a telling passage from his recent study on pneumatology: (…) even where today the notion of God’s kingdom is acknowledged as a holistic idea, there is still immediate hesitation, for example, if it involves healing. The theologies of Jürgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg are examples of this position. Both scholars defend the idea that the future is already present here, but instead of becoming concrete, they remain stuck in generalities, if not obfuscations. This leads to the larger question: In the context of the modern worldview, how far can Reformed and Lutheran theology go in the giving place to experiences that are mostly derived from the Southern Hemisphere? We must admit that we badly need such experiences.12 In light of this, Van der Kooi observes that confessional borders become less relevant, as Pentecostal, evangelical and charismatic movements exert great influence across the board of mainline churches—both Catholic and Protestant. Van der Kooi has also been involved in reflection on Spirit-Christology and its implications, on the Spirit’s relationship to the cosmos, the Spirit’s transformative work both in the individual believer and in human culture, and on 10  In his essay in the present volume, Bram van de Beek insightfully discusses how the Barthian impulse and charismatic tendencies could merge in Van der Kooi’s theology. 11  Cf. e.g. Michael Welker (ed.), The Work of the Spirit. Pneumatology and Pentecostalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006); Michael Welker, God as Spirit (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994). 12  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 16.

Believing in the Holy Spirit Today

7

the need for spiritual discernment.13 In brief, he has taken the challenge of developing a pneumatology that is geared to the times with utmost seriousness. Apart from writing two monographs on the topic, in his own dogmatics, co-written with one of the present authors, he almost provocatively (from a classical Reformed perspective) included a distinct chapter on the Holy Spirit.14 Van der Kooi has always been adamant that dogmatics should not abstract from the concrete spiritual and ritual practices in which believers express their thoughts and feelings. Charismatic practices—practices in which he often participates himself—are a case in point here. Also, Van der Kooi has always protested against the tendency of many systematic theologians to lose sight of the biblical texts that are constitutive to Christian thinking; he himself has always sought cooperation with biblical scholars and attempted to incorporate the fruits of their work in his theological thought. Thus, it seems fitting that the title of the volume is taken from a hymn—reminding us of the practice of worshiping—which text contains many allusions to the Bible.15 At the same time, of course, the title conjures up the dynamism that is characteristic for the work of the Spirit. If the Spirit is moving, things do not remain the same over time, and neither can theology just repeat the things that were always said. Instead, it should be open to surprising novelties in God’s dealings with us and in his ways with creation.16 Academic publishers are a bit hesitant to publish Festschrifte these days, and this is quite understandable since often these are ephemeral products— mixed bags put together hastily without sufficient coherence. As editors we had to make some hard choices to avoid this scenario. All submitted articles had to be screened in a review procedure, thus running the risk of being excluded from this volume. Moreover, not all colleagues of Van der Kooi who are good friends could be invited, since sometimes there was no natural link between their expertise or published work and pneumatology. We apologize for any infelicities that may have resulted from these choices, but we think it was worth the effort to produce a volume that may have a more lasting influence on 13  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 22–70; 1–21; 71–98; 124–143. 14  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 489–532. Though we wrote the entire book with the two of us, perhaps I [GvdB] am allowed to disclose here that this chapter was mainly written by Van der Kooi. 15  At https://hymnary.org/text/all_over_the_world_the_spirit_is_moving references are listed to Gen.1, Isa.11, Ez.36, Joel 2, Hab.2, Matth.3, Mark 1, Luke 3 and Acts 1 and 2. 16  Some of Van der Kooi’s most recent work (still in press) is devoted to the theme of “novelty in God” from a pneumatological point of view. More interaction with Van der Kooi’s contributions to contemporary pneumatological reflection is to be found in many of the essays in the present volume.

8

van den Brink et al.

the field than would otherwise have been possible. In any case, the papers contained in this volume all testify to the manifold ways in which Van der Kooi’s work (not to mention his warm personality, his collegiality, friendship and hospitality) has stimulated and deeply influenced all of us. Speaking on behalf of all contributors to this volume, we are grateful for all we have learned from our esteemed colleague throughout the years—both in terms of how to do theology as in terms of how to live the life of faith with integrity. In the remaining sections, we offer an overview of the various parts of this volume. 3

Who Spoke by the Prophets: The Holy Spirit and the Bible

To begin with, Old Testament scholar Eep Talstra forcefully argues that Christian theology should seek God where he is to be found: in the manifold and complex biblical traditions that reflect his convoluted story with Israel and humanity at large. Since these traditions are more and more uncovered by historical critical scholarship, theology should not work with abstract concepts or timeless frameworks (either of a conservative or of a liberal kind), but analyse these biblical traditions as “the footprints of God’s presence in the human world.” These footprints show that God’s Spirit emerges as God’s final strategy to preserve life, both for his people and for creation in general. Ezekiel, in whose book all earlier lines of thought come together, illustrates this in his magnificent Chapter 37. That chapter, however, also makes the reader realize that the word ruach is used in “a meaningful confusion, not uncommon when one sees the creator in action.” The Spirit is not an abstract unchanging power needed to inspire believers, but God himself fighting for the survival of his people and his creation in ever new ways. In dogmatically rethinking the position and work of the Holy Spirit, we cannot just copy patristic formulations since we should do justice to this flexibility of the biblical traditions in the Hebrew Bible, in order to discover that the same God is still active in our days in no less surprising ways. Moving to the New Testament, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte observes that the terminology in Romans 1:4 contains two strange elements. Paul seems to say that Jesus was ‘installed’ as Son of God by his resurrection, and uniquely refers to the Spirit as ‘the spirit of holiness.’ These two elements have been discussed extensively in modern exegetical studies, but have also been influential in the history of the text and its reception. Its transmission, translation, and interpretation by theologians throughout the ages show a struggle with these two

Believing in the Holy Spirit Today

9

singular elements. To adequately address the involved problems of interpretation, the work of both biblical scholars and systematic theologians is needed. The biblical scholar has to come to terms with the two peculiar textual elements, and Lietaert Peerbolte argues that this is best done by regarding them as originating in a pre-existing formula, quoted and adapted by Paul. The theologian, however, has to understand these words in the broader context of Paul’s work as a whole and the more refined terminology on Son and Spirit delivered by later developments. Ideally, the two approaches complement each other. Christian theology should never forget that the Jewish tradition as well knows God as Spirit, or the Spirit of God, and reflects on its workings. Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman carefully unravels how pneumatology functions in Targumic interpretations of the Old Testament. Especially focusing on Targum Jonathan (2nd century CE), she goes beyond current scholarship on this document by investigating (1) whether there is only one divine Spirit or many of them before God’s throne, and (2) how the various clauses in which the term ‘spirit’ occurs relate to God and human beings respectively. It is concluded that Targum Jonathan’s stress on the distinction between God and humans got in the way of a sharp pneumatology. The Targum leaves room for (but does not enforce) an interpretation according to which various spirits can be discerned before God’s throne. Some of these (the ‘good’ ones) are identified with the being of God, others (the evil ones) mainly reside in human beings. There is a lot of fluidity in Targum Jonathan’s pneumatology, however, since usually ‘spirit of …’ denotes God’s lasting influence on human beings. Thus, e.g. the “spirit of wisdom” resides both in God and in those humans gifted with it. There is no fluidity, though, in Targum Jonathan’s strict monotheism, which prevents an interpretation of the Holy Spirit as a divine person next to God. In his dogmatic contribution on the relationship between the Spirit and the Bible, Erik A. de Boer links up with Van der Kooi’s use of the term theopneustos (literally “God-spirited”) as a description of the special character of the biblical scriptures. Theopneusty is often used as an equivalent to inspiration, and both terms are interpreted as pointing to the way in which the authors of scripture were divinely inspired persons. By contrast, De Boer shows that in the Bible this notion was not so much connected to the authors of the scriptures but rather to these scriptures themselves. This use of theopneustos as a lasting attribute of the scriptures is also found in the Church Fathers. Thus, more generally theopneustos does not so much point to the ‘inerrancy’ of the authors as to the spirit-breathed character of the scriptures. For our understanding, this means that no less than its writing, the hearing and reading of scripture is a Spirit-breathed event. “The Spirit is the breath of God, breathing out to and

10

van den Brink et al.

through those who read aloud and giving life to those who hear In faithfully reading the scriptures.” In this shared insight, the classical Reformed and the contemporary charismatic tradition meet. In another contribution on the doctrine of Scripture, Arnold Huijgen proposes an allegorical-pneumatological reading of scripture which remains true to the classical Protestant emphasis on its historical-grammatical meaning. Huijgen takes his point of departure in two themes that figure in Cornelis van der Kooi’s work: the relationship between God and history and the connection between scripture and systematic theology. Focusing particularly on the Old Testament, he operates in line with the theological interpretation of scripture (TIS) movement, which both he and Van der Kooi appreciate. Two recent approaches within this movement—those of Matthew Bates and Hans Boersma—are found wanting, however, because in both proper exegesis of the Bible is ultimately overruled by dogmatics. Huijgen attempts to get beyond the impasse by drawing on the Dutch theologian Oepke Noordmans (whose work is also introduced in Akke van der Kooi’s contribution to this volume). Noordmans’ plea for an “allegory within the bounds of the letter” attempts to trace the movement of the Spirit in establishing, demolishing and recreating certain Old Testament figures. Thus, the Spirit drives history towards the cross of Christ and beyond in an ongoing eschatological movement. Through such a Trinitarian account of scripture which draws on the interruptions of the Spirit in history, theology can go beyond the literal sense of the text without losing track of the message of the texts themselves. 4

And from the Son? The Spirit and Christ

As is well-known, the legitimacy of the words “and from the Son” ( filioque in Latin) in the Creed is heavily contested. It has become clear that the phrase was unilaterally added by the Western church during the 5th–8th century, first of all in response to (semi-)Arian tendencies in Spain and southern France, and later as a means to bolster the bishop of Rome’s autonomy vis-à-vis the eastern Church. This is not to say that the phrase is mistaken from a biblical-theological point of view. The relationship between the Spirit and Christ is far more complex, however, than to be captured in the single statement that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son. For doesn’t the Son also proceed from the Spirit, as the Evangelists suggest? It has even been argued that as a matter of fact Christ and the Spirit are identical—and though this is unconvincing, from time to time they are indeed “too close to call.” Contemporary research has brought to light that apart from a Logos-Christology a so-called Spirit-Christology

Believing in the Holy Spirit Today

11

emerged in early Christian practices of worship and belief, but the exact relationship between the two remains a matter of dispute and ongoing debate. No less than five contributions in this volume are dedicated to this issue. Henk A. Bakker focuses on the early Judeo-Christian roots of pneumaChristology. In particular, he explores the Odes of Solomon—a collection of 42 poems attributed to king Solomon, originally written in Syriac and probably dating back to the second century. The idea of Jesus incarnated, generated, or even adopted by (or as) the Spirit has been extensively explored by a variety of scholars, but all too often the Odes are being neglected. Pneuma-Christology, as the Odes of Solomon display, does justice to the notion that Jesus was a real Jewish man, and simultaneously preserves the belief (and the experience!) that in Jesus God himself is active in a complete and absolute way. As a Jew, Jesus is the unique bearer of the Spirit, who came as the logos from eternity to express the human face of God to the people of Israel. As to legitimize the presence of the Word in the life of Israel, Jesus is full of Spirit, immediacy and divine intimacy. More than other Judeo-Christian sources, the Odes highlight the Spirit as the cause of God’s proximity and intimate nearness to human beings. This nearness is first of all exemplified in the relationship between the Spirit and Jesus, but is mediated through Christ to the believers. The Odes can be characterized as a mystagogical document, used at the first stage of Christian initiation (baptism); as such they exhibit what might be called an “applied Christology.” Gerrit C. van de Kamp, who introduced Spirit-Christology in the Netherlands during the 1980s, elaborates on the use of theandric language (i.e. language that emphasizes the unity of the divine and the human) in recent contributions to a Spirit Christology. Originally, theandric language had its place in a Logos Christology, where it seems to compromise the humanity of Christ. For this reason, some replace Logos Christology by a Spirit Christology, whereas others try to complement traditional Logos Christology with an account of Spirit Christology. In his contribution, Van de Kamp focuses on the theology of Piet Schoonenberg and David Coffey, both of whom belong to the second category. In Schoonenberg’s mature theology, we find a reciprocal enhypostasy of the divinity and humanity of Jesus, but also a pneumatological dimension in which the human nature of Christ cannot exist without the Spirit. Also, the Spirit receives a new presence through the unity with the man Jesus. With Schoonenberg, however, it becomes unclear whether the Son exists before the incarnation. In Coffey’s account of Christ’s theandricity, this is more evident. With regard to both (but particularly Schoonenberg), however, the question can be raised to what extent Christ is unique. In both conceptions, the Roman Catholic notion of grace perfecting human nature place a role. Van de

12

van den Brink et al.

Kamp concludes that the use of theandric language is more at home in the Christological realm than elsewhere if we want to preserve the unique salvific meaning of the Christ-event. Whereas Bruce McCormack agrees with Robert Jenson’s (and others’) diagnosis of a pneumatological deficit in Karl Barth’s theology, he argues that this deficit is not so much rooted in Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity as in Barth’s Christology—in particular in his belief that what is accomplished in Jesus Christ is not merely the possibility of reconciliation but its actuality. Barth need not have surrendered this “Christological objectivism,” however, in order to recognize real agency in the Spirit and to move in the direction of a pneumatologically-driven “two natures” doctrine. Where the Spirit’s ministry in the life of Jesus is given the rightful place it has in the Synoptic Gospels, it becomes possible to understand the efficacy of Christ’s work as itself the result of the Spirit’s work. Further, seeing Jesus as a Spirit-indwelt human being will prevent us from understanding the purpose of the hypostatic union in terms of a divinization of human nature, something Barth rightly warned against. Instead, the purpose of the hypostatic union may be conceived in terms of a self-constituted receptivity of the Logos to all that comes from the human side. Thus, the Logos is united to the Spirit-indwelt human being Jesus (from his conception onwards) in order to receive, not to act. Abraham van de Beek explores the relationship between Christ and the Spirit—or the Barthian and the charismatic impulse—in the theology of Cornelis van der Kooi. Starting from the observation that Van der Kooi has been influenced by both Barthian and charismatic theology, Van de Beek explores the similarities and differences between both schools of thought and practice. Despite his criticisms of the pietists of his time, Barth had some sympathy with them because of their recognition of God’s transcendence. Barth and the charismatics of our days, however, seem worlds apart. According to the charismatics, God is primarily within us, whereas for Barth He is above and beyond us. Yet, Van de Beek distinguishes four characteristics which Barth and the charismatics have in common, thus elucidating how Van der Kooi can combine both of them in his thinking. However, Van der Kooi moves beyond both perspectives by, in line with John Calvin, proposing a nuanced view of the effects of the gospel in human history. In this view, gracious personal experiences are cherished as gifts of the Spirit without being turned into human possibilities or ‘possessions.’ Such experiences are side-effects of what is central in Van der Kooi’s theology: the salvific history of Jesus Christ. Van de Beek ends his paper with a critical question: does Van der Kooi sufficiently take into account that this concrete history of Jesus Christ culminates in his death on the cross?

Believing in the Holy Spirit Today

13

Finally, Martien Brinkman approaches the relationship between the Spirit and Christ from another angle: to what extent and in what ways are both involved in vicarious substitution? Vicarious substitution is a traditional Christological topic, but Brinkman gives his treatment of it a remarkable pneumatological twist. Drawing on an intriguing line of the Argentine poet Jorge Luis Borges, he asks how Christ’s death on the cross can have a salvific effect on people who live now. Borges intimates that (if such a connection is possible at all) it must have to do with pardon or forgiveness, but he does not articulate poetically how the two may be connected. Pursuing this question, Brinkman first gleans possible connections from ‘hidden-Christ films’ such as Breaking the Waves and Babette’s Feast, showing in passing that the notion of substitution has by no means vanished from post-Enlightenment Western culture. Next, turning to the Pauline letters, Brinkman shows how Paul summons us to identify ourselves with the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In this way, our sinful existence is buried with him and we are raised into a new way of life, characterized by forgiveness and sanctification. However, it is only through the Holy Spirit that we are enabled to consciously participate in Christ in this way, by participating in the sacraments. Therefore, substitution is an inclusive and as such to a large extent a pneumatological concept. 5

Lord: Spirit and World

In a Christian pneumatology, the Holy Spirit is not only at work in individual human beings or in the community of the church, but first of all in the entire created world. That is why in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed the first title that is ascribed to the Spirit is simply: Lord. In unity with Jesus Christ and the Father, the Spirit is Lord of created reality and has a special relationship towards it. In this section, the intimations of the Spirits in this wider realm are explored. Jan Veenhof traces the various connections between the Spirit and wisdom throughout the biblical traditions. Wisdom in the Bible is never simply intelligence. It is a much more practical concept, deeply connected with the creational order. This reference to creation explains the many points of correspondence with other ancient wisdom-traditions. According to the Old Testament, God’s ruach is active in the cosmos, the history of Israel, and especially in its leaders by giving them wisdom. The “personalising” of wisdom as a woman in Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24 shows the very close relationship between the chokma or sophia and the Torah resp. the Logos in Jewish wisdom literature as a whole. In the New Testament, God’s Spirit-gifted servant Jesus spoke

14

van den Brink et al.

as a prophet and a teacher of wisdom. He criticized the wisdom of the leaders and praised the divine saving wisdom, which is accessible only for those who are like the children: open, humble, often marginalized. The question of true wisdom also is a central topic in the message of Paul, who points to the cross of Jesus as the culmination of divine wisdom. The epistle of James equally emphasizes the wisdom “from above,” which is given to those who are humble (4:5). Because Jesus is both the bearer and the Sender of the Spirit, He can be confessed as the supreme embodiment of God’s wisdom. At the same time, the divine wisdom radiates far beyond the church, for instance in the fields of politics and economics, where it is indispensable as a condition for good relationships. Pursuing the theme of the Holy Spirit as involved in God’s work of creation, Gijsbert van den Brink aims at offering a pneumatological interpretation of biological emergence. The notion of biological emergence has recently got new impetus from theories on the rise of human personhood in evolutionary history. First, the author situates biological emergence within the wider philosophical theory of emergentism, contrasting it with reductive accounts of reality. Next, he shows how biological emergence is consonant with the focus on the Spirit as the giver of life in the Old Testament creation texts. It is then asked how this supposed work of the Spirit in emergent evolution relates to the Spirit’s involvement in the believer’s personal renewal through participation by faith in Christ. Concurring with Van der Kooi’s rejection of a “split between the various workings of the Spirit,” Van den Brink suggests a unified account of the work of the Spirit in which the notion of giving life out of death takes center stage. He even predicts on theological grounds that at some stage in the future a convincing theory on how life emerged from inorganic matter will take hold, since a natural explanation of the origin of life is what we may expect from what we know about the workings of the Spirit. Finally, he draws some practical conclusions. Richard J. Mouw examines how neo-Calvinist thinkers have viewed the Holy Spirit’s presence and role in non-Christian religions in positive terms while also insisting that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone. In particular, he turns to the doctrine of common grace, arguing over against ‘presuppositionalist’ interpretations that this doctrine allows for an attitude of divine favor toward the non-elect. He points out that Abraham Kuyper sees the Holy Spirit at work through common grace not just externally (restraining people from sin etc.) but also internally, working in the hearts and lives of non-Christians. For example, Kuyper expressed admiration for the spiritual impulses at work in Mohammed’s life. Kuyper is in line here with John Calvin’s appreciation of the “admirable light of truth” shining in non-Christian thinkers, the despisal

Believing in the Holy Spirit Today

15

of which would mean “to dishonor the Spirit of God.” Mouw further argues that, given the deep differences between various religious perspectives, we should be interested in their particularities, especially when meeting religious others in everyday life. When we try to understand them from within their own faith perspective, we may discern the ways in which the Holy Spirit is already at work in their inner being. In his contribution, Benno van den Toren continues the search for the discernment of the Spirit in other religious traditions precisely at this point. Van den Toren takes his starting point in the recent pneumatological turn in the theology of the religions. This has been a broad movement recently, as an attempt to overcome a Christological impasse. The question which arises next, is how discernment of the Spirit is possible. If the Spirit is at work in other religions, how can we know that it is the Spirit? Can we provide criteria for discerning the Spirit and, if we can, which criteria? In his contribution, Van der Toren pays particular attention to proposals for a set of multiple criteria. He finds those wanting because they do insufficient justice to the dynamic freedom of the Spirit and the contextual nature of ‘Christ-ward’ developments. Lining up with Mouw’s paper, Van den Toren concludes that there are no criteria that can be applied a priori, i.e. before a deep encounter with other religious communities has taken place. Yet, we do have “guidelines,” the most important of which is of a Trinitarian nature: discernment of the work of the Spirit should go along with witness to the cross and the resurrection of Christ. The Spirit cannot be isolated from the Son and the Father since they share in the one missio Dei and their various works are integrated parts of the one history of salvation. 6

And Giver of Life: The Spirit and the Human Person

The third section contains essays that focus on the Spirit and the human person. This connection has a long history in Reformed Protestantism. More than in other Christian traditions, the work of the Spirit as a “Giver of Life” has been applied to the spiritual life of the individual human being. First, in Willem van Vlastuin’s article a particular aspect of Jonathan Edwards’ pneumatology is explored, namely his doctrine of the indwelling of the Spirit in the believer. Edwards understands the Spirit as the sum of the blessings which are accomplished by Christ and flow to the believer. From this vantagepoint, which is peculiar within his Reformed and Puritan tradition, he develops a Spirit-structured theology—which is still relevant as a counterpart to the undervaluing and functionalising of the Spirit in large parts of the Reformed tradition. At the same time, understanding Pneumatology from the

16

van den Brink et al.

indwelling of the Spirit discloses an individualistic twist in Edwards’ thought. The fact that he interprets the Spirit as the Spirit of love has important implications for the functioning of the law in Edwards’ theology, such as an antinominian tendency and a strongly affective interpretation of the Christian life. The indwelling of the Spirit also leads Edwards to embrace a doctrine of participation in God. Edwards understands the Spirit as already present in the soul of the Old Testament believers, and he does not do full justice to the eschatological newness of Pentecost. There are changes, though, in the workings of the Spirit throughout history, such as the cessation of the Spirit’s extraordinary gifts in post-apostolic times. Such tensions in Edwards’ pneumatological thinking offer interesting possibilities for a retrieval of Edwards’ pneumatology in the context of present-day society and theology. Akke van der Kooi (she and Kees are cousins) describes how the Dutch 20th century theologian Oepke Noordmans encourages his readers to speak pneumatologically about God. Only in this way the proximity of God is highlighted. Otherwise, theology offers a general dogma of God that has no relevance for the life of faith. For Noordmans, in contrast to other thinkers of his time, a person is an open space. A human being becomes a person only “in the second person,” that is, through the appeal of God’s word. Therefore, the essence of personal being is learning one’s vocation. Only in this way life receives a purpose. According to Noordmans, this attitude of openness and knowing to be called is the work of the Spirit. The Spirit re-creates human beings in this way, making them capable of contributing to the development of the community. In contrast, the human being who withdraws into himself, loses his personal being. To Noordmans that is equivalent to unbelief, fearing to tread into open space, withdrawing to one’s own piece of ground and own argumentation. Contemporary Western culture is obsessed with notions like creativity, dynamism and newness. Van der Kooi’s pneumatology with its stress on the Spirit’s renewing presence in everyday life reflects this atmosphere—though not uncritically, since it is counterbalanced by a focus on the ‘Christ-appropriating work’ of the Spirit and on the need for discernment. Exploring Van der Kooi’s pneumatological thinking, Gerard C. den Hertog wonders how these various strands of thought hang together. Next, drawing on the work of J.P. Versteeg, he suggests that more theological coherence can be attained when we develop an eschatological pneumatology that takes its starting point in the bond between the Spirit and the risen Christ. The Spirit then first of all involves us in the radical re-creation that Christ has brought about in his resurrection. Further support for this view can be found in recent Luther-research, which shows that in Luther God’s creative work of setting sinners right by granting them a new beginning entails a source of renewal that leads to genuine creativity.

Believing in the Holy Spirit Today

17

It is this spiritual and personal renewal that our culture needs more urgently than forms of innovation and creativity that in the end leave us alone with ourselves. Next, Michael Welker creatively discusses the perennial problem of theodicy from the perspective of pneumatology. He rejects primitive notions of God’s omnipotence according to which God is the all-causing reality. According to the biblical traditions (starting from Gen. 1) and the great confessions of the Christian faith, as the almighty Father God grants considerable inherent powers to creation—powers that can be used for both good and evil. These powers not only reside in the visible things that will pass away (‘earth’) but also in the spiritual realm of invisible things (‘heaven’). It is from this spiritual sphere that God’s creative forces become active on earth, creating something new and good even in the midst of suffering, distress and death. In the Bible this recreative power, which is characterized by justice, mercy and love, is especially attributed to the Holy Spirit. In the power of this Spirit God actively counters the abuse of human freedom and, at the boundaries of our earthly life and earthly possibilities, comforts, consoles, and elevates us. Moving to the realm of Christian ethics, Pieter Vos investigates the Christian interpretation of virtue ethics which considers the virtues in terms of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23). Often, it is not clear what difference this perspective does make either to the nature of the virtues or to the way in which they are received and cultivated. Referring to Van der Kooi’s qualification of the Spirit’s work as setting people free and bringing them to purpose, this contribution demonstrates how a pneumatological approach clarifies the special nature of the Christian virtues (in particular their Christ-like other-directedness) as well as how they can become part of us (viz. by our becoming receptive to the work of the Spirit). Aligning human activity in this way to the Spirit as a condition helps us avoid both passivity and fanaticism in our interpretation and practicing of the theological virtues. Relating the cultivation of the Christian virtues to the transcendent presence of the Spirit means that in the end we cannot realize these virtues by our own effort, while they can neither exist without our effort. 7

One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church: The Spirit, Community, and Mission

According to the hymn from which we borrowed the title of this volume, the Spirit is not only moving “all over the world” and “deep down in my heart” but also “all over his church.” Indeed, in most classical Christian Creeds, the

18

van den Brink et al.

confession of the Holy Spirit is followed immediately by a statement on the nature and meaning of the church. This is not coincidental, since there is a strong link between the Spirit of God and the emergence of the church as the new community gathered around the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The final bunch of papers in this volume therefore concentrates on this link between Spirit and church, which is so often hardly detectable because of the confusions and divisions brought about by human sin and frailty. Sometimes, denominational lines of division and partition are even caused by divergent views precisely on the work of the Spirit and its meaning for Christians today. In his contribution on prayer and the Holy Spirit in the life of Jesus and the Church, Carl J. Bosma analyzes some crucial pericopes in the Gospel of Luke and Acts. Luke emphasizes that prayer and the outpouring of the Spirit belong together, as it was, for example, after Jesus’ baptism (Luke 3) and after the release of John and Peter from prison (Acts 4). These two examples are consistent with Jesus’ teaching in Luke 11:13, where he exhorts his disciples to ask the Father to give them the Holy Spirit. The long prayer in Acts 4 results not only in an answer to the request of the first believers, but they received so much more. It started with being filled with the Holy Spirit, who fulfilled their petition to speak boldly of the gospel, led them into healing ministries and empowered them to alter their economical practices, thereby fulfilling the laws of Jubilee. Bosma therefore agrees with Van der Kooi that churches today should pray and long for the gifts of the Holy Spirit for empowerment in their own cultures. The Spirit is not only involved in the church’s practice of prayer, but also in its celebration of the sacraments—and it has been a matter of profound theological disputes how exactly the Spirit is moving here. Maarten Wisse addresses the reception of the pneumatological approach to Christ’s presence in Holy Supper during the first stage of the neo-Calvinist tradition, focusing particularly on Abraham Kuyper. Wisse investigates to what extent this father of neo-Calvinism advocates a pneumatological view of the Lord’s Supper and how he relates this view to the Reformation period. It is shown that Kuyper sees Calvin as the primary protagonist of this view. Comparing Kuyper and Herman Bavinck, Wisse argues that Bavinck’s view of the Lord’s Supper is primarily traditional, borrowing strongly from Calvin and reading Calvin as advocating real presence. Bavinck does not take many steps beyond the tradition and leaves the problematic relationships between Word and sacrament as well as Word and Spirit unaddressed. Kuyper, however, goes beyond this and attempts to resolve the tension between Word and Spirit by aligning them to the doctrine of grace. This enables Kuyper to see the means of grace as instruments that make us grow in faith, but that can never be the means through which God effectuates grace, because God can never be dependent on human

Believing in the Holy Spirit Today

19

action. Finally, Wisse goes one step beyond Kuyper by showing how Kuyper’s view can be enhanced so as to include a more convincing notion of the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, through the Holy Spirit. Miranda Klaver, who is both an anthropologist and a theologian, reflects on developments in Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity, particularly the socalled New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). The developments in this movement circle around physical healing, prophecy as direct messages from God and liberation from evil spirits. Leaders in this International Network Christianity (INC) hardly share a unified theology of the Spirit, but their networks increasingly influence mainline Protestantism. Two themes take center stage: the restoration of apostles and prophets and the impartation of the gifts of the Spirit through the laying on of hands. Klaver describes these practices as well as the underlying theology of the Spirit that is current in Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity in the Netherlands, particularly NAR. Using a central concept in current anthropological research in religion, she examines these practices through the lense of ‘mediation.’ The ways in which mediators claim to be capable of mediating God and the supernatural is key here. Not only leaders are turned into such exclusive mediators, but also the community as a whole receives an exalted status over against the world. From a theological perspective, Klaver criticizes these tendencies because of their explicit dualism between Spirit and world and their limiting of the Spirit’s work to individual subjective experiences. “What gifts from the Holy Spirit await the church in the West if they would attentively listen and learn from their brothers and sisters in the global south?” That is the central question of Cory B. Willson’s essay. Willson explains how the growth of Christianity in the majority world has led to the rise of new contextual theologies and the need for reciprocal exchanges that overturns the unilateral North-South transfer of theological concepts. Since theology has its primary workshop in the life situations of believers and the churches, it requires a continuous reorientation on where the Spirit is moving. “There is no way to contain or predict where the Holy Spirit will lead, hence theological reflection needs to include empirical reflection on everyday realities of Christians throughout the world.” This shift is visible in the “theology with a pneumatological accent” of Cornelis van der Kooi. Van der Kooi has an open eye to the diversity of the Biblical texts and of the Spirit’s workings in the world, and he attempts to discern the work of the Spirit in everyday situations. Two methodical emphases of theologians from the Latin American Theological Fellowship (FTL) can strengthen this imminent reorientation of Western theology: their stress on the pivotal importance of the theologian’s social location in solidarity with the laity, i.e. “with the boots in the mud”; and their hermeneutical

20

van den Brink et al.

strategy, which goes back and forth from the Bible not only to its historical sources but also to the contemporary context in order to discern where the Spirit is leaving his tracks. One of the practices that build up and shape the Christian community is pastoral counseling or spiritual caregiving. How does the Spirit move in this domain? In her contribution, Margriet van der Kooi-Dijkstra (the wife and lifelong comrade of Cornelis) explores how a theological understanding of the work of the Spirit contributes to learning to love and discern as a chaplain in a hospital. She shows how one’s theological frame of reference (often implicitly) determines one’s reasoning and interventions in pastoral counseling. Good chaplaincy goes far beyond mastering psychological tools or conversation techniques. It needs to be rooted not only in sound psychology, but above all in sound theology. Van der Kooi shows this through a case study, subsequently reflecting on how the interactions in this case can only be properly understood from the very concrete biography of the chaplain herself. Therefore a theological understanding of this biography is needed, based on the conviction that the Spirit works in very concrete ways. The ground where we are born, where we learned to use our senses et cetera, make an imprint on our soul. The Spirit uses our experiences of love and rejection, good and evil, joy and grief, trust and fear as well as the way we processed these. He uses the growth of our character, the events in our history, the development of our prejudices and preferences that nestle down in our hearts, our brains and thoughts and intellect. 8 Acknowledgements As editors we are indebted to our research master student and studentassistant Pieter Dirk Dekker for his help in preparing the manuscript. We also thank Ingrid Heijckers-Velt and the editorial staff of Brill (Leiden) for the constructive way in which they supported this project. We are grateful to our colleague Eduardus Van der Borght for his willingness to accept this volume as part of the series Studies in Reformed Theology of which he is editor in chief. Finally, we owe thanks to the anonymous reviewers of this volume for their invaluable work.

part 1 Who Spoke by the Prophets: Spirit and Bible

⸪

chapter 1

The Spirit as Critical Biblical Scholar Eep Talstra 1 Introduction In a number of books in the Hebrew Bible we find speeches by prophets in which they explain to Israel how their identity has been constituted by the history of God and ‘their fathers’ or ‘your fathers.’ ‘Fathers’ is not just a general theological concept, but is rather a changing theme running through various chapters of the biography of God and his people. Speeches such as in Joshua 24, 1 Samuel 12, Ezekiel 20, and Psalm 78 demonstrate that the prophetic argument, “please look into the history of your fathers, and learn the lessons taught there,” increasingly tends to fail (e.g., Ps.78:57), until in Zechariah 1 God himself finally gives up and declares the actions of the earlier prophets and the role of ‘your fathers’ to be mere history. The use of the argument ‘your fathers’ did not establish continuity. Alongside with the theme of ‘your/their fathers’ other themes come up, such as that of ‘the new spirit’ or ‘my spirit.’ In the book of Ezekiel the two themes come together (Ez.20; 36–37). After disaster, life can only begin anew, God says, “once I have put my spirit into you and overrule your spirit” (Ez.20:32; 36:27). This is not the classical story of sin and redemption, but rather the surprising story of the creator who is not willing to retire from his creation and from human life in spite of all the trouble it causes him. The topic to be looked at more deeply is one that Kees van der Kooi and I have been discussing over the years,1 namely, our common search for a way of reading the Bible that would allow us to remain genuinely surprised about God’s biography written down in it, instead of knowing it all long before one has begun to read. If occasionally we were successful in becoming genuinely surprised as we read the Bible, Kees would call it the work of God’s Spirit, and I would call it historical-critical biblical scholarship. After a while we both 1  For example: “The incarnation is then the event in which God, in a new way, confirms that he is God,” see Cornelis van der Kooi, “The Identity of Israel’s God: The Potential of the So-Called Extra-Calvinisticum,” in Tradition and Innovation in Biblical Interpretation: Studies Presented to Professor Eep Talstra on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. W.Th. van Peursen and J.W. Dyk (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 57; Leiden: Brill, 2011): 209–222 (220).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_003

24

Talstra

became convinced that there is not a great difference between these two lines of thinking after all. Hence the title of this contribution. 2

Experiences and Frames

The failure to be surprised when reading real biblical texts seems to be just a normal feature of Christian theology, whether traditional (“we basically accept how the church and theology have read them for centuries”) or liberal (“we resist that attitude and claim an independent position over against classical traditions of reading”). Both traditional and liberal theologies occasionally appear to rely strongly on predefined religious patterns and frames. In the years I taught the introduction to the Old Testament I sometimes gave the assignment: “Read and compare Psalm 78 and Psalm 106. Can you describe the differences?” Usually the outcome was: “Basically there are no differences. Both Psalms tell us the same story: God once liberated Israel, but Israel failed to obey him, God got angry, but being merciful he forgave them in the end.” The students apparently read the texts in a more or less timeless framework, to be applied to humanity in general: people do not stop from being sinful, God in the end is always gracious, so after his justified anger towards them, his love will win. The problem may not be so much that this summary is fully inaccurate, but rather that the students failed to see real life and real people in these psalms: the changing periods of history, the succession of generations, and all the emotions, grief, and suspicion present in all the participants, in God as well as in the generations of Israelites. 2.1 Raising Questions In modern, liberal theology one can observe comparable use of frameworks, this time resulting from the opposite attitude, i.e., when reading biblical texts we are confronted with religious artefacts from ancient times which represent ancient religion, texts that have reached us by particular traditions of church and theology. Therefore, we no longer should try to generalize individual texts into a timeless message by stripping them of all the elements that appear to be part of ancient culture and religions. Modern hermeneutics2 used to take its point of departure in well-known textual traditions and religious language, 2  Rick Benjamins, “Waar wij ons bevinden. Een lokalisatie op de theologisch landkaart,” (Where are we now. Our location on the map of theology) in Liberaal Christendom. Ervaren, doen, denken, ed. Rick Benjamins et al. (Skandalon: Vught, 2016), 12–41 (29): “voorbij de hermeneutiek” (beyond hermeneutics).

The Spirit as Critical Biblical Scholar

25

attempting to reformulate them and apply them to modern times and cultures. But now we should leave that kind of filtering behind, so that we would be able to do theology beyond hermeneutics: the reader enters into the world of the text, dialogues with it, gets inspired by it, but must always remember that he or she lives in a different world where the presence of God as one of the participants of the story is no longer seen as self-evident. A religion of trusting in God has become old fashioned. And because as modern readers we are unable to simply mimic that confidence, theology would need to do more than interpret old stories:3 search for meaning of life, be creative. Here, however, the old stories begin to raise questions: Did Israel in the Exodus narratives merely piously trust in God? Does the book of Exodus, therefore, present us with an example of an outdated religion, as liberal theology, according to Rick Benjamins, suggests? That framework may apply to some children’s Bibles, but not to the Hebrew Bible. One sometimes gets the impression that disputes in church and in theology have difficulties in listening ‘beyond’ their own existing frameworks, partly because biblical scholarship is hardly granted its proper place, as I have tried to demonstrate. If the Spirit would be welcomed to stimulate us in doing historical critical biblical scholarship instead of neutralizing it, texts might begin to surprise us again. 2.2 The Status of Our Data The Exodus stories reveal serious disputes between Israel, Moses, and Yhwh, precisely on the theme of confidence. Both Israel and God himself raise the question of who actually should be held responsible for the Exodus: God (Ex.14 or 16) or Moses (Ex.32 and 33; cf. Deut.9)? We read stories about negotiations and conflicts escalating to the point that God threatened to cancel the entire project. In the end God accepted Moses’ arguments: “You cannot destroy Israel. If you do that, what would Egypt think of you as a God?” (Ex.32:12); “You cannot continue, with me alone. I will not accept that. You cannot detach me from your people” (Ex.33:13–15).4 Therefore, whether traditional or liberal, whoever reads the Hebrew Bible cannot avoid posing some basic questions to Christian theology about the methodological status of our ‘data,’ i.e., the Bible and its various manuscripts: 3  It is exegetically unfair to state simply: “The Israelites at the exodus, for example, trusted in God” (Zo hebben de Israëlieten bij de uittocht bijvoorbeeld vertrouwd op God) and then add the recommendation that “The study of religion and theology should do more than just the interpretation of ancient stories” (… meer moeten doen dan oude verhalen interpreteren); Benjamins, “Waar wij ons bevinden,” 36. 4  E. Talstra, “‘I and Your People:’ Syntax and Dialogue in Exodus 33,” Journal of North West Semitic Languages 33 (2007), 89–97.

26

Talstra

Can one speak about God without first analyzing textual history and textual transmission of the Bible? Can one speak about God without discussing human religion and its history in and around the Bible? If the answer to these questions is ‘yes,’ then theology equals an analytical type of philosophy of religion, restricting its domain to the defense or critique of truth claims implied by the teachings of the church. If the answer is ‘no,’ the next question is: If we accept historical and textual research as indispensable for our speaking about God, does it mean that history is a problem for theology? Do we have to solve questions about the history of religions and great variety of textual traditions first and summarize the answers, before we can speak about God? If the answer to this question is ‘yes,’ then theology equals a traditional type of systematic theology, in search of speaking the truth about God, a truth only to be found beyond the history of texts and religion. If the answer is ‘no,’ the next question is: Can the available textual data presently being analyzed by the disciplines of biblical scholarship be studied in theology both as artefacts of ancient religions and as evidence, i.e., the footprints of God’s presence in the human world? This final question defines the domain of questions where Kees van der Kooi and I often arrived in our regular conversations about the Bible and Christian faith. It implies that theology has to address earnestly5 the complexity of textual traditions and the variety of texts where God appears to be caught in dilemmas, or where he faces serious trouble in trying to stay the God he apparently intends to be, i.e., a God who creates and preserves life, beginning with Israel. “You have burdened me with your sins; you have wearied me with your iniquities” (Isa.43:24b). It means that on most of its pages the Bible is not dealing directly with major theological themes like ‘sin and grace,’ ‘justice and salvation,’ rather it is 5  E. Talstra, “‘What You See is What You Get:’ The Passion of a Literary Character?” in Interested Readers: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David J. A. Clines, ed. James K. Aitken et al. (Atlanta: SBL, 2013), 169–181.

The Spirit as Critical Biblical Scholar

27

about God himself and his painfully complicated history with us humans. Only when his dedication to his creation survives human actions, will humans survive. That is where our research as biblical scholars, trying to understand how the texts speak of God’s presence, and the work of systematic theologians, on understanding the presence of the Spirit, appear to get closer to one another rather than being in conflict.6 3

God Participating in Human Life

God is present as one of the main participants in the texts and in their dialogues. That is not a statement to be made only by traditional theology, or to be dismissed by liberal theology. For literary reasons alone it is not possible to claim that God is just a character in the story, invented by the interests of human religion. That would ruin the texts’ plot and one would lose the textual voice of opposition and survival, of newness and creation. Only by being present in his own biography can God act meaningfully in the texts so that the texts can become convincing to theology and Christian faith. However, taking God seriously as a participant active in the texts and in the human life they write about presents God as vulnerable. For example, when reasoning with Moses in Exodus, he ran out of arguments. Or he may have to ask real-life questions, such as “What evil did your fathers find in me?” (Jer.2:5), or hope for changes in Israel that however will not come: “Perhaps they will change …” (Ez.12:3; Jer.12:3; 36:3). Literary analysis of this domain of questions and concerns is needed to see that speaking of the Spirit actually implies speaking of God present with his people in real life. 3.1 Exodus Did the Israelites, as Rick Benjamins suggested, march in full confidence behind Moses out of Egypt? That is not what the texts tell us. In Exodus 14:11 the people’s despair provokes the first critical question to Moses: “Do you realize what you have done by leading us out of Egypt?” Similarly in Exodus 17. During the episode of the golden calf, God himself uses similar phrases against Moses: “This people that you have brought from Egypt” (32:7; 33:1). It takes almost the entire chapter of Exodus 33 for Moses to convince God that their dispute is not about Moses’ people, but God’s people. 6  Cf. A. Huijgen, Drievoudig bewogen. De innerlijke samenhang van Triniteit en Oude Testament (Apeldoornse studies, 69; Apeldoorn: TUA, 2017), 28 on the Spirit of God becoming visible in God creating new openings for life in Israel.

28

Talstra

The Exodus texts express an intense struggle for trust by both Yhwh and Israel.7 Between the two parties, Moses has a special role. His position is referred to in Psalm 106:33, “if Moses had not intervened …” So one wonders: Was God not in charge? What if Moses had given up? 3.2 A Roaring Hero A comparable story of God’s difficulties in making his people survive their own lack of loyalty can be read in Psalm 78. The poem begins with the principle of passing on the tradition of the Torah (vs. 5) and the experience of liberation (vs. 4). However, the text is not just a theology of the importance of traditions to be narrated to a next generation. Starting at verse 7, the Psalm expresses tension: Will a next generation be different from ‘their fathers,’ an unfaithful generation? Will narrative tradition work? The answer is ‘no’: the people entering the land after the exodus turned out to be no different, so that the Psalm has to conclude in verse 57: “They have acted just like their fathers.” This confronts God with a dilemma, for he cannot but reject Israel (vs. 59). Does it all end here? Again one wonders: is God losing his case? Then comes verse 65, “Then the Lord awoke like a hero, roaring from wine.” I am not sure ‘the Perfect Being’ of philosophers would ever be inclined to an act like this, but the Lord does so, as a roaring, frightening hero.8 Now the principle of handing down tradition apparently has failed, God adopts a new strategy to preserve his people. 3.3 Your Fathers Psalm 78, probably from late exilic context, summarizes how the role of the fathers has changed in the course of Israel’s history. Other biblical texts from various books are witness to that process. Whereas in Exodus 3:15 Moses has to tell the Israelites about “Yhwh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” in the book of Ezekiel God critically addresses the prophet about the generations of Israel.9 Ezekiel 20:18 states, “I said to their children in the wilderness: do not follow the statutes of your fathers, nor observe their ordinances, nor defile yourselves with their idols.”

7  E. Talstra, “The Bible as Data and as Literature: The Example of Exod 16,” in A Pillar of Cloud to Guide. Text-critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne, ed. H. Ausloos & B. Lemmelijn (BETL 269; Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 549–568 (551ff.); cf. W.H.C. Propp, Exodus 1–18 (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 479, 495. 8  F.-L. Hossfeld, E. Zenger, Psalmen (51–100) (HThKAT; Herder: Freiburg im Breisgau, 2000), 439. 9  Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37. A new translation with introduction and commentary (AB, 22; New Haven: Yale University, 1983), 364, 376–88.

The Spirit as Critical Biblical Scholar

29

In the later sections of the book of Jeremiah, ‘your fathers’ no longer represent a special category in the history of God’s people, but they simply belong to a collection of authorities that have all failed to remain loyal to God. Jeremiah 44:21 says, “As for the offerings that you made in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, you and your fathers, your kings and your officials, and the people of the land, did not the Lord remember them? Did it not come into his mind?” Zechariah 1:5 appears to be the beginning of a new strategy, since God asks a rhetorical question to the exiles: “Your fathers, where are they? And the prophets, do they live forever?” This implies that the parties in the conflict before the exile are no longer to be cited as an argument or as a warning. 3.4 Deuteronomy Another change of strategy is present in the book of Deuteronomy. The emphasis is on the heart, the human capacity to keep God’s work in mind. It begins as a summary of the commandments in Deuteronomy 6:4–6. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your power. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart.” After the critical summary by Moses of the desert period and the episode with the golden calf at Horeb, the task to love God and to keep his commandments clearly requires a change of attitude. Deuteronomy 10:12.16 states: “Well, Israel, what does the Lord your God require of you? Only to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul … Circumcise, then, the foreskin of your heart, and do not be stubborn any longer.” In the final chapters, added to the book after the experience of disaster and exile, it is God himself who will make the necessary changes to the heart. “Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live” (Deut.30:6).10 The biblical texts discussed here allow us to see more of God’s presence as a participant in the narratives of the Bible. Stories and poems reveal the struggles and the changes of strategy that God adopts for one reason only: “in order that you may live.” Increasingly, the Spirit of God becomes an expression of that change of strategy. In the Old Testament we find a great variety of texts about ‘newness,’ or of what I would call God’s change of strategy for the preservation of life. How these texts could be seen in interaction is an intriguing topic for 10  E. Talstra, “Deuteronomium,” in De Bijbel Theologisch. Hoofdlijnen en thema’s, ed. Klaas Spronk and Archibald van Wieringen (Meinema: Zoetermeer, 2011), 51–63.

30

Talstra

theology, intensively studied by Henk Leene.11 Observing quotes and allusions between prophetic texts he suggests an intertextual dialogue between the writers and redactors of Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah. According to the prophets, what exactly is going to be made new? The human heart and the human capacity for knowledge of God (Deut.29:1–3; Jer.24:7)? The covenant and the Torah written down directly on the human heart, independently from any mediating authority (Jer.31:31–34)? The human heart and the human spirit (Ez.36)? Of heaven and earth (Isa.65:17)? Israel’s obedience as in the Servant of the Lord? According to Leene it all comes together in the Jeremiah text about the Torah written directly on the heart. Israel will be brought to a new insight and take part in a new covenant. At this point more discussion is needed, but that would go beyond the scope of this article. Here I just want to note that it is only the book of Ezekiel that in the context of ‘newness’ combines the heart and the spirit.12 The theme of ‘heart’ (knowledge, insight) is present in Deuteronomy (29:1–3) and Jeremiah (24:5–7; 32:37–41; 31:31–34). The theme of ‘spirit’ (renewal and creation) is used in Deutero-Isaiah when speaking about the Servant (42:5–9) and about God’s next step in history, the new things (48:6–7). The book of Ezekiel introduces the combination. 4

God’s Spirit and New Life

From the texts presented above we may conclude that God’s repeated change of strategy for preserving life is expressed in a variety of ways: God changing the people’s heart, accepting the arguments of Moses, forgetting about the fathers, acting as a roaring warrior. In the book of Ezekiel God’s change of strategy is expressed differently again: first by his renewal of the people’s heart and spirit and next by the gift of God’s spirit to his people. With this gift God continues to be present as the creator, so that life can be restored. It is important to note that. We do not read about God’s spirit as an abstract power needed to inspire believers, but as God himself who does not give up on his role as creator of human life. In the book of Ezekiel we find the renewal of

11  H. Leene, Newness in Old Testament Prophecy. An Intertextual Study (OTS 64; Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2014). His work is discussed in J. Dubbink e.a. (ed.), Open voor het Nieuwe. Ter herdenking van Henk Leene (ACEBT Supplement Series, 13; Bergambacht: 2VM, 2016). 12  Cf. Leene, Newness in Old Testament Prophecy, 197–200, on the collocation of ‘heart’ and ‘spirit’ in other, liturgical, contexts.

The Spirit as Critical Biblical Scholar

31

the human heart (Deuteronomy) combined with the renewal of the human spirit. Comparable to Deuteronomy where this change is presented first as an instruction, “Circumcise the foreskin of your heart,” in Ezekiel 18:30–31 it is an instruction to the people to perform the renewal themselves. This chapter is part of the episode of the book that discusses prophetic actions by Ezekiel before the final fall of Jerusalem (Ez.33). 30 Return and turn away from all your offences … 31 Throw away all the offences … Get yourself a new heart and a new spirit. Why would you die, house of Israel? 32 … Return and live! In addressing the prophet Ezekiel in Chapter 20 God presents a critical overview of the sins of the generations of Israel since Egypt. Each generation had been urged by God not to adopt the religious habits of ‘your fathers’ (20:18), but each of them appeared unwilling to do so. God, faced with a dilemma, repeatedly changes his mind: “I intended to pour out my wrath over them” (vss. 9.13.17.21), “but I did not do it.” In the sight of the other nations, God’s Name would lose all credibility. Only after this point ‘zero’ of God’s biography with his people is the spirit of God introduced in a way that ‘simply’ will overrule the spirit of his people. “Your spirit may say (vs. 32): ‘we want to be like the nations, serving their gods,’ But that is not going to happen.” God reverses the classical idiom known from Deuteronomy (4:34; 26:8): “With a mighty arm I will bring you out of the nations, into judgment and purification.” A new exodus will be brought to realization, even against their will. In the episode of the book after the destruction of Jerusalem it is God himself who will give his people a new heart and a new spirit. The instruction of Chapter 18 has been turned in Chapter 36 into a promise: 24 I will take you away from the nations … 25 from all your idols I will cleanse you … 26 a new heart I will give you and a new spirit … In addition, the texts do not only speak of an internal change in the people, for in verse 27 God also declares he will “establish my spirit in your midst.” Chapter 37 visualizes what God had in mind in 36:27 and presents us with the revival of Israel in exile by God’s spirit. Here we see the creator at work, making sure that Israel in exile will come to life again (vss. 6.9.14). The vision ends with the same promise as in 36:27: “I will establish my spirit with you.”

32

Talstra

Note that a new heart is not a theme in Chapter 37: could this mean a renewal of more than insight? Translators struggle with the rendering of the word ‫רּוח‬ ַ in this context, and often use all the options available: ‘wind,’ ‘breath,’ ‘spirit’ or ‘Spirit.’13 In Ezekiel 37:1–14 the word (in the singular) is used nine times.14 NIV and NRSV translate ‘breath’ in verses 5–10 and ‘spirit’ in verses 1 and 14. Similarly, the Dutch NBV translates with geest (‘spirit’) and adem (‘breath’). It uses wind (‘wind’) in verse 9, but in verse 14 mijn adem (‘my breath’) and not mijn geest (‘my spirit’); the effect is that the connection with the promise of 36:27, “I will establish my spirit with you,” is no longer detectable. The use of word ‫רּוח‬ ַ in Ezekiel 37 causes a meaningful confusion, not uncommon when one sees the creator in action. The text demonstrates that there is not much difference between ‘wind,’ ‘spirit,’ and ‘breath’ to signal that God is present in his creation. Our language requires the distinction, since we see great differences between the material, psychological, and spiritual worlds. In the cultural world of the Bible such is not the case. Other texts also speak of God’s powers in terms of the winds coming from the four corners of the earth (Jer.49:36; Zech.6:5). Amos 4:13 calls God the “creator of the mountains and of the wind.” A translation by ‘wind’ or ‘breath’ seems the best option. When the word ‘spirit’ is used, Christian theology may force you to take a next step: is it ‘spirit’ or is it ‘Spirit’? The Dutch Herziene Statenvertaling in almost all cases in Ezekiel 37 uses geest (‘spirit’), however, in two cases (vss. 12b and 14) Geest (‘Spirit’) is written. One wonders why. Does it mean that ‘spirit’ is not always enough? Are some lines more divine than others? This brings us back to the collaboration between biblical scholarship and Christian dogmatics. How much of the flexibility in religious traditions in the Hebrew Bible can one allow a place in dogmatic discussions? The handbook of Christian Dogmatics by Van der Kooi and Van den Brink15 generally writes about Geest (‘Spirit’), in Chapter 12 (on the Holy Spirit) and in Chapter 13 (on the Bible). When Ezekiel 37 and other prophetic texts are discussed the book also speaks of Geest (‘Spirit’) as actor.16 The capital is questionable in this context, because it theologically narrows down the broad semantics of the word ‫רּוח‬ ַ .

13  R. Albertz and C. Westermann, ‘‫רּוח‬ ַ rūaḥ Geist,’ in Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament (THAT II; München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976), 726–53. 14  Discussed in Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37, 741–44. 15  Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017). 16  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 495.

The Spirit as Critical Biblical Scholar

33

On the one hand, the idea of discussing the Bible in a chapter after the chapter on the Spirit is an interesting experiment. The authors do not present the Bible as epistemological basic material to construct the truth of Christian faith, but prefer to start with Christians studying their own traditions of faith and beginning from there to ask questions about that tradition and its history. One can defend that way of organizing a handbook, provided one is ready to grant the Bible the historical-critical questions it poses to Christianity: are you sure that your practices, spiritual experiences, and ecclesiastical traditions would stand firm when confronted with the history of God’s struggle to survive human religion? On the other hand, even when I fully agree that in theology our reflection on the Bible should come next to our reflection on the Spirit,17 the question remains whether it is the ‘spirit’ as presented in the texts discussed here or ‘Spirit’ as a result of classical patristic thinking about God.18 Do we have to guard our belief in the triune God by using the word ‘Spirit’ in Bible translations anywhere we think it would fit theologically? In the latter case, a reference to the Spirit as guiding our scholarly work may easily become a defensive action only, directed against rationalism in biblical studies, as Van der Kooi and Van den Brink for example suggest when they write about the Bible being “analyzed by rationalist [biblical] scholars until its message was completely obscured.”19 As much as I accept the advice to speak about the Bible in terms of the work of the Holy Spirit, in my experience it takes much historical-critical research to find out what that precisely means. The patres, not having access to most of the textual material known now, did not allow much of the history of religion and textual history in their thinking, so a large part of their creative theology on the Bible and Christian faith in their times we cannot simply copy or imitate for ourselves. It needs to be done again, if we have the faith to continue to speak about God as active in our own time. Of course, in the end it is the position one takes with respect to the tradition of Christian faith that decides whether one accepts the biblical texts as a realistic biography of God fighting for the survival of his people and his creation. Modern readers of the Bible, expecting spiritual lessons in religious wisdom, 17  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 550–551. 18  I appreciate the work of Arnold Huijgen as a promising next step in this domain of theology. The question remains, however, does our faith that God is present as Father, Son and Holy Spirit oblige us to introduce the concept of ‘trinity’ into the Theology of the Old Testament? Cf. Huijgen, Drievoudig bewogen, 59; Arnold Huijgen, ‘Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament: From Individual Texts to the Nature of Revelation,’ International Journal of Systematic Theology 19 (2017): 251–270. 19  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 560.

34

Talstra

or being suspicious of religion anyway, may only get confused: “Biblical texts are much too complicated. We need direct moral advice!” Or irritated: “What does an angry God think he can achieve anyway?” Or skeptical: “The old book just requires its readers to be dependent and submissive.” So, Western culture has tried to live with all kinds of philosophical and divine viceroys, as Terry Eagleton wrote. But his conclusion was that such human attempts to become creators of better humans and a better world have failed thus far: “The Almighty has proved remarkably difficult to dispose of.”20 Could that be because of his provocative biography of dispute, pain, death, renewal, and hope that according to biblical scholarship is really going on in the Bible? The Spirit may help us together to find out. Bibliography Albertz, R. and C. Westermann. ‫רּוח‬ ַ rūaḥ Geist, Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. THAT II. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976, 726–753. Dubbink, J. et al. (eds.). Open voor het Nieuwe. Ter herdenking van Henk Leene. ACEBT Supplement Series 13. Bergambacht: 2VM, 2016, 85–102. Eagleton, Terry. Culture and the Death of God. New Haven; London: Yale University, 2014. Greenberg, M. Ezekiel 21–37. A new translation with introduction and commentary. AB 22A. New Haven: Yale University, 2004. Huijgen, Arnold. Drievoudig bewogen. De innerlijke samenhang van Triniteit en Oude Testament. Apeldoornse studies 69. Apeldoorn: TUA, 2017. Huijgen, Arnold. “Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament: From Individual Texts to the Nature of Revelation.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 19 (2017): 251–270. Kooi, Cornelis van der. “The Identity of Israel’s God: The Potential of the So-Called Extra-Calvinisticum.” In Tradition and Innovation in Biblical Interpretation: Studies Presented to Professor Eep Talstra on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Eds. W.Th. van Peursen and J.W. Dyk. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 57. Leiden: Brill, 2011, 209–22. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Leene, H. Newness in Old Testament Prophecy. An Intertextual Study. OTS 64. Leiden: Brill, 2014. 20  Terry Eagleton, Culture and the Death of God (New Haven, London: Yale University, 2014), ix.

The Spirit as Critical Biblical Scholar

35

Propp, W.H.C. Exodus 1–18. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Talstra, Eep. “ ‘I and your people’: Syntax and Dialogue in Exodus 33.” Journal of NorthWest Semitic Languages, 33 (2007): 89–97. Talstra, Eep. “Deuteronomium.” In De Bijbel Theologisch. Hoofdlijnen en thema’s. Eds. Klaas Spronk and Archibald van Wieringen. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2011, 51–63. Talstra, Eep. “ ‘What you see is what you get:’ The passion of a literary character?” In Interested Readers: Essays on the Hebrew Bible in Honor of David J. A. Clines. Eds. James K. Aitken, Jeremy M. S. Clines and Christl M. Maier. Atlanta: SBL, 2013, 169–181. Talstra, Eep. “The Bible as Data and as Literature: The Example of Exod 16.” In A Pillar of Cloud to Guide. Text-critical, Redactional, and Linguistic Perspectives on the Old Testament in Honour of Marc Vervenne. Eds. H. Ausloos & B. Lemmelijn. BETL 269. Leuven: Peeters, 2014, 549–568.

chapter 2

The Spirit of Holiness in Romans 1:4 Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte 1 Introduction In the opening lines of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul summarizes the gospel in seven verses. He underlines that he himself had been ‘set apart’ to proclaim the gospel (vs. 1), refers to the fact that the Christ event had already been announced by the prophets in the Scriptures (vs. 2), and introduces Jesus Christ as a Son of David (vs. 3). In an enigmatic expression Paul continues by describing Jesus as “having been appointed Son of God in power according to a spirit of holiness on the basis of the resurrection from the dead” (vs. 4). Next, Paul states that ‘we’ (is he speaking only of himself here or are others included?) have received grace and a commissioning from Christ, namely the commissioning to bring all nations to obedience through his name (vs. 5).1 Paul expressis verbis includes the Romans among those effected by this (vs. 6), and greets them with his own epistolary formula of grace and peace (vs. 7). These seven opening verses of Romans raise a series of questions with regard to their provenance. Especially verse 4 is not exactly clear. I quote it once more since it is this verse in particular that I will focus on in this contribution: (…) and who was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord (NRSV). Now the crucial question is: when was Jesus Christ appointed Son of God? Does Paul mean that this happened at the moment of the resurrection, thereby implying that before the resurrection Jesus had a different status? Or does the formulation of verse 4 imply that the resurrection was the moment in which Jesus’ status was finally shown to the world, thereby implying that the aorist ὁρισθέντος refers to epistemology (i.e. the moment that we came to know about it) and not to ontology (i.e. Jesus’ actual status)? Combine these exegetical 1  On the use of the first person plural here, see Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 108–9.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_004

The Spirit of Holiness in Romans 1:4

37

difficulties with the unusual way in which Paul here refers to the Spirit, and it is clear that Paul may indeed be using traditional language here, that he adapted to his own epistolary framework. The importance of the problem addressed in this essay becomes immediately clear when reading chapter 11 of the Christian Dogmatics written by Van den Brink and Van der Kooi. Here, the authors emphasize that the resurrection is of fundamental importance for the New Testament testimony regarding Jesus. The formulation betrays influence of the discussion on ὁρισθέντος in Romans 1:4 (which they indeed quote in their subsequent elucidation): “In the resurrection Jesus is definitively affirmed as God’s Son.”2 The exegetical discussion concerning the opening lines of Romans can be expanded into an exegetical discussion of this particular remark, since it is equally ambivalent. Do the authors mean that the resurrection illustrates Jesus’ status as Son of God or that it inaugurates this status? Paul’s text immediately continues with a reference to the Spirit which is also unusual, given the peculiar construction ‘spirit of holiness.’ It makes sense to suppose that both clauses are closely related and have to be interpreted in light of each other. In any case, the installation of Christ as God’s Son is somehow related to the presence of the Spirit, and therefore we have to investigate these two clauses together. The present contribution should be read as a token of gratitude and friendship for Cornelis van der Kooi, with whom the author of these lines has now been working together for more than a decade. Van der Kooi has been important, among other things, in addressing the theological question of ‘novelty in God’ and linking this to discourse on the Holy Spirit. He has done so especially in two consultations of a number of Amsterdam theologians with colleagues of the Ruperto Carola Universität Heidelberg, and these consultations have been valuable to me, as Faculty member in Amsterdam and research fellow of the Forschungszentrum für internationale und interdisziplinäre Theologie in Heidelberg. Since the opening lines of Romans are a bit of an exception in the way in which Paul speaks about the Spirit, it is worth the effort to look into this text (§2), its reception history (§3) and its current scholarly interpretations (§4) in order to uncover the dynamics of the interplay between exegesis and theology.

2  Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 433 (italics original).

38 2

Lietaert Peerbolte

Text and Semantics of Romans 1:4

In the standard edition of the New Testament, Nestle-Aland 28, the words of verse 4 do not contain any variant reading. This was different, though, in the 27th edition, which mentions an alternative for the participle ὁρισθέντος: προορισθέντος. According to the critical apparatus, the reading is only attested in the Latin tradition: latt Irlat vid. Indeed, all Latin manuscripts have the reading praedestinatus (‘predestined, predetermined’) which seems to imply that Jesus had been appointed as Son of God long before the resurrection. Constantin von Tischendorf’s Editio Critica Octava Maior of 1872 mentions a list of patristic witnesses.3 The sources Tischendorf mentions indicate how the Greek manuscript tradition is unanimous in the reading ὁρισθέντος, but the Latin tradition has definitus (‘defined, determined, delimited’; Tertullian), destinatus (‘destined, confirmed’; Hilary, Rufinus’ translation of Origen) or the reading given above, praedestinatus. Later Greek fathers (Marcellus, Eusebius, Theodotianus in the version of Epiphanius) do mention the Greek reading προορισθέντος, but already Eusebius argues that this goes back to the Latin tradition and is not original. It is clear that the Greek transmission of the text is unanimously in favour of the reading adopted in Nestle-Aland 28, and there is no reason to doubt the formulation we have. The question is therefore: how should the verb ὁρίζω be translated here? The authoritative dictionary of Bauer & Danker (BDAG) describes the meanings of the verb as ‘set limits to, define, explain’ and ‘determine, appoint, fix’; when used of persons, it means ‘appoint, designate, declare.’4 It is remarkable how BDAG uses this translation for Acts 17:31 (“the one appointed by God as a judge”), but hastens to add that with a double accusative its meaning changes into ‘declare someone to be something,’ a meaning that is only illustrated by Rom.1:4. Could it be that theology is decisive here? Eerdmans’ Exegetical Dictionary to the NT is not entirely clear in its explanation of this text. It states how the basic meaning of the verb is ‘to appoint,’ thereby implying that Romans 1:4 would speak about ‘installing’ Jesus as Son of God, but then continues by arguing that the ‘installing’ here actually means ‘revealing’:

3  Constantin von Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece: Editio Octava Critica Maior, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Hinrich, 1872), ad loc. 4  W.F. Bauer, F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich (eds.), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 20003), s.v.

The Spirit of Holiness in Romans 1:4

39

Since the point in time from which the sonship dates is given [viz. the resurrection, BJLP], here ὁρίζω must mean install, even though elsewhere it means determined, declared, decreed. The pre-Pauline formula (which probably lacked the ἐν δυνάμει of v. 4) states ‘that Jesus, by his earthly origins a descendant of David, was the earthly messiah, whom God declared the Son of God in connection with his resurrection from the dead, and thus enthroned him as messianic king.’5 Liddell, Scott & Jones (LSJ) give six basic meanings of ὁρίζω: divide/separate, mark out by boundaries, ordain/determine, mark out oneself (med.), border upon, mark with.6 It is remarkable, to say the least, that the classical corpus that forms the data collection on which LSJ is based apparently does not contain the theologically motivated translation declare. Nevertheless, the tradition of translating ὁρίζω here in such a way, as ‘declare’ or even ‘reveal,’ can be traced back far in time. Ps.-Zonaras’ Byzantine dictionary, probably from the 12th century, explains ὁρισθέντος as ἀποδειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος, and adds: καὶ ὁ ἀπόστολος· τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει, indicating that the meaning here should be ‘shown to be,’ ‘revealed as.’7 Modern commentaries usually follow the line of LSJ (ὁρίζω = ‘appoint’) and regard 1:4 as either a quotation from or allusion to a pre-existing Christological formula. Basically there are two options that are usually considered: 1) Paul used an existing formula, knowing that this would be familiar to the Romans, and obfuscated the distinction between this formula (Jesus installed as Son of God at the moment of his resurrection) and his own ideas of Jesus as Son of God (pre-existent rather than installed at the resurrection), or 2) Paul actually used this formulation in an off-hand manner without realizing he would create an exegetical problem with regard to the consistency of his own ideas on Jesus’ divine sonship. In the remainder of this essay, I will work from the premise that the former option is far more likely to be correct than the latter. A brief look at the history of the reception of Rom. 1:4 teaches us that others have seen the problem as well. The problem of the precise meaning of ὁρισθέντος is reflected in the tradition of conjectural emendation, where textual critics suggest different readings for this verse. The evidence is now available in 5   G. Schneider, in: Eerdman’s Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. H. Balz, G. Schneider (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990; German original 1978–1980), s.v. 2a. 6  L SJ, s.v. Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2015), s.v., describes the meaning in the passive voice: ‘to be delimited,’ ‘to be separated, removed’ or ‘to be defined.’ 7  J.A.H. Tittmann, Iohannis Zonarae Lexicon ex Tribus Codicibus Manuscriptis, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Crusius, 1808; repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1967), 1473.

40

Lietaert Peerbolte

the Amsterdam Database of Conjectural Emendation, and contains among others the following conjectures.8 Bowyer (cj11767) refers to an anonymous conjecture that intends to regard ὁρισθέντος as a gloss. Völter has suggested that the verses 2–5a formed an interpolation and should be left out (cj13925). In 1935, A. Loisy has suggested the same idea with regard to verses 3 and 4 (cj15702). Weisse had already proposed in 1867 that the verses 1–5 contain later additions, and the original version of the text should be read as follows: Παῦλος, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, ἀφωρισμένος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ἐν οἷς κτλ… (cj127130). In 1975 J.C. O’Neill made a similar suggestion. He, too, considers the long version of Romans 1:1–7 the result of an interpolation. His most important argument is that manuscript G contains a shorter version of the formula, and he strictly applies the lectio brevior potior rule here: Fortunately we have a Greek manuscript (G) which does not contain the credal statement, and which reveals the proper connection of ideas in the salutation. This manuscript reads: ‘Paul, servant of Jesus Christ, called an apostle among all the Gentiles on his behalf.’ It is hard to imagine a scribe omitting such a long and important section, even by accident, and therefore I conclude that the long section was a marginal comment or interpolation, which was incorporated very early into the standard texts of Romans.9 The New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room of the Institut für Neutesta­ mentliche Textforschung in Münster now enables us to check O’Neill’s claim, but unfortunately the text of the first lines of Romans in majuscule G012 is faded to such an extent, that it has become illegible. It seems, therefore, that O’Neill’s analysis cannot be substantiated. The above survey has indicated two things. First of all, the Greek manuscript tradition is unanimous in the reading ὁρισθέντος in Rom. 1:4; and secondly, this participle should be translated as ‘to appoint,’ a meaning that has caused textual critics to suggest numerous conjectures on this passage, since this particular terminology seems to go against the grain of Paul’s ideas on Jesus’ divine sonship as formulated elsewhere in his letters. The exegetical decision on how

8  See Jan Krans, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, et al., The Amsterdam Database of New Testa­ ment Conjectural Emendation (http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/nt-conjectures), ad loc. The cj-numbers above refer to the ID’s of the various conjectures in this database. 9  Krans, Lietaert Peerbolte, Amsterdam Database, cj14946.

The Spirit of Holiness in Romans 1:4

41

to translate ὁρίζω may thus lead to theological problems and to problems of Pauline consistency. As indicated in the introduction of this essay, the participle ὁρισθέντος is not the only uncommon term in the verse under discussion. Paul also uses the unique expression ‘spirit of holiness’ (πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης) here. The words are hapax legomenon in the NT as well as the OT, and in combination with the style of the verses and the unusual ὁρίζω this gave rise to the idea that here as well Paul is using a formulation that is not of his own making (see below, section 3). The theological consequence of this hypothesis is that the opening lines of Romans do not reflect Paul’s own ideas, but rather an early, pre-Pauline tradition that he quotes here, perhaps to establish common ground between his own understanding of the gospel and that of the followers of Christ in Rome. The expression πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης is also found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a pseudonymous writing that in its current form should be considered an early Christian document.10 In T.Levi 18:7, 11 the same expression is used, when Levi instructs his sons and predicts how the reign of “a new priest” (vs. 2) will usher in a state of holiness, in which “the spirit of understanding and sanctification will rest upon him [i.e., the new priest; vs. 7] in the water.”11 That same spirit is referred to a couple of lines later as the ‘spirit of holiness’ (vs. 9), that will be ‘upon’ the ‘saints.’ Interestingly enough, the reference to this spirit in T.Levi is related to the evil counterpart of this spirit, Beliar.12 The expression ‘spirit of holiness’ is found in its Hebrew form (‫ )רוח קודש‬in a number of documents from Qumran, which has been a strong argument for commentators to regard the opening lines of Romans as a quotation from a prePauline formula influenced by the thoughts of Palestinian Judaism. Especially the so-called ‘Rule of the Community’ (1QS) refers to the spirit of holiness a couple of times. In 4.20–21 the instruction of the community of Qumran juxtaposes the ‘spirit of injustice,’ located within human persons, and the ‘spirit of holiness.’ The latter evidently comes from God and is described in ritual and cultic terms as the instrument by means of which God washes off the effects 10  See esp. M. de Jonge, Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve (SVTP 18; Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003). 11  The Greek reads πνεῦμα συνέσεως καὶ ἁγιασμοῦ καταπαύσει ἐπ’ αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ὕδατι. Text taken from M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 1.2; Leiden: Brill, 1978). 12  See L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents (SJSJ 49; Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1996), 258–96.

42

Lietaert Peerbolte

of the ‘unclean spirit.’ The ritual purity that comes with the spirit of holiness, also referred to as ‘spirit of truth,’ therefore rinses the initiate with water and washes deceit away.13 The idea is clear: the ‘spirit of holiness’ is a personification of a cleansing action of God, who accepts the initiate into the community and makes this person pure, ritually and legally. The semantic field of this term therefore shows close proximity to Paul’s notion of justification: the purification from sin of the believer, who is thus accepted by God.14 The proximity of the expression Paul uses in Rom.1:4 to the world of Qumran is striking. The words πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης are not originally part of a trinitarian discourse, since that had not developed yet, but should rather be situated in the world of the Qumran community: a world in which human beings were influenced by spirits such as the spirit of truth or the spirit of deceit.15 The formulation of Rom.1:4 thus indicates that, for Paul, the resurrection of Jesus had inaugurated the reign of this spirit of holiness, i.e. the reign of God himself. 3

Chapters in the Reception of Romans 1:4

Since the verse under discussion contains these two somewhat uncharacteristic concepts—the appointment of Jesus as Son of God through the resurrection and the spirit of holiness—it is important to look into the reception of this verse, since reception history is illustrative of its theological influence. Given the limitations of time and space set for this essay, a quick scan will be all that is possible here, but nevertheless some interesting theological features will show up. The passage under discussion here is mentioned by a number of patristic authors. In his commentary on the gospel of John, Origen quotes the opening lines of Romans, in combination with Heb.1:2, to illustrate the divine provenance of Jesus as Son of God in the exposition of the prologue of John. His argument is that God has created the aeons ‘through the Son’ (ὁ θεός τοὺς αἰῶνας πεποίηκε διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ), and thus Origen bypasses the problem raised by 13  See also 1QS 9.3; 1Q28b II.24; 4Q258 VII.4; 4Q270 II.14. 14  Barry D. Smith has argued that the term ‘spirit of holiness’ in the Qumran documents functions as an ‘Eschatological Principle of Obedience’: according to him, “it is a divinely granted capacity of repentance, which in some cases is said to result in atonement.” See Barry D. Smith, “‘Spirit of Holiness’ as Eschatological Principle of Obedience,” in Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. John J. Collins and Craig S. Evans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 75–100 (97–8). 15  Cf. Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, “The Spirit(s) from before the Lord. Pneumatology in Targum Jonathan,” in the present volume.

The Spirit of Holiness in Romans 1:4

43

Rom.1:4. His commentary on Romans, however, deals with the matter explicitly. Unfortunately, the original Greek is no longer available, but in the Latin version, Origen (or his interpreter, Rufinus) argues that praedestinatus is not the correct translation of ὁρισθέντος—it should be destinatus. The former option speaks about a divine decision made long before the event of the resurrection, the latter stresses the resurrection as affirmation of the character of Jesus as Son of God. Accordingly, Paul speaks about the installation in power of the Son of God, and Origen continues with a discussion on the soul of Jesus, who was not only the Son of God κατὰ πνεῦμα but also Son of David κατὰ σάρκα. Origen is consistent in these two writings: according to him, Jesus was the Son of God, also before his resurrection, and the resurrection is to be seen as the moment in which this became clear.16 Eusebius argues, in his Contra Marcellum, that the reading προορισθέντος in a number of Greek manuscripts, apparently now lost, is wrong and should be seen as an attempt to describe God’s foreknowledge of what would happen at the resurrection.17 Basil of Caesarea clearly interprets the reference to the spirit of holiness as a trinitarian remark, and others do so too.18 Athanasius links Jesus’ status as Son of God to the ‘spirit of renewal.’19 He underlines the importance of the fact that Jesus was the creation of God as His Logos, implying that the Son of God was of course a preexistent being. To him, Jesus was Son of God from the creation onward, and for that reason Athanasius does not even consider the option that ὁρισθέντος would mean ‘appoint.’ He speaks of the resurrection as the moment in which the ‘Spirit of Renewal’ enters the human world. Obviously, for Athanasius this is not a new development in God, but the moment Jesus extends his reign to the lives of his followers. Athanasius combines Romans 1:4 with 1 Corinthians 6:11 and Titus 3:4, to indicate how the resurrection has changed the lives of the followers of Christ.20 Another interesting discussion of the passage is found in John Chrysostom’s work, where he deals with both of our problems: the meaning of ὁρισθέντος and the identity of the spirit of holiness. According to Chrysostom, Jesus’ descent from David is clear, since it is documented in the gospels of Matthew, Luke and Mark. Next to this, he is also the Son of God, because of the incarnation: καὶ Υἱὸς Θεοῦ ἐστιν οὗτος ὁ σαρκωθείς, Chrysostom writes. Since the divine Son had 16  This particular interpretation is also found in later writings; cf. Photius, Ep.265. 17  Eusebius, Marc. I.2. 18  See Basil, Eunom. V.5 PG 29:768. 19  See Athanasius, Ep. Serap., PG 26:581–4. 20  According to Athanasius, Christ “has saved us by the cleansing of rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit” (ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας καὶ ἀνακαινώσεως Πνεύματος ἁγίου)—Ep. Serap. PG 26:584.

44

Lietaert Peerbolte

become human, the resurrection cannot be understood as the moment he was ‘appointed’ Son of God. Instead, what Paul must have had in mind was the official proclamation of Jesus’ filial nature, not the fact that Jesus was made Son of God at the resurrection.21 The perhaps boldest move by Chrysostom, however, is the interpretation of the role of the spirit of holiness. Chrysostom argues that Paul used this particular term, since it is the Spirit that opens the believers’ eyes for the meaning of the resurrection, and by doing that, turns them into ‘saints.’ This is what Paul had in mind by using the term ‘spirit of holiness,’ according to Chrysostom. This ‘spirit of holiness’ also plays an important role in Augustine’s interpretation of the passage. In his (unfinished) exposition on Romans, Augustine elaborates on the relationship of Jesus’ Sonship, his resurrection, and the Spirit: And this same one who ‘according to the flesh was born of the seed of David’ Paul calls ‘predestined Son of God in power,’ not according to the flesh, but ‘according to the Spirit,’ and not just any spirit, but the ‘Spirit of sanctification by the resurrection of the dead’ (1:3–4). For in the resurrection appears the power of Christ who died, so that it might be said: ‘predestined in power according to the Spirit of sanctification by the resurrection of the dead.’ Thereafter, sanctification achieved new life, which is signified in our Lord’s resurrection.22 21  Chrysostom, Hom.Rom. 1, PG 60:597. Translation: “What is being said here has been made obscure by the complex syntax, and so it is necessary to expound it. What is he actually saying? ‘We preach,’ says Paul, ‘him who was made of David.’ But this is obvious. How then is it obvious that this incarnate person was also the Son of God? First of all, it is obvious from the prophets [cf. vs. 2], and this source of evidence is no weak one. And then there is the way in which he was born [cf. vs. 3], which overruled the rules of nature. Third, there are the miracles which he did, which were a demonstration of much power, for the words in power mean this. Fourth, there is the Spirit which he gave to those who believe in him, through whom he made them all holy, which is why he adds: ‘according to the Spirit of holiness.’ For only God could grant such gifts. Fifth, there was the resurrection, for he first and he only raised himself, and he also said that this was a miracle which would stop the mouths even of those who believed arrogantly, for he said: ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.’ ” Translation Gerald L. Bray, Romans (ACCS; Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1988), 10. 22  “Eundem sane ipsum, qui secundum carnem factus est ex semine David, praedestinatum dicit filium dei in virtute, non secundum carnem, sed secundum spiritum, nec quemlibet spiritum, sed spiritum sanctificationis ex resurrectione mortuorum. In resurrectione enim virtus morientis apparet, ut diceretur: praedestinatus in virtute secundum spiritum sanctificationis ex resurrectione mortuorum. Deinde sanctificatio vitam novam fecit, quae domini nostri resurrectione signata est.” Text and translation Paula Fredriksen-Landes, Augustine on Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans, Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (TT 23, ECLS 6; Chico: Scholars, 1982), 56–7.

The Spirit of Holiness in Romans 1:4

45

Augustine interprets the resurrection as the moment in which the Spirit has begun to sanctify the life of humankind through Jesus. The Spirit inaugurates the vita nova, the new life, of which the resurrection is proof. Augustine argues that the resurrection is proof of the virtus morientis, the strength of the one who died (i.e. Jesus), and how this automatically implies a change of life for the followers of Jesus. Augustine’s text continues with a reference to Colossians 3:1, which functions to explain how the new life changes the believer: ‘So if you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God’ (NRSV). The resurrection of Jesus as the inauguration of the new life in the Spirit is also a topic in Protestant theology; it can be found in at least three of its main protagonists: Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Karl Barth. Martin Luther explains the words under discussion by stating that ὁρισθέντος should be translated as ‘praedestinatus,’ fully in line with the Latin tradition. He does add a footnote in which he explains that this does not refer to Christ’s future reign, but to his reign that had already been realized. Luther underpins this observation with references to Hebrews 1, Acts 2, and Psalm 2.23 For him, the spirit of holiness is the Holy Spirit, and he thus explains away the extraordinary formulation Paul uses.24 John Calvin regards our passage as proof of the fact that Jesus is ‘declared’ Son of God in power.25 He too uses Psalm 2:7 (Ego hodie genui te) to explain the meaning of Romans 1:4: the resurrection should be seen as confirmation of the identity of Jesus as the Son of God, not as the moment in which this identity was chosen or created. According to Calvin, it is the Spirit that proclaimed Jesus as Son of God at the occasion and in the wake of the resurrection. In order to grasp the mystery of the resurrection, the believer will have to be inspired by the same Spirit that caused the resurrection, and thus publicly proclaimed Jesus as Son of God.26 It is the same Spirit that gives the believers their faith. 23  Martin Luther, Vorlesung über den Römerbrief 1515/1516 (München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1965), 20–1. 24  Luther, Vorlesung, 22: “Und wenn es heißt: ‘Geist, der da heiliget’ statt ‘Heiliger Geist,’ so hat das nicht viel zu bedeuten. Es ist derselbe Geist, der nach seiner Wirkung ‘Heiliger Geist’ oder ‘Geist der Heiligung’ benannt wird.” 25  See John Calvin, Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, eds. T.H.L. Parker and D.C. Parker (Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica XIII; Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1999), 14. Calvin cites Paul’s words as follows: “Declaratus Filius Dei, etc. Si mavis, definitus: acsi diceret virtutem resurrectionis esse instar decreti quo sit pronuntiatus Dei Filius.” 26  Calvin summarizes his argument as follows: “Christum esse definitum Filium Dei exerta palam vere caelesti et eadem Spiritus potentia, quum a mortuis resurrexet; sed eam potentiam comprehendi dum cordibus obsignatur per eundem Spiritum”; ibidem.

46

Lietaert Peerbolte

The major early translations of the protestant tradition, choose to translate ὁρισθέντος as ‘declared’ or something similar. Luther’s translation of 1522 emphasizes the installation of Jesus as Son of God, and thus implicitly the declaration of his status: ‘und krefftiglich erweiset ein Son Gottes nach dem Geist der da heiliget.’27 Luther’s full translation of the Bible of 1534 has an explanatory remark in the margin here: ‘Der Geist Gottes ist gegeben nach Christus auffart; von da an heiliget er die Christen und verkleret Christum in aller welt; das er Gottes son sey, mit aller macht, inn worten, wunder und zeiche.’28 The King James Version (1611) renders Romans 1:4 as: ‘And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.’ In the Dutch Statenvertaling, the verse reads ‘Die krachtelijk bewezen is te zijn de Zoon van God, naar den Geest der heiligmaking, uit de opstanding van doden, namelijk Jezus Christus, onzen Heere.’29 Remarkably enough, the Clementine vulgate chooses praedestinatus (predestined), probably relying on that part of the Latin manuscript tradition that has this particular reading. In the 20th century, the function of the resurrection as the moment that Jesus’ identity was revealed was emphasized most strongly by Karl Barth. In his groundbreaking commentary on Romans, of which Cornelis van der Kooi has published the critical edition in 2010, together with Katja Tolstaja, Barth explains Romans 1:4 as proof of his view of Jesus Christ as the ultimate revelation of God. In his words: ‘Jesus ist kräftig eingesetzt als Sohn Gottes nach dem Heiligen Geist durch seine Auferstehung von den Toten’ (italics original).30 It is surprising to see the ease with which Barth ignores the uncommon expression ‘spirit of holiness,’ to simply translate this as the ‘Holy Spirit.’ He does not speculate here about divine pre-existence or other metaphysical questions concerning Jesus’ status as Son of God. Instead, he sees the resurrection as the moment in which Jesus’ identity comes unmistakably to the fore. In Barth’s words: ‘Jesus als der Christus ist die uns unbekannte Ebene, die die uns bekannte Ebene senkrecht von oben durchschneidet.’31 Barth here follows the old interpretative tradition that sees the resurrection as the public display of Jesus’ divine 27  The revised Lutherbibel of 2017 now reads: ‘der eingesetzt ist als Sohn Gottes in Kraft nach dem Geist.’ 28  The 1522 translation of the NT contains the same remark, though here ‘gegeben’ is printed as ‘geben.’ A digital version of this translation can be found at http://diglib.hab.de/wdb .php?pointer=0&dir=drucke%2Fbibel-s-4f-257 (visited on Feb. 11, 2018). 29  This particular reading corresponds to a high degree with the tekst of the so-called Liesvelt Bijbel of 1526, which here reads: ‘en crachtelik bewesen een sone goods nae den gheeste, die daer heylighet.’ 30  Karl Barth, Der Römerbrief: Zweite Fassung 1922, eds. Cornelis van der Kooi and Katja Tolstaja (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2010), 50. 31  Barth, Römerbrief, 51.

The Spirit of Holiness in Romans 1:4

47

status, a moment of revelation that ignites the new life in and by the Spirit. In this same tradition there is a tendency of downplaying what is likely to be the meaning of the participle ὁρισθέντος (‘appointed’), and of understanding the ‘spirit of holiness’ as a synonym for the ‘Holy Spirit.’ This old, and perhaps even venerable theological tradition, tends to bypass the nuances in Paul’s words, however, and for this reason it is important to end this essay with a number of exegetical observations. 4

Modern Exegetical Interpretations of Romans 1:4

In his monumental edition of the Greek New Testament of 1751–2, Johann Jakob Wettstein added a remark on Romans 1:4.32 According to him, Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus is the Son of God in the account of his birth (Lk.1:35). This decision was made by God when he founded the earth (Eph.1:4), but the Spirit made Christ’s divine status known at the moment of the resurrection. Wettstein adds that this was the moment the Spirit was poured out on Jews and Gentiles, and he sees the resurrection as proof of Jesus’ status.33 Modern commentators do not share Wettstein’s drive to understand Romans 1:4 from the theological perspective informed by the other NT sources he quotes. C.E.B. Cranfield, for instance, argues that ὁρισθέντος should be translated as ‘appointed,’ ‘constituted,’ ‘installed.’34 According to him, the variant reading προορισθέντος should be understood as a Greek adaptation of the Latin praedestinatus, which intends to present Christ’s status as Son of God not as the outcome of the resurrection but as illustrated by it. This reading solves the theological problem that Paul here seems to speak about Christ’s sonship of God in terms that imply that it only started at the moment of the resurrection.

32  J.J. Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis cum lectionibus variantibus (Amsterdam: Officina Dommeriana, 1751–2), ad loc. 33  “Quidam interpretantur: destinatus est ut fieret filius Dei post resurrectionem. Scriptura vero docet, jam fuisse filium Dei, cum nasceretur ex Maria Luc. I. 35. imo ante secula: & consilia Dei capta esse jam ante mundum conditum Eph. I. 4. Haec ergo intelligenda sunt de cognitione hominum. Cum Christus ex mortuis in vitam revocatus, & in coelum evectus Spiritum sanctum largissime super Judaeos & gentes effudisset, tum manifestatum atque demonstratum, ac tanquam de coelo pronunciatum est, ipsum esse Dei filium, summa potestate praeditum & a toto humano genere agnoscendum atque colendum. (…) Inter Judaeos vixit & mortuus est ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, nunc vero regnat ἐν δυνάμει. 1. Cor. XV. 43.” Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum, vol. 2, 19. 34  C.E.B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975, 1979), 61.

48

Lietaert Peerbolte

James D.G. Dunn takes Cranfield’s analysis as his point of departure.35 He argues that Paul here indicates that the resurrection inaugurated Christ’s status as Son of God, and for this view he refers not only to Cranfield, but also to Lagrange, Barrett, and others. With regard to the origin of the words of 1:3–4, most commentators agree that Paul here quotes an existing formula.36 In his impressive Hermeneia commentary, Robert Jewett reconstructs the formula as follows: 1:3a περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ 1:3b τοῦ γενομένου 1:3c ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυίδ 1:3d κατὰ σάρκα 1:4a τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ 1:4b ἐν δυνάμει 1:4c κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης 1:4d ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν 1:4e Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Jewett argues that elements 1:3a, 4b, and 4e were added by Paul in order to change the meaning of the formula he quotes. Especially the words ἐν δυνάμει are important, because, as Jewett writes, “This appears to be a correction of the Christology of the original confession (…). It counters the adoptianism of the original confession by asserting that Christ was appointed by the ‘power’ of God prior to the resurrection, thus bringing the confession more nearly in line with Paul’s typical interest in the doctrine of a preexistent κύριος (‘Lord’).”37 Jewett’s analysis is a good example of how the biblical scholar has to explain how Paul has reworked an existing formula into his own text, and this diachronic dimension of the opening lines of Romans should be taken into account. At the same time, the theologian has to ask for the coherence in Paul’s thought and has to systematise concepts and canonical texts to reach a viable and balanced Christian discourse. Occasionally, an author is able to combine 35  James D.G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC; Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 13. 36  Jewett, Romans, 106; cf. Dunn, Romans 1–8, 4–6. See also e.g. M.-J. Lagrange, Saint Paul. Épitre aux Romains (Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1922), 6–10; C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (BNTC; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1957), 18–21; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Römer, 1. Teilband: Röm 1–5 (EKK; Zürich, etc: Benzinger Verlag, 1978), 55–61; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York, etc.: Doubleday, 1993), 229–30 and 234–7; Eduard Lohse, Der Brief an die Römer (KEK; Göttingen: VandenHoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 64–7. 37  Jewett, Romans, 107.

The Spirit of Holiness in Romans 1:4

49

these two approaches, and this is what happens in John Barclay’s discussion of the opening lines of Romans. John Barclay’s recent study on Paul and the Gift (2015) analyses Paul’s discourse of χάρις from the perspective of the phenomenon of gift-exchange. The fundamental aspect of the gift that Paul thought God has given to humankind is its incongruity: there is nothing that human beings have done or can do to deserve the gift of the Christ event. The gift does lead to an obligation for the recipients, however, viz. the sanctification of their lives.38 In his analysis of the Epistle to the Romans Barclay discusses our passage as a pivotal moment in the letter: Even if the formula (i.e.: the words quoted in Romans 1:3–4; LP) is traditional, its relevance is acute, for the related themes of power, Spirit, and resurrection signal the creative divine agency that forms a leitmotif of the letter. The power set loose in the good news (1:16) is the divine power (cf. 1:20) to bring life out of death (4:17, 21), to graft or re-graft into the root of mercy (11:23). The Spirit, responsible for the circumcision of the heart that constitutes the identity of ‘the Jew’ (2:29), is the gift in the heart (5:5) that mediates the newness of life (7:6), grounding the identity, and forming the obedience, of the children of God (8:1–39; 15:13, 19). And the resurrection of Jesus is that explosive moment when the power of the Spirit was unleashed, creating the life from death on which the believers’ faith is pinned (4:24–25), and out of which their identity is formed (6:1–12; 8:9–11). This trio—power, Spirit, resurrection—constitutes the mode by which the Christ-gift takes transformative effect in the human sphere.39 It would seem to me that the exegetical starting point should be that the participle ὁρισθέντος and the connection it makes with the Spirit, referred to by the hapax legomenon πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, are reason enough to assume that Paul did not compose these words himself. The participle should be translated as ‘appointed,’ which contradicts the views of Jesus as a divine figure Paul expresses elsewhere in his epistles. The traditional translations that speak of ‘installing’ Jesus as the divine Son or ‘revealing’ him as such attempt to harmonize a prePauline formula with the theology of Paul himself. From an exegetical point of view, the solutions offered by Jewett and Barclay are convincing: Paul used this 38  Barclay emphasizes this by his maxim: “The divine gift in Christ was unconditioned (based on no prior conditions) but it is not unconditional (carrying no subsequent demands).” John Barclay, Paul and the Gift (Grand Rapids, Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2015), 500. 39  Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 460–1.

50

Lietaert Peerbolte

formulation, made it his own by doing so, and thereby created a problem for later interpreters and translators. The three themes mentioned by Barclay—power, Spirit, and resurrection— are thus to be seen as laying the foundation for the argument of the epistle as a whole. It is at this point that the exegete may conclude that for Paul the resurrection of Jesus formed the moment that changed everything. Indeed, even if Paul quoted an existing formula in his letter opening, this formula apparently describes the core of the gospel for him: God’s saving power was made manifest through the Spirit, Paul himself had become a spirited messenger on behalf of this gospel, and he was convinced that the Spirit was present in the congregations of followers of Jesus too. The terminology Paul uses in Romans 1:3–4 may be slightly uncomfortable and reflects a different concept of Spirit than the later trinitarian way in which the term ‘Holy Spirit’ is used. And yet, exegetical observations do lead to the conclusion that these verses form a summary of the Pauline gospel in a nutshell. It is the obligation of the biblical scholar to analyse the problems in these verses, and subsequently the theologian has to come to terms with these problems. In their Christian Dogmatics Van den Brink and Van der Kooi have done so in a decent manner, at least as far as Romans 1:4 is concerned. Bibliography Balz, H. and G. Schneider (eds.). Eerdman’s Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990; German original 1978–1980. Barclay, John. Paul and the Gift. Grand Rapids, Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2015. Barrett, C.K. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. BNTC. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1957. Barth, Karl. Der Römerbrief: Zweite Fassung 1922. Eds. Cornelis van der Kooi and Katja Tolstaja. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2010. Bauer, W.F., F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago, 20003. Bray, Gerald L. Romans. ACCS. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1988. Calvin, John. Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Eds. T.H.L. Parker and D.C. Parker. Ioannis Calvini Opera Exegetica XIII. Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1999. Cranfield, C.E.B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol.1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975, 1979. Dunn, James D.G. Romans 1–8. WBC. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.

The Spirit of Holiness in Romans 1:4

51

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York, etc.: Doubleday, 1993. Fredriksen-Landes, Paula. Augustine on Romans: Propositions from the Epistle to the Romans, Unfinished Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. TT 23, ECLS 6. Chico: Scholars, 1982. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Jonge, M. de. Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as Part of Christian Literature: The Case of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Greek Life of Adam and Eve. SVTP 18. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2003. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Krans, Jan, Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte, et al. The Amsterdam Database of New Testament Conjectural Emendation. http://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/nt-conjectures. Lagrange, M.-J. Saint Paul. Épitre aux Romains. Paris: Librairie Victor Lecoffre, 1922. Liddell, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Lietaert Peerbolte, L.J. The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents. SJSJ 49. Leiden, New York, Köln: Brill, 1996, 258–96. Lohse, Eduard. Der Brief an die Römer. KEK. Göttingen: VandenHoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Luther, Martin. Vorlesung über den Römerbrief 1515/1516. München: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1965. Migne, J.-P. Patrologia Graeca. Paris, Garnier, 1857–1886, 162 vols. Montanari, Franco. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2015. Smith, Barry D. “ ‘Spirit of Holiness’ as Eschatological Principle of Obedience.” In Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Eds. John J. Collins and Craig S. Evans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006, 75–100. Tischendorf, Constantin von. Novum Testamentum Graece: Editio Octava Critica Maior. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Hinrich, 1872. Tittmann, J.Α.Η. Iohannis Zonarae Lexicon ex Tribus Codicibus Manuscriptis. Leipzig: Crusius, 1808; repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1967, 2 vols. Wettstein, J.J. Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis cum lectionibus variantibus. Amsterdam: Officina Dommeriana, 1751–2. Wilckens, Ulrich. Der Brief an die Römer. 1. Teilband: Röm 1–5. EKK; Zürich, etc: Benzinger Verlag, 1978.

chapter 3

The Spirit(s) from before the Lord: Pneumatology in Targum Jonathan Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman 1 Introduction In their Christian Dogmatics Kees van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink discuss the relationship between God and the Holy Spirit and conclude that in the Old Testament there is both an identification of God and Spirit and an distinction between them—just as there is a distinction between God and the angel of the Lord as well as an identification of these two.1 If this ambiguity really exists in the Old Testament texts, then it would have to be translated and explained not only in the New Testament and early Christianity, but also in early Judaism. While Christianity tended to stress the distinction between the God and Spirit, and the continuous working of the Holy Spirit among believers, Judaism stressed the identification of God and Spirit, while supposing that the Spirit had withdrawn from Israel after the destruction of the first Temple.2 In this respect, Targum Jonathan—the official Aramaic translation of the prophetic parts of the Hebrew Bible, originating in the second century ce and revised and standardized afterwards—seems to have an intermediate position, regularly describing God’s spirit as coming ‘from before the Lord.’ The question investigated in this article is whether such an interpretation is plausible in an otherwise strictly monotheistic translation.3 Surely, a spontaneous reading of Christian doctrines into Jewish sources must be avoided. Such readings have occurred too often, witness the results of my investigation of Christian Aramaists in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. Scholars in these centuries

1  Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 82–3. 2  See Peter Schäfer, Die Vorstellungen vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 28; München: Kösel-Verlag, 1972), 135–46. 3  See, e.g., Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, The Targum of Samuel (Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 1; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2002), 122–23.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_005

The Spirit ( s ) from Before the Lord

53

interpreted the Targums totally within their Christian frame of mind and used that interpretation to fight the Jews.4 2

Some Earlier Studies

There are several publications on the Holy Spirit in early Judaism. Most of them discuss a wide range of early Jewish literature and do not distinguish between Targums and other genres. Those publications that do focus on Targumic literature tend to presuppose that the Spirit in the Targum does not differ from the Spirit in other Jewish books of that time. Moreover, details from the Targums—such as the exact formulation of terms for God’s Spirit—are left out in the discussion. Peter Schäfer has argued that the Targums used two expressions to indicate God’s Spirit affecting humans—‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘prophetic spirit from before the Lord’—suggesting that the first expression is probably older and more biblical than the latter.5 Pere Casanellas, however, demonstrates that Schäfer failed to observe that the terms were used according to a strict narrative rule: Targum Jonathan usually employs the term ‘prophetic spirit,’ except “when it is God himself who speaks,” in which case the expression ‘Holy Spirit’ is used.6 He offers two reasons for why ‘Holy Spirit’ is more appropriate in God’s mouth. First, the deferential formula ‘from before the Lord’ is not necessary; second, stressing holiness is necessary because of God’s own words and presence in the text. More recently, Max Turner revised the theses of previous authors. Though he does not cite Schäfer or Casanellas directly, he takes issue with those commentators who state that for intertestamental Judaism and for early Christianity God’s Spirit is primarily ‘the Spirit of prophecy,’ and not of miracles or power.7 4   See Eveline van Staalduine-Sulman, Justifying Christian Aramaism: Editions and Latin Translations of the Targums from the Complutensian to the London Polyglot Bible (1517–1657) (Jewish and Christian Perspectives 33; Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2017). 5  Cf. Peter Schäfer, “Die Termini ‘Heiliger Geist’ und ‘Geist der Prophetie’ in den Targumim und das Verhältnis der Targumim zueinander,” Vetus Testamentum 20 (1970): 304–14; idem, Vorstellungen vom Heiligen Geist. 6  Pere Casanellas, “The Use of the Expression ‘Prophetic Spirit’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ in the Targum and the Dating of the Targums,” Aramaic Studies 11 (2013): 167–86, esp. 178. Arguments for the uses of these terms in other Targums are given in the remainder of Casanellas’s article. 7  Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 9; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996), 105 mainly reacts to Schweizer, Haya-Prats and Menzies, but a similar lack of interest in the term ‘spirit of power’ seems to be present in the two Targum scholars.

54

van Staalduine-Sulman

Turner devotes an entire chapter to the association between God’s spirit and miraculous power in Judaism, including the Targumic verses in which the term ‘spirit of power’ occurs. He concludes that the diversity of terms can best be “explained in terms of the general tendency within ‘intertestamental’ Judaism (most marked in the rabbis) to understand the Spirit primarily as the organ of communication of revelation from God to a person, while not restricting it to this.”8 All three authors, however, fail to take into consideration other details that are important to reach a Targumic understanding of the Spirit of God in relation to humankind. The present investigation into Targum Jonathan’s ‘pneumatology’ focuses on two of these details. First, the terms for God’s Spirit vary in semantic determination: ‫ רוח קדשי‬is determinate and should be translated as ‘the Spirit of My holiness’ or ‘My Holy Spirit,’ while terms like ‫רוח נבואה מן‬ ‫ קדם יוי‬seem to be indeterminate and should therefore be translated as ‘a spirit of prophecy from before the Lord.’9 This variance in semantic determination raises the question whether there is only one Divine Spirit or whether we must envision a host of spirits before God’s throne.10 Second, although Turner insists that scholars focus too much on the prophetic side of the Spirit and neglect his powerful side, he himself fails to consider other characteristics mentioned in both the Old Testament and the Targums. Other terms that, for example, figure in Targum Jonathan include ‘a spirit of evil from before the Lord’ (e.g. in TJ 1 Sam.16:14–16), ‘a spirit of deceit’ coming before the Lord (TJ 1 Kgs.22:21–23), and ‘a spirit of mercy and compassion’ that God will pour out upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem (TJ Zech.12:10). 3

Spirits in Targum Jonathan

The first task is to determine how many terms appear in Targum Jonathan and how to translate these terms. The following list shows that there are numerous terms, partly based on the diversity of terms in the Hebrew source and partly because of the Targumic interpretation of that source. I have noted the 8  Turner, Power, 108. 9  Both Schäfer and Turner sometimes use the article when referring to this term in the Targums. Also Daniel J. Harrington and Anthony J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets (The Aramaic Bible 10; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987) regularly use the article in their translation, for instance in 1 Samuel 16, where they consistently refer to ‘the spirit of power’ and ‘the evil spirit.’ 10  The idea of more than one divine spirits is not entirely strange to the New Testament, cf. the ‘seven spirits’ in Rev.1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6 (here identified with the seven eyes of the Lamb).

The Spirit ( s ) from Before the Lord

55

Aramaic terms, a tentative translation—all without capital letters—and the texts in which the term appears. ‫רוח‬, “a spirit,” somehow connected to the Lord,11 or ‫רוחא‬, “the spirit” in

TJ Ezekiel, probably referring back to the ‘spirit of prophecy’ in the first verses12

‫רוחי‬, “My spirit”13 ‫רוח קדשי‬, “the spirit of My holiness, My holy spirit”14 ‫רוחא מן קדם יוי‬, “the spirit from before the Lord”15 ‫רוח נבואה‬, “spirit of prophecy,” usually combined with the preposition ‘in,

by’16

‫רוח נבואה מן קדם יוי‬, “spirit of prophecy from before the Lord”17 ‫רוח גבורא מן קדם יוי‬, “spirit of power from before the Lord”18 ‫רוח בישא מן קדם יוי‬, “spirit of evil from before the Lord”19 ‫רוח דשקר‬, “spirit of deceit,” who came “before the Lord” and was sent by

the Lord to King Ahab20

11   T J Isa.32:15; 38:14, “A spirit comes to us from Him whose Shekhinah is in the heavens above.” 12   T J Ezek.2:2; 3:12.14.24; 8:3; 11:1.24; 43:5. 13   T J Ezek.37:14. 14   T J Isa.40:13; 42:1; 44:3; 59:21; Ezek.36:27; 39:29; Joel 3:1–2; vgl. TJ Ezek. 37:14. Schäfer, Vorstellung, 137–139 even defends the position that one could translate this term by ‘Spirit of My sanctuary,’ that is to say, “Geist des im Heiligtum als Ort der Begegnung zwischen Gott und Mensch sich offenbarenden Gottes.” 15   T J 1 Kgs.18:12; 2 Kgs.2:16; Isa.11:2 (indeterminate); 40:7 (or is this ‘the wind from before the Lord’?). 16   T J 1 Sam.2:1; 2 Kgs.5:26. Cf. the term ‘gave praise in prophecy before the Lord’ about David’s song in TJ 2 Sam.22:1. See also TJ 2 Kgs.2:9, ‘the spirit of your [Elijah’s] prophecy.’ 17   T J Judg.3:10; 1 Sam.10:6.10; 19:20.23; 2 Sam.23:2; 1 Kgs.22:24; 2 Kgs.3:15; Isa.61:1; Ezek.1:3; 3:22; 8:1; 11:5.24; 37:1 (twice); 40:1.2; Mic.3:7.8. 18   T J Judg.6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6.19; 15:14; 1 Sam.11:6; 16:13.14; 1 Kgs.18:46. 19   T J 1 Sam.16:14.15.16.23; 18:10; 19:9. 20   T J 1 Kgs.22:21–23. It is not entirely certain in the text that this spirit must be linked to God’s Spirit. However, a ‘spirit of deceit’ sent to King Ahab might be comparable to a ‘spirit of evil’ sent to King Saul. See also TJ Jer.4:12 and Zech.13:2.

56

van Staalduine-Sulman

‫רוח דטעו‬, “spirit or error, idolatry,” although the text does not indicate that

this spirit is somehow connected to or sent by the Lord21

‫רוח דחלא‬, “spirit of fear, reverence,” parallel to ‫לב דחול‬, “a heart of fear,

reverence,” both given by God22

“a spirit from before the Lord (…), a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and might, a spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord”23 ‫רוח משבחא‬, “a spirit of praise,” which God will give24 ‫רוח חסד ורחמין‬, “a spirit of mercy and compassion,” which God will pour

out on David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem25

It is difficult to differentiate clearly between God’s spirit and other spirits, as is evidenced by the following three examples. First, the construction of ‘spirit of evil from before the Lord’ parallels that of the ‘spirit of prophecy from before the Lord,’ and therefore we might conclude that the spirit tormenting King Saul is as equally connected to God as the prophetic spirit is. We might even argue that the deceitful spirit that “came before the Lord” is also part of God’s spirit. It would be a step too far, however, to suggest that the deceitful spirits of the false prophets (i.e., those leading the people away from God’s service) are also God’s spirits. These spirits are not said to come ‘from before the Lord.’ Second, the ‘spirit from before the Lord’ in TJ Isaiah 11 is specified as ‘a spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord.’ This differs from the spirit of evil, in that the evil is the effect of God’s spirit towards the person, while knowledge and fear are the effect in the person, towards God and his fellow human being. In these case, the terminology applied to both the ‘spirit of fear’ and the ‘spirit of mercy and compassion’ is identical to the terminology applied to God’s Holy Spirit: the verbs “put in” and “pour out” are used in all these cases. Third, in most cases the ‘spirit of prophecy from before the Lord’ overwhelms the human being.26 This spirit is clearly a force from outside the human person. 21   T J Hos.4:12; 5:4. 22   T J Ezek.11:19, see also TJ Isa.11:2, in which the spirits are not given, but are resting on the human person. 23   T J Isa.11:2. 24   T J Isa.61:3. 25   T J Zech.12:10. 26  The point of overwhelming, its suddenness and unpredictability, is stressed by Lloyd Neve, The Spirit of God in the Old Testament (Tokyo: Siebunsha, 1972), 16.

The Spirit ( s ) from Before the Lord

57

However, other verses are silent about the source of this prophetic spirit (TJ 1 Sam.2:1; 2 Kgs.5:26) and Elisha even asks for “a double share in the spirit of your [Elijah’s] prophecy,” as if the prophetic spirit was part of Elijah’s spirit (TJ 2 Kgs.2:9). There seems to be a smooth transition from God’s Spirit via specified divine spirits to other spirits, human or otherwise, that are not connected to God anymore. 4

The Spirit or a Spirit

A thorough analysis of the Aramaic must be provided before theological conclusions can be drawn. An important question is whether or not these phrases, mostly in the status absolutus, are indeterminate and therefore must be translated by ‘a spirit of …’ If that is the case, it would imply that there is a host of spirits before God’s throne, ready to do his bidding. There would be no sharp distinction between these spirits and the angels, as is the case in Josephus’ narrative about Balaam: “Josephus shows no reluctance to use the expressions ‘angel of God’ and ‘divine spirit’ interchangeably.”27 Michel Barnes calls this “angel pneumatology” and finds it both in the latest texts of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Is.63:9–10) and early Jewish and Christian literature.28 He specifically mentions the case of Philip, who was sent by the angel of the Lord (Act.8:26), but whose story continues with “then the Spirit said” (8:29). Additionally, in The Ascension of Isaiah mention is made of “the angel of the Holy Spirit,” who is worshipped.29 At first blush the status absolutus in Aramaic seems to match such angel pneumatology, but this is not necessarily the case. In his grammar of Targumic Aramaic, Renaud Kuty notes that the status of a noun is sometimes “predetermined by the larger context of the set phrase in which the noun is embedded.”30 He notes that feminine nouns before the preposition phrase ‫מן קדם יוי‬, ‘from before the Lord,’ are almost always preceded by a status absolutus, “irrespective of its own semantic determination.”31 The evil spirit tormenting King Saul might, then, be introduced as ‘a spirit of evil from before 27  John R. Levison, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (Leiden etc.: Brill, 1997), 29 and the literature in note 9. 28   Michel René Barnes, “The Beginning and End of Early Christian Pneumatology,” Augustinian Studies 39.2 (2008), 169–86, esp. 174–76. 29  Barnes, “Beginning and End,” 175–76. 30  Renaud Kuty, Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 30; Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 54. 31  Kuty, Studies in the Syntax, 56.

58

van Staalduine-Sulman

the Lord’ (TJ 1 Sam.16:15). The same term in the remainder of the story must be translated by the determinate ‘the spirit of evil from before the Lord’ (e.g. 16:23), because it refers back to the already mentioned evil spirit. It also means that the term ‘spirit of power from before the Lord’ in TJ Judges may likewise be translated as determinate: ‘the spirit of power from before the Lord.’ Nor is the deferential formula ‘from before’ decisive, because it does not indicate an absolute distinction between the noun before and the person after this formula. God’s words are translated by “a word of prophecy from before the Lord” (e.g. TJ Jon.3:1) and God’s will is described as “the will from before the Lord” (e.g. TJ 1 Sam.17:43tosefta). In both cases we cannot doubt that it concerns God’s word or God’s will in the Targum. Thus, what at first appears to be ‘a spirit’ from a host of spirits before God’s throne might in fact be God’s powerful or revealing Spirit. It is not this straightforward, however, as there are signs that may lead us to doubt that all spirits mentioned above can be identified with God’s Holy Spirit. Two examples will suffice, the first of which concerns what happens to King Saul: ‘And the spirit of power32 from before the Lord that was with Saul passed from him, and an/the evil spirit from before the Lord was agitating him’ (TJ 1 Sam.16:14).33 Targum Jonathan always tries to translate as specifically as possible, and since it does not identify the powerful spirit of God with the evil spirit these seem to be two different spirits. Or must we, despite Targum Jonathan’s silence, still identify the two spirits with each other, supposing that Targum Jonathan only ‘named’ the spirit after its effect (first power, then evil)? In Ezekiel as well two spirits seems to be at work: “And the spirit lifted me up and brought me to the country of the land of the Chaldeans, to the exiles, in a vision by the prophetic spirit which rested upon me from before the Lord” (Ezek.11:24).34 Again, Targum Jonathan made no effort to identify the two spirits with each other, although an interpretation of only one spirit is possible. 5

God’s Spirit and the Human Spirit

Another question is whether or not Targum Jonathan differentiates clearly between God’s spirit and the human spirit. Some elements in the translation 32  In this case surely determinate, since the spirit of power on King Saul has already been mentioned in TJ 1 Sam.11:6. 33  Translation based on Harrington and Saldarini, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets, 132. 34  Translation based on Samson H. Levey, The Targum of Ezekiel (The Aramaic Bible 13; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987), 42.

The Spirit ( s ) from Before the Lord

59

appear to suggest that it does not. We mentioned that Elisha asks for “a double share in the spirit of your [Elijah’s] prophecy,” as if the prophetic spirit was Elijah’s spirit (TJ 2 Kgs.2:9).35 Having this particular formulation in mind the two verses in which a person is prophesying ‘in a spirit of prophecy’ where Targum Jonathan does not add ‘from before the Lord’ (TJ 1 Sam.2:1; 2 Kgs.5:26) might well be interpreted in the same vein: that is, Hannah and King Solomon had a spirit of prophecy themselves. Something similar can be said about those texts that combine ‘a spirit’ with a human characteristic. In the case of Zechariah the ‘spirit of mercy and compassion’ is clearly coming from God, because He will pour this spirit out (TJ Zech.12:10). The result is not that humans become more merciful or compassionate, but that they respond to God’s mercy and compassion. In the case of Ezekiel, however, the Israelites will receive a heart and a spirit of reverence for God (TJ Ezek.11:19). Reverence is not a characteristic of God but of the believer, as it is in the famous text in Isaiah: ‘a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and might, a spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord’ (TJ Isa.11:2). The fluidity of the terms used in Targum Jonathan can be compared with early Christian writings, such as Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho. Speaking about the powers of the Holy Spirit, Justin summarizes how Old Testament prophets had received “one or two powers from God”: Solomon possessed the spirit of wisdom, Daniel that of understanding and counsel, Moses that of might and piety, Elijah that of fear, and Isaiah that of knowledge; and so with the others: each possessed one power, or one joined alternately with another; also Jeremiah, and the twelve, and David, and, in short, the rest who existed among you.36 Here, a power given by God is itself called ‘spirit.’ The gifts of the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor.12) are also called spirits by Justin: “For one receives the spirit of understanding, another of counsel, another of strength, another of healing, another of foreknowledge, another of teaching, and another of the fear of God.”37 The same can be found in Ancoratus of Epiphanius of Cyprus (c. 310/320–403), who 35  A similar case can be found in Galatians 4:6, where Paul writes that God sent “the spirit of His Son … the spirit who calls out Abba Father.” The spirit of one person, albeit the son of God, is sent to other humans. 36  Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 87; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm (accessed 27 November 2017). 37  Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 39; http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm (accessed 27 November 2017).

60

van Staalduine-Sulman

was of Jewish origin according to the legends.38 He, too, quotes from Paul’s letter, using the word ‘spirit’: For [the Holy Spirit] gives good to each differently, “to one a spirit of wisdom, but to another a spirit of knowledge, to one a spirit of strength, to another a spirit of healings, to one a spirit of prophecy, to another a spirit of discernment, to one of tongues, to another of interpreting,” and the remaining gifts, as it says, “and there is one same Spirit allotting to each as he wills.”39 This fluidity between God’s Spirit and the human one is based on the explanation of some Old Testament and later verses, in which God’s Spirit provides life within the human body. One such case appears in Genesis 6:3: “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years” (Jewish Publication Society Tanakh 1917).40 Pseudo-Philo has Elihu similarly say to Job that “(…) truly it is the spirit in a mortal, the breath of the Almighty that makes for understanding.”41 Taking as a starting point that ‘breath, wind’ is the meaning of the Hebrew word, ‫רוח‬, it is conceivable that God’s Spirit can be divided into a host of spirits poured out upon and into humans. A gift from God can then easily turn into a characteristic of humans. Barry Smith has noted a similar fluidity in the Qumran writings and has described it in relation to ‘a spirit of holiness’: Although a consistent terminology is not employed, the means by which God as merciful enables human beings to be obedient is ‘a spirit of holiness’ (…) A ‘spirit of holiness’ or its equivalent is a functional term denoting God’s imparting a new spiritual disposition to those who join the community thereby enabling them to repent of sin and become obedient to the Law. A spirit of holiness is a new spiritual disposition: it is a human spirit or basic disposition characterized by holiness.42 38  See Andrew S. Jacobs, Epiphanius of Cyprus: A Cultural Biography of Late Antiquity (University of Califormia, 2016). 39  Epiphanius of Cyprus, Ancoratus, translated by Young Richard Kim (The Fathers of the Church 128; Washington: The Catholic University of America, 2014), 164. 40  This is not translated literally in Targum Onqelos. There it is paraphrased as “This wicked generation shall not endure before Me forever …” See Bernard Grossfeld, The Targum Onqelos to Genesis (The Aramaic Bible 6; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988), 52. 41  Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, 18:11, quoted in Levison, The Spirit, 63. 42  Barry D. Smith, The Tension Between God as Righteous Judge and as Merciful in Early Judaism (Lanham: University Press of America, 2005), 202.

The Spirit ( s ) from Before the Lord

61

We can understand Paul’s comment to Timothy in the same way: “God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control” (2 Tim.1:7). 6

Naming the Spirit

God’s influence on human beings is described by Targum Jonathan as ‘spirit of …’ What comes after the word ‘spirit’ is, in most cases, what is worked out by that spirit. Casanellas is right to note that Targum Jonathan uses ‘Holy Spirit’ when God is speaking about Himself.43 Only once the result is holiness within his people: “And My holy spirit will I put deep inside of you and I will act so that you shall walk in My statutes and keep My laws and observe them” (TJ Ezek.36:27). In Joel, however, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit leads to dreaming and seeing visions (TJ Joel 3:1). The name of the spirit depends on the results of the spirit. When the spirit encourages to speak on behalf of God, it is ‘a spirit of prophecy,’ as when Isaiah states that he is overwhelmed by ‘a spirit of prophecy from before the Lord’ and that he has to “announce good tidings” (TJ Isa.61:1). When the spirit gives strength for battle, it is ‘a spirit of power.’ That spirit plays a role in Judges and in the first wars of King Saul.44 Only in the case of Othniel is it called ‘spirit of prophecy,’ because the text first mentions him being a judge and only then describes his wars against Cushan, the King of Aram (TJ Judg.3:10). Judging was made possible by the spirit of prophecy. In all the cases that the spirit changes the human behaviour, it is a spirit of fear, or of wisdom, or of understanding. In all other cases, the spirit is just called ‘spirit’ or ‘spirit from before the Lord.’ For example, in the cases that Ezekiel is transported, it is just ‘the spirit.’ 7 Conclusion Although Targum Jonathan at first sight may appear to stress the distinction between God and the Spirit—by, for example, using terms such as ‘spirit of power from before the Lord’—this investigation has shown that this is not the 43  Casanellas, ‘The Use,’ 178. 44  As Matthew Henry wrote in his introduction to the prophecies of Isaiah: “But after the death of Moses, for some ages, the Spirit of the Lord appeared and acted in the church of Israel more as a martial Spirit, than as a Spirit of prophecy, and inspired men more for acting than speaking; I mean, in the time of the judges.” Matthew Henry, An Exposition of the Old and New Testament … Vol. 2 (New York: Henry C. Sleight; Philadelphia: Alexander Towar, revised version 1833), 599.

62

van Staalduine-Sulman

case. If a distinction is stressed, then it is the distinction between God and humankind, resulting in buffer words such as ‘from before the Lord.’ These buffer words are not used between God’s Spirit and humans, because the Hebrew Bible tells about all the circumstances in which God’s Spirit was in contact with humans. So, Targum Jonathan used the buffer words between God and the Spirit, resulting at first sight in a host of ‘spirits’ sent by God. Theology in the narrow sense of the word was more important to the Targumist than pneumatology. However, all these buffer words are deferential rather than referring to an ontological distinction between God and the Spirit. Targum Jonathan’s pneumatology is as monotheistic as the rest of its translation. God’s Spirit might be personal (acting, speaking, taking), but it is not a separate person. Having said this, however, we must acknowledge the fluidity of Targum Jonathan’s pneumatology. While in many texts the Targum clearly indicates that the spirit is divine, sent from God to the human being on whom it has its effect, there are also texts in which it is not clear how to distinguish between the spirit sent by God or the human mind receiving. The same fluidity has been noted in almost all Second Temple literature and is also visible in parts of the New Testament and in early Christianity. If God sends ‘a spirit of wisdom’ to someone, the human receives that spirit and it becomes part of him. The prophet receives wisdom and his spirit becomes wise. Elijah receives ‘a spirit of prophecy’ and his spirit becomes a spirit of prophecy. God can withdraw his influence, however. At such a moment, Saul’s spirit was no longer wise, strong or prophetic. The fluidity of the term forces the reader to take into account that the word ‫ רוח‬in Hebrew and ‫ רוחא‬in Aramaic can be used for breath, wind, spirit, as well as for certain mental characteristics. Most of the instances of ‫ רוחא‬in Targum Jonathan point to God’s influence on the world, especially on humans (and that influence is positive or negative from a human viewpoint). Targum Jonathan remained within Jewish monotheism, however, not allowing an interpretation of God’s spirit as a separate entity. The translators would most probably not agree with Van den Brink and Van der Kooi’s suggestion that the Hebraic texts are ambiguous in this respect. Bibliography Barnes, Michel René. “The Beginning and End of Early Christian Pneumatology.” Augustinian Studies 39.2 (2008): 169–186. Casanellas, Pere. “The Use of the Expression ‘Prophetic Spirit’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ in the Targum and the Dating of the Targums.” Aramaic Studies 11 (2013): 167–186.

The Spirit ( s ) from Before the Lord

63

Epiphanius of Cyprus. Ancoratus. Transl. by Young Richard Kim. The Fathers of the Church, 128. Washington: The Catholic University of America, 2014. Grossfeld, Bernard. The Targum Onquelos to Genesis. The Aramaic Bible, 6. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988. Harrington, Daniel J. and Anthony J. Saldarini, Targum Jonathan of the Former Prophets. The Aramaic Bible, 10. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987. Henry, Matthew. An Exposition of the Old and New Testament. Vol. 2. New York: Henry C. Sleight; Philadelphia: Alexander Towar, revised version 1833. Jacobs, Andrew S. Epiphanius of Cyprus: A Cultural Biography of Late Antiquity. University of California, 2016. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Kuty, Renaud. Studies in the Syntax of Targum Jonathan to Samuel. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 30. Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Levey, S.H. The Targum of Ezekiel. The Aramaic Bible 13. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1987. Levison, John R. The Spirit in First Century Judaism. Leiden etc.: Brill, 1997. Martyr, Justin. Dialogue with Trypho. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm (accessed 27 November 2017). Neve, Lloyd. The Spirit of God in the Old Testament. Tokyo: Siebunsha, 1972. Schäfer, Peter. Die Vorstellungen vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur. Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 28. München: Kösel-Verlag, 1972. Schäfer, Peter. “Die Termini ‘Heiliger Geist’ und ‘Geist der Prophetie’ in den Targumim und das Verhältnis der Targumim zueinander.” Vetus Testamentum 20 (1970): 304–314. Smith, Barry D. The Tension Between God as Righteous Judge and as Merciful in Early Judaism. Lanham: University Press of America, 2005. Staalduine-Sulman, Eveline van. The Targum of Samuel. Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture 1. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2002. Staalduine-Sulman, Eveline van. Justifying Christian Aramaism: Editions and Latin Translations of the Targums from the Complutensian to the London Polyglot Bible (1517–1657). Jewish and Christian Perspectives 33. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2017. Turner, Max. Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in LukeActs. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 9. Sheffield: Academic Press, 1996.

chapter 4

Spirit and Scripture: From Theopneustos through Inspiratus to God-Spirited Erik A. de Boer 1 Introduction Students of Herman Bavinck betray their theological pedigree often by the use of a Graecism, the abverb theopneustos in the doctrine of scripture. Freshmen on the English market of theological literature are Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink and their Christian dogmatics. They inform us that Kuyper and Bavinck—like their kindred spirits Hodge and Warfield at Princeton—stayed with the literal inspiration of the Bible, of its theopneusty (its quality of being breathed through by God).’1 Van der Kooi and Van der Brink do not discuss the doctrine of Scripture among the prolegomena (another delightful Graecism), but following Christology and pneumatology as ‘The Book of God and Humans.’ The notion of theopneusty itself remains underdeveloped. Is it really synonymous with inspiration? Our thesis is that the biblical term focuses our systematic-theological reflection on the work of the Spirit in the biblical authors by speaking primarily of the origin of the life-giving breath of God, whose spoken words were retained in writing. That scripture is there to be read aloud en taught, as it were by the very same breath of God. Cornelis van der Kooi has been a benevolent force in my theological life. I am grateful for the opportunity to honour his work and friendship with a study of this Greek adjective theopneustos, to be translated literally as: breathed out or exhaled by God. Reflection on the theology of the charismatic movement and systematic theology in the neo-Calvinist tradition may be inspired by this notion on the ‘breath of God’ in relation to Scripture.

1  Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 544. The terms inspiration and theopneusty are used as synonyms (g). For Bavinck see Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1 Prolegomena (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 385, 387–405. Cf. on the shift in Bavinck’s doctrine of Scripture Dirk van Keulen, Bijbel en dogmatiek. Schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik bij A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer (Kampen: Kok, 2003), 99f, 103f.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_006

Spirit and Scripture

65

In this article I investigate how the Greek adjective theopneustos, used by the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16,2 qualifies the graphè (writing or Scripture) and not, as one might expect, the spoken word. We trace the use of this expression in the Church Fathers. Our aim is to gauge if the classical doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture does justice to 2 Timothy 3:16 and what pneumatological power is encapsulated in this Pauline term. We focus on the relation between the spoken and written word, between reading (aloud) and listening,3 between Old en New Testament, and between scroll and canon. The age of printed text and bound books has formed our idea of reading as primarily a silent and personal activity. We have to retrieve the culture of writing and reading in which the original scrolls of biblical books were written and read. That may help us contemplate how the Holy Spirit breaths in modern, digital ways of communication. 2

Teacher and Pupil: The Context of theopneustos

In the New Testament it is a hapax, hardly found in classical Greek literature.4 We can thus assume that the author of 2 Timothy either consciously invented a new term or carefully chose the word for the thought he wanted to express. There are related adjectives in classical Greek, such as theoglossōs (translated by the lexicographers as ‘with the tongue of God’), theomanés (‘maddened by the gods,’ inspired), and theomantis (‘one who has the spirit of prophecy’). Thus theopneustos fits into this semantic field.5 The word is not found in the works in any of the next generation Christian authors, the Apostolic Fathers, nor in that of Paul’s contemporary Philo of Alexandria. The semantic field points to divine action as the source of phenomena of human speech and behaviour. 2  See on recent philological research on the language of the Pastoral Letters and the corpus which is recognized as Pauline Jermo van Nes, Pauline Language and the Pastoral epistles: A Study of Linguistic Variation in the Corpus Paulinum (Ph.D. thesis Evangelical Theological Faculty Leuven, Theological University Kampen, 2017). 3  1 Tim.4:13. 4  Liddell & Scott refer for theopneustos to the Hellenistic Jewish Ps.-Phocylides 129 (‘The word of divinely inspired wisdom is best’), but this verse is not regarded as original; also to theopnoos to Corp.Herm. 1.30 and Epigr.Gr. 1016 (Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A GreekEnglish Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). See also Walter Bauer, Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruijter, 19886), 726. For a detailed discussion of theopneustos in classical and early Christian literature, see: B.B. Warfield, “God-inspired Scripture,” in The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible, ed. B.B. Warfield (Philipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1948/1979), 245–296. 5  Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 790.

66

de Boer

However, when we look at the noun graphè in Philo, we become sensitive to the intimate connection between the spoken and written word. The graphè consists of hiera grammata,6 holy letters. The form of a letter, engraved or written, is important. On Exodus 28 Philo speaks of the two precious stones with the names of the twelve patriarchs ‘in engraved divine letters’ (theia grammata estèliteumena).7 A verse such as Deuteronomy 32:8 he calls ‘this engraved text’ (to gramma touto estèliteumenon).8 A line of Ovid can be quoted as ‘the prophetic text’ (to prophètikon gramma).9 In this regard also Philo’s discussion of various types of ekstasis is interesting, distinguishing between the experience of ecstasy (enthousiōntos kai theoporètou to pathos) and the written word (gramma hrèton) in the holy books.10 The semantic field of the noun graphè in Philo’s works hints at the prophetic origin of the words which, even in written form, keep their divine origin. To modern readers the written word has become the printed word. Printed words are everywhere, even more so in digital form. We miss how important writing of the spoken word was and thus how elevated the position of a scribe was. The very context in which Paul chose to state that pasa graphè is theopneustos contains reminiscences which modern readers easily miss. The apostle addresses his pupil, the evangelist Timothy, by referring to his youth as the son of a faithful (Jewish) mother and grandmother (2 Tim.1:5). In this way young Timothy had been acquainted from childhood with ‘the holy letters’ (hiera grammata, 2 Tim.3:15). A Jewish child learned to read and write with the aid of the Torah. “All stages of education are centered round the study of torah. Even the initial learning of the letters of the alphabet was understood as a religious act, as was children’s further study.”11 The ‘holy letters’ were learned in the beth sephèr (the house of reading) before a youngster could pass to beth talmud (the house of learning). Learning the letters was practiced by writing them with a stylus on wax tablets and reciting them, much as children today learn the alphabet. While in Israel words from the Torah were the basis of all literacy, Safrai says on the Hellenistic-Hasmonaean period: “Since in our period Hebrew was not vocalized, reading could only be learned by repeating

6  1 Tim.3:15. 7  Philo, Heres 176, in Loeb-edition, vol. 4 (1968), 370. 8  Philo, Congressu 58, in Loeb-edition, vol. 4 (1968), 486. 9  Philo, De somniis 57, in Loeb-edition, vol. 5 (1968), 324. 10  Philo, Heres 258, in Loeb-edition, vol. 4 (1968), 416. 11  S. Safrai and M. Stern (eds.), The Jewish People in the first Century. Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (Compendia Rerum Iudicarum ad Novum Testamentum I/2; Assen, Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976), 945–950.

Spirit and Scripture

67

the reading of the teacher and auditive memory.”12 Written vocalization was even introduced as a teaching aid for young children: a help to vocalize the Hebrew consonant text and thus to be able to read it aloud and correctly. It is against this educational background that as a teacher Paul reminds his pupil of his childhood training of learning the sacred letters by listening, repeating and memorizing. Josephus and Philo use the words hiera grammata frequently to designate the Scriptures of Israel. It is against this background of Timothy’s learning to read and write the alphabet that St. Paul continues to state that “all scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.”13 The “holy alphabet” (hiera grammata) resulted in “all writing” (pasa graphé), which is “breathed by God and useful” (theopneustos kai ōphelimos) to four form of teaching that brings forth “a man of God” (ho tou theou anthrōpos, as prophets were called). There is an intimate connection between learning to read the written text and reading it aloud (not so much privately and silently). We encounter this reading of Scripture (anagnōsis) in the synagogue in the emblematic example of Jesus at the beginning of his public appearance. He stands, takes the scroll that is handed to him, reads the passage selected by him, and delivers his message on Scripture.14 We see the very same action in the synagogue of Antioch: “After the reading from the Torah and the prophets …,” the apostles are invited to speak.15 Paul commends this Jewish practice to his pupil Timothy when he writes to the evangelist of Ephesus: ‘devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.’16 The semantic field and cultural practice of writing and reading connects the letters that came down to us as Paul’s first and second letter to Timothy. The practical instruction of 1 Timothy 4:13 is motivated further in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (NIV).

12  Safrai and Stern, The Jewish People in the first Century I/2, 950. 13  2 Tim.3:16. 14  Luc.4:16. 15  Act.13:15; cf. 2 Cor.3:14. 16  1 Tim.4:13, NIV.

68 3

de Boer

Breathing and Writing: The Greek Fathers

While reading Greek patristic works I was surprised to encounter frequent use of this adverb theopneustos as a natural way of appropriating the words of the apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16. I have chosen one patristic source at random to introduce the potential of the theological use of Paul’s word. Alexander Monachus, for example, writing in the fifth century, introduces the quotation of a Proverb as follows: “When recently I was reminded of the divinely breathed Scripture, saying that a disobedient son will come to nothing […].”17 The same Laudatio Barnabae tells how Marcus, after the death of his companion Barnabas, teamed up with Peter and wrote the ‘evangelical history.’ “When Peter read and liked it, he realized that is was divinely breathed.”18 The book as a whole convinced him of that quality. The reading (anagignōskein) of the Gospel of Mark convinced Peter of it being theopneustos. A third quotation from the Laudatio Barnabae vocalizes the relation between divinely breathed Scripture and the spoken word of God. Nothing should be added to or taken from what God has revealed “according to what is said in divinely breathed Scripture: You have to keep the word, which I command you today, zealously.”19 Thus Alexander Monachus follows Paul’s use of theopneustos to qualify Scripture firstly when quoting some verse from the Old Testament, secondly related to the reading of a New Testament book, and thirdly indicating that the written word contains the spoken Word of God. This spontaneous use of theopneustos suggests that the adjective had become part of the terminology in which the qualities of Scripture (one text, a book, Scripture as a whole) are expressed. This adjective is also found frequently in Gregory of Nyssa’s works, of course, especially qualifying Scripture.20 “‘The theopneustos writing,’ as the divine (theios) apostle calls it, is the writing of the holy Spirit, whose will is useful for men,” says Gregory of Nyssa. He proceeds, quoting 2 Timothy 3:16: “For, says he, all writ is theopneustos and useful, its use manifold and varied, as the apostle says, for instruction, for reproach, for betterment, for training in 17  Prov.13:1. Cf. Alexander Monachus, Laudatio Barnabae / Lobrede auf Barnabas [Fontes Christiani] (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), 2 (p. 64 l. 11), 20 (p. 88 l. 16). See on this work also: Erik A. de Boer, “Tertullian on ‘Barnabas’ Letter to the Hebrews’ in De pudicitia 20,” in Vigiliae Christianae 86.3 (2014), 243–263. 18  Monachus, Laudatio Barnabae 30 (p. 103 l. 14f). 19  Deut.13:1. Cf. Monachus, Laudatio Barnabae 35 (p. 112 l. 4–6). 20  Friedhelm Mann (ed.), Lexicon Gregorianum. Wörterbuch zu den Schriften Gregors von Nyssa, vol. 4 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2002), 227–229. The references to his various works are to the series Gregorii Nyssensi Opera, vols. 1–11 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960f).

Spirit and Scripture

69

righteousness.”21 The Pauline expression is also found in the plural, the Godbreathed Scriptures, or of the various parts of the one Scripture. “That nothing which came into being by creation is worthy to be venerated by men is commanded by the divine word (theios logos), so that this can be learned to be so from every tiny part of the God-breathed Scripture: Moses, the tables, the Torah, the prophets that follow, the Gospels, the principles of the apostles, all counsel equally that such veneration brings judgment,” says Gregory. It would take too much time to present every example, but it is enough “to take a few testimonies from God-breathed Scripture from the many.”22 But theopneustos can also be an adjective to diathèkè (covenant), teaching (didaskalia), testimony (marturia), thought (noèma), spoken word (hrèma), voice (phōnè). The apostle Paul can be called “the truly divinely breathed and divinely taught Paul who in the depth of the wealth of wisdom and knowledge of God was searching the secrets and hidden divine mysteries.”23 The hapax from 2 Timothy 3:16 enriched patristic Greek and was applied to all sorts of aspects of Scripture that were contemplated in theological discourse. The use of the term by the Greek Fathers can finally be illustrated by Athanasius’ famous Thirty-ninth Festal Letter. Here theopneustos graphè can be said of the whole of canon in its two Testaments. This document from the year 367 is often read as the most explicit, final step in a process of formation of the New Testament canon. Athanasius of Alexandria is the first to list all titles of the (twenty seven) books of the New Testament. One could also say: he published a list of what books the Church regarded as “the true scriptures” (alèthina biblia), starting with the twenty two books of the Old Testament and adding “those of the New Testament” (the four Gospels, followed by Acts, the Catholic letters after Acts, Paul’s fourteen letters, and Revelations). The aim of the patriarch’s letter seems to prevent that the “apocryphal” (Gnostic) writings are mixed up “with tei theopneustōi graphei, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers.” Athanasius wrote this in a conscious imitation of the opening verses of St. Luke’s Gospel. “It seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books that are canonized and handed down, believed to be divine (kanonizomena kai paradothenta, pisteuthenta te theia einai

21  Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium libri, 1(II), 163, 3–9. 22  Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium libri, 1(II), 107, 10–18. 23  Gregory of Nyssa, De perfectione, VIII, 1, 187, 15.

70

de Boer

biblia).”24 The listing of the books of the Old Covenant then proceeds under the same heading with those of the New. In the last paragraph the Alexandrine patriarch distinguishes between the canonical and deutero-canonical books (as they are called today), and adds: “The former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read” (listing Wisdom, Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and also the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas). The first he labels as the kanonizomena (accepted as canonical), the last as anaginōskomena (to be read). So, Athanasias distinguishes first the theopneustos graphè, consisting of the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, secondly the books that are not rule of faith but can be read for instruction, thirdly the “apocryphals” that must be rejected as invention of heretics. For only Scripture is God-spirited.25 4

From the Greek theopneustos to the Latin inspiratus

Ambrosiaster, the first Latin commentary on the Pauline letters from the second half of the fourth century, commenting on the education of Timothy in the hiera grammata, immediately refers to the Old Testament. “For these he calls ‘holy writings’ (sacrae litterae) because they announce the figure of Christ and declare his incarnation to restore the salvation of man.”26 On Paul’s following words that all Scripture is divinely breached (omnia scriptura divinitus inspirata) the author of Ambrosiaster states: “It is clear that all scripture, of which God is shown as author (omnis scriptura, cuius deus auctor ostenditur), is useful.” No clarification seems needed of how God’s authorship is manifest. 24  Athanasius, Epistolae heortasticae XXXIX, in: J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae cursus completes. Series Graeca, vol. 26: Athanasii opera omnia, vol. 2 (Paris, 1887), 1436–1438. Cf. J. van Bruggen, Het kompas van het Christendom. Ontstaan en betekenis van een omstreden bijbel (Kampen: Kok, 2002), 48–51; Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon. Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 379f. 25  The North-African third Synod of Carthage of 397, with Augustine present, clarified the liturgical use of Scripture. “It has been decided that apart from the canonical scriptures nothing shall be read under the name of divine scriptures” (E.J. Jonkers (ed.), Acta et symbola Conciliorum quae saeculo quarto habita sunt [Textus Minores XIX] (Leiden, 19742), 136). An exception is made for ‘the passions of the martyrs’ on the day of their remembrance. There is one canon of Old and New Testament books “because we have received from our fathers that these books must be read in the Church (in ecclesia legenda).” From that date onwards only the canonical books (plus the passiones martyrorum) are to be read in Church. 26  Ambrosiaster qui dicitur commentarius in Epistulas Paulinas, ed. H.J. Vogels (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 81/3; Wenen: Hoelder, Pichler, Tempsky, 1969), 314. Further abbreviated as CSEL.

Spirit and Scripture

71

Ambrosiaster seems to rely on the Itala, the early Latin translation, and not to refer to the Greek text. One text version reads “a deo spirans,” another “a deo spirata.”27 From Ambrosiaster and the Itala it is clear that the stress is on the breathing of God, not on his inspiring the writers. The translation “inspiratus” became dominant at an early stage.28 The first example we find in Tertullian in c. 205. He is writing on Henoch and is aware that this book does not belong to the Jewish canon. He ponders why. Because it must be forgotten since its author perished in the flood? But his grandson Noach survived and could have preserved the memory of his grandfather. And Ezra restored the canon of Israel even after God’s judgment in the destruction of Jerusalem. Tertullian sees the lasting value of Henoch in the fact that it prophesied of the Lord.29 “And we read that every writing, suitable for edification, was divinely inspired (divinitus inspiratus).” The first Christian Latin author uses ‘inspiratus’ as for one specific book which he regards as canonical. The proof of its canonicity lies in the fact that also Henoch testified of Christ.30 5

The Breath of God: Biblical Theology

We find -pneustos in one word group with the verb pneō (to breathe), the nouns pnoè (breath) and pneuma (spirit). Paul did not find the adjective in the Septuagint, but he could not miss how the pnoè zōès, the breath of life, was given to Adam.31 Or God’s promise of the gift of the pneuma zōès (life spirit) for Israel in captivity and how the prophet Ezekiel had to prophecy to the 27  V  etus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel, vol. 25/1, ed. Hermann Josef Frede (Freiburg: Herder, 1975–1982), 781. 28  Desiderius Erasmus informed the exegetes of his time in his Annotationes briefly on the background of the traditional translation divinitus inspirata, given in the Vulgate (Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami, vol. VI/10, ed. M.L. van Poll-van de Lisdonk (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2014), 160 on 2 Tim.3:16 (further abbreviated as ASD VI/10)). Paul uses a composite word, and as such it is ‘pleasant’ to hear (iucundius, rhetorically speaking). Even though Erasmus more often noted such composita, his line only points his reader to the fact that the Greek has only one word, which is translated into Latin by two words. He only adds a paraphrase of two possible translations: “Scripture, as it is divinely inspired, is also effective towards many things (ad multa), while human doctrine is ineffective; or: Scripture is divinely inspired and the same is useful, etc., so that everything (omnis) is directed according to canonical scripture” (ASD VI/10, 160 l. 446–448). 29  cf. Jud. :14f. 30  Tertullian, De cultu feminarum I.3 (CSEL 70, 64). 31  Gen.2:7.

72

de Boer

bare bones in order to revive them (emphusèson).32 The reminiscence of pnoè (wind) on Pentecost hints at the outpouring of the pneuma as promised. In Athens the apostle said of God that it is he as Creator that gives everyone life and breath (zōèn kai pnoèn).33 The Spirit (ruach)34 is the breath and spirit of God.35 The divine spirit makes men and women into prophets and prophetesses. He inspires their language and music into prophecy and poetry. It is no coincidence that Saul encounters a group of prophets with musical instruments. The king to be is swept along with this marching band, and “the Spirit of God came powerfully upon him, and he joined in their prophesying.”36 This is written in the book of Samuel which Israel counts among the book of the prophets. Therefore it comes as no surprise that the Spirit of Pentecost is immediately connected to language(s) and speech which can be qualified as to prophecy and magnify.37 To the Church Fathers the gift of speaking the languages (lalein glōssais) has nothing to do with an uncontrolled and untranslatable repetition of sounds.38 It is all about the Spirit taking control of the tongues of all languages, so that people from every corner of the diaspora and all over the world could praise God’s great deeds in Jesus Christ in their mother tongue. That is to say with translatable and then understandable words of prayer. As reading aloud was the custom, so was praying aloud. Paul calls on the Church that, when Christians come together, they “be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit.” The Spirit (pneuma) moves when you “sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”39 Such songs count among the pneumatikoi, the spiritual gifts.40 The highest among the graces of the Spirit, however, is to Paul the gift to prophesy.41 This is the biblical-theological context of the qualification of Scripture as theopneustos by Paul. It does not address the question how the Spirit operated in the human authors of Scripture. But it is beyond question that the breath of 32  Ezek.37:9, comparable to Gen.2:7; Joh.20:22. 33  Act.17:25. 34  Gen.1:2. 35  Joel 3:1. 36  1 Sam.10:5f, 10f. 37  Act.10:46; 19:6. 38  1 Cor.14:16. 39  Eph.5:19–21. 40  Col.3:16. 41  1 Cor.14:1.

Spirit and Scripture

73

God has been at work when He spoke to his people, either in person of through a prophet. This is expressed elsewhere in the New Testament as people speaking about God “carried along by the Holy Spirit.”42 Again, how the Spirit was active when someone took notes of the divine spoken words or when the prophet himself wrote them down, is not clarified. From the processes of writing, learning to read, and reading out loud we know that the scribes who copied the scrolls of Scripture had a vital role and were held in high esteem. Their diligence had to safeguard the truth of God between prophetical speech and faithful reading. Of the spiritual dimensions of the work of scribes and copyists we know only that they could only work in the community of God’s people. But when Paul speaks of graphè theopneustos, it is about the living breath of God in Scripture, drawing breath and breathing out again when an evangelist takes up Scripture and reads from it to the people. It is also about the ultimate goal of Scripture in “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness education.” The divine breath is there in all these activities of the evangelist of Ephesus and it is even beneficial for himself, “so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”43 Is this tou Theou anthrōpou not an Israelite way to qualify a prophet, a man who draws his breath from God? 6

Scriptures and Readers

Herman Bavinck introduced the Graecism theopneustos in his doctrine of Scripture in the second edition of his Reformed Dogmatics. He connected the paragraph on revelation and the one on theopneustia with the trait-d’union of a quotation from Johann Albrecht Bengel, given in Latin and there left untranslated. It perfectly summarizes his use of the term: ‘Divinitus inspirata est scriptura, non solum dum scripta est Deo spirante per scriptores; sed etiam dum legitur Deo spirante per scripturam et scriptura Ipsum spirante’ (Scripture is divinely inspired, not only while it was written with God breathing through the writers, but also while Scripture is read, it is with God breathing through Scripture and with Scripture breathing Himself).44 Bavinck concluded: ‘The theopneustia is therefore a lasting property of Holy Scripture.’ 42  2 Pet.1:21, NIV. 43  2 Tim.3:17. 44  J.A. Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testamenti in quo ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicator (Stuttgart: J.F. Steinkopf, 19159), 858, quoted in Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1 Prolegomena, 385. The translation, given in the English Bavinck edition, ends: “… and the Scripture breathing Him [He being their very breath.]” The plural “their” is contra sensum and its referent are unclear.

74

de Boer

How does our reading of theopneustos as God-spirited compare to some recent systematic-theological works on the doctrine of Scripture? The first title that invites reading is Andrew McGowan’s The Divine Spiration of Scripture (a title that the publishers did not seem fit for the American market).45 Although this book came to my attention only shortly before the deadline of this contribution, it handed me the perfect English rendering ‘God-spirited’ (to replace God-breathed). McGowan argues against those who take inspiration as creative brilliance of religious sensitivity. “Over against this, we must affirm exegetically that theopneustos is not speaking primarily about the authors of Scripture but about the Scriptures themselves.”46 The stress is here on “exegetically,” for McGowan is not arguing against the work of the Spirit in the writers of the Bible,47 but against the notion of inerrancy. That the Scriptures are Godspirited leads him to the notion of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit, for which he uses the term ‘recognition’ (instead of illumination) by which we identify the Scriptures as the word of God. He proceeds with ‘comprehension,’ the truth and authority of Scripture which the Spirit impresses upon us. And fourth the ‘infallibility’ as we bow before that Word. Abraham van de Beek wrote on the Spirit and Scripture in his work on ecclesiology and pneumatology. He takes 2 Timothy 3:16 as intending not only part of Scripture, but all of it, quoting 1 Clement: “You have searched the holy scriptures, which are true, which [are] by the Holy Spirit (graphas … tas dia tou pneumatos tou hagiou).”48 His observation is that the early Church spoke seldom about revelations to later Christians, but mostly on the close tie between the Spirit and Scripture. Yet the Spirit always has priority and is not tied to Scripture. The clause of the Nicene Creed “He spoke through the prophets” expresses best the status of Scripture, for by their inspiration all authors were seen as prophets.49 This could be explicated further in considering the prophetic character of the book of Revelations. 45  A.T.B. McGowan, The Divine Spiration of Scripture. Challenging evangelical perspectives (Nottingham: Apollos, 2007). Inter-Varsity Press published the book in the U.S.A. with the title The Authenticity of Scripture. Retrieving an Evangelical Heritage (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2008). He first chose ‘expiration’ as translation of theopneustos, but later rejected it because of its connotation of ‘a terminal breathing out.’ 46  McGowan, The Divine Spiration of Scripture, 39. 47  Cf. 2 Pet.1:21. 48  A. van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus. De theologie van de kerk en de Heilige Geest. (Spreken over God 2.2; Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2012), 311; 1 Clement 45.2 in: Michael W. Holms (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers. Greek Texts and English Translations (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 20073), 104f. 49  Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 441–444.

Spirit and Scripture

7

75

To Conclude

Understanding Scripture as God-spirited, read in its context in 2 Timothy, leads me first to the notion of authority as it is expressed beautifully in Belgic Confession, article 5. We receive all these books “because the Holy Spirit testifies in our hearts that they are from God, and also because they prove themselves to be from God.”50 The Spirit is the breath of God, breathing out to and through those who read aloud and giving life to those who hear. “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it.”51 The Spirit establishes the authority of Scripture as the Word. Classic Reformed theology distinguished between inspiration and illumination, the latter naming the Spirit’s work in the faithful. The God-spirited Scriptures are the living Word, breathing life into those who hear. Scripture and Word cannot be separated, for in the reading of the written Word the Word itself speaks to those who hear. In the days of the apostles the Scriptures were always heard as spoken Words. It is here that I expect fresh insight when Reformed and charismatic theology meet: when the reading of Scripture is considered as the breathing of the Spirit in the Father’s world and in Christ’s church. Bibliography Bauer, Walter. Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruijter, 19886. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1 Prolegomena. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Beek, A. van de. Lichaam en Geest van Christus. De theologie van de kerk en de Heilige Geest. Spreken over God 2.2. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2012. Bengel, J.A. Gnomon Novi Testamenti in quo ex nativa verborum vi simplicitas, profunditas, concinnitas, salubritas sensuum coelestium indicatur. Stuttgart: J.F. Steinkopf, 19159. Boer, E.A. de. “Tertullian on ‘Barnabas’ Letter to the Hebrews’ in De pudicitia 20.” Vigiliae Christianae 86/2 (2014): 243–263.

50  https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/belgic-confession (translation Chris­ tian Reformed Churches, accessed 29 November 2017). 51  Rev.1:3.

76

de Boer

Bruggen, J. van. Het kompas van het Christendom. Ontstaan en betekenis van een omstreden bijbel. Kampen: Kok, 2002. CSEL: Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna, 1866–). Erasmus, Desiderius. Opera omnia Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami. vol. VI/10. Ed. M.L. van Poll-van de Lisdonk. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2014. Gregorii Nyssensi Opera. Vols. 1–11. Leiden: Brill, 1960f. Holms, Michael W. (ed.). The Apostolic Fathers. Greek Texts and English Translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 20073. Jonkers, E.J. (ed.). Acta et symbola Conciliorum quae saeculo quarto habita sunt [Textus Minores XIX]. Leiden, 19742. Keulen, Dirk van. Bijbel en dogmatiek. Schriftbeschouwing en schriftgebruik bij A. Kuyper, H. Bavinck en G.C. Berkouwer. Kampen: Kok, 2003. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1968. Mann, Friedhelm (ed.). Lexicon Gregorianum. Wörterbuch zu den Schriften Gregors von Nyssa. Vol. 4. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2002. McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon. Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007. McGowan, A.T.B. The Divine Spiration of Scripture. Challenging evangelical perspectives. Nottingham: Apollos, 2007. Nes, Jermo van. Pauline Language and the Pastoral epistles: A Study of Linguistic Variation in the Corpus Paulinum. Ph.D. thesis Evangelical Theological Faculty Leuven, Theological University Kampen, 2017. PG: Patrologia cursus complete. Series Graeca, Jean-Paul Migne (ed.). 161 vols. Paris, 1857–1866. Philo in 10 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, London, 1929–1953. Safrai, S., and M. Stern (eds.). The Jewish People in the first Century. Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions [Compendia Rerum Iudicarum ad Novum Testamentum I/2]. Assen, Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1976. Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel, 27 vols. Freiburg, 1949f. Warfield, B.B. The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible. Philipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1948/1979.

chapter 5

Allegory within the Bounds of the Letter: Toward a Pneumatological Reorientation of Protestant Interpretations of the Old Testament Arnold Huijgen 1 Introduction In this contribution, I wish to combine two focal points in the work of Cornelis van der Kooi. The first is found concisely in an article on the potential of the so-called extra-calvinisticum, and more extensively in Van der Kooi’s major work on Calvin and Barth’s views on knowing God.1 Van der Kooi notes that the Reformed tradition in general, and John Calvin in particular, has shown a tendency to think God’s eternal council in terms of causality. This threatens to render history bleak and tensionless, because it simply unfolds in the exact way God has preordained it would. This possible tendency to determinism can be countered, Van der Kooi argues, by the traditional, Reformed theological idea of the extra-calvinisticum, which properly belongs to Christology but has a wider potential. This idea expresses the distinction between God in the incarnate Christ and outside the incarnate Christ. When it is applied in a broader sense, to theology proper and to the history of revelation, the extracalvinisticum can express that God is both truly engaged in the dynamic drama of history, lovingly struggling for the heart of his people, and at the same time ultimately in control. The latter no more diminishes the former (which would lead to determinism) than the former diminishes the latter (which would lead to a form of open theism in which God’s position in history differs from humans only in degree, not qualitatively). Hence, the asymmetric relation between godhead and humanity in Christ can serve to explicate the real historical dynamics of God’s dealings with his people. God’s nearness takes ever newer 1  Cornelis van der Kooi, “The Identity of Israel’s God: The Potential of the So-Called ExtraCalvinisticum,” in Tradition and Innovation in Biblical Interpretation: Studies Presented to Professor Eep Talstra on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. W.Th. van Peursen and J.W. Dyk, Studia Semitica Neerlandica 57 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 209–22; Cornelis van der Kooi, As in a Mirror: John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God: A Diptych, Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 120 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 41–63, 143–85.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_007

78

Huijgen

forms, which are shaped by the Spirit.2 In fact, what Van der Kooi has done, is to inflect the Christological concept of extra-calvinisticum in historical, and pneumatological terms. A second focal point in Van der Kooi’s work is the importance of the Bible for systematic theology. Van der Kooi acknowledges that modern theologians are divided from the earliest Reformation by what Wolfhart Pannenberg has called “The crisis of the scripture principle,” which rendered problematic the function of the Bible as an instance of appeal.3 Still, Van der Kooi advocates the Bible as point of reference for present-day systematic theology, since without it, Protestantism would be no more than a subjective religion broken adrift.4 It is possible to bridge the chasm between biblical studies and systematic theology by taking the theological and communicative character of biblical texts into account: they are “an offer to communicate.”5 The proper place of the Bible is in the context of God’s communication with humans, which Van der Kooi regards as a thoroughly pneumatological category.6 Once again, pneumatology is key: God’s self-communication is not merely a matter of the Bible, but of both Word and Spirit.7 In light of Van der Kooi’s twin pneumatological foci of the reality of God’s historical engagement and of the interplay between biblical studies and systematic theology, the present contribution aims to contribute to a pneumatological renewal of Reformed readings of the Bible, while maintaining the 2  Van der Kooi, “The Identity of Israel’s God,” 222. 3  W. Pannenberg, “Die Krise des Schriftprinzips,” in Grundfragen systematischer Theologie: Gesammelte Aufsätze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 11–21. 4  C. van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest: Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest (Kampen: Kok, 2006), 179–80. 5  Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 191; cf. C. van der Kooi, “Zittend ter rechterhand Gods: De christologische en soteriologische functie van een psalmcitaat,” in Tussen leer en lezen: De spanning tussen bijbelwetenschap en geloofsleer, eds. G.C. den Hertog and C. van der Kooi (Kampen: Kok, 2007), 160–78. 6  Cf. John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2003), 49–50; Arnold Huijgen, “Alone Together: Sola Scriptura and the Other Solas of the Reformation,” in Sola Scriptura: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics, eds. Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen, and Eric Peels (Studies in Reformed Theology 32; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 79–104. 7  Willem van ’t Spijker, Calvin, Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte 3J2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001), 209–10; Peter Opitz, Calvins theologische Hermeneutik (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994), 170–79. Cf. Kees van der Kooi, “De Geest als tegenwoordige en als vernieuwende kracht: Enkele opmerkingen met betrekking tot de pneumatologie,” in Weergaloze kennis: Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kamphuis, eds. Ad de Bruijne, Hans Burger, and Dolf te Velde (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015), 59.

Allegory within the Bounds of the Letter

79

typically Protestant emphasis on the historical-grammatical meaning of scripture. The reason for the latter is not merely traditional—almost all Reformers, and surely the Reformed among them, read the Bible with contemporary means of history and grammar while rejecting allegorical interpretations as speculative—,8 but rather theological: history, philology, and context are theologically relevant, and the chasm between biblical studies and systematic theology can only be bridged if systematic theologians take these seriously. Biblical scholars and systematic theologians share common ground and a common task.9 This article aims at bringing a pneumatological understanding of history to further the interplay between biblical studies and systematic theology, as exemplified in the recent movement of theological interpretation of scripture. First, two recent examples of theological interpretation of the Old Testament are sketched and assessed. Second, the pneumatologically laden interpretation of scripture by the Dutch Reformed theologian Oepke Noordmans (1871–1956) is brought forward, both in the theory of his hermeneutics, and in practice, by way of the example of David and Saul. This contribution closes with concluding remarks. 2

Theological Interpretation of Scripture

Over the past decades, there has been an increasing rapprochement between biblical studies and theology, both from the side of biblical scholars, and from the side of systematic theologians. In earlier centuries, the emancipation of biblical studies and the rise of historical criticism went hand in hand with

8  Calvin, for instance, provides a negative evaluation of Church Fathers that indulge in allegories, such as Origen and Jerome (Calvin, Praefatio in Chrysostomi homilias, in Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, 59 vols., eds. Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss (Brunsvigae: Schwetschke, 1863–1900) [=CO], 9:834. In the prefatory letter to Simon Grynaeus to his Commentary on Roman, Calvin emphasizes that he focuses on the mens scriptoris, the mind of the author: CO 10:402–3. Meanwhile, Calvin is not entirely negative on allegory. For instance, he approves Ambrose’s allegorical reading of Genesis 27:27 (OC 23:378), “presumably because his approval of its message of justification by faith outweighed his disapproval of allegory!”; Anthony N.S. Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1999), 222. Allegory can serve a strictly limited rhetorical, and pedagogical goal, although it is more suited for the pulpit than for biblical interpretation; Raymond A. Blacketer, The School of God: Pedagogy and Rhetoric in Calvin’s Interpretation of Deuteronomy (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006) , 269–70. 9  Van der Kooi, “The Identity of Israels God,” 209.

80

Huijgen

non-dogmatic, or even anti-dogmatic, readings of scripture.10 Instead of the unity of the Old and New Testaments, advocated by John Calvin, diachronic methods resulted in a fragmentation of literary units. As biblical scholar Brevard S. Childs has observed, the unintended effect of biblical studies throwing off their dogmatic shackles, “was actually to destroy the significance, integrity, and confidence in the literal sense of the text.”11 But in reaction to the historical-critical disconnection of Bible and Church, a distinctly theological interpretation of scripture emerged. The diverse movement that is subsumed under the label of “Theological Interpretation of Scripture” (further: TIS) advocates synchronic rather than diachronic readings, and canonical approaches rather than fragmented ones.12 This diverse movement is characterized by (1) dissatisfaction with historical-critical methods, (2) the conviction that the Bible is about God, (3) a positive evaluation of premodern interpretations of the Bible, (4) an emphasis on the Church as the community that reads the Bible, and (5) emphasis on the spiritual practice of Bible reading.13 This sounds promising, but the question is whether TIS succeeds in providing readings of the Bible that make sense not only in theological circles, but also in the realm of exegesis. Two recent, and representative, examples may suffice to illustrate both that TIS can be fruitful for Church and theology by keeping doctrine and scripture together, and that it results in new challenges and problems in metaphysics and pneumatology. 2.1 Matthew W. Bates: Prosopological Exegesis First, in a recent monograph, Matthew W. Bates, Assistant Professor of Theology at Quincy University, has highlighted the potential of trinitarian readings of the Old Testament.14 Under historical-critical conditions, these seem outright 10  Cf. Joh. Sal. Semler, Versuch einer freiern theologischen Lehrart (Halle: Hemmerde, 1777), 294–98. 11  Brevard S. Childs, “Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem,” in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Herbert Donner (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 80–93, 91–2. 12  For an overview, see Mark Alan Bowald, “The Character of Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010), 162–83; Darren Sarisky, “What is Theological Interpretation? An Ecclesiological Reduction,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010), 201–16; Stephen E. Fowl, Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2010). Since 2007, the Journal of Theological Interpretation exists. 13  Arnold Huijgen, Drievoudig bewogen: De innerlijke samenhang van Triniteit en Oude Testament (Apeldoornse Studies 69; Apeldoorn: TUA, 2017), 35–8. 14  Matthew W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament (Oxford: University, 2015).

Allegory within the Bounds of the Letter

81

impossible, but Matthew Bates reaches back to patristic readings of scripture, and presents a “prosopological exegesis,” which works with the assumption that in the Old Testament, the divine Person (of the Son, e.g.), speaks in the figure of other persons.15 The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, for instance, regards Christ as the one speaking in Psalm 40.16 This prosopological procedure is not limited to the New Testament, but is employed extensively by Church Fathers to interpret various Old Testament passages. The underlying conviction is that God is Triune from eternity to eternity, so the believing reader may expect to hear any of the Persons speak in the Old Testament, and in some instances even overhear intratrinitarian conversations between the pre-existent Son and His Father. Bates not only makes the historical observation that this way of reading contributed to early trinitarian theology and ultimately to the formulation of trinitarian dogma, but he also notes the lasting hermeneutical, and heuristic, value of this procedure.17 According to Bates, the Old Testament must be read with the divine authorial intent in mind instead of human authorial intents. This implies that trinitarian readings must overrule historical meanings and the author’s intent: Church dogma defines what the text says, and historical ways of interpreting the text must give way. Obviously, Bates’ prosopological reading of the Old Testament is doctrinally sound, warranted by Early Church practices, but from a Protestant perspective, there are two problems. The first is that the historical-grammatical meaning of texts is overruled by Church doctrine. This does not bridge the chasm with biblical studies, but only confirms existing biases among biblical exegetes vis-à-vis systematic theologians. This runs counter to an important axiom of Protestantism: the possibility that study of the Bible may lead to a critique of dogmatic standpoints.18 The second problem is that the pneumatological 15  Bates (Birth of the Trinity, 28, 33) borrows this terminology from Carl Andresen, “Zur Entstehung und Geschichte des trinitarischen Personbegriffes,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 52 (1961), 1–39. 16  Bates, Birth of the Trinity, 86. 17  Bates, Birth of the Trinity, 175–202. 18  This is the sense of what is often referred to as the sola scriptura principle of the Reformation. This literal slogan itself is typical for later developments rather than for the Reformation itself; in the seldom instance in which Luther uses the phrase, for instance, he underpins his statement that “Scripture alone must reign [solam scripturam regnare]” by referring to Augustine, who said the same, thus placing Scriptural authority very near to patristic authorities (D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–), 7:98–99. Sola scriptura does not mean ‘Scripture alone’ as if other authorities, such as Church and Tradition, played no role. Rather, it expresses the conviction that the Church can err and that Scripture is the final, not the sole, authority; cf. Anthony N. S. Lane, “Sola Scriptura?: Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan,” in A Pathway into the

82

Huijgen

moment in scriptural interpretation is placed completely on the side of the interpreter, whose illumination consists in retrieving trinitarian theology in biblical texts. The fact that the Spirit is not merely an interpretive force, but also a historical one, which moves history and is moving in history, remains out of sight. Although the prosopological procedure is not anti-historical, it is nonhistorical: the activity of the Spirit as active mover of history and of the text is not taken into account. Still, the Spirit not only speaks, but also acts. 2.2 Hans Boersma: Sacramental Reading A second example provides a balanced account of the various senses of scripture. Hans Boersma, J.I. Packer Professor of Theology at Regent College, aims at a retrieval of the Church Fathers’ type of exegesis for the present day and particularly “the sacramental sensibility that undergirds patristic exegesis.”19 He notes that the Church Fathers’ attention to allegory does not mean that they despise either the literal meaning of the text or authorial intent, but rather that they are not satisfied when the surface of the text is explained.20 They seek for deeper dimensions, by reading scripture in a sacramental way, combined with an anagogical move to Christ who is hidden in the scriptures, and who is our happiness.21 Against those who object that patristic forms of exegesis strike the modern reader as random, Boersma emphasizes that patristic exegeses are often far more homogeneous than modern and postmodern interpretations. The emphasis on ‘method’ in modern biblical scholarship, which was supposed to lead to greater certainty and unanimity with regard to the meaning of the text has shown not to deliver what was expected from it.22 The reasons for the homogeneous tradition of interpretation among Church Fathers and medieval exegetes, are their traditionalism, that is the conviction that originality is a bad thing, and their focus on a Christological basis for the spiritual exegesis. This, in turn, is grounded in a distinctly Christian Platonist ontology, which led to a Holy Scripture, eds. Philip E. Sattertwhaite and David F. Wright (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 297–327. 19  Hans Boersma, Scripture as Real Presence: Sacramental Exegesis in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 273. Boersma’s insistence on Protestant sacramental theology as a ressourcement of the Roman-catholic nouvelle théologie shows already in Hans Boersma, Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011). 20  Boersma, Scripture as Real Presence, 27–55 highlights literal readings in the Church Fathers, but they supplemented these with various kinds of Spiritual readings. 21  Hans Boersma, Sacramental Preaching: Sermons on the Hidden Presence of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 204. 22  Boersma, Scripture as Real Presence, 277.

Allegory within the Bounds of the Letter

83

“sacramental sensibility that still has the vitality to renew the life of the church today.”23 Boersma thinks that the Church Fathers’ metaphysics is true, and that it is a mistake typical of the Enlightenment in the West to think that newer positions in biblical studies are better. The positive side of this approach is that it regains some of the sacramental qualities of reality that are characteristic for premodern times, and that it confesses Christ as being present. As Van der Kooi has observed, for Calvin the world was obviously a theatre of God’s glory.24 Such a sacramental understanding of the text, and of the entire reality of creation, fits better in a broader understanding of God’s revelation than as merely self-revelation, which is the axiom of much theology that has been influenced by German Idealism, most notably Karl Barth’s theology.25 There are three problems in this approach, however—problems that the present author sees, but that Van der Kooi probably would also note as acute disadvantages. First, to adopt this sacramental understanding of scripture in full, one must—according to its adherents—accept the implied premodern, more precisely: Platonist, metaphysics. Boersma is willing to pay that price, but it remains to be seen whether it is possible for modern Western theologians to do so. Is there a way back behind Immanuel Kant and René Descartes, a way to let all skepticism go and to retrieve these classical metaphysics? In other words, is it required to accept outdated metaphysical presuppositions to be a spiritual reader of scripture? Besides, the net result is not a spiritual reading in the creative sense of the word, but in the traditional sense of the word. The second problem is that while this sacramental reading of scripture brings the Early Church and the present time together, it leaves the chasm between biblical studies and systematic theology unchanged. More precisely: it prescribes a certain kind of biblical studies, while rejecting historical-critical methods. It is more Spirit, less letter. The third problem is a result of the former two: as in Bates’ approach, the dynamic history, the drama of God with his people, lies complete behind the sacramental text. The Spirit is active in the reader, and particularly in the tradition of the Church in which the reader stands, but the activity of the Spirit in history is left behind. Understandably so, given the Platonic undertones, and the denial of German Idealism, which finds the Spirit primarily in history, even to the point of identifying the two.

23  Boersma, Scripture as Real Presence, 279. 24  Calvin, De Aeterna Dei Praedestinatione, CO 8:294; Van der Kooi, As in a Mirror, 77–85. 25  Van der Kooi, As in a Mirror, 450–53.

84

Huijgen

So, two specimina of TIS show the promising potential of prosopological and sacramental readings of scripture, but leave the author wondering whether it is possible to have a spiritual reading of scripture that takes the drama implied in the texts more seriously, does not require classical metaphysics, and ties biblical studies and theology closer together. This is where the Dutch Reformed theologian Oepke Noordmans comes into play. 3

Oepke Noordmans

Oepke Noordmans was a Dutch Reformed minister, who never completed a formal PhD, but was counted among the most original theologians of his days. Stemming from the background of the so-called ethical tradition in the Dutch Reformed Church, which emphasized the personal character of truth and took a middle position between the stricter Reformed Orthodox and the theological liberals, Noordmans was also heavily influenced by Karl Barth’s theology. Because of his peculiarities and his typical phraseology, his works have been received almost exclusively in the Netherlands. Still, the way pneumatological accents drive his interpretation of scripture is interesting for the present essay.26 Noordmans places the Old Testament in the framework of the dynamic of the trinity. God’s ‘Being’ is a trifold act of revelation: God the Father speaks, God the Son comes, and God the Holy Spirit comforts. There is a successive movement in these three aspects: first, God speaks, then He comes, and when that is still not sufficient, He comforts.27 This dynamic characterizes all of God’s dealings with humanity, and all of scripture. Even the Bible itself can be divided in three parts: in the Old Testament, God’s speaking is primary, the Gospels testify to God’s coming, and God’s comforting shows from the book of Acts onwards. This is not a matter of dispensationalism, but a trinitarian dynamic, since in every stage, the Triune God is at work, and the Spirit is the driving force of the historical dynamic. The presupposition of the historical dynamic is, that it is in the nature of God not only to be upon high in the heavens, but also to be low, on the earth. 26  Note that dissertations on Noordmans’ theology have often focused on his pneumatology: H.W. de Knijff, Geest en Gestalte: O. Noordmans bijbeluitlegging in hermeneutisch verband (Kampen: Kok, 1970); G.W. Neven, In de speelruimte van de Geest: Introduktie in de geloofs­ leer van dr. O. Noordmans (Kampen: Kok, 1980); A. van der Kooi, Het heilige en de Heilige Geest bij Noordmans: Een schets van zijn pneumatologisch ontwerp (Kampen: Kok, 1992). 27  Oepke Noordmans, Herschepping, 2nd. ed. (Amsterdam: Holland, 1956), reprinted in Verzamelde Werken, vol. 2 [=VW 2], ed. J.M. Hasselaar et al. (Kampen: Kok 1979), 223.

Allegory within the Bounds of the Letter

85

“God is not only above his creation, but his judgments comprise the entire fall of creation. He is also beneath her.”28 Noordmans’ point of departure for theological knowledge is Christ’s suffering on the cross, which sheds light on what creation is. In the intense tension between Father and Son in Christ’s suffering on the cross, it becomes clear what creation, reality, and history are; above all: who God is. Similar to Van der Kooi’s exploration of a broader understanding of the extra-calvinisticum, Noordmans’ uses the distinction between Father and Son to explicate that God is both above and in history, both in control and vulnerable in the course of history. The difference is that while the extracalvinisticum regulates the relation between God and the humanity the Son assumed, Noordmans emphasizes the tension between God the Father and the Son. This may raise the suspicion of the typically idealist trap of subsuming the concreteness of history in the intratrinitarian movement of God. But because the Son is truly the incarnate Son, only to be understood as culmination of the concrete history of God with his people, Noordmans does not fall in this trap. The Son can only be understood in the light of the history of Israel, the Old Testament, which emphasizes the fundamental and utter distinction between God and his people, between God and history. Noordmans’ pneumatology is about the way God has carved out in history to form Israel as a people and to lead to Jesus Christ as Messiah. What does this mean for the interpretation of scripture? In a brief essay on “Clarity and Obscurity in Exegesis,” Noordmans engages in a discussion on allegorical interpretations of scripture.29 He notes that the Reformed tradition has rightly emphasized the historical, grammatical meaning of the text, but that the Reformers never meant to throw the Holy Spirit out of exegesis and to let only the letter remain. That, Noordmans contends, is the exact difference between the Reformation and humanism, which opted for the letter only, reducing the Bible to a mere reading book. Such a merely historical-grammatical reading of the text is too thin, while an allegorical reading in the classical sense of the word is often too random. Noordmans aims at an allegorical exegesis “within the bounds of the letter.”30 This means that the historical and grammatical realities must neither be bypassed nor overruled. Rather, the letter is a necessary but insufficient condition for proper interpretation. It has a depth, that cannot be fathomed by merely analyzing the historical and grammatical aspects of the text. Noordmans refers to Spinoza, who—albeit with 28  Noordmans, Herschepping, 268. Translations from Noordmans’ Dutch works by the present author. 29  Oepke Noordmans, “Licht en donker in de exegese,” VW 2:7–15. 30  Noordmans, “Licht en donker,” 13.

86

Huijgen

other intentions—noted that the meaning of text can be clear while the religious contents remain hidden, and vice versa. Therefore, study of the letter demands allegory, whereas allegory that moves beyond the letter misses the mark. Allegory within the bounds of the letter is meant to fathom the depth of the text, not to look beyond or behind the text. As an example of the kind of exegesis he advocates, Noordmans points to Karl Barth’s commentaries, mostly in his Church Dogmatics: “At first the walls of the literal sense may experience a strong pressure, but I do believe that they stay in place, in most cases.”31 Note the spatial imagery implied in allegory within the bounds of the letter: the letter offers three dimensions that can be filled with allegory to fulfill the text’s potential. This allegorical procedure is unique for reading the scriptures, exactly because they are the Christian scriptures. “The old leather bottles of humanist exegesis must burst. The Bible is no reading book. When Christ is not cast out of the synagogue of exegesis, but can hold on to the scroll, a Spirit speaks from the letter, and the many that hear Him, will be astonished.”32 Note how Noordmans in this very quote not only presents a theory of allegory, but allegorizes himself. For him, this is no play of words, nor an exegetical technique, but an acknowledgment of the fact that the biblical texts are inspired, and of the fact that God is really present in the reality of the text. There is a tendency in the text toward revelation of the triune God, a tendency from God’s speaking to His coming and comforting. Until the spiritual comfort of the text is drawn out, one has not understood the biblical text properly. Thus, the trinitarian understanding of scripture and of all God’s dealings with the world is the anchoring point for allegory: not a metaphysical hierarchy or state of affairs, but the history of God’s dealings with the world. For Noordmans, trinitarian understanding is primarily an understanding in the movement of the Spirit, who engages in the process of erecting certain figures, only to break them down in due time, to make room for a new phase in the history of God and his people. This ongoing process of erecting and demolishing figures is characteristic for the work of the Holy Spirit, particularly in the Old Testament.33 This movement is directed towards the cross of Jesus Christ, in which God the Creator stands over against God the Sufferer.34 For Noordmans, this is not an ‘episode’ in God’s creation, but “a cosmic principle.”35 31  Noordmans, “Licht en donker,” 13. 32  Noordmans, “Licht en donker,” 13. 33  Hence the title of a collection of meditations, O. Noordmans, Gestalte en Geest [Figure and Spirit] (Amsterdam: Holland, 1955), reprinted in VW 8:179–478. 34  Noordmans, Herschepping, 282. 35  Noordmans, Herschepping, 282.

Allegory within the Bounds of the Letter

87

This means that reality comes into existence and continues to exists as a movement brought about by God’s recreating power, that is through the Spirit of the crucified and risen Jesus Christ, who sends his operations from the Kingdom of God that is coming in the present time.36 Thus, recreation (Dutch: ‘herschepping’) is the actual creation. This spiritual, that is eschatological, understanding of reality affects the interpretation of scripture considerably: scripture must be interpreted in accordance with this movement of the Holy Spirit. The reason why the various figures need to be demolished is that they are earthly figures, mostly royal figures. In the Old Testament, there is an enormous, increasing tension between the earthly reality and the Spirit of God. Because the earthly figures are flesh, they stand in opposition to the Spirit. Every figure that tries to maintain its autonomy against the movement of the Spirit, must be broken. This does not mean, however, that the figure is done away with, but rather, that the identification of the Spirit with this figure takes a new, recreated, form. Ultimately, Jesus Christ is the figure par excellence: his broken kingship shows the reality of God’s spiritual presence in the world.37 All figures are transformed, recreated, by the Spirit, and ultimately God creates his own figure. The effects of the theory of allegory within the bounds of the letter show in the practice of interpretation, for instance of the Old Testament kings Saul and David. Noordmans places both in the context of the larger Old Testament narrative.38 After the time of Judges, which is characterized by lawlessness, God gives way to Saul as king of Israel by handing over some of his divine theocratic prerogatives to him. But king Saul is ultimately rejected by God. On the surface level of the story, the reason for this rejection is Saul’s disobedience, but the depth of the letter shows that Saul’s kingship had too much weight of its own to give way to God’s kingship. Saul’s self-affirmation stood in the way of God’s kingdom of humility. Saul refused that his kingship have a broken shape patterned after God’s progressive revelation. David, on the other hand, is the man after God’s heart, not because he was flawless (his sins are even pictured as more abhorrent than Saul’s), but because after he had sinned against Uriah the Hittite, he was prepared to give up his mere autonomy, and to let his kingship be ashamed. This is exceptional in any guilt culture, but particularly so among kings in the Ancient Near East. Not only does David’s rising to a zenith of power prefigure the coming king Jesus Christ, but so do his humiliation and the acceptance of God’s will over his life. In the light of this, not only does 36  Huijgen, Drievoudig bewogen, 53–54. 37  De Knijff, Geest en gestalte, 26. 38  Noordmans, Gestalte en Geest, 212–34.

88

Huijgen

David’s reign prefigure the messianic reign, but so does even Saul’s family. In a meditation on Rizpah, the mother of two sons who are hanged together with five other relatives because the house of Saul had sinned, Noordmans observes that we see a mother like Mary, or—as Noordmans puts it—we see “seven Jesuses on seven crosses.”39 So, in the story of Saul and David, ‘allegory within the bounds of the letter’ means that the Spirit drives the dialectic of Old Testament history forward. Noordmans does not simply see Christ prefigured in David, as in a straightforward kind of typology, but he discerns a historical dynamic that leads to Christ. This fits in a broader, thoroughly trinitarian interpretation of the Old Testament. 4 Conclusion Noordmans’ hermeneutic of the Old Testament is a hermeneutic of the moving Spirit, who self-identifies with specific phenomena, albeit under reserve, while at the same time remaining distinct from those phenomena to drive history to its end. This pneumatological inflection of the extra-calvinisticum provides a theologically rich and exegetically robust interpretation of the Old Testament, that has the potential to help bridge the gap between biblical exegesis and systematic theology. To the mind of the present author, the idea and practice of allegory within the bounds of the letter can also connect Cornelis van der Kooi’s insistence on the potentiality of the extra-calvinisticum and his concern that exegesis and theology should reinforce rather than break down the other. Particularly for the theological interpretation of the Old Testament, allegory within the bounds of the letter shows a promising prospective. On the one hand, it moves beyond sheer literalism and merely historical readings of the Old Testament, which are not in accordance with the claims of the Old Testament itself. Thus, allegory within the bounds of the letter opens up new possibilities of interaction between exegesis and theology. On the other hand, allegory within the bounds of the letter also steers clear of seemingly random allegories, and the implied metaphysics of patristic exegesis, opening up possibilities of allegorical exegesis that are not dependent on the premodern metaphysical tradition. For if allegorical exegesis becomes dependent on traditional metaphysics, such as Matthew Bates’ and Hans Boersma’s proposals show, the drawbridge for the contact with exegetes is pulled up again. Rather, it is useful to stay in contact with contemporary exegesis. Therefore, allegory within 39  Noordmans, Gestalte en Geest, 229.

Allegory within the Bounds of the Letter

89

the bounds of the letter provides a welcome connection between doctrine and exegesis. Bibliography Andresen, Carl. “Zur Entstehung und Geschichte des trinitarischen Personbegriffes.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 52 (1961), 1–39. Bates, Matthew W. The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament. Oxford: University Press, 2015. Blacketer, Raymond A. The School of God: Pedagogy and Rhetoric in Calvin’s Interpretation of Deuteronomy. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Boersma, Hans. Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Boersma, Hans. Sacramental Preaching: Sermons on the Hidden Presence of Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Boersma, Hans. Scripture as Real Presence: Sacramental Exegesis in the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. Bowald, Mark Alan. “The Character of Theological Interpretation of Scripture.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010), 162–83 Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia. 59 vols. Eds. Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss. Brunsvigae: Schwetschke, 1863–1900. Childs, Brevard S. “Sensus Literalis of Scripture: An Ancient and Modern Problem.” In Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag. Ed. Herbert Donner. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977, 80–93. Fowl, Stephen E. Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2010. Huijgen, Arnold. Drievoudig bewogen: De innerlijke samenhang van Triniteit en Oude Testament. Apeldoornse Studies 69. Apeldoorn: TUA, 2017. Huijgen, Arnold. “Alone Together: Sola Scriptura and the Other Solas of the Reformation.” In Sola Scriptura: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics. Ed. Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen, and Eric Peels. Studies in Reformed Theology 32. Leiden: Brill, 2017, 79–104. Knijff, H.W. de. Geest en Gestalte: O. Noordmans bijbeluitlegging in hermeneutisch verband. Kampen: Kok, 1970. Kooi, Akke van der. Het heilige en de Heilige Geest bij Noordmans: Een schets van zijn pneumatologisch ontwerp. Kampen: Kok, 1992. Kooi, Cornelis van der. As in a Mirror: John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God: A Diptych. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions 120. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

90

Huijgen

Kooi, Cornelis van der. Tegenwoordigheid van Geest: Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest. Kampen: Kok, 2006. Kooi, Cornelis van der. “Zittend ter rechterhand Gods: De christologische en soteriologische functie van een psalmcitaat.” In Tussen leer en lezen: De spanning tussen bijbelwetenschap en geloofsleer. Eds. G.C. den Hertog and C. van der Kooi. Kampen: Kok, 2007, 160–78. Kooi, Cornelis van der. “The Identity of Israel’s God: The Potential of the So-Called Extra-Calvinisticum.” In Tradition and Innovation in Biblical Interpretation: Studies Presented to Professor Eep Talstra on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Eds. W.Th. van Peursen and J.W. Dyk. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 57. Leiden: Brill, 2011, 209–22. Kooi, Cornelis van der. “De Geest als tegenwoordige en als vernieuwende kracht: Enkele opmerkingen met betrekking tot de pneumatologie.” In Weergaloze kennis: Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kamphuis. Eds. Ad de Bruijne, Hans Burger, and Dolf te Velde. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015, 57–66. Lane, Anthony N.S. “Sola Scriptura? Making Sense of a Post-Reformation Slogan.” In A Pathway into the Holy Scripture. Eds. Philip E. Sattertwhaite and David F. Wright. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994, 297–327. Lane, Anthony N.S. John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1999. Luther, Martin. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Weimar: Böhlau, 1883–. Neven, G.W. In de speelruimte van de Geest: Introduktie in de geloofsleer van dr. O. Noordmans. Kampen: Kok, 1980. Noordmans, Oepke. Herschepping. Amsterdam: Holland, 19562. Noordmans, Oepke. Verzamelde Werken. Deel II. Dogmatische peilingen. Rondom Schrift en Belijdenis. Eds. J.M. Hasselaar et al. Kampen: Kok 1979. Noordmans, Oepke. Verzamelde Werken. Deel VIII. Meditaties. Eds. J.M. Hasselaar et al. Kampen: Kok, 1980. Opitz, Peter. Calvins theologische Hermeneutik. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994. Pannenberg, Wolfhart. “Die Krise des Schriftprinzips.” In Grundfragen systematischer Theologie: Gesammelte Aufsätze. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967, 11–21. Sarisky, Darren. “What is Theological Interpretation? An Ecclesiological Reduction.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 12 (2010), 201–16. Semler, J.S. Versuch einer freiern theologischen Lehrart. Halle: Hemmerde, 1777. Spijker, Willem van ’t. Calvin. Die Kirche in ihrer Geschichte 3, J2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Webster, John. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2003.

part 2 And from the Son? The Spirit and the Christ

⸪

chapter 6

Pneuma-Christology as Applied Christology: Intimacy and Immediacy in the Odes of Solomon Henk A. Bakker 1 Introduction Ever since the commencement of the new quest for the historical Jesus (1953) the phenomenon of pneuma-Christology or Spirit-Christology has been persistently debated.1 The wording may be different, but the idea of Jesus incarnated or generated or even adopted by (or as) the Spirit has extensively been explored throughout the last decades by a variety of scholars, such as Myk Habets, David Coffey, Ralph Del Colle, Clark Pinnock, Michael Welker, and Roger Haight. As for the Netherlands, in particular the names of Hendrikus Berkhof, Edward Schillebeeckx, Harry Kuitert, Gerrit van de Kamp, Piet Schoonenberg, Cees den Heijer, Gijs Dingemans, and Kees van der Kooi deservedly receive attention.2 This article contributes to the discussion on pneuma-Christology, especially concerning its early Judeo-Christian identity, by focusing on the Odes of Solomon. More than in other Judeo-Christian sources, in these Odes the Spirit serves the cause of the proximity of God to human beings as exemplified in God’s proximity to the logos incarnate. In this way, pneuma-Christology, as a Christological domain of its own, evolves into ‘applied Christology,’ reenacting the life of Christ in the church. So far, pneuma-Christology and applied Christology have not yet been explored as a bipolar engagement. As to pneuma-Christology, the consensus at this moment—if we may speak of a consensus—is that in the New Testament as well as in other early Christian sources the coming of the Word (logos) and the coming of the Spirit (pneuma) serve complementary interests. They not only cooperate intensively in 1  Cf. Mohan Doss, Christ in the Spirit: Contemporary Spirit Christologies (Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2005); Steven Studebaker, “Integrating Pneumatology and Christology: A Trinitarian Modification of Clark H. Pinnock’s Spirit Christology,” Pneuma 28/1 (2006), 5–20; Gerrit C. van de Kamp, Pneuma-Christologie: een oud antwoord op een actuele vraag? (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1983); Harold Hunter, “Spirit Christology: Dilemma or Promise?” Heythrop Journal 24/2 (1983), 127–140. 2  See esp. Cornelis van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force: The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_008

94

Bakker

salvation history, but even seem to permeate one another. Furthermore, it is not easy to discern who is actually in control, the Word or the Spirit. As it was in the beginning, so it is now: the Spirit (ruach) and the Word (dabar) may be discerned, but cannot be separated.3 Hence, we observe a double, yet complementary, divine action between Jesus and the Spirit.4 On the one hand the Spirit of God brings forth, and carries, the man Jesus, on the other hand the incarnate Word of God brings forth, and carries, the Spirit.5 The Spirit is the Christ-bearer, whereas concurrently the Christ is the Spirit-bearer. We deem this a form of reciprocal enhypostasy.6 In other words: there is no personhood of Jesus besides the Spirit bestowing him and sustaining him, and vice versa: there is no divine Spirit without the Word, the Son of God, breathing him. Neither one destroys the faculty of the other or operates at the expense of the other.7 Looking at textual proof for both perspectives in early sources, pneuma-Christology and logos-Christology (WordChristology) were certainly not in competition. Between the concepts of logos and pneuma the boundaries ran quite fluently.8 For example, in the Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 150 ce) the pre-existent Holy Spirit was “made to dwell in the chosen flesh,” and the assertion is made that the “spirit is the Son of God.”9 The Son and the Spirit are so close that Jesus is considered not only the Word incarnate, but also the Spirit incarnate. Both proceed from the Father and enter the world in human flesh. This is to say, and to guarantee, that Jesus’ origin lies in eternity and not in time. He is definitely more than a deified prophet.10 Thus, the Spirit plays a central role in the story of God and the Messiah. First the Spirit hovers and breeds over the face of the earth until creation come into being; then the Spirit moulds and folds creation until Israel is called into 3  Gen. 1:2–3. 4  Jan Veenhof, De kracht die hemel en aarde verbindt. De identiteit van de Geest van God als relatiestichter (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2016), 25–29, 59–65. 5  Cf. Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 410–411. 6  See Piet Schoonenberg, De Geest, het Woord en de Zoon. Theologische overdenkingen over Geest-christologie, Logos-christologie en drieëenheidsleer (Aberbode: Altiora; Kampen: Kok, 1991), 158. 7  See Veenhof, De kracht die hemel en aarde verbindt, 61. 8  Cf. Van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force, 22–44. 9  Hermas 59,5–6; 78.1; translation by Carolyn Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 176, 211. Cf. 60,2–4; 89,2. Vgl. 2 Clemens 9,5; 14,1–4; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, 2.10; Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem, 3.6. 10  See about Hermas and the Spirit especially C. Haas, De Geest bewaren. Achtergrond en functie van de pneumatologie in de paraenese van de Pastor Hermas (Den Haag: Boekencentrum, 1985), 38–131, and J. Reiling, Hermas and Christian Prophecy: A Study of the Eleventh Mandate (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 27–170.

Pneuma-Christology as Applied Christology

95

existence. Subsequently the Spirit folds and holds Israel until the Messiah appears from it. Finally, the Spirit shapes and ploughs the Messiah until the church arises and the New Jerusalem is established. In the Odes of Solomon, a compilation of 42 intriguing early Christian hymns, this story is being sung. In this songbook we come close to the liturgy that construed some vital aspects of early Judeo-Christian identity, since its content paints Jesus and the Spirit in remarkable colours.11 Because the hymnal picture portrayed by the Odes is rather early, open, obscure and inconsistent, we do not encounter so much of an overly developed and systematized Christology, but more of an applied Christology evolving from dynamic and spontaneous confessions of a living community. 2

Singing on the Edge

The Odes of Solomon were written in Syriac and probably reach back to the early second century CE.12 Details regarding provenance are complex, but the immediate background is Judeo-Christian.13 Here we hear about some of the earliest convictions and commitments of the Judeo-Christian community as it emerged from its apostolic roots in the second half of the first century. The focus in the texts I refer to is on the reciprocity of the Messiah and the Spirit. The texts give an impression of the unique hymnal content of the book.14 11  Gie Vleugels, “The Odes of Solomon, Gnosticism and The Rule of Faith,” The Harp 22 (2007), 241–56. Cf. Michael Lattke, Odes of Solomon: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 11–12, 15–16. 12  See Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 6–10; James H. Charlesworth, Critical Reflections on the Odes of Solomon, Vol. 1: Literary Setting, Textual Studies, Gnosticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel of John (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1998), 23 (ca. 100 ce, Syria). See also Hans J.W. Drijvers, East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity (London: Variorum Reprints, 1984), 39–55, 153–72 (Drijvers argues for a date ca. 275 ce); M.A. Novak, “The Odes of Solomon as Apocalyptic Literature,” Vigiliae Christianae 66/5 (2012), 527–550; A.K. Harkins, “The Odes of Solomon as Solomonic Pseudepigrapha,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 25/4 (2016), 247–273; D.E. Aune, “The Odes of Solomon and Early Christian Prophecy,” New Testament Studies 28/4 (1982), 435–460. 13  Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 13, Charlesworth, Critical Reflections on the Odes of Solomon, Vol. 1, 27–77. 14   Translations have been taken from The Earliest Christian Hymnbook: The Odes of Solomon, transl. James H. Charlesworth (Eugene: Cascade, 2009); Lattke, Odes of Solomon (2009); Michael Lattke, Die Oden Salomos. Griechisch—koptisch—syrisch, mit deutscher Übersetzung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2011); Gie Vleugels, De Oden van Salomo, uit het Syrisch vertaald en toegelicht (Bronnen van spiritualiteit; Averbode: Altiora Averbode, 2010); The Odes of Solomon: Syriac Text and English Translation with

96

Bakker

The image of God in some of the Odes is peculiar. Some would consider it to be bizarre, because God is marked by male as well as by female features. In Ode 19 the Spirit and the Christ are involved into a work of divine provision to the world by bringing spiritual ‘milk’ from the Father to the faithful. A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord’s kindness. The Son is the cup, and the Father is He who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is She who milked him. Because His breasts were full, and it was undesirable that His milk should be released without purpose, The Holy Spirit opened her bosom,15 and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father. Then she gave the mixture to the generation without their knowing, and those who have received (it) are in the perfection of the right hand.16 Metaphorically God is depicted as having breasts that provide milk. Whereas he is called Father, the image of him in the text is somehow androgynous.17 However, in Scripture, particularly under dire circumstances, the prophets do picture the Lord as a mother who beckons her children to come and to take refuge. Moreover, even Jesus did so.18 And indeed, the name God Almighty (’El šadday), the name revealed to Abraham,19 carries associations with fertility and breasts of a mother (šaddaîm, dualis: breasts). In Ode 19 the milk, taken by the Spirit of God and transmitted by the Son, is the ultimate sustenance in the heat of life. It equals existential and eschatological life, nourishing and strengthening the hungry in moments of deep crisis.20 In Ode 35 the author (or one of the authors) writes: “I was carried like a babe by its mother; and He gave me milk, the dew of the Lord.”21 The milk Text Critical and Explanatory Notes, transl. Gie Vleugels and Martin Webber (Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 2016). 15  Lattke translates ‘his [viz., the Father’s] bosom, Odes of Solomon, 268. 16  OdSol 19,1–5, in Charlesworth, Earliest Christian Hymnbook, 55. 17  Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 271, 269. 18  E.g. Isa. 49:15; 66:11–13. Cf. Mt. 23:37, “How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings.” 19  Gen. 17:1. 20  Lattke, Die Oden Salomos, 478–91 (485). 21  OdSol 35,5, in Charlesworth, The Earliest Christian Hymnbook, 102. Lattke’s translation differs significantly: “And like a child by its mother I was carried, and it [viz. the group] gave me for milk the dew of the Lord,” in Die Oden Salomos, 478.

Pneuma-Christology as Applied Christology

97

of God, like dew, is about to refresh and quicken the faithful.22 These breasts produce elemental food, antithetical to everything worldly and profane.23 The milk sustains new expectations and hopes from beyond, and probably does not refer to some sort of milk-sacrament.24 In the Odes the image of milk goes well together with ‘dew’ and with ‘honey,’ referring to the promises of God.25 Moreover, the notions of milk, dew, and honey are complemented by the metaphor of running water in Ode 11, a most powerful song in the hymnbook. The speaker identifies himself with someone whose heart the Holy Spirit circumcised, and who was placed on solid rock. “Speaking water” drew near unto him, as he drank from the water and became drunk: “I drank—and I became drunk—immortal water, and my drunkenness was not irrationality.”26 This sort of drunkenness is the remedy, the medicine, to what the author later deciphers as the intoxication of ignorance.27 The content of the hymn seems to balance on the edge of Gnosticism and typical Hellenistic biases. After all, drunkenness as a result of overwhelming existential knowledge, flowing from the bosom of God and breastfeeding the ignorant, is characteristic of mythological imagery.28 However, the cup of milk is equated to the Son and may be reminiscent of the closing words in the prologue of the Gospel of John. No one ever has seen God, but the unique Son of God, who resides in the bosom of the Father’s declared him.29 Both the Son and the Spirit have access to the deep things of

22  See Rendal Harris and Alphonse Mingana, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon, Vol. 2: The Translation, with Introduction, and Notes (Manchester/London: University Press/ Longmans, Green & Company, 1920), 381–83. Cf. Hos. 14:6; Isa. 26:19. 23  “And my own breasts I prepared for them, that they might drink my holy milk to live by it,” OdSol 8,16, in Lattke, Die Oden Salomos, 111. See Lattke’s explanation on p. 123. 24  “As (…) milk flows from the woman who loves her children, so also my hope is on thee, my God,” OdSol 40,1, in Lattke, Die Oden Salomos, 557; cf. 269–75. 25  “Open thy abundant springs which let flow milk and honey for us,” OdSol 4,10; in Lattke, Die Oden Salomos, 47. 26  OdSol 11,7–8, in Lattke, Die Oden Salomos, 149. See Lattke’s explanation on p. 161. 27  OdSol 38,12–13 “And they invite the many to the wedding feast, and give them to drink the wine of their intoxication, so that they vomit up their knowledges and their thoughts, and make them foolish,” in Lattke, Die Oden Salomos, 510. 28  See Lattke, Die Oden Salomos, 82–83, 92–94. See also Kurt Rudolph, Die Gnosis. Wesen und Geschichte einer spätantiken Religion (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2. Auflage 1980), 238–40. 29  εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, Jn. 1:18. Cf. H.J.W. Drijvers, “The 19th Ode of Solomon: Its Interpretation and Place in Syrian Christianity,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 31/2 (1980), 337–355.

98

Bakker

God.30 In the hymn the Spirit is involved as a ‘she’ (in Syriac ‘spirit’ is feminine), who mixes the milk from the Father’s breasts and offers it to the faithful. Thus, Spirit and Son join forces in the bosom of God for the sake of perfecting the community of believers.31 The divine Spirit is so close to the Son and the deep things of God that the author explicitly defines him as “Spirit of the Lord,”32 the Holy Spirit who is to be praised by our spirits33 and whose name, by a triadic formula, is tightly connected to the name of the Father and the Son. The formula: “the name of the Father was upon it, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, to rule for ever and ever; hallelujah!” is an expression typical of speculative Judeo-Christian thinking,34 leading to what have become Trinitarian confessions in the late second and the early third century. Both the Spirit and the Messiah belong to the realm of God, and both have their share in the revelation of God’s heart to the world. At least both persons are in a place of sheer intimacy with God, and are in the position of transmitting divine food to the world. Furthermore, it is hard to tell who is of higher ranking. Divine intimacy, seemingly, stands without any ranking. This observation is confirmed and extended within the same collection of Odes. When the Messiah is baptized, “the dove flew” onto his head and “cooed” over him. Although we cannot be sure whether the author has the Spirit of God in mind by referring to a dove,35 the Spirit is definitely involved in preparing the chosen one for his mission to the world. The Spirit protects the Messiah as the wings of a dove do its nestlings. In Ode 28 the Messiah makes the comforting assertion that the wings of the Spirit are over his heart, and that immortal life embraces him, even “kisses” him. Men persecuted him, but he did not perish, for neither was he their (real) brother, nor was his birth like theirs.36 Here, once more, the author uses language of intimacy. The Christ is sustained and protected by the Spirit of God who “kisses” her young with life eternal. The vividness of the picture reminds of the divine Spirit in Genesis 1 30  1 Cor. 2:10, “the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God” (καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ). 31  Cf. Harris and Mingana, Odes and Psalms of Solomon, Vol. 2, 304–12. 32  OdSol 3,10; 6,2. 33  OdSol 6,7. 34  OdSol 23,22. 35  OdSol 24,1–2, see Lattke, Die Oden Salomos, 340–46. 36  OdSol 28,1.7.9.11.17, in Charlesworth, Earliest Christian Hymnbook, 83–84. Lattke translates: “denn sie erkannten auch nicht meine Entstehung,” Die Oden Salomos, 109 (in Lattke’s edition vs. 16). In this hymn the author, as God’s poet-prophet, speaks not only for Christ, but also as Christ; see Harris and Mingana, Odes and Psalms of Solomon, Vol. 2, 360–62 (360).

Pneuma-Christology as Applied Christology

99

hovering like a bird over the surface of the dark.37 As the Spirit (“the wind of God” or “the stormy wind”) moves over the face of the earth, God’s creative activity commences. Creation begins with God’s Spirit spreading his wings over the nascent world.38 The imagery is full of affection and care. Through his Spirit God kisses the world into existence. The formative powers of the Spirit reach back to the very beginnings of life itself and match with the purport of John 1 and Luke 1.39 These two texts apparently inspired the author when creating (and singing out) the symbolic world of his hymnodic play. For example, in Ode 36 the Spirit is more or less addressed as the mother of the Messiah, who brought forth a son of man who is called ‘light’ and ‘Son of God.’ The Spirit anointed him with perfection, intimacy and righteousness. I rested on the Spirit of the Lord (…) [The Spirit] brought me forth before the Lord’s face; and because I was the Son of Man, I was named the Light, the Son of God (…) According to the greatness of the Most High, so She made me (…) He anointed me with His perfection, and I became one of those who are near Him.40 The text gently echoes concepts and words taken from John 1 and Luke 1. Therefore, the Messiah is not merely ‘filius adoptivus,’ like in the Gospel of the Ebionites.41 The few passages of the Gospel of the Ebionites in Epiphanius’ Panarion tell the story of Jesus as merely a man, the son of Joseph and Mary, who was divinely adopted at the occasion of his baptism in the river Jordan.42 The Ebionites denied Jesus’ divinity as well as his virginal birth. Jesus was the Spirit bearer, yet not the divine pre-existent Word. By consequence, at his baptism the son of man was raised to a new level of divine conscience and inner 37  Gen. 1:2 (Hebr. merachèphèt). Cf. Deut. 32:11: “As an eagle that stirs up her nest, that flutters [yeracheph] over her young, He spread abroad his wings, He took them, He bore them on his feathers.” 38  Cf. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 (Waco: Word Books, 1987), 16–17. 39  Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος […] πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο […] ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν […] καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, Jn. 1:1–4 (cf. 4:24; 6:63); and Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ […] διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἄγιον κληθήσεται υίὸς θεοῦ, Lk. 1:35 (cf. 1:41). 40  OdSol 36,1–7, in Charlesworth, Earliest Christian Hymnbook, 105–106. Lattke translates: “(…) The Spirit of the Lord rested upon me (…) although I was a man (…), Die Oden Salomos, 492. 41  Harris and Mingana, Odes and Psalms of Solomon, Vol. 2, 384–88 (385). 42  Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.7–8. Cf. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, “Vroeg-christelijk jodendom,” in Jodendom en vroeg christendom: continuïteit en discontinuïteits, eds. T. Baarda, H.J. de Jonge, and M.J.J. Menken (Kampen: Kok, 1991) 163–189, (177–179).

100

Bakker

light.43 Likewise, in the Gospel of the Hebrews the forces of heaven bring Jesus forth by the power of the Holy Spirit, who is his mother. Indeed, she declares Jesus to be her Son at the very moment of his baptism.44 This overpowering event, brought about by the Spirit, prepares Jesus for his heavy task on earth. The author(s) of the odes carefully interweave Old and New Testament sources like Isaiah 61:1 and Ezekiel 2:2 with John 1, Luke 1 and Hebrews 1:9 (and possibly Acts 10:38), resulting into a well-balanced profile of the Messiah, who was brought forth by the Spirit, yet was more than an angelic being; who was evidently borne as a child of man, yet was also of eternity and was accordingly called divine Logos.45 Odes 12 and 41 come close to the first chapter of the Gospel of John in their shared acknowledgement of the Messiah’s pre-existence.46 The reflection that “the dwelling-place of the Word is the human,”47 is evidently taken from John 1:14 (“the Word dwelt among us”), as the hymnbook is Johannine in its perspective anyhow.48 The Word is the logos directly spoken by God49 and has become a letter sent down from God as an arrow from his bow.50 Regarding Ode 41 Lattke declares: “if the third part of the Ode 41 had made its way into the New Testament, there would hardly be a voice raised in objection.”51 In Ode 41 two voices melt together in communal chorus: the voice of the Messiah and the voice of the author. The Messiah speaks comforting words and reassures that the “Father of Truth”52 evidently remembers him. The Father is “He who possessed me from the beginning.” Subsequently, the composer speaks strong confirmative words, declaring that Light dawned from “the Word that was before time in him [God].” In addition he confesses that the Messiah is “one,” and that he was known “before the foundations of the world.”53 43  Cf. Lattke, Die Oden Salomos, 492–504 (492). 44   Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, I. Band: Evangelien (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 19684), 107–108. See Jerome, Comm. in Is. 11,2; Origen, Comm. in Joh. 2,12. 45  Lattke, Die Oden Salomos, 500–502. 46  Lattke, Die Oden Salomos, 578–79. 47  OdSol 12,12, in Earliest Christian Hymnbook, 36. 48  Cf. James Brownson, “The Odes of Solomon and the Johannine Tradition,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 1/2 (1988), 49–69. 49  Cf. Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 183–88. 50  OdSol 23,5–6. Cf. Leslie Baynes, “Christ as Text: Odes of Solomon 23 and the Letter Shot from Heaven,” Biblical Research 47 (2002), 63–72. It is a commonplace of epistolary theory that a letter communicates in the absence of the person who sends it; yet, the meaning of this verse remains somewhat elusive. 51  Lattke, Die Oden Salomos, 576. 52  Vleugels translates: “Hij die mijn echte Vader is,” De Oden van Salomo, 131. 53  OdSol 41,9.14–15, in The Earliest Christian Hymnbook, 119–20.

Pneuma-Christology as Applied Christology

101

So there is only one Christ, even though he is celestial and terrestrial alike. For sure, these kinds of formulations gave rise to Christological discussions in the third and early fourth century, paving the way to the Council of Nicea. 3

The Odes of Solomon in Their Historical Context

We have come to notice that the intimate nearness of God stands at the centre of the worldview of the author. So far, the Odes exhibit rather unique images of proximity and intimacy in order to express the nearness of the Messiah to God on the one side, and his nearness to man on the other side. The texts display no real interest in Docetic (or angelic) notions, nor to subordinationist notions such as Origen and Tertullian developed. Both early Christian deviations have the inclination to deny divine proximity to the world as well as to the Messiah. The anointed one is put on a distance, either to mankind (Docetism) or to the Godhead (subordinationism), even though the Logos emanates from the fullness of the eternal One. It seems unreasonable to hold on to the mixing of such metaphysical opposites in the personhood of the Jewish Christ. Yet, quite idiosyncratically, the corpus of the Odes depicts the Spirit of God as the divine operator of intimacy and immediacy. Indeed, the Messiah is covered with the Spirit as garments cover the skin of man.54 The Messiah puts on the Spirit as if the Spirit were a cloth, whereas the faithful, in turn, put on the Messiah as if he were a cloth. Moreover, the faithful recognize in Christ a kind of ‘lookalike’ and truly praise him for allowing them to put him on. In Ode 7 they sing: “He became like me, that I might receive Him,” and “In form he was considered like me,55 that I might put Him on,” and “Like my nature He became, that I might understand56 Him.”57 The imagery of proximity strongly deepens in Ode 13 with the appeal to look into “the mirror,” which is the Lord who beckons the faithful to look at Him. They have to open their eyes and look at their countenance through him. This is how they learn about “the manner” of their face. Subsequently, all who assemble are summoned to bring praises to the Spirit and to “wipe the paint” of

54  OdSol 25,8. 55  Lattke translates: “seemed,” Odes of Solomon, 88. Contra Harris and Mingana, Odes and Psalms of Solomon, Vol. 2, 246, 248. 56  Lattke translates: “experience him,” Odes of Solomon, 88. 57  OdSol 7,4.6, in Charlesworth, Earliest Christian Hymnbook, 17–18.

102

Bakker

their faces,58 and to put on holiness.59 This means that by looking into God, one comes to see and know oneself. Hatred and moral ugliness should be done away with, so that the faithful can deeply appreciate their existential closeness to God, a closeness “as is not found even in human love and solidarity,” Lattke concludes.60 Again, we notify that the Spirit and the verb “putting on” go well together in the hymnody of this particular Judeo-Christian community. The texts give a clear indication of the proximity of God in the understanding of the author. God is like a Father who communicates ‘milk’ to the world as a mother. He truly cares and sends the Spirit and the Son to distribute his love and salvation to mankind, in particular to his Church. Those who drink from the triadic source may be brought into a state of exultation and spiritual drunkenness, disclosing the meaning of life as such. God acts like a dove and kisses the world as well as the Church into being. Above all, the Spirit hovers on the head of the Messiah, seeking to feed him with strength and to bestow on him divine support and providence. The Messiah is of eternity; he is the Logos who dwells with man. Still, he is one and the same, even though he puts on the Spirit like a garment, and is being put on by the faithful. Father, Spirit and Son are like a mirror to humans, admonishing them to wipe the dirt from their face and to be transformed into the likeness of God. Putting on the Messiah, indeed, drinking him as if he were milk, is the immediate answer of the faithful in confrontation with the mirror, and immediately brings them into a disposition of intimacy with God. Hence, in the Odes, existential notions of immediacy, proximity and intimacy seem to glue well together. The basic idea comes close to the wording of Paul in the Book of Acts that God is not far from each one of us.61 I concur with John Morgan-Wynne in his conclusion that “in this part of the Christian church, the members were conscious of a very direct and intimate experience of the Spirit at work in their lives,” and that “the language and imagery used are signs of the immediacy of communion with their Lord in the power of the Spirit.”62 The hymnal language of immediacy and intimacy, as experienced in liturgical celebration, has a deep impact upon the attendants who open their hearts to the epiphany of the living God. The texts probably have

58  Lattke translates: “the dirt/hatred,” and after emendation: ‘Haß’ (hatred/dirt), see Odes of Solomon, 190. 59  OdSol 13,1, in Charlesworth, Earliest Christian Hymnbook, 39. 60  Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 196. 61  Act. 7:27. Cf. Harris and Mingana, Odes and Psalms of Solomon, Vol. 2, 246–53. 62  John Eifion Morgan-Wynne, Holy Spirit and Religious Experience in Christian Literature ca. AD 90–200 (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006), 80.

Pneuma-Christology as Applied Christology

103

a mystagogical purpose.63 The congregation balances on the edge of Gnosticmythical thinking. Yet, the mystery of God’s presence in the liturgy holds a tremendum and a fascinosum, a unique contrasted harmony (“eine seltsame Kontrast-harmonie”64) that overcomes the pitfalls of full-blown Gnosticism. The contrasted harmony is indicative of the Christological debate which formed (and divided) the young church from the end of the first century onward. It is, for example, still present in Lactantius’ works, who even quotes the Odes of Solomon in his Divinae Institutes at the dawn of the fourth century.65 Indeed, Lactantius too, conceives of the pre-existent Christ as the first-born Spirit of God.66 Some of the tensions of the contrasted harmony can even be felt in the Creed of Constantinople in 381 ce, where it underscores that the Holy Ghost is “the Lord and Giver of life” (τὸ Κύριον καὶ Ζωοποιόν). After all, the Son is the life-giver, as the apostle Paul calls him a “life-giving spirit” (πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν),67 and exactly these words are used in the Constantinopolitan Creed for the Spirit (τὸ Πνεῦμα […], τὸ ζῳοποιόν). Spirit and Son are lookalikes, and yet they are to be distinguished as different personalities. Gregory of Nyssa, who was present at the council of Constantinople, makes the same observation: “in personality, the Spirit is one thing and the Word another, and yet again that from which the Word and Spirit is, another.”68 4

Applied Christology

It goes almost without saying that the pneuma-Christology which we have observed is evidently more dynamic than the doctrine of the two natures.69 63  Gie Vleugels, “‘Keeping the Mystery by Which We Are Kept’: Mystagogy in the Odes of Solomon,” in Seeing Through the Eyes of Faith: New Approaches to the Mystagogy of the Church Fathers, ed. Paul van Geest (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 331–348. 64  See Rudolf Otto, Das Heilige: Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen (Breslau: Trewendt & Garnier, 1917), 13–30, 43–54 (43). 65  Lactantius, Divinae institutiones 4.12.3, in Anthony Bowen, Peter Garnsey, Lactantius: Divine Institutes. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2003), 241: “The virgin’s womb was opened and received a foetus, and the virgin became pregnant and was made a mother amid great pity.” OdSol 19, 6–7 says, in Lattke, Odes of Solomon, 268: “The womb of the Virgin caught [it], and she conceived and gave birth. And the Virgin became a mother in great passion.” 66  See John A. McGuckin, “Spirit Christology: Lactantius and His Sources,” Heythrop Journal 24/2 (1983): 141–148. 67  1 Cor. 15:45. 68  Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio catechetica 3. 69  Cf. Van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force, 65–70.

104

Bakker

Pneuma-Christology offers more room to the idea that Jesus was a real Jewish man (vere homo), and simultaneously preserves the notion (and the experience!) that in Jesus God himself is active in a complete and absolute way (vere Deus).70 As a Jew, Jesus is the unique bearer of the Spirit, who has come as logos from eternity to express the human face of God to the people of Israel.71 As to legitimize the presence of the Word in the life of Israel, Jesus is full of Spirit, immediacy and divine intimacy, also after his death and resurrection. This is how the Spirit represents Jesus in the life of the Church, the ever-expanding Judeo-Christian remnant, from its nascent times until now. Metaphysical dualism as well as natural dualism (such as between people or in personhood itself) is overcome by the affirmation of proximity, by the Messianic mission and suffering. These two Messianic qualities evidently inform and preserve much of the genuineness and tangibility of communal proximity. As the Odes of Solomon display, within early Judeo-Christian traditions Spirit-Christology pertains to a rare theological domain that—I would suggest—could be circumscribed as applied Christology. The collection of Odes may be defined as a mystagogical document particularly used at the first stage of Christian initiation, i.e. at transition from death to life by baptism. Initiation in this Judeo-Christian environment has sacramental consequences that prepare the initiate for a life of discipleship and specific halakhic conduct (a life of “perfection,” of “putting on” Christ and looking into the “mirror”).72 Moreover, the Spirit acts as Christ’s alter ego and substitute, and ‘applies’ the Lord by the ritual of baptism. The Spirit expresses the Son as logos to Israel and to the world, and the Son expresses the Spirit in expressing himself. As a consequence the faithful, by impartation of the Holy Spirit, participate in the work of Christ within the sphere of spiritual intimacy and immediacy, and are authorized to apply (‘put on’) the Christ within the context of its liturgy. Applied Christology, to be sure, is about the re-enactment of the expression of the logos in overcoming dualism, that implies the effort of overcoming the breeches of sin and estrangement (pertaining to revelation), and accordingly is about applying this truth as a practice by Spirit-filled churches. In Vanhoozer’s terminology, which takes up Hans Urs von Balthasar’s idea of “Theodramatik,”73 70  Cf. G.D.J. Dingemans, “Jezus, de unieke drager van Gods Geest,” Acta Theologica 23/2 (2003), 58–71. 71  See Aaron Riches, Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 5–15. 72  Vleugels, “Keeping the Mystery by Which We Are Kept,” 331–32, 341–48. 73  Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theodramatik (5 vols.; Einsiedeln: Johannes, 1973–1983), Vol. 1, 16–17: “Gottes Offenbarung ist ja kein Gegenstand zum Anschauen, sondern ist sein Handeln in und an der Welt (…) Freilich wird diese in der Theodramatik die Bühne Gottes

Pneuma-Christology as Applied Christology

105

re-enactment calls attention to “drama” in the constitutive action of God, and the church’s participation in this act. The character of Christian truth is thoroughly dramatic, since it is carried into practice.74 Therefore, Christology is not merely truth to be acknowledged and adhered to. Christological truth is also truth to be performed, because the Spirit leads the logos of Christ unremittingly into human relationships, even now.75 Pneuma-Christology, by definition, reminds us thereof. Kees van der Kooi raised the “tentative question” whether the Spirit is free to seek into the depths of God for creative solutions to human drama.76 The implied answer to the question is, of course, ‘yes.’ The mission of the Son and the scrutinizing creativity of the Spirit merge and join forces in God’s incessant coming to the world in order to turn its bleak history into salvation history. In achieving this goal, God’s involvement in the world in Jesus and the Spirit is a restless and passionate one. Bibliography Aune, D.E. “The Odes of Solomon and Early Christian Prophecy.” New Testament Studies 28/4 (1982), 435–460. Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Theodramatik. 5 vols. Einsiedeln: Johannes, 1973–1983. Baynes, Leslie. “Christ as Text: Odes of Solomon 23 and the Letter Shot from Heaven.” Biblical Research 47 (2002), 63–72. Boer, Erik de. “Het mede-lijden van de Geest: Een Bijbels-theologische en patristische studie van de duif als gestalte van de heilige Geest,” in Weergaloze kennis. Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk, aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kamphuis. Eds. Ad de Bruijne, Hans Burger, and Dolf te Velde. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015, 26–35.

sein.” See Kevin J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: John Knox, 2005), 48–56. 74  See Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine, 419 (cf. 17–18). See also Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion and Authorship (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010). 75  Cf. Erik de Boer, “Het mede-lijden van de Geest: Een Bijbels-theologische en patristische studie van de duif als gestalte van de heilige Geest,” in Weergaloze kennis. Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk, aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kamphuis, eds. Ad de Bruijne, Hans Burger, and Dolf te Velde (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015), 26–35. 76  Kees van der Kooi “De Geest als tegenwoordige en vernieuwende kracht: Enkele opmerkingen met betrekking tot de pneumatologie,” in Weergaloze kennis, eds. De Bruijne, Burger, and Te Velde, 57–66 (65).

106

Bakker

Bowen, Anthony and Peter Garnsey. Lactantius: Divine Institutes. Translated, with an Introduction and Notes. Translated Texts for Historians 40. Liverpool: Liverpool University, 2003. Brownson, James. “The Odes of Solomon and the Johannine Tradition.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 1/2 (1988), 49–69. Charlesworth, James H. Critical Reflections on the Odes of Solomon. Vol. 1: Literary Setting, Textual Studies, Gnosticism, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel of John. Journal of the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 22. Sheffield: Academic, 1998. Charlesworth James H. The Earliest Christian Hymnbook: The Odes of Solomon. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2009. Dingemans, G.D.J. “Jezus, de unieke drager van Gods Geest.” Acta Theologica 23/2 (2003), 58–71. Doss, Mohan. Christ in the Spirit: Contemporary Spirit Christologies. Delhi: Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2005. Drijvers, H.J.W. “The 19th Ode of Solomon: Its Interpretation and Place in Syrian Christianity.” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 31/2 (1980), 337–355. Drijvers, Han J.W. East of Antioch: Studies in Early Syriac Christianity. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984. Haas, C. De Geest bewaren. Achtergrond en functie van de pneumatologie in de paraenese van de Pastor Hermas. Den Haag: Boekencentrum, 1985. Harkins, A.K. “The Odes of Solomon as Solomonic Pseudepigrapha.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 25/4 (2016), 247–273. Harris, Rendal and Alphonse Mingana. The Odes and Psalms of Solomon. Vol. 2: The Translation, with Introduction, and Notes. Manchester, London: University, Longmans, Green & Company, 1920. Hennecke, Edgar and Wilhelm Schneemelcher. Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung. I. Band: Evangelien. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 19684. Hunter, Harold. “Spirit Christology: Dilemma or Promise?” Heythrop Journal 24/2 (1983), 127–140. Kamp, Gerrit C. van de. Pneuma-Christologie: een oud antwoord op een actuele vraag? Een dogma-historisch onderzoek naar de preniceense Pneuma-christologie als mogelijke uitweg in de christologische problematiek bij Harnack, Seeberg en Loofs en in de meer recente literatuur. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1983. Kooi, Cornelis van der. “De Geest als tegenwoordige en vernieuwende kracht: Enkele opmerkingen met betrekking tot de pneumatologie,” in Weergaloze kennis. Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk, aangeboden aan prof. dr. Barend Kamphuis. Eds. Ad de Bruijne, Hans Burger, and Dolf te Velde. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015, 57–66.

Pneuma-Christology as Applied Christology

107

Kooi, Cornelis van der. This Incredibly Benevolent Force: The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Lattke, Michael. Odes of Solomon: A Commentary (Hermeneia). Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009. Lattke, Michael. Die Oden Salomos. Griechisch—koptisch—syrisch, mit deutscher Übersetzung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2011. Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. “Vroeg-christelijk jodendom.” in Jodendom en vroeg christendom: continuïteit en discontinuïteit. Eds. T. Baarda, H.J. de Jonge, and M.J.J. Menken. Studiosorum Novi Testamenti Conventus. Kampen: Kok, 1991, 163–189. McGuckin, John A. “Spirit Christology: Lactantius and His Sources.” Heythrop Journal 24/2 (1983): 141–148. Morgan-Wynne, John Eifion. Holy Spirit and Religious Experience in Christian Literature ca. AD 90–200. Studies in Christian History and Thought. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006. Novak, M.A. “The Odes of Solomon as Apocalyptic Literature.” Vigiliae Christianae 66/5 (2012), 527–50. Osiek, Carolyn. Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999. Otto, Rudolf. Das Heilige: Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen. Breslau: Trewendt & Garnier, 1917. Reiling, J. Hermas and Christian Prophecy: A Study of the Eleventh Mandate. NovTSup 37. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Riches, Aaron. Ecce Homo: On the Divine Unity of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Rudolph, Kurt. Die Gnosis. Wesen und Geschichte einer spätantiken Religion. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2. Auflage 1980. Schoonenberg, Piet. De Geest, het Woord en de Zoon. Theologische overdenkingen over Geest-christologie, Logos-christologie en drieëenheidsleer. Aberbode: Altiora; Kampen: Kok, 1991. Studebaker, Steven. “Integrating Pneumatology and Christology: A Trinitarian Modification of Clark H. Pinnock’s Spirit Christology.” Pneuma 28/1 (2006), 5–20. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville: John Knox, 2005. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Remythologizing Theology: Divine Action, Passion and Authorship Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine 18. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2010. Veenhof, Jan. De kracht die hemel en aarde verbindt. De identiteit van de Geest van God als relatiestichter. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2016.

108

Bakker

Vleugels, Gie. “The Odes of Solomon, Gnosticism and The Rule of Faith.” The Harp 22 (2007), 241–56. Vleugels, Gie. De Oden van Salomo, uit het Syrisch vertaald en toegelicht. Bronnen van spiritualiteit. Averbode: Altiora Averbode, 2010. Vleugels, Gie. “‘Keeping the Mystery by Which We Are Kept’: Mystagogy in the Odes of Solomon.” in Seeing Through the Eyes of Faith: New Approaches to the Mystagogy of the Church Fathers. Ed. Paul van Geest. Late Antique History and Religion 11. Leuven: Peeters, 2016, 331–48. Vleugels, Gie and Martin Webber. The Odes of Solomon: Syriac Text and English Translation with Text Critical and Explanatory Notes. Mōrān ‘Eth’ō Series 41. Kottayam: St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, 2016.

chapter 7

Spirit-Christology and Theandric Language: A Protestant Perspective Gerrit C. van de Kamp 1 Introduction In recent literature on Spirit-Christology the use of theandric language attracts attention. This way of speaking about Christ originates from a developing Logos-Christology. In general Spirit-Christology is critical of Logos-Christology and even more of neo-Chalcedonism.1 Theandricity is a concept which is fostered at most in Byzantinizing theology. In other words, theandric language is entrenched in a Christological paradigm that seems to be doomed to compromise the true humanity of Christ, whereas Spirit-Christology is deemed to pull its weight. Nevertheless, theologians who are in favour of Spirit-Christology use theandric language. Endeavouring to get an answer to the question how the use of theandric language relates to the pneumatological approach, in this essay I will investigate the Christological designs of Piet Schoonenberg (1911–1999) and David Coffey (*1934). Some advocate replacing Logos-Christology with Spirit-Christology, others propose complementing Logos-Christology with Spirit-Christology. Schoonenberg and Coffey have to be counted to the latter. Both descend from a tradition in which Neo-Scholasticism had a paramount position. Ralph del Colle enumerates three dimensions in a Spirit-Christology from a neo-Scholastic perspective that need attention: (1) the role of the Holy Spirit in the constitution of the God-human; (2) the way Christ as bearer and sender of the Spirit effects salvation, and (3) the relation of sanctification and divine indwelling through the Spirit in Christ and in them who believe in Him.2 Especially the former and the latter of these three dimensions will be considered in the subsequent paragraphs.

1  See e.g. Wolf-Dieter Hauschild, Lehrbuch der Kirchen—und Dogmengeschichte. Band I Alte Kirche und Mittelalter (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 20073), 199–202. 2  Ralph del Colle, Christ and the Spirit: Spirit-Christology in Trinitarian Perspective (New York: Oxford University, 1994), 58.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_009

110 2

van de Kamp

Theandricity as a Christological Concept

Before examining theandric language in Schoonenberg and Coffey, I will first give a short survey of the meaning of theandricity.3 In the fourth and fifth centuries the focus of the Christological debate was on the unity of Christ. The acknowledgement of the two natures of Christ raised the question of the union of the natures. The problem was solved at the Council of Chalcedon (451) by assuming the formula of Cyrillus of Alexandria: the unity of the two natures according to hypostasis. The advantage of the dogma of Chalcedon is the affirmation of the integrity of the two natures, divine and human, as well as their unity. The person of Christ is the Incarnate Logos, i.e. “not simply the divine and eternal Logos but rather the Incarnate Logos as a result of the union of divinity and humanity.”4 In the century following the Council of Chalcedon the debate on the mode of the unity of the natures continued. The formulae of the second Council of Constantinople (553) confirmed the doctrine of Chalcedon and explained the unity according to hypostasis definitively in a Cyrillian way. The human nature of Christ subsists in the person of the God-Logos who assumed humanity (enhypostasia). The Council of Constantinople is the triumph of the neo-Chalcedonism. The concept of enhypostasia could easily give rise to the misunderstanding that there is no human hypostasis (anhypostasia). To prevent this misapprehension, one argued that there is no need of a specific human hypostasis in Christ. It is sufficient that the Logos himself hypostasized the human nature. Therefore, in the person of Jesus Christ we do not have one divine or divine-human nature, but rather two natures united and preserved in the one divine-human or theandric hypostasis, as a consequence of the unity of the divine and human natures which takes place at the level of hypostasis.5 The person of Christ is perceived as one subject, whereas there is no fusion or confusion of natures. Additional advantage of theandric language is 3  In the explanation of theandricity I mainly rely on the exposition of Anthony Papantoniou, “The Theandric Mystery of Jesus Christ in Byzantine Christology,” Studii Teologice 3 (2009): 177–196 and “Features of the Theandric Mystery of Christ in the Christology of St Gregory the Theologian,” in Cappadocian Legacy: A Critical Appraisal, eds. Doru Costache and Philip Kariatlis (Sydney: St Andrew’s Orthodox Press, 2013), 315–327. 4  Papantoniou, “Theandric Mystery,” 183. 5  Papantoniou, “Theandric Mystery,” 186.

Spirit-Christology and Theandric Language

111

conspicuous, for theandricity distracts attention from the constitution of the person of Christ in two natures and emphasizes the mode of his existence. Two subjects closely connected to the use of theandric language will recur in what follows. In the first place, I indicate the application of the concept of the composite hypostasis. The theandric principle has also been articulated in the composite hypostasis of Christ (ὑπόστασις σύνθετος), not to be confused with the composite nature. The Council of Constantinople (553) declared the union of the Logos with the flesh (possessed of a soul) as a union according to composition (σύνθεσις) or hypostasis, without division or confusion of the elements that come together. So, the Council endorsed the tenet of the composite hypostasis of Christ.6 Secondly the use of the idea of perichoresis is notable. Gregory of Nazianzus applies perichoresis to elucidate the relation of the attributes or the titles of the two natures of Christ that are joined together.7 Perichoresis means here the attribution of one nature’s prerogatives to the other. Subsequently this is called communicatio idiomatum.8 While Gregory of Nazianzus speaks of the perichoresis of the titles of Christ, the post-Chalcedonian Fathers Maximus Confessor and John Damascenus speak of the perichoresis of the natures. It can be defined as their co-indwelling, co-inhering, and mutual interpenetration. 3

Theandric Language in the Early Christology of Piet Schoonenberg

The theological thinking of Schoonenberg is mostly divided in three periods.9 His early writings on Christology are set in the framework of the Chalcedonian orthodoxy. In 1966 he wrote his controversial article Christ without Duality? in which he severely criticized the classical Christology.10 On different occasions he repeated and maintained that critique.11 From the year 1977 onwards 6  Papantoniou, “Theandric Mystery,” 187–188. Cf. Papantoniou on the distinction between the incomposite and the composite modes of Christ’s existence in Gregory of Nazianzus, “Features,” 325–326. 7  Papantoniou, “Features,” 326. 8  Oliver D. Crisp draws attention to the difference between nature-perichoresis and personperichoresis, “Problems with Perichoresis,” Tyndale Bulletin 56.1 (2005): 121. 9  E.g. Birgit Blankenberg, Gottes Geist in der Theologie Piet Schoonenbergs (Mainz: MatthiasGrünewald-Verlag, 2000); in her exposition of the Pneumatology of Schoonenberg she distinguishes three periods: 1945–1963, 1964–1971 and 1972–1994 (38–39). 10  P. Schoonenberg, “Christus zonder tweeheid?” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 6 (1966): 289–306. 11  E.g. P. Schoonenberg, The Christ (London and Sydney: Sheed and Ward, 1971), 58–66 (originally published in Dutch, 1969).

112

van de Kamp

Schoonenberg has developed a Spirit-Christology. His conclusion is that LogosChristology is paralleled by Spirit-Christology.12 In his unfinished series on the Apostolic Creed two volumes are devoted to Christology.13 Jesus is the Son of God, not only as the human Messiah, but as the eternal Son who is one in substance with the Father. The one Person in Jesus Christ is God, the Son who existed from all eternity as the second person of the Holy Trinity and was made man. In the incarnate Word divinity and humanity are united. Schoonenberg represents the traditional view on the human nature of Christ as enhypostatic, even anhypostatic.14 The humanity of Christ is supported by, appropriated to and assumed in the self of God the Son.15 Nevertheless, this humanity exists through its assumption in the person of the Word as a real, individual human nature.16 In his early work on Christology Schoonenberg is convinced that this view on Christ in no way attenuates his humanity. He is human in a divine way. The union of the two natures in Christ is never at the expense of the integrity of the human nature. When the eternal Word assumes the human nature, the alteration in that human nature is no change, but rather a higher identification with itself, the raising of the nature being a deepening in its own essence, the divinization is humanization.17 Schoonenberg calls the acting of Christ theandric or divine-human. ‘So his theandric acting is his divine acting which continues in his human acting and is converted in it, or the other way round, his human acting which as human acting brings the Son of God near to us.’18 It is important to notice that the presupposition of his view is that there is no competition between God and man. It is precisely that perspective which will dominate his theological development over the years, even if there is a fundamental change in his Christology.

12  P. Schoonenberg, “Spirit Christology and Logos Christology,” Bijdragen 38 (1977): 350–375. 13  P. Schoonenberg, Het geloof van ons doopsel: gesprekken over de Apostolische Geloofsbe­ lijdenis [The Faith of our Baptism: Conversations on the Apostolic Creed] II and III; I am confining myself to Volume III: De mensgeworden Zoon van God. Het Derde Geloofsartikel [The Son of God Made Man: The Third Article of the Creed] (’s-Hertogenbosch: L.C.G. Malmberg, 1958). 14  Schoonenberg, Mensgeworden Zoon, 123. 15  Schoonenberg, Mensgeworden Zoon, 118. 16  Schoonenberg, Mensgeworden Zoon, 129, cf. 138. 17  Schoonenberg, Mensgeworden Zoon, 139. 18  Schoonenberg, Mensgeworden Zoon, 141; cf. 140–143.

Spirit-Christology and Theandric Language

4

113

The Mature Christology of Schoonenberg

In his later work Logos-Christology and Spirit-Christology have equal rights as explanation of the divine sonship of Jesus.19 Word and Spirit together make Jesus the Son of God. Departing from the way the Old Testament describes the operation of God in the world, Schoonenberg points in particular to the notion of the Wisdom of God. The Wisdom abides in God and emanates to the world. It preserves both his transcendence and his immanence. The Wisdom includes Word and Spirit. As Word it gives existence to the world and as Spirit it pervades the world as the in-habitation of God. Together they represent the plenitude of God’s Wisdom and make God universally present: the Word creating and ordering, the Spirit fulfilling and accomplishing.20 Referring to Marius Victorinus, Schoonenberg speaks about God’s essence as pouring out to us in a movement that as Word brings us to being and as Spirit makes us go forward. And that is exactly what happens in Jesus Christ. The Word is creating, grounding, and defining. Therefore, the Word is the hypostasis of Christ: “It sustains Jesus’ existence.” The Spirit drives Jesus to fulfil his mission and anoints Him to his prophetic-messianic office. Both manners of God’s presence are embodied in Christ: He is sustained by the Word and driven by the Spirit.21 With regard to Jesus it can be said that his humanity is assumed and created by the Word and anointed by the Spirit: ipsa assumptione creatur as well as ipsa unctione creatur.22 He now affirms the classical doctrine of enhypostasia. Initially in his book The Christ he had inverted this tenet, replacing the enhypostasia of Jesus’ human reality in the Logos by the enhypostasia of the

19  Cornelis van der Kooi argues in favour of more attention within the orthodox camp to the attempts of Schoonenberg, among others, to connect Spirit-Christology and LogosChristology, “Hoge christologie ter wille van een geschonden wereld. Dogmatische kanttekeningen,” [High Christology for the sake of a Damaged World: Dogmatic Remarks] in Jezus: bij hoog en bij laag. De christologie van Van de Beek en Kuitert [Jesus: At High and Low. The Christology of Van de Beek and Kuitert], eds. A. van de Beek, H.M. Kuitert et al. (Kampen: Kok, 1999), 29. 20  P. Schoonenberg, De Geest, het Woord en de Zoon: Theologische overdenkingen over GeestChristologie, Logos-christologie en drieëenheidsleer [The Spirit, the Word and the Son: Theological Reflections on Spirit-Christology, Logos-Christology and the Doctrine of the Trinity], (Averbode: Altiora, Kampen: Kok, 1991), 131–135; “A Sapiential Reading of John’s Prologue: Some Reflections on Views of Reginald Fuller and James Dunn,” Theological Digest 33 (1986): 403–421. 21  Schoonenberg, De Geest, 134. 22  Schoonenberg, De Geest, 158–159.

114

van de Kamp

Logos in Jesus’ human reality.23 But from 1972 onwards he speaks of a reciprocal enhypostasia.24 The enhypostasia of the Word in Jesus now includes the enhypostasia of Jesus in the Word, by which he means “that the truly human person of Jesus, or: Jesus who is a human person in himself, has been inserted in the Logos, by which this being-a-human-person is deepened, confirmed and accomplished and so in the end and for all becomes redeeming.”25 The Logos becomes enhypostatic in the man Jesus and makes the human person of Jesus enhypostatic in its own divine reality. The two kinds of enhypostasia happen in quite a different way. “Whereas the enhypostasis of Jesus in the Logos is totally received, that of the Logos in Jesus is totally active. The human person Jesus is grounded in the hypostasis of the Logos, but the Logos becomes hypostasis, indeed second person, by actively sustaining the personal being of Jesus.”26 So Schoonenberg defends himself against the misunderstanding that the human nature in his opinion should contribute anything to the subsistence of the Word. The Word hypostasizes himself, becoming the hypostasis of Jesus. Expanding his hypothesis of the enhypostasia Schoonenberg also stipulates a reciprocal non-symmetric enhypostasia for the Spirit. The humanity of Christ is entirely sanctified and guided by the Spirit. His humanity does not even exist beyond or before the operation of the Spirit. On the other hand, the Spirit gives himself a new presence by uniting himself with Jesus. The Spirit finds a halting-place in Jesus and by that in our humankind.27 He distinguishes the enhypostasia of the humanity in the Word as regarding the existence from the enhypostasia in the Spirit as regarding his extending to others.28 So, the person of Jesus Christ is divine-human, i.e. he is a theandric person. It is the deepest possible union of divinity and humanity with preservation of the sharpest possible distinction. The natures of Christ come together without confusion or change. He calls this union a perichoresis of natures: “This perichoresis of natures is identical with the divine-human person of Jesus Christ” (his italics).29 In Schoonenberg’s view the reciprocal enhypostasia is equal to the

23  Schoonenberg, The Christ, 87–89. 24   P. Schoonenberg, “Het avontuur der christologie,” [The Adventure of Christology] Tijdschrift voor Theologie 12 (1972): 307–332, spec. 312–315 ; cf. “Spirit Christology,” 364–365. 25  Schoonenberg, “Het avontuur,” 312. 26  Schoonenberg, “Spirit Christology,” 368. 27  Schoonenberg, De Geest, 134–135. 28  Schoonenberg, De Geest, 169. 29  Schoonenberg, De Geest, 167; “De Christus ‘van boven’ en de christologie ‘van beneden,’” [The Christ ‘from above’ and the Christology ‘from below’] Tijdschrift voor Theologie 31 (1991): 25.

Spirit-Christology and Theandric Language

115

perichoresis of natures.30 Schoonenberg can even speak of Christ as a composite hypostasis, if one takes it for granted that there is a real contribution of the human nature to Christ’s being a person.31 The use of theandric language recurs in the later works of Schoonenberg. Two observations will demonstrate what changed over the years and what did not change at all. In his first draft of Christology he stays within the traditional framework. At the incarnation the second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, assumed humanity. Later on, he concludes that this presupposition is exactly the reason why the traditional Christology encroaches upon the humanity of Christ. Here he finds the root of the tenet of the anhypostasia: the negation of the human personality of Christ within the hypostatic union.32 In the second place it can be observed that there is yet a remarkable continuity in Schoonenberg’s oeuvre. It concerns his design of the relation of God and humankind. When he writes that God is in Jesus, that the Logos is enhypostatic in this man, he adds that this presence indeed is definitive and eschatological, but that it does not essentially differ from God’s redeeming presence in other people, especially the prophets. The difference is, how essential it may be, a difference in degree, for the presence of God in him is the completion of everything that is only aimed at in the entire history of mankind and particularly the target and the pinnacle, which gives sense to God’s presence in our entire history and by which that history is possible.33 What in an unsurpassable highest manner happens in Jesus Christ, can also happen in each one who lives in God’s grace.34 So, how unparalleled the relation of God and man in Jesus may be, it is still a specimen of the more general relation of God to humankind. In the purview of this essay I cannot go into a full consideration of Schoonenberg’s Trinitarian theology. But it is obvious that important decisions are taken here. Even when Schoonenberg now maintains the enhypostasia of the humanity in the Logos, it is not the traditional view, for the Logos is before the incarnation no longer a person. He calls the Logos a personalizing 30  Michael E. O’Keeffe explains Schoonenberg as if he “proposes two different models for understanding the God-human relationship in Jesus Christ,” i.e. the model of the “reciprocal enhypostasis” and another model involving the union of two “personal” natures in one “divine-human” or one “theandric person,” but in this way he makes a distinction in what Schoonenberg keeps together, Contemporary Spirit Christologies: an Examination of G.W.H. Lampe, Walter Kasper, and Piet Schoonenberg (Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services. A Bell & Howell Company, 1994), 160–161. 31   P. Schoonenberg, “Alternativen der heutigen Christologie,” Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 128 (1980): 356 (see above). 32  Cf. Schoonenberg, De Geest, 187–188, n. 8. 33  Schoonenberg, “Het avontuur,” 313. 34  Schoonenberg, De Geest, 168.

116

van de Kamp

principle or an extension.35 The discussion on Schoonenberg often focusses on the question of the pre-existence of Christ. The judgement whether he presents a Trinitarian or a post-Trinitarian Spirit-Christology, is not uncommonly passed in the assessment of his view on this particular point.36 5

The Theandric Nature of Christ According to David Coffey

By the word theandric Coffey denotes the human nature of Christ.37 He treats the issue of the human nature within the context of the Logos-Christology. He upholds the traditional doctrine of enhypostasia. But he understands the doctrine of enhypostasia in such a way that the human nature of Christ subsists in the hypostasis of the divine Word, and inversely that the divine Word subsists in the human nature.38 Coffey envisions the unity of Christ as the outcome of the actualization of his divinity in his humanity. That causes his human nature to be theandric.39 The tenet of enhypostasia is particularly significant to the unity of Christ. To elaborate his view on the theandric nature of Christ, he calls for help in addition to enhypostasia the concept of the communication of idioms. He understands this communication not only in the sense of the predicability of essential properties pertaining to one of Christ’s natures to the other, but as the interchange of attributes on the basis of ontological communication between the natures of Christ. The first thing that the divine nature communicates 35  Schoonenberg, De Geest, 164; Logos and Spirit are “extensions, expansions or outpourings of God towards mankind,” Schoonenberg, “Spirit Christology,” 368. 36  As post-Trinitarian Schoonenberg is counted e.g. by Myk Habets, The Anointed Son: A Trinitarian Spirit Christology (Eugene: Pickwick, 2010), 196–197; as Trinitarian e.g. by Marco Hofheinz, “Der geistgesalbte Christus: Trinitätstheologische Erwägungen zur umstrittenen Geistchristologie,” Evangelische Theologie 72 (2012): 339; cf. Gijsbert van den Brink and Stephan van Erp, “Ignoring God Triune? The doctrine of the Trinity in Dutch Theology,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 11 (2009): 85–86. 37  David Coffey, “The Theandric Nature of Christ,” Theological Studies 60 (1999): 405 (405– 431); see for a discussion of his Christology: Del Colle, Christ and the Spirit, 91–140; Declan O’Byrne, Spirit Christology and Trinity in the Theology of David Coffey (Bern: Peter Lang, 2010) and my “The Pneumatological Christology of David Coffey,” The Australasian Catholic Record 92 (2015): 67–80. 38  Coffey, “Theandric Nature,” 406. 39  Coffey, “Theandric Nature,” 410ff. He develops his view in dialogue with the Dutch theologians Edward Schillebeeckx and Ansfried Hulsbosch and he especially assents to the outlook of Karl Rahner, but he dissociates himself from the view of P. Schoonenberg in his The Christ (1972); regrettably he did not come acquainted with his later writing upon this subject (418).

Spirit-Christology and Theandric Language

117

to the human nature is the divine esse, the divine act of existence. The fact that the human nature subsists in the hypostasis of the divine Word means that the human nature owes its existence to the Word, yet the divine esse is received as a human esse. Corresponding to the single divine personhood of Christ (enhypostasia) there is a single esse which is neither simply divine, nor simply human, but theandric. Coffey regards Christ as the realization of the divine person in the human nature. Therefore, one should say there is in Christ a single theandric nature and a single theandric act of existence.40 It is notable that Coffey never speaks of the theandric person of Christ. In this manner Coffey explains the axiom stemming from Augustine ipsa assumptione creatur. The sacred humanity of Christ is created in the very act of assumption. But Coffey takes a step further. He expands the meaning of the phrase: the sacred humanity of Christ is not only created in the act of assumption, but also disposed.41 This disposition is the unique sanctification of Christ’s humanity. Though it is possible to distinguish between the creation of the human nature and its disposition they coincide in time. The sanctification is the last disposition to the hypostatic union as well as the first effect.42 The fact that the Word can assume humanity implies that on the side of humanity there is a certain aptitude. In this respect Coffey stays in the tradition of Thomas Aquinas who for his part calls upon Augustine. This view is elaborated by Rahner. He presumes the assumability of human nature by the person of the Word of God (obediential potency). According to him, that ability is identical with the essence of man. This orientation towards God reaches its height in the hypostatic union. God actuates in the hypostatic union the created potency of the human nature of Christ to be united with the eternal Word.43 In Christ the being of the human nature coincides with the being of God. Christ becomes “the uniquely highest case of the perfection of human reality.” The human nature embraces the divinity of the Word of God and is expanded from within beyond all confines.44 The hypostatic union can be called an amelioration or enhancement of the human nature.45 In an in-depth discussion of the work of Maurice de la Taille on the grace of union, Coffey has explained what this means to the humanity in general and the humanity assumed by the Word. He elucidates the difference between 40  Coffey, “Theandric Nature,” 422. 41  David Coffey, “De la Taille on the Grace of Union,” Irish Theological Quarterly 79 (2014): 201. 42  Coffey, “De la Taille,” 205. 43  Coffey, “De la Taille,” 207. 44  Coffey, “Theandric Nature,” 412, 416. 45  Coffey, “De la Taille,” 205.

118

van de Kamp

the Sonship of Christ and the sonship of the common believers. God actuates in the hypostatic union the created potency of the human nature of Christ to be united with the eternal Word.46 In the human nature of Christ the eternal Son of God is realized. Coffey articulates the Sonship of Christ as a substantial Sonship that is communicated in the hypostatic union, whereas our sonship is an ontologically accidental filiation that renders the receivers’ adoptive children of the Father.47 The accent is on the dissimilarity between ‘ontological’ and ‘accidental.’ The hypostatic union is a unique coincidence of creation, sanctification of the human nature and its assumption by the Word of God. Adoptive filiation starts at baptism. Coffey notes the disparity between the Sonship of the Lord Jesus and our sonship as a difference in kind, not in degree.48 Because Coffey uses theandric language in the context of Spirit-Christology, we have to establish the role of the Holy Spirit in the coming about of the theandric nature of Christ. But first we have to point out in general the connection between the work of the Spirit in the history of salvation from creation to the salvific event of the coming of Christ. Coffey deftly sets forward insights he acquired from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin combining them with the anthropology and Christology of Rahner. From the beginning, the Holy Spirit is conceived as the guiding principle of the history of salvation. He works as an entelechy and the final aim is the fulfilment of that history in Christ. The Spirit creates the world and then draws it towards its fulfilment in Christ. Coffey holds up this view in recollecting that the Spirit who is at work in the prophets from the Old Testament, is called the Spirit of Christ.49 With regard to the role of the Holy Spirit in the incarnation, the human nature of Christ has to be seen as the outcome of a single act of the Holy Spirit. This act contains the three elements of creation, sanctification and union.50 The Holy Spirit creates and sanctifies the human nature. Concerning the union one can say that the Holy Spirit “makes the last preparations,” i.e. the sanctification is the last disposition to assumption.51 Coffey distinguishes the work

46  Coffey, “De la Taille,” 207. 47  Coffey, “De la Taille,” 209. 48  Coffey, “De la Taille,” 215 n. 70, where he pursues my question on the difference between Christ and the believer (Van de Kamp, “Pneumatological Christology,” 80); Del Colle construes Coffey’s view also as “a difference in kind and not in degree,” Christ and the Spirit, 124. 49  Coffey, “Theandric Nature,” 429. Vide 1 Pet.1: 11. 50  Coffey, “Theandric Nature,” 431. 51  Coffey, “Theandric Nature,” 428; these three moments can be recognized in Lk.1:35, “Theandric Nature,” 427.

Spirit-Christology and Theandric Language

119

of the Son and the Holy Spirit in the union by calling the Spirit the immediate agent of the hypostatic union and the Son the ultimate agent.52 Finally, the Trinitarian paradigm within which he describes the role of the Spirit deserves special attention.53 In the immanent Trinity the Son is the term or the outcome of the self-communication of the Father. The Son or the Word is the Godhead in a recipient way. In Spirit-Christology as Christology from below it is the Holy Spirit who creates and sanctifies the humanity. But that does not mean that the Holy Spirit precedes the Son in the immanent Trinity. Now we understand why Coffey posits two Sonships: that of the eternal Son in the divine nature and in the human nature.54 There is a self-communication of the Father in the Trinity and in the world. “Each self-communication posits the person of the Son—the first in the divine, the second in the human nature; the first directly, the second in the Holy Spirit; the first in eternity, the second in time.”55 The work of the Spirit culminates in being bestowed by the Father as Spirit of Sonship in his act of the creation and sanctification of Christ’s human nature. 6

Advantages and Disadvantages of Theandric Language

It is still the incontestable advantage of Spirit-Christology appreciating just the fact that Jesus is truly human. Moreover, a Spirit-Christology is able to integrate the outcome of the exegesis of the New Testament. Both, Schoonenberg and Coffey, are esteemed highly because of their attempts to draw their systematic thinking upon biblical research.56 Due to their pneumatological approach Schoonenberg and Coffey managed to draft a Spirit-Christology which properly values the data of the New Testament about Christ and therefore the person of Christ himself.57 Unquestionably, the importance of theandric language in the traditional Logos-Christology is the emphasis on the mode of existence instead of the constitution of the person of Christ. Already in the early works of Schoonenberg 52  Coffey, “Theandric Nature,” 430–431; cf. my “Pneumatological Christology,” 70. 53  See for his Trinitarian theology esp. Deus Trinitas: The Doctrine of the Triune God, (New York, Oxford: Oxford University, 1999). 54  Coffey, “De la Taille,” 200–201; two Sonships does not mean “two Sons,” sonship has to be understood as a property of nature, which in Christ is twofold 201, note 12). 55  Coffey, “Theandric Nature,” 424; cf. my “Pneumatological Christology,” 77–79. 56  See on Schoonenberg e.g. O’Keeffe, Contemporary Spirit Christologies, 167–180 and his assessment, 234ff.; on Coffey, Del Colle, Christ and the Spirit, 97–98. 57  Here Myk Habets vouches Coffey, Anointed Son, 202; the same is true of Schoonenberg.

120

van de Kamp

that motive is apparent. No longer dividing the operations of Christ among the different natures, he stresses them to be the components of one theandric operation.58 Theandric language gives in to objections raised to the classic Logos-Christology which runs the risk of introducing a dualistic portrait of Christ, who at times acts as God and at other times as man.59 While this already holds for the post-Chalcedonian Logos-Christology, all the more it holds for a Spirit-Christology. The use of theandric language in systematic theology supposedly estimates the picture that the New Testament sketches of Christ at its true value. In their design of a Spirit-Christology it was to be expected that the Spirit would come to the fore. The preeminent role of the Holy Spirit is safeguarded by Schoonenberg as well as by Coffey. In this essay, I will not dilate upon all the consequences of Schoonenberg’s and Coffey’s pneumatological approach of Christology for their understanding of the Trinity. However, there is one point we cannot afford to neglect. Although Schoonenberg in the end has drafted a Christology of the divine presence in Jesus Christ at which Word and Spirit play their equal part, there is an important difference with the traditional LogosChristology, for the Word that became flesh in Jesus is before the incarnation a personalizing principle and certainly not the second person of the Trinity. This premise entails that the Father is the subject of the incarnation.60 Coffey disagrees from Schoonenberg in his view on the immanent Trinity. Even more obvious is that Coffey construes the incarnation as the self-communication of the Father to Jesus. The incarnation is the revelation of the Father, and not the expression of the Word. “Jesus is established in hypostatic union with the Son because Jesus coincides ontologically with the Son, being the one who perfectly receives the self-communication of the Father in the world as the Son does in the immanent Trinity.”61 There is a salient parallel. The inference to be drawn is that with both, Schoonenberg and Coffey, the Word or the Son, as second person of the Trinity, takes a backseat, and the Father and the Spirit step into the lime-light. Perhaps, when with regard to Schoonenberg’s view on the pre-incarnational Trinity this outcome does not amaze, for Coffey it is slightly different. We broach the question how to manage to incorporate pneumatology in a Christological design without lessening the role of the Logos. Schoonenberg and Coffey know about the intimate connection of the Logos and the Spirit.

58  Schoonenberg, Mensgeworden Zoon, 141. 59  Habets, Anointed Son, 84. 60  See e.g. Schoonenberg’s exegesis of Joh.1:14, “Sapiential Reading,” 419. 61  Coffey, Deus Trinitas, 64.

Spirit-Christology and Theandric Language

121

The former includes the Spirit in the Logos62 and the latter calls the Spirit the objectivization of the mutual love of the Father and the Son.63 Is the role they reserve to the Word or the Logos simply the other side of the coin that many tend to give to Spirit-Christology or is more at stake? Schoonenberg and Coffey both hold in esteem the adage of Rahner “according to which Christ’s divinity is the highest possible actualisation of his humanity under the influence of grace.”64 Schoonenberg calls “his” Christology: “a Christology of the human final completion” (his italics).65 Coffey names Christ “the uniquely highest case of the perfection of human reality.”66 Del Colle summarizes Coffey: “Therefore, God’s self-communication in the Son’s incarnation is ‘the highest possible actuation of human nature’ and leads beyond that single assumed human nature to lesser actuations of human persons in union with God actuated by the Holy Spirit.”67 Schoonenberg and Coffey are aware of the inherent drawbacks of their view and in the foregoing we saw them hastening to secure the unicity of Christ, which is more easy to the latter than to the former. But we encounter a basic principle of Roman Catholic theology: “Rather, Catholic Theology as a whole, both scholastic and non-scholastic, presupposes anthropology while seeking to surpass and perfect it in the light of Jesus Christ (gratia supponit naturam et perficit eam—grace supposes and perfects nature).”68 It is suggested that this view on grace has an advantage over the Reformed view.69 It should enlarge the possibility to embed salvation in human history. Protestant theologians acknowledge that the pneumatological approach of Christology opens up a broad prospect on the different fields of theology.70 A developed Christology expresses the significance of Christ in relation to God and humanity. Because Spirit-Christology especially highlights the real humanity of Jesus, (theological) anthropology receives full attention in the contemporary theological literature of both Catholic and Protestant theologians.71 In their Christian Dogmatics Van der Kooi and Van den Brink say: “Today’s 62  Schoonenberg, “De Christus ‘van boven,’” 25. 63  Coffey, Deus Trinitas, 51. 64  Van de Kamp, “Pneumatological Christology,” 74. 65  Schoonenberg, The Christ, 98. 66  Coffey, “Theandric Nature,” 412. 67  Del Colle, Christ and the Spirit, 116. 68  Del Colle, Christ and the Spirit, 204. 69  Henk J.M. Schoot, “De genade van Christus: Over de verborgen aanwezigheid van de H. Geest in Thomas’ verhandelingen over de menswording” [The Grace of Christ: on the Hidden Presence of the Holy Spirit in the Treatises of Thomas on the Incarnation] Jaarboek Thomas-Instituut Utrecht 30 (2011): 46. 70  E.g. Habets who advocates ‘A Third Article Theology,’ Anointed Son, 229ff. 71  Habets, Anointed Son, 267.

122

van de Kamp

dogmatics faces the challenge of preserving the deep biblical and Reformed conviction that God saves, while at the same time taking human subjectivity and renewal very seriously.”72 This challenge asks a great effort from both Catholic and Protestant side, which can only turn out well if Christology holds pride of place. A pneumatological approach of Christology may never contribute to a movement that urges Christology to the fringe. Theandric language belongs first and foremost to Christology and we had better evade that it even partly plays a role in a drama for which it has not been invented. Bibliography Blankenberg, Birgit. Gottes Geist in der Theologie Piet Schoonenbergs. Mainz: MatthiasGrünewald-Verlag, 2000. Brink, Gijsbert van den and Stephan van Erp. “Ignoring God Triune? The doctrine of the Trinity in Dutch Theology.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 11 (2009): 72–90. Coffey, David. “The Theandric Nature of Christ.” Theological Studies 60 (1999): 405–431. Coffey, David. Deus Trinitas: The Doctrine of the Triune God. New York, Oxford: Oxford University, 1999. Coffey, David. “De la Taille on the Grace of Union.” Irish Theological Quarterly 79 (2014): 197–218. Colle, Ralph del. Christ and the Spirit: Spirit-Christology in Trinitarian Perspective. New York: Oxford University, 1994. Crisp, Oliver D. “Problems with Perichoresis.” Tyndale Bulletin 56.1 (2005): 119–140. Habets, Myk. The Anointed Son: A Trinitarian Spirit Christology. Princeton Theological Monograph Series 129. Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2010. Hauschild, Wolf-Dieter. Lehrbuch der Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte. Band I Alte Kirche und Mittelalter. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 20073. Hofheinz, Marco. “Der geistgesalbte Christus: Trinitätstheologische Erwägungen zur umstrittenen Geistchristologie.” Evangelische Theologie 72 (2012): 337–356. Kamp, G.C. van de. “The Pneumatological Christology of David Coffey.” The Australasian Catholic Record 92 (2015): 67–80. Kooi, C. van der. “Hoge christologie ter wille van een geschonden wereld. Dogmatische kanttekeningen.” In Jezus: bij hoog en bij laag: De christologie van de Beek en Kuitert. Eds. A. van de Beek, H.M. Kuitert et al. Kampen: Kok, 1999, 25–33.

72  Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 386.

Spirit-Christology and Theandric Language

123

Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. O’Byrne, Declan. Spirit Christology and Trinity in the Theology of David Coffey. Studies in Theology Society and Culture 4. Bern: Peter Lang, 2010. O’Keeffe, Michael E. Contemporary Spirit Christologies: an Examination of G.W.H. Lampe, Walter Kasper, and Piet Schoonenberg. Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services. A Bell & Howell Company, 1994. Papantoniou, Anthony. “The Theandric Mystery of Jesus Christ in Byzantine Christology.” Studii Teologice 3 (2009): 177–196. Papantoniou, Anthony. “Features of the Theandric Mystery of Christ in the Christology of St Gregory the Theologian.” In Cappadocian Legacy: A Critical Appraisal. Eds. Doru Costache and Philip Kariatlis. Sydney: St Andrew’s Orthodox, 2013, 315–327. Schoonenberg, P. Het geloof van ons doopsel: gesprekken over de Apostolische Geloofsbelijdenis III: De mensgeworden Zoon van God. Het Derde Geloofsartikel. ’s-Hertogenbosch: L.C.G. Malmberg, 1958. Schoonenberg, P. “Christus zonder tweeheid?” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 6 (1966): 289–306. Schoonenberg, P. The Christ. London, Sydney: Sheed and Ward, 1971. Schoonenberg, P. “Het avontuur der christologie.” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 12 (1972): 307–332. Schoonenberg, P. “Spirit Christology and Logos Christology.” Bijdragen 38 (1977): 350–375. Schoonenberg, P. “Alternativen der heutigen Christologie.” Theologisch-praktische Quartalschrift 128 (1980): 349–357. Schoonenberg, P. “A Sapiential Reading of John’s Prologue: Some Reflections on Views of Reginald Fuller and James Dunn.” Theological Digest 33 (1986): 403–421. Schoonenberg, P. De Geest, het Woord en de Zoon: Theologische overdenkingen over Geest-Christologie, Logos-christologie en drieëenheidsleer. Averbode: Altiora, Kampen: Kok, 1991. Schoonenberg, P. “De Christus ‘van boven’ en de christologie ‘van beneden’: Nadere overdenkingen rond de ‘God van mensen.’” Tijdschrift voor Theologie 31 (1991): 3–27. Schoot, Henk J.M. “De genade van Christus: Over de verborgen aanwezigheid van de H. Geest in Thomas’ verhandelingen over de menswording.” Jaarboek Thomas-Instituut Utrecht 30 (2011): 37–50.

chapter 8

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me: Pneumatological Christology with and beyond Barth Bruce L. McCormack 1 Introduction In a landmark essay published in 1993, the late Robert Jenson set forth the thesis that a characteristic feature of Karl Barth’s theology taken as a whole was its functional binitarianism.1 This was no mere “caviling criticism of detail”—as Heinrich Scholz once said of critics of Schleiermacher.2 It was an architectonic challenge which gave promise of a seriously to be considered “counterachievement.”3 At the heart of the matter lay the following claim (expressed with greatest clarity in the following succinct statement published four years later): When Barth uses the doctrine of Trinity to solve theological problems, what actually appears and functions is regularly a doctrine rather of binity. Many instances could be cited. But here we may for brevity’s sake invoke an explicit general statement of principle. The ‘inner-divine’ fellowship of Father and Son in the Spirit is, Barth directly asserts, merely ‘two-sided,’ since the Spirit is the fellowship itself. Precisely this merely two-sided fellowship is then the eternal ground for there being fellowship between God and humanity, first between God and Jesus and then between God in Jesus and Jesus’ sisters and brothers. But that is to say that this merely two-sided fellowship is the eternal ground of all salvation history, which is what we were afraid Barth meant.4

1  Robert W. Jenson, “You Wonder Where the Spirit Went,” Pro Ecclesia 2 (1993): 296–304. See also idem., “Karl Barth,” in The Modern Theologians, ed. David Ford (Oxford: Blackwell, 19972), 21–36. 2  Karl Barth, Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 413. 3  Barth, Protestant Theology, 413. 4  Jenson, “Karl Barth,” 34.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_010

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me

125

Jenson valued highly Barth’s insistence that the doctrine of the immanent Trinity be grounded in the “plot of historical revelation”5; that nothing can be said about the triune life of God which does not find a solid root in the economy.6 What he misses in Barth is a real agency of the Holy Spirit—both in time and then also, and as a consequence, in eternity. What he seeks is a “specific salvation-historical initiative of the Spirit”7 which would provide a basis for speaking of the Spirit’s agency in the immanent Trinity. What he finds in Barth instead is the consistent reduction (my word, not his) of the Spirit’s work to the work of the risen Christ in and through his Spirit—so that the aforementioned two-sided relation gets played out again and again, most importantly for Jenson in the realm of ecclesiology. As one might expect, there is a lot to be said in support of Jenson’s critique. The description he offers is very much what Barth actually does. The full agency of the Holy Spirit is given short-shrift, though I would not explain this myself as Jenson does by means of a reference to Augustine or, more generally, to “Western trinitarianism”8 or to the doctrine of the Trinity at all. Ultimately, the reason Barth’s ecclesiology seems to be grounded in a two-sided relation is due to what I call his “Christological objectivism”—that is, to the belief that what is accomplished in Jesus Christ is not merely the possibility of reconciliation and redemption, but their reality. That is to say: for Barth, Christ’s work is effective in being performed. To be sure, the Holy Spirit awakens human beings to faith and obedience. But, in doing so, the Spirit merely brings to our conscious awareness a work of Christ that was effective on our behalf in being performed. “We cannot even think of treating as an open question the operative and effective power of the existence of Jesus Christ…. It has its basis in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. We speak at once of something else if we try to treat the power of His existence as an empty possibility whose actuality 5  Jenson, “Karl Barth,” 33. 6  Barth makes this point in the form of an “axiom” of theological thinking. “(…) we have consistently followed the rule, which we regard as basic, that statements about the divine modes of being antecedently in themselves cannot be different in content from those that are to be made about their reality in revelation. All our statements concerning what is called the immanent Trinity have been reached simply as confirmations or underlinings or, materially, as the indispensable premises of the economic Trinity.” See Barth, Church Dogmatics I/I, 479. I have called this elsewhere “Rahner’s rule” before Rahner, though the material improvement of Rahner’s rule in Barth’s version should not be overlooked. See Bruce McCormack, “The Lord and Giver of Life: A ‘Barthian’ Defense of the Filioque,” in Rethinking Trinitarian Theology: Disputed Questions and Contemporary Issues in Trinitarian Theology, eds. Giulio Maspero and Robert J. Woźniak (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 238. 7  Jenson, “You Wonder Where the Spirit Went,” 300. 8  Jenson, “You Wonder Where the Spirit Went,” 300.

126

McCormack

has to be written and found on another page, not accepting it as a fulfilled possibility, as actuality, and therefore as its own basis and attestation.”9 Barth would no longer have been Barth had he said anything else than this.10 And yet, the question of the Spirit’s agency will not go away. That question is, I would say, more important than Jenson’s answer to it—as important as that answer is to an understanding of Jenson’s “counter-achievement.”11 9  Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958), 265–66. 10  The root of what I am calling Barth’s “Christological objectivism” is to be found quite early, in his 1919 Tambach address “The Christian in Society.” In explanation of his title, Barth said, quite provocatively, “(…) ‘the Christian’ cannot mean ‘the Christians’—neither the mass of the baptized nor somehow the elect little company of religious socialists, nor even the most noble and pious Christians of whom we might otherwise think. The Christian is the Christ. The Christian is that which dwells within us. It is not us but is, rather, Christ in us [cf. Rom.8:10; 2 Cor.13:5; Col.1:27]. This ‘Christ in us’ must be understood in all of its Pauline breadth. It does not refer to a psychic condition, a being grasped or overpowered, or some such thing. Rather, it is a presupposition. ‘In us’ means ‘above us, ‘behind us’ ‘beyond us.’” See Barth, The Word of God and Theology, transl. Amy Marga (London: T&T Clark, 2011), 36. The sheer objectivity of “the Christian” in this statement goes underground during the period of Barth’s intensive engagement with the voice of the Church in the past (the Reformed tradition and, through its lens, the greater Tradition). But it emerged again with full vigor once Barth had revised his doctrine of election in CD II/2. 11  Jenson’s “counter-achievement” would consist in a twofold “repair” of Barth’s theology. The first step is to see Pentecost, with the Orthodox, as “a new intervention of the Holy Trinity in time”; Jenson, “You Wonder Where the Spirit Went,” 302. The second step is to affirm a “communion ecclesiology” of a very specific sort. “[I]f the Pentecostal creation of a structured continuing community were identified as the ‘objectivity’ of the gospel’s truth pro nobis, then this community itself, in its structured temporal and spatial extension, would be seen as the Bedingung der Möglichkeit of faith. Or again, if the Community between the Father and the Son were himself an agent of their love, immanently and economically, then the church, as the community inspirited by this Agent, would be the active mediatrix of faith, in precisely the way demanded by Catholics and resisted by Protestants in every chief dialogue” (303). Jenson goes on to explain what he means by mediation in this context by citing with approval the following statement from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. “For the Catholic, the church is itself comprised in the deep source of the act of faith: it is only in that I believe with the church that I share in that certitude in which I may rest my life.” And so: “Union with the church constitutes a ‘new and wider self’ of the believer, and it is this self that is the subject of faith, ‘the self of the anima ecclesiastica (…)’” (303). Talk of a new intervention of the Holy Trinity already runs the risk of abandonment of Barth’s “Christological objectivism.” But what Jenson really wants only becomes clear at the second step. The church is the “objective” form of the Spirit’s work and it is in and through this “objectivity” that the act of faith is made possible. With the Catholics, Jenson makes the relation of the believer to Christ to be a function of her relation to the church. If at the first step, Barth would cease to be Barth, at the second, he would in my judgment cease to be Protestant. It is precisely for this reason, however, that I also speak of Jenson’s theology (with the greatest possible respect)

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me

127

Barth’s Pneumatological deficit, if I may put it that way, finds its root in a neglected aspect of his Christology. For him, the “performative agent” of all that was done by the God-human was the eternal Word. But, then, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus in his baptism at the Jordan would have had no significance for Jesus himself had that outpouring not provided him with the power needed to fulfil his mediatorial calling, to perform his miracles, his works of love—and to remain faithful even in the ultimate situation of torture and death in God-forsakenness.12 If the Logos were rightly seen to have acted through and even upon his human “nature,” the outpouring of the Spirit upon him would have been superfluous to requirements. Given all of this, Barth would have done better had he made the human Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit to be the “performative agent” of all that was done by the God-human. But he did not do this. His mature Christology upheld, for the most part, the traditional conception of the Logos as the operative power at work in, through and upon the human “nature” assumed by him in becoming incarnate. As a result, Barth also came quite close—this much was not traditional13—to Schleiermacher’s conception that the self-proclamation of Christ, his lived existence, is the power which animates the church—so that talk of the Holy Spirit is made to describe the effects of Christ’s ongoing as a “counter-achievement”—and precisely an Evangelical-Catholic and not a strictly Protestant “counter-achievement.” 12  Like Barth, Oscar Cullmann speaks of “solidarity with sinners,” but he does so on the basis of the use made by the heavenly voice of Is.42:1 (from the Servant of the Lord songs). “The servant of God, who must suffer vicariously for his people, is in this manner addressed in the Old Testament.” See Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1961), 16. And so: “At the moment of his Baptism, he [Jesus] receives the commission to undertake the role of the suffering Servant of God, who takes on himself the sins of his people. (…) This means that Jesus is baptized in view of his death, which effects the forgiveness of sins for all men [and women]. For this reason, Jesus must unite himself in solidarity with his whole people (…)” (18). Cullmann also notes that the second half of Is.43:1 reads: “I have put my spirit upon him [i.e. the suffering Servant]; he will bring forth justice to the nations.” The joining of the voice from heaven to the descent of the Spirit would seem to confirm Cullmann’s appeal to Is.42:1 in his efforts to understand the theological significance of Jesus’ baptism. And he acknowledges that Jesus receives the Spirit “in all his fullness” (21). What is missing, I would say, is an emphasis on the power of the eschatological Spirit to perform miracles—which in the Synoptic Gospels are signs that the Kingdom is present in Jesus’ person. See Mt.12:28; Lk.11:20. 13  It is, to be sure, breath-taking to observe how much of a departure Barth’s “Christological objectivism” is from the greater Tradition. Traditionally, the work of Christ is treated as a possibility which is only made effective by the Spirit’s work in awakening persons to faith and obedience—so that a distinction could be made (and was made in the Reformed tradition) between “redemption accomplished” and “redemption applied.” But I think myself that this departure was much needed and salutary.

128

McCormack

and always efficacious presence in the church and not, strictly speaking, to describe the agent of it.14 My contention in this paper will be that Barth need not have surrendered his “Christological objectivism” in order to recognize a real agency of the Spirit—both in the economy and therefore also in the immanent life of the triune God. He did not need (as per Jenson) to find a root for the Spirit’s immanent agency in (allegedly) making the Spirit’s work effective in the Church. He needed only to introduce some adjustments into his Christology—so as to move in the direction of a pneumatologically-driven “two natures” doctrine. Where the Spirit’s ministry in the life of Jesus is given the rightful place it has in the Synoptic Gospels (so that the Gospel of John’s Logos-Christology is read in the light of the Synoptic witness rather than the other way around), there it becomes possible to understand the efficacy of Christ’s work in being performed as itself the result of the Spirit’s work—which certainly also entails a fully trinitarian conception of God’s relation to the church. In what follows, I will begin with an important example of how Barth’s Christology fails to attain to the insights which might have rendered him immune to criticism. In a second section, I will set forth a suggestion for repairing Barth’s Christology—by bringing it more closely into line with the Synoptic Gospels. I should add that I note with gratitude that my thinking about this problem (which has occupied my attention for the last two decades) aligns well with Cornelis van der Kooi’s insistence on the need to reinterpret traditional accounts of Logos-Christology “through attributing an essential role to the Spirit.”15 2

The Direction of the Son—and the Royal Man

Even a model of the immanent Trinity like Barth’s—one divine Subject in three “modes of being”16—needs to be able to distinguish the “modes” one from another if differentiation in the triune life of God is to be explained in a fully coherent manner; indeed, one needs to distinguish these modes materially and not just in terms of differing modes of origin (which speaks only to how the three are what they are, not to what they are). That Barth treats the 14  Certainly, Schleiermacher could have written the following words: “(…) the Holy Spirit is holy in the fact that He is the self-expression of the man Jesus (…)”; Barth, CD IV/2, 331. 15  Cornelis van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force: The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 44. 16  See, for example, Barth, CD I/I, 469; cf. CD IV/1, 205.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me

129

roles played by the three in the divine economy as the fulfilment of an eternal act of self-constitution on the part of God means that roles are never merely roles. They belong to the self-constitution of God, even if they do not suffice to fully explain it in the absence of consideration of the eternal election of God. In Barth’s theology, this need becomes very pressing in the relation of the second “mode” or “person” to the third. The material differentiation of the first from the second is clearly set forth in the I-thou relation of “command” and “obedience” which characterizes the Father-Son relation both in eternity and in time.17 But the relation of Christ to the Spirit is much less clear. And it is that lack of clarity which led Jenson to wonder where the Spirit went, that is, whether the Spirit is truly a “third” (distinct) mode of being in the divine life. In §64.4 (a sub-section which bears the title “The Direction of the Son”), Barth takes up the question of the transition from Christ to us—a question which, for him, resolves itself into a second, viz. that of how the “power of His existence” flows from him to us. Now Barth makes it quite clear that this power is already operative apart from and prior to the resurrection. The humiliation of the eternal Son and the exaltation of the royal man are both already complete in the death of Christ on the cross.18 Neither requires the resurrection to be made effective. What is accomplished in the resurrection is a making known of the power of the completed humiliation and exaltation of this human.19 Though Barth will speak of the power of Jesus’ existence most frequently as the “power of his resurrection,” that is just shorthand for the larger idea that the completed work of Christ is effective in being performed—and the resurrection makes that known. What is most interesting for our purposes here is that Barth speaks of the power of Christ’s lived existence for fifty-five pages before finally informing us that this power is, in fact, the power of the Holy Spirit.20 And so, it should come as no surprise to learn that “the Holy Spirit is no other than the presence 17  See especially Barth, CD IV/1, 202. 18  Barth, CD IV/2, 292: “What we have called the way of the Son of God into a far country and the homecoming of the Son of Man, and what older dogmatics called the exinanitio and exaltatio of Jesus Christ, are one and the same event at the cross. The humility and obedience of the Son of God, and the corresponding majesty of the Son of Man, coincide as they are represented in the event of Gethsemane and Golgotha.” 19  Barth CD IV/2, 299: “He is risen, and reveals Himself. He Himself, Jesus Christ, declares His majesty. He declares Himself to be the royal man. (…) He declares Himself as the One who in His death fulfilled in human form the gracious self-humiliation of God. (…) His resurrection is the event, not merely the datum, of the revelation of the One who is exalted in His lowliness.” And: “All Christian knowledge and confession (…) derives from this self-declaration of Jesus Christ, from His resurrection” (300). 20  Barth, CD IV/2, 319.

130

McCormack

and action of Jesus Christ Himself: His stretched out arm; He Himself in the power of His revelation as it continues its work from this point [i.e. from the resurrection].”21 On this showing, the Holy Spirit simply is the effective power of Jesus as risen and ascended. There is certainly truth in that claim, but it does leave us with a question. For there is a fine line between saying that the Holy Spirit is Christ’s Spirit in a way that affirms the full agency of the Spirit as a third mode of being in God and saying the same thing in a way that elides the difference between Christ and the Spirit. All too often in this section, Barth comes up to the very edge of affirming the second of these two possibilities. To be sure, Barth says all of this on the basis of serious exegetical work. His treatment of the New Testament witness with regard to the Spirit’s work is, both in its breadth and in the nuances of its details, very convincing. No one can read closely the small print section in CD IV/2, 323–330, and not come away impressed. Everything one might have thought he had left out of consideration in coming to the conclusions he does has been considered here.22 So if there is a deficit here, it is not because of his exegesis. It is due rather to the structural issues resident, I would say, first in his dogmatic Christology and only then— and as a consequence—in his doctrine of the Trinity. And it is here that my critique differs from Jenson’s. The structural issue that pervades Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity was already correctly identified by Jenson. Barth treats the Father and the Son alone as existing together eternally in a “partnership”23 characterized by “distance and confrontation,” by “encounter.”24 The Holy Spirit is the Mediation of that partnership, the power which unleashes and is unleashed by the just-named encounter.25 But can the Spirit rightly be understood to be any 21  Barth, CD IV/2, 322–23. 22  I will not attempt to defend this claim here. Let anyone who questions it read it closely and decide for herself. 23  Barth, CD IV/2, 344. 24  Barth, CD IV/2, 343. 25  This is surprisingly quite close to Jenson’s proposed solution, though without its speculative flourish. Jenson wants the Spirit to be active in relating the Father to the Son and the Son to the Father; the Spirit is the agent of their union and can even be said to “liberate” each for the other. See on this point, Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology. Vol. 1: The Triune God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 161. More expansively: “The Father begets the Son, but it is the Spirit who presents this Son to his Father as an object of the love that begot him, that is, to be actively loved. The Son adores the Father, but it is the Spirit who shows the Father to the Son not merely as ineffable Source but as the available and loveable Father” (156). Leaving aside the speculative element in this train of thought (and the question of its coherence—what sense does it make to say that the Father and the Son must be “liberated” for each other, as though there would otherwise be some impediment to their relation?), my question here focuses on what Jenson has really accomplished at the end of the day by making the Spirit the active agent of the fellowship of Father and

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me

131

of this if the Spirit has not first been understood, at every point, as the effective power who acts through and upon the human Jesus in time? I raise the question for a simple reason: Barth is far too inclined in his Christology to revert to the traditional reduction of the “person” of Christ to the Logos as such, thereby making the Logos to be the effective power of all that is done in and by the human Jesus—without any evident need for the Holy Spirit being poured out upon him (and in him, on “all flesh”). Now I have deliberately reversed Barth’s order of treatment here, taking up the section on “The Royal Man” only after “The Direction of the Son” in order, first, to show that there is a problem in Barth’s way of relating the Spirit to the risen Jesus as Jesus’ effective power at work in the Easter community and, second, to trace this problem back to its ultimate source in Barth’s Christology. To put it this way is already to say that the place to find the root of Barth’s difficulties is not in his doctrine of the Trinity. That, after all, is but the mirror in eternity of a problem that pervades his treatment of Christ’s work—and his person. Earlier, I described this root in terms of Barth’s “Christological objectivism.” That was to define the basic issue in soteriological terms. But, for Barth, the person and work of Christ are not in any way to be separated. The person of Christ is his work and his work is his person. And so, one should expect that his account of the person of Christ is itself deficient. And that is precisely what we find. The focus of the Christology of CD IV/2 falls throughout on the exaltation of the human, an exaltation which takes place through Jesus’ participation in the humiliation of the eternal Son, through his correspondence to it. So how does Barth explain this participation? How does it come about that Jesus is made to be the exalted, the kingly human? What explains his perfect correspondence to the self-humiliation of the Son? Barth’s answer stands in closer proximity to what Ernst Fuchs would later call a “language-event” than it does to the witness of the Synoptic Gospels.26 Son. Has it really taken us all that far beyond the Augustinian reduction of the Spirit to the fellowship itself? My own view is that Jenson needs the speculative solution to the problem of the Spirit’s agency because it has not played the role it needs to play in his Christology either. Again: where what is said about the immanent Trinity does not find a firm root in the economy, speculation will always be the way out of the problems created. 26  This is not at all to suggest that a relation of identity between Fuchs’ depiction of Jesus as a “language event” and what Barth had to say; there is at best an analogy in their understandings of revelation. Still, the understanding that Jesus is the Word of God addressed to human beings, a Word which Jesus both is and proclaims and a Word which places those who receive it in a situation in which a decision must be made is common to both. See Ernst Fuchs, “The Essence of the ‘Language-Event’ and Christology,” in Studies of the Historical Jesus, ed. Andrew Scobie (London: SCM, 1964), 213–28.

132

McCormack

Before turning directly to “The Royal Man,” it is important to note that Jesus’ baptism at the Jordan has no special significance for Barth. Barth puts it this way: “What John the Baptist ‘saw’ by Jordan (and we have to remember that it is definitely a matter of vision according to the texts)—the heavens opened, and the descent of the Spirit like a dove upon Jesus as He came up from the waters of Jordan (Mt.3:16 and par.)—was not just the individual event of that particular moment, as though Jesus had only now come to participate in the Spirit whom He had hithertoo lacked.”27 The meaning of “conceived by the Holy Ghost” for Barth is that “Jesus is not a man who was gifted and impelled by the Spirit like others, like the prophets before Him by whom the Spirit also spoke (…). He has the Spirit at first hand and from the very start.”28 And so, the reason Jesus submits himself to the baptism of repentance is that he might be “in solidarity with the whole people.”29 The baptism of Jesus is a visual symbol of that solidarity, nothing more. And the descent of the Spirit brings nothing to Jesus that he did not already have. “The Royal Man” has four major divisions. In none of them is the Spirit given an explicit, agential role in the exaltation of Jesus. The third division—which not only for our purposes but also to Barth himself is the most important— treats of Jesus’ being-in-act. “We must now attempt, in a third and decisive discussion, to understand Jesus in the act of accomplished by Him. (…) His life was His act (…). No distinction was then made, as later, between His person and His work.”30 For Barth, to say with John’s Gospel, that Jesus is the Word, and to say with the Synoptics, that he proclaims the Word, is to say the same thing. “Jesus does not speak of someone or something that comes. He is Himself the One who comes, and with His coming there comes everything that is to come. (…) What He proclaims becomes actuality the moment He does so. His proclamation is the blast of the trumpet which not only indicates but inaugurates the new year of the Lord (Lk.4:18f.), allowing every man to return unto his own possession, and opening all prisons and remitting all debts, as in Lev.25:8f.”31 Now, of course, all of this is true—up to a point. There is nothing wrong with what Barth says; it is what he leaves unsaid that matters. What he leaves unsaid is the fact that, according to the Synoptic Gospels, it is because Jesus is “filled with the power of the Spirit” that he does these things and that he is what he does. And yet, in neither of the two references to Lk.4:18f. in this 27  Barth, CD IV/2, 324. 28  Barth, CD IV/2, 324. 29  Barth, CD IV/2, 324. 30  Barth, CD IV/2, 192–247—here, 193. 31  Barth, CD IV/2, 205.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me

133

third division is any mention made of the Spirit. And that is truly remarkable. The fact that Barth could, in the very next subsection on “The Direction of the Son” elide distinctions between the power of Jesus’ existence, the power of the resurrection, and the power of the Holy Spirit leads me to guess that when he speaks here solely of the power of Jesus’ existence, he undoubtedly thinks he is speaking of the Spirit. But the silence is deafening with regard to the Spirit’s ministry in the life of Jesus. In the Synoptics, the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus in his baptism is immediately followed by an act of the Spirit performed upon and in the Jesus who is now “filled” by that same Spirit. Mark puts it most forcefully: “And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.” (Mk.1:12). The word “drove” is the same verb (ekballei) that is used elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel to speak of Jesus “driving” the money changers from the Temple (Mk.11:15) and to refer to Jesus “casting out” demons (Mk.1:34, 39; 3:15, 23; 6:13; 7:26; 9:18, 28; and 16:9). Barth strangely says that Jesus was not “impelled” by the Spirit. I think Mark, at least, would beg to differ. Admittedly, the element of compulsion would seem to be lacking in Matthew and Luke; the word ekballei has been replaced by the milder anechthe (“led” or “brought up”) in Matthew’s Gospel and by egeto (“led”) in Luke. Crucially, however, it is precisely because Jesus is said to be “full of the Holy Spirit” in Lk.4:1 that he is “led” by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted (4:1b-2). What follows the Temptation in both Matthew and Luke is the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. “Then Jesus, filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, returned to Galilee” (Lk.4:14), went into the synagogue on the sabbath and read from Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, and to let the oppressed go free” (Lk.4:18–19). Barth’s interest in this Lukan passage lies solely in the relation of the proclamation spoken on in the fourth line of the Isaianic text (“He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives”) to the person of the One who proclaims. But Luke’s attention, throughout, is directed in equal measure (and perhaps even primarily) to the eschatological Spirit which rests upon him. Jesus returns to Galilee to begin his ministry “filled with the power of the Holy Spirit.” And it is surely no coincidence, then, that the text chosen by Jesus to explain on that day begins: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.” The baptism narrative is thus linked closely with the inauguration of Jesus’ mediatorial activity, an activity which is empowered not by a Logos acting through Jesus (of which the first three evangelists know nothing) but by the Holy Spirit. One last point, and I will draw these matters to a close. Barth is at great pains to make the point that the kerygma which inaugurates the Kingdom of God is

134

McCormack

identical with Jesus himself.32 That can still be true, however, even if we add that it is Jesus “filled with the Spirit” who is this “person,” who is the Kingdom proclaimed. Barth’s reading is not wrong so much as it is incomplete.33 Barth’s “Christological objectivism” could be preserved even while granting that it is in the power of the Spirit that Jesus is who he is and does what he does. 3

A Thought Experiment

The bishops at Chalcedon devised their Christological model in studied support of a soteriology of divinisation, according to which our human “nature” must be “divinized” or deified in order to be redeemed.34 Where this is not recognized, it will be thought that no one achieved a victory at Chalcedon, that its often negative categories (the four “withouts”) were designed only to rule out extreme tendencies without placing any at the center of the orthodox solution. Modern theologians in particular are prone to this tendency because it seems so inclusive in their eyes. And even those tendencies thought to be excluded are not really excluded since a model which affirms nothing (bear in mind that I speak of modern readings of Chalcedon now, not Chalcedon itself) cannot be employed to exclude any at the end of the day. What is missed in this sentimental reading is not only the acknowledged authority of the Third Ecumenical Council over which Cyril of Alexandria presided, not only the fact that Cyril is pronounced “blessed” while Nestorius is condemned, not only the fact that every clause in the Definition can be instantiated in Cyril’s writings or even the fact that the Tome of Leo was subjected to very critical scrutiny and that it was accepted by the bishops only insofar as it could be interpreted to agree with Cyril; what is missed is the fact that the moral influence theorizing of Nestorius and his colleagues also played a role in the thinking of the upholders of divinisation, albeit a carefully subordinated role. The soteriology of Nestorius and his allies was not the antipode of Cyril’s orthodox model. It was 32  Barth, CD IV/2, 204–5. 33  Much more could be said here. Barth goes on to treat the miracles, exorcisms and healings performed by Jesus. When touching upon the power operative in Jesus, Barth speaks simply of the “power of God” (Barth, CD IV/2, 219, 220) or says with John that it is the “indwelling Father” who performs the works of God (226). No mention is made of the fact that it is the Synoptists’ shared conviction that Jesus performed his miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, no mention is made of the Spirit at all—until the very end when, almost as an afterthought, he says that the “force of the kingdom of God at work in him is the Holy Spirit (Barth CD IV/2, 242). 34  For more on this point, see Bruce McCormack, Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 203–206.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me

135

the poor cousin of the latter, forced to live from the scraps which fell from the table of those who stoutly maintained a divinisation theory. What is truly of decisive significance in all of this for our purposes here is that a divinisation model requires that the “person” of the union be equated quite directly and without remainder with the pre-existent Logos—a Logos who can then, on the basis of this identification—be understood as the sole active principle of the God-human in his divine-human unity, the human Jesus being merely acted through and upon by the Logos. The crucial point is this: the triune God is who and what he is in all three of his modes of being. So if it were the case that the Logos acts through and even upon the Jesus with whom he is hypostatically united, then there would remain no need whatsoever for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus where the latter’s mediatorial activity is concerned. The descent of the Spirit would have to be viewed as nothing more than a “teaching moment” where God is concerned (giving us a visual reminder of what is true of Jesus always and everywhere in his life but providing him with no additional power or gifts) and, as Barth says, an act of solidarity where the human Jesus is concerned. Such a model can only serve, however, to suppress the Synoptic witness to Jesus’ lived existence. Most scholars assume that the division introduced between the first three Gospels and the fourth is a strictly modern problem, being the outcome of ‘life of Jesus’ research. That is not the case. The truth is that one cannot begin with John’s Gospel and seek to find one’s way back to the Synoptics so long as one is committed to a divinisation theory. Every attempt to bring the Synoptic witness into play in relation to a Logos-Christology established with this soteriological goal in mind will inevitably suppress the Synoptics; the conformity which is then introduced will always be forced. It is much easier, in fact, to move from the Synoptics to John and the letters of Paul. Where the concerns of the first three evangelists are taken seriously, an impact will be registered upon the “two natures” doctrine which is then developed on the basis of John and Paul. But the latter will not need to be set aside or even only suppressed. The way to think about this, in my view, is to understand the purpose of the hypostatic uniting of the Logos with a human “nature” to consist not in a soteriology of divinisation but in a self-constituting receptivity to all that comes to the Logos from the human side. To put it this way is to suggest, again, that the “performative agent” of all that is done by the God-human in his divine-human unity is the human Jesus in the power of the Spirit. The Logos is united to this Spirit indwelt human being (from the conception onward, mind you) in order to receive, not to act through and upon him.35 As Van der Kooi argues, “When 35  It should be noted that “receptivity” as I am employing the word is not “passivity.” “Receptivity” is itself an act performed by the Logos. So to say that the Logos does not act

136

McCormack

Pneuma and Logos presuppose and interpret each other, then the Logos and divinity can no longer be understood as unchangeable divine principles but as having the ability to assume what is human, weak, and restricted.”36 This is, I would say, a wholly natural way to extend the significance of the ekenosen of Phil.2:7. The “self-emptying” which is a pre-condition of the incarnation according to Phil.2:7 is receptivity—not a deprivation of predicates common to all three members of the Godhead. And should anyone worry about the introduction of change into the Logos through this ontological receptivity, we have only to remember that nothing can be said of the immanent life of God which does not find its root in the economy. Where receptivity is made to be characteristic of the relation of the Logos to his human “nature” in time, the same must be said of that relation in the immanent life of God—so that receptivity is understood to be the personal property of the second “person” (or “mode of being”) of God. Much more can be said about this—and will be in due course.37 For now, it is important only to point out that a Spirit-Christology need not be the model of choice only for “Nestorians” (ancient and modern). It can, in fact, be built on the foundation of the Chalcedonian Definition itself so long as the latter is stripped of its divinisation soteriology. 4 Conclusion In this paper, I have tried to argue that Jenson’s explanation of the pneumatological defects in Barth’s theology looks in the wrong direction. Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity was itself the reflex (already in his Göttingen years) of his concept of revelation. And his concept of revelation was itself all too dependent, from 1924 to the end of Barth’s life, upon the ancient Christology—with consequences even Robert Jenson did not quite grasp.38

through and upon his human “nature” should not be taken to mean that the Logos is not active in receiving, that he is acted upon in way that is not prepared for by in the “mode of being” which he is. 36  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 44–45. 37  In my forthcoming Christology which bears the working title: The Humility of the Eternal Son. 38  A slightly different version of this paper has been published in Zeitschrift für Dialektische Theologie 67 (2018).

The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me

137

Bibliography Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics IV 2 Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1958. Barth, Karl. Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Cullmann, Oscar. Baptism in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1961. Fuchs, Ernst. “The Essence of the ‘Language-event’ and Christology.” in Studies of the Historical Jesus. Ed. Andrew Scobie (London: SCM, 1964), 213–28. Jenson, Robert W. “You Wonder Where the Spirit Went.” Pro Ecclesia 2 (1993): 296–304. Jenson, Robert W. Systematic Theology. Vol.1: The Triune God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Jenson, Robert W. “Karl Barth.” In The Modern Theologians. Ed. David F. Ford. Oxford: Blackwell, 19972, 21–36. Kooi, Cornelis van der. This Incredibly Benevolent Force. The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. McCormack, Bruce L. Orthodox and Modern. Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. McCormack, Bruce L. “The Lord and Giver of Life: A ‘Barthian’ Defense of the Filioque.” In Rethinking Trinitarian Theology: Disputed Questions and Contemporary Issues in Trinitarian Theology. Eds. Giulio Maspero and Robert J. Woźniak. London: T&T Clark, 2012, 230–253.

chapter 9

Barth and the Charismatics: How Can They be Reconciled? Abraham van de Beek 1 Introduction1 Two themes are of major importance in the work of Kees van der Kooi: the theology of Karl Barth and charismatic theology.2 The question, however, is: how are these interrelated? For Barth is known, or even notorious, for his rejection of any human basis of God’s work, since God is always beyond our limits. Charismatic Christians, however, abound with human emotions and human activities, because of the presence of God in their lives. In this article the relation of both positions will first be analysed; subsequently, Van der Kooi’s position regarding them will be reviewed; and it will close with a discussion with Van der Kooi. 2

The Positions

2.1 Barth and Charismatic Theology Of course, Barth did not react to the broad movement of charismatic theology as it has developed since the 1960s. However, its roots have been present in protestant Christianity for a long time, both in revivalist movements and in pietism, and about these Barth has a clear opinion. Eberhard Busch elaborated on this in his book Barth und die Pietisten. Busch summarizes the difference between Barth and the Pietists in one phrase: the Pietists focus on God in us. This is exactly what Barth rejects.3 God is always above us, beyond us, beyond 1  In the limited space of an article, only the salient aspects of the relationship between Barth and charismatic theology could be described. Everything can be nuanced, without changing the main lines of the argument, but this would require a monograph,. 2  In this article ‘Charismatic theology’ is used in a broad sense, including revivalist theology. 3  E. Busch, Karl Barth und die Pietisten: Die Pietismuskritik des jungen Karl Barth und ihre Erwiderung (München: Kaiser Verlag, 1978), 148. Busch argues that according to Barth the formal phrase ‘God is in us’ should not necessarily be denied. However, for him this has a totally different meaning than in Pietism: “Es ist ebenso auch die Wahrheit des »Christus in

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_011

Barth and the Charismatics: How Can They Be Reconciled ?

139

anything of the human world. God is never visible, He is ‘unanschaulich.’4 We can never attain to God, let alone grasp Him.5 This absolute transcendence of God is not cancelled by his revelation. It is precisely in his revelation that God reveals Himself as the Other One, totally different from all our projections and ideas; the One whom we can never grasp, never manipulate for our own ends, never deal with as something we possess. It is precisely at this point that Barth opposes pietism with its pious experience and pious mind.6 Even the faithful do not have continuity; they are no identifiable entity. They, too, are invisible, impossible, unavailable.7 Barth not only opposes old fashioned pietism, but his critique also involves revivalist movements. He rejects any human claim of participating in God’s acts or of being in relation to God. We do not have forgiveness. We are not humans of grace, let alone full of grace or love. Certainly, we receive grace and we love, but not as something visible and at our disposal.8 The developments in charismatic theology after Barth’s death show an increase in precisely the characteristics on which his critique focused: having, being, expressing, visibility, availability. In the broad revivalist movement, too, the emphasis is on these aspects of Christian life and worship. God and human activities flow together in a mixture of experiences, expressions and actions. It is the opposite of Barth’s emphasis on God’s transcendence, even in his revelation. 2.2 Charismatic Theology and Barth Classic pietists reacted explicitly to Barth’s theology. On the one hand Barth’s emphasis on God’s sovereignty attracted them, but on the other hand they rejected him, because he did not take into account the work of the Holy Spirit. This critique continues even to the present time.9 The modern revivalist movement responds hardly to Barth, if at all. It focuses so much on expressions and experience, that it does not pay much attention to classic theology. If it refers to the theological tradition, it is mainly to find support for their own ideas. Barth does not fit into this scenario. His critical uns« nicht zu leugnen; nur dass sie mit der irgendwelcher »menschlicher Akte« nicht identisch ist, sondern (als »das an uns gerichtete Wort Gottes«!’) strikt und rein »unsere göttliche Voraussetzung« bezeichnet” (111). 4  Busch, Pietisten, 91. 5  “nicht erreichbar und habbar” (Busch, Pietisten, 91). 6  Busch, Pietisten, 100. 7  “»Ich bin dieses Subjekt« als ein mir »unanschauliches,” »unmögliches,” unverfügbares Ich” (Busch, Pietisten, 94). 8  Busch, Pietisten, 110f. 9  C.A. van der Sluijs, Reizend naar die stad: Overpeinzingen en overwegingen bij herinneringen (Kampen: Brevier, 2015), 155–159.

140

van de Beek

theology is so far beyond their feelings and thoughts that he is not relevant— not even to be opposed to. What Barth appreciated in classic pietism—its sense for God’s holiness, human dependency and wickedness—has disappeared from modern revivalism. Here traditional pietists join Barth in his critique of human pride. As one of them argues, “much of this ‘revivalism’ is … nothing more than actual and perilous human activism.”10 However, this does not mean they appreciate Barth, for Barth does not value the work of the Holy Spirit in human beings as the only way that Christ comes into human lives and changes their whole identity. 2.3 An Opposition Two opposing approaches in thinking about the relationship between God and human beings arise from this sketch. Barth stresses that God is the absolute Other One, who is totally different from anything in us. He is beyond the human world and He can only be known by his revelation which can never be grasped and become part of human activities. ‘God is God and man is man.’11 There is a border which human beings cannot cross; only God can gracefully reveal Himself in an ungraspable event without duration or place in history. God is pure transcendence. Pietists and revivalists, on the other hand, emphasise God’s presence in the human heart, in human expressions, human lives, human feelings. Speaking about God is speaking about below, about God’s presence in the human world, in the very world of my inner self. Here is no transcendence, but pure presence. The point where classic pietists and Barth converged, namely in an awareness of God’s holy transcendence, has evaporated in modern revivalism. So the difference between Barth and charismatic theology seems to have increased rather than decreased. And it is precisely this present-day charismatic theology which interests Van der Kooi along with his work on Barth.

10  C  .A. van der Sluijs, Prediking in de crisis: Over de scheiding der geesten (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2005), 52. 11  “Seite um Seite hammert Barth ein: Gott ist Gott und der Mensch ist Mensch.” Ger Groot about Barth’s Römerbrief, quoted in C. van der Kooi, “Der Römerbrief: Ein Jahrhundert in neuer Edition,” in Theologie im Umbruch: Karl Barths frühe Dialektische Theologie, eds. G. Pfleiderer & H. Matern (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2014), 169–184, 169.

Barth and the Charismatics: How Can They Be Reconciled ?

3

141

Common Positions

The opposition seems to be clear and it seems unlikely that the gap can ever be bridged. However, in a further analysis the differences appear to be less dominant than the similarities. 3.1 From Above Though charismatic theology deals extensively with God’s presence in us, it is nevertheless convinced that God is only in us because He has come to us. It is precisely this aspect of Pietism which Barth values positively.12 He appreciates “Pietismus, sofern und soweit es spröde ist gegen die moderne Kultur, gegen die Verweltlichung des Glaubens.”13 According to both Barth and pietistic or charismatic theology, God is not naturally present in our world. He came from above, first in Christ and now in the Spirit. This is not only a theme in classic Pietism,14 but in present-day charismatic theology as well. In charismatic theology, too, there is a contrast between God and world. The world as such is god-less. In fact, the emphasis on the Holy Spirit as a gift implies that God is not naturally in the world. Both Barth and the charismatics acknowledge that God can only be known in this world if He reveals Himself and comes to this world. God is not a human project but a gracious gift to human beings. Thus, both charismatics and Barth oppose the idea of liberal theology that God can naturally be present in human beings and be found in humanity without revelation. God’s coming always implies a clear break with human possibilities, human opportunities and human projects. It is a break with anything that human beings may have in their own natural being. God’s coming does not imply an improvement of human beings, but a radical turn, a conversion whereby everything which human beings possess becomes a definitive past which excludes any looking back.15 3.2 Coming Down The difference between Barth and the charismatics is not about God’s coming but about the nature of God’s presence. Does it have continuity in us after God’s coming or not? For charismatic theology, it is clear: God dwells in us, and our lives share his ongoing presence. When God really comes in their lives 12  Busch, Pietisten, 100. 13  Busch, Pietisten, 87. 14  Busch, Pietisten, 104f, though Barth is aware of the pitfall of Pietism that precisely the consciousness of sin becomes a place to stand before God for the ‘pious sinner’ (Busch, Pietisten, 105f). 15  Busch, Pietisten, 108.

142

van de Beek

human beings become reborn Christians. This is a visible and audible reality. They express his indwelling in love, in praise, in healing. It is clear: they possess it. This seems in deep contrast with Barth’s idea that God never becomes part of our history. He can never be grasped or possessed. However, a more accurate analysis of Barth’s theology narrows the gap substantially. Barth, too, claims that conversion is effective in human beings. Even in Römerbrief II he argues that it is a turn in human beings which “sich »nicht bloẞ unanschaulich« volzieht.”16 “Gnade (…) kann nicht das anschauliche Leben der Sünde überlassen, um sich mit einem “andern,” “jenseitigen,” unanschaulichen Leben der Gerechtigkeit zufrieden zu geben.”17 In his mature work he elaborated further on this aspect. God is not only the transcendent Father and the revealing Word, but also the Holy Spirit. We must take into consideration “was er wirkt, ausrichtet, schafft und gibt in seiner Offenbarung.”18 God’s Word is effective and changes human beings. Revelation has a real impact.19 In one of the last volumes of the Church Dogmatics this is extensively elaborated. In the chapter “Die Weisung des Sohnes” Barth deals with the effects of God’s coming to human beings as the work of the Holy Spirit.20 Human beings are seen in the perspective of “der königliche Mensch.”21 Surely, all this is first of all said of Jesus Christ. He is the “königliche Mensch,” He is the Son who reveals the new being in the coming of God. So we cannot speak unambiguously about renewal and change of human lives. This ambi­ guity is not shared by the most radical charismatics. They emphasise that they have received the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, they as well sing: “Come into my heart, Lord Jesus.” In their view as well, there is an ongoing dependence on the coming Christ.22 Being filled with the Holy Spirit, they pray to become filled with the Holy Spirit. Thus, both charismatics and Barth know about the effect of God’s coming to human beings and both know He is not at our disposal. The difference is more a matter of degree than of fundamental disagreement. 16  Busch, Pietisten, 109. 17  K. Barth, Der Römerbrief 1922 (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984), 203. 18  Barth, KD I/1, 313. 19  Barth, KD I/1, 314. “Es bedeutet dass Gottes Werk auch auf der menschliche Seite, im anthropologischen Bereich, etwas bewirkt”; C. van der Kooi, “Die Phänomenologie des Heiligen Geistes im Spätwerk Karl Barths,” Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie 30.1 (2014), 33–49, 33. 20  Barth, KD IV/2: 356–359. 21  Barth, KD IV/2: 173–293. 22  Van der Kooi argues that precisely the focus on Christ is a bridge between evangelicals and Barth; C. van der Kooi, “Karl Barths Theologie als Einladung, Paradigma und Herausforderung,” Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie 23.1 (2008), 73–86, 79.

Barth and the Charismatics: How Can They Be Reconciled ?

143

Charismatics stress the effects, Barth points to the unavailability of God’s work through the power of human beings. However, though it is not in our own power, for Barth this does not mean that we are not fully involved in Gods acts in the world. When Barth writes about the relation of church and politics in his Christengemeinde und Bürgergemeinde23 it is not about a fictional world of mere ideas, but about concrete politics in European societies.24 This is not different from the very beginning of his critical theology.25 His rejection of nineteenth century civil theology was related to the context of the exploited laborers in Safenwil and his Römerbrief does not intend to turn their minds to an ideal world, but rather to call those people who were responsible for their fate to turn their lives precisely because they could not claim God for their own security and civility. Barth calls for a real change of the world, not only in ideas, in words and preaching, but in the material reality in all its aspects.26 That is precisely the reason that he does not only join the pietists because of their rejection of human projects and culture, but also joins the revivalists in their call for renewal. So he writes almost enthusiastically about J.C. Blumhardt “in dessen im Namen Jesu von der Seele auch ins Leiblichen vorstoẞenden, von der Gemeinde her auch die Welt umfassenden Hoffnungsbotschaft, in dessen Ausblick auf eine Ausgieẞung des heiligen Geistes über alles Fleisch das alte Evangelium eine neue Freiheit und Frische, Weite und Bedeutsamkeit bekam wie kaum bei einem Früheren.”27 Human beings in their entire bodily and societal existence are actually the focus of Barth’s critical theology.28 He expresses this increasingly, especially after he became aware that God is a God of human beings as explained in his

23  K. Barth, Christengemeinde und Bürgergemeinde (Zollikon/Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1946). Van der Kooi even speaks of “a politicization of the church” in his analysis of Barth’s Rechtfertigung und Recht; C. van der Kooi, “Justification and Public Justice: Barth’s ‘Rechtfertigung und Recht’ Reconsidered,” Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie, Supplement series 6 (2014), 195–208, 202. 24  Cf. C. van der Kooi, “De receptie van Barth in de theologie van Martien E. Brinkman,” in Om het godsgeheim: De theologie van Martien E. Brinkman, ed. C. van der Kooi (Amsterdam: VU University, 2015), 11–24, 12–15. 25  Van der Kooi correctly concludes that Barth’s rejection of ‘Erlebnis’ is related to the role of this concept in a justification of the war; C. van der Kooi, Anfängliche Theologie: der Denkweg des jungen Karl Barth (München: Kaiser, 1987), 237. 26  Van der Kooi, “Receptie van Barth,” 19. 27   K D IV/3, 653. 28  See Van der Kooi, Anfängliche Theologie, 245, about the importance of experience in the theology of Barth.

144

van de Beek

Die Menschlichkeit Gottes.29 Indeed, this notion has never been absent in his theology. God’s presence in human beings is not limited to Christians. ‘God’s choice for being in his Son, in communion with the man Jesus, extends to all co-humans of Jesus.’30 God has come to the whole world as his own, thus sometimes his presence shines through in unexpected places where people’s lives represent God’s Word. They are the lights of the world.31 The position of the mature Barth can best be demonstrated by his thought on baptism in the last, posthumous, volume of the Church Dogmatics. Here, Barth pleads for adult baptism. He rejects the natural theology which, in his opinion, is implied in infant baptism. People do not have a relation with God by virtue of their natural birth, but only because of God’s calling.32 However, they respond to this calling. This does not happen in a split second out of the blue. It is an effective response. Baptism implies continuity. One is baptized only once. It is a response which involves a whole life. And it is a response which includes the whole human person, body and mind, ideas and actions, the individual and society. Baptism is not a private event but a communal celebration. It occurs in the church. This implies not only a social embedding, but also a specific community which is distinct from the world. Thus, there is much more continuity in Christian life than would at first sight be apparent in Barth, given his ‘Senkrecht von oben.’ A focal point in both editions of the Römerbrief was Barth resistance against individualism. Certainly Barth’s theology is first of all a societal, even political, theology. Nevertheless, one cannot claim that Barth is against individuality. Busch argues that Barth always kept true to his rejection of individualism33 as expressed in his Römerbrief.34 However, he is only against the desire for personal individual salvation when this is combined with indifference towards the world, as if the whole world might just as well perish. The individual comes fully to light specifically as the personally called human being, who cannot hide behind any collective. In adult baptism the human being expresses personally, with his or her full consent, that he or she will follow God’s call throughout 29  K  . Barth, Die Menschlichkeit Gottes (Zollikon/Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1956), 10f. 30  V  an der Kooi, Als in een Spiegel: God kennen volgens Calvijn en Barth (Kampen: Kok, 2002) 391. 31  Barth, KD IV/3, 107. See Van der Kooi, Spiegel, 351–353. “The doctrine of ‘analogia fidei’ (…) offers the opportunity that anthropological and cultural phenomena also become a function of witness”; Van der Kooi, Spiegel, 379. 32  It is noteworthy that in the register of the KD the concept ‘Erweckung’ is inserted under the lemma ‘Berufung.’ Calling has always priority. 33  Busch, Pietisten, 102. 34  Busch, Pietisten, 76.

Barth and the Charismatics: How Can They Be Reconciled ?

145

his or her life. Thus, the calling of the individual person and the calling of the church is a calling to be in the whole world which is God’s world. Therefore dogmatics is in the same room as ethics. 3.3 Having Real Historical Effect “Barth polimisierte gegen das volkskirchliche Gewohnheitschristentum und stellte ihm das Leben einer “ernstlich so sich nennenden Gemeinde” entgegen.35 Aber er konnte nicht sagen, wo in dieser Welt eine solche Gemeinde zu finden sei. Nur eines forderte er am Ende seiner 10.000 Seiten dicken Glaubenslehre: Aus der Volkskirchen sollten Gemeinschaften mündiger Glaubensgeschwister werden. Zu diesem Zweck sollten die Pfarrer aufhören Kinder zu taufen.36 Wie aber aus der rein negativen Verweigerung positiv eine neue Kirchengemeinschaft erstehen könne, vermöchte Barth nicht darzulegen.”37 Indeed, Barth speaks about societal life, but he is not clear about the means to change reality.38 In particular, he does not state how the church and Christian activities should be organized in order to change the world. Over and over again the words are wonderful, but they also sound as if hanging in the air.39 The church must be devoid of all human projects and only keep the word of God. In the end, however, it looks like a ghost house,40 where, after the last aged worshippers have died, the doors are not even closed since the place is as empty as the tomb of a God who died of his own transcendence. Barth’s theology is not about history, but about a message—a wonderful message indeed, but a message without concreteness. Szaszi Bene rightly argued that God’s revelation in Barth’s theology is focused on epistemology,41 not on history and existence. Indeed, the example of Blumhardt that we quoted painfully illustrates this. Barth says wonderful things about the ‘ins Leiblichen vorstoẞenden, von der Gemeinde her auch die Welt umfassenden 35  Barth, KD IV/3, 1000. 36  Barth, KD IV/4, xif. 37  P.B. Rothen, Auf Sand gebaut: Warum die evangelischen Kirchen zerfallen (Berlin, Vienna: Lit Verlag, 2015), 12. 38  Van der Kooi, “Karl Barths Theologie als Einladung,” 85f. Cf. Van der Kooi, “Justification and Public Justice,” 208: theology should not only be about proclamation but also about practice. 39  Cf. C. van der Kooi, “Karl Barths zweiter Römerbrief und seine Wirkungen,” in Karl Barth in Deutschland (1921–1935): Aufbruch—Klärung—Widerstand, eds. M. Beintker et al. (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2005), 57–75, 75. 40  O. Noordmans, Verzamelde werken 2: Dogmatische peilingen. Rondom Schrift en Belijdenis (Kampen: Kok, 1979), 192. 41  C.Sz. Bene, The Identity of God: Modern and Biblical Notions of God, diss. VU, Amsterdam 2010, 83.

146

van de Beek

Hoffnungsbotschaft,’ but he does not deal with the concrete history of Gottliebin Dittus.42 Had he done so, he would have had to deal with the enormous gap between the record of her history, explicitly presented as a formal healing record in positivistic sense, and modern enlightened thought. The history of Gottliebin Dittus is used by Barth for his own message which fits very well in the Enlightenment, but finally her history is not relevant.43 The words sound fine, but what are they about? Surely not about history. The sound has been blown away by the wind of human history. No living communities inspired by his thought have been established.44 The Christians who understood his message turned to the world with a message for radical change, while the world changed according to her own patterns or whims without any need of theology, let alone the theology of Barth. Isn’t there a concrete difference here between Barth’s theology and the charismatic movement? The latter knows a great deal about concrete renewal and wonderful changes through the work of the Spirit. Charismatic theology will take the whole story of Gottliebin Dittus seriously, not only the message but also the historical events, her being possessed and her liberation and healing. And charismatic theology can add many other stories of healing through the power of the Spirit to a cloud of witnesses of the presence of the saving grace of God in the world. While the paradigm of Barthian theology finally leaves people with empty hands, the charismatics open a perspective on the visible, touchable, audible work of God. However, here too we have to continue with critical questions. If we accept that wonderous healings occur, what is their impact on the situation of health and illness in the world? They are incidents, like flashes in the night. The night of diseases and epidemics is not broken. The light of healing is only for a moment and limited to an individual person. Charismatic healing cannot compete with secular medical science, which has saved the lives of thousands and millions of people. If it is about concrete histories of healing, medical doctors can tell thousands of stories, which can be investigated and are well documented. If the power of God should be shown by healing, then God is an ambiguous, ephemeral possibility, over against a well-established medical science. And what can be said about medical science is applicable to all sciences. 42  J.C. Blumhardt, Die Krankheitsgeschichte der Gottliebin Dittus (Althengstett: Druckhaus Weber), 2010. 43  Cf. Van der Kooi, “Phänomenologie des Heiligen Geistes,” 48. 44  Van der Kooi rightly wonders if this aspect of community was not suppressed too much in Barth’s theology. C. van de Kooi, “De theologische betekenis van het protestantisme,” in Waar een Woord is … Het protestantisme doordacht, eds. S. van ’t Kruis et al. (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2016), 75–86, 83.

Barth and the Charismatics: How Can They Be Reconciled ?

147

Extraordinary gifts in the charismatic movement do not change human history. The impact on the spiritual life of human beings is much greater. Young people praise the name of the Lord. They are grateful, delighted, hopeful. They feel empowered to follow the calling of their lives. God does indeed change human beings. However, here again, what does their enthusiasm contribute to real history? Personally they feel good, but people can feel good about many things. God changes human beings, but what does this mean for human society? The message is about liberation, about ultimate freedom, but if we view the active presence of evangelical Christians in societal issues, the negative dominates. They are against abortion, against euthanasia. That is what the world knows about evangelical Christianity. You are not allowed to … Consequently, the liberal world can lay claim to freedom. It does not help merely to change a word, for example by replacing ‘anti-abortion’ with ‘prolife.’ It is about the real impact in the world. Certainly, the impact of evangelical Christianity is much greater than the results of Barthian theology, but it is not at all as powerful as the powers of the world. And this is precisely their claim: that the power of God is greater than all powers, and this will be visible in the world. Sadly we must conclude that the empowerment of the Spirit is an empowerment of some people to feel good and to sometimes express these feelings in acts of doing good, but not a world changing power. It is about empowerment, but with a power which does not result in lasting effects. Both Barth and the charismatics have a disclaimer in eschatology. Realization, at least full realization, is beyond the borders of our space and time. For charismatic theology it is about full realization, for signs of God’s healing power are already visible now. They work with the scheme ‘alreadynot yet.’ For Barth, eschatology does not mean something in the future. It is rather another word for transcendence.45 It means that realization is beyond our grasp and no phenomenon in the world can be seen as the visible presence or result of God’s work. Consequently, the calling is a continuous trigger for critical distance from existing situations. The difference between Barth and the charismatics is that Barth keeps to calling and thus unfulfillment, while the charismatics focus on the gifts of God and so experience visible, audible and touchable events of his work (though these are only a foretaste of that which has to come). Basically, however, they share a common position.

45  Busch, Pietisten, 90, 96–98.

148

van de Beek

3.4 The Role of Christ Because Barth focuses on the proclaimed word of God and the charismatics on empowerment, history is relegated to a second plan. This is also the case with the history of Jesus. It is well-known that Barth is not interested in the historical Jesus, not even in the historical facts of cross and resurrection.46 Consequently, he does not pay much attention to the life and sufferings of Christ. Actually it is not different from the way he deals with Blumhardt: he writes about the general message which he derives from a recorded event and not about the event itself. The estrangement and the sufferings on the cross and the agony of Gethsemane are not the core of Barth’s speaking about Christ. It is more about general concepts like revelation, grace, calling. Charismatic theology is diverse. Some revivalist preachers do indeed focus on the cross of Christ, but most charismatic theology is more interested in what happens here and now in human beings. Old pietism spent all its energy in describing the way God acts through his Spirit in bringing people to conversion, while recent enthusiastic revivalism is totally involved in the power and joy which fills human beings. 3.5 Conclusion In brief, we can conclude that both Barth and the charismatics have the following in common: – God is not naturally present in the world. His presence comes from beyond. – His coming aims at changing the world. – Its effects do not have a real historical impact, however. – The history of Jesus is less important than knowing God in the present. The different character of both approaches lies mainly in the fact that Barth focuses on the Word as a calling to the world, while the core attention of charismatics is on the gifts of God to human beings. 4

Van der Kooi, Barth, and the Charismatics

Van der Kooi chose two overwhelming discussion partners for his theological work, but he himself has not been overwhelmed by them. He uses their power but brings this back to normal proportions. He agrees with both that theology is about God’s coming. This has always been of prime importance.47 However, 46  Busch, Pietisten, 96; Van der Kooi, Anfängliche Theologie, 243f. 47  C. van der Kooi, “De Geest als tegenwoordige en vernieuwende kracht,” in Weergaloze kennis: Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk aangeboden

Barth and the Charismatics: How Can They Be Reconciled ?

149

he also maintains that God’s coming has concrete historical effects which can be experienced.48 He begins with Barth, whose work is the subject of his doctoral thesis. Van der Kooi is aware of the benefit of Barth’s theology.49 However, he is also aware of its limits, precisely because Barth stretches his point too far. Like Barth, Van der Kooi is convinced we can never grasp God. However, he is also convinced that the work of God in our lives is a precious gift. Barth prevents Christians from perceiving this gift as a proud possession within human power. The work of the Spirit is founded on God’s acts in and through Christ.50 However, it is also given to human beings. Here, Van der Kooi rather follows Calvin, who is well aware of the renewing work of the Spirit. One feels that when writing about God’s work in human beings as Calvin does, Van der Kooi, is at home. This is where his heart lies.51 Van der Kooi also employs another aspect of Calvin’s theology: the sacramentality of God’s presence. God’s presence is both word and sacrament. It is not only about hearing the word; God can also be experienced through all other senses.52 God can be touched, seen, even smelled and tasted.53 God’s presence has bodily impact. This leads Van der Kooi to the charismatics. And here again, the blazing fire is brought back to normal, sober, proportions. It is not the power of the enthusiastic Christian oozing his spiritual fullness in excessive expression, but the wonderful experience of healing and praise in human beings.54 It is the wonderful gift that even human beings are involved aan prof. Dr. Barend Kamphuis, eds. Ad de Bruijne, Hans Burger, and Dolf te Velde (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015), 57–66, 60. 48  Van der Kooi, “Vernieuwende kracht,” 60–65. 49  C. van der Kooi, In de school van de Geest: triniteits-theologische kanttekeningen bij de charismatische vernieuwing (Gorinchem: Ekklesia, 2003), 13. 50  C. van der Kooi, “Die groβen Taten Gottes: Bemerkungen zu einem unverzichtbaren theologischen Begriff,” in Post-Theism: Reframing het Judeo-Christian Tradition, eds. H.A. Krop et al. (Louvain: Peeters, 2000), 341–353, 352. 51  See e.g. C. van der Kooi, “Gotteserkenntnis und Selbsterkenntnis: Über die Nützlichkeit der Theologie bei Calvin,” in Calvins Theologie für heute und morgen. Beiträge des Siegener Calvin-Kongresses 2009, ed. G. Plasger (Wuppertal: Foedus Verlag, 2010), 83–100, esp. 99; C. van der Kooi, “Uitgenodigd: Calvijn en het kennen van God,” in Calvijn na 500 jaar: Een lees- en gespreksboek, eds. W. de Greef & M. van Campen (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2009), 29–41, esp. 37–41. 52   C. van der Kooi, “Godservaringen in de belevingscultuur: theologische reflecties,” Kontekstueel 20.2 (2005), 9–13, 12. See also C. van der Kooi, “Anthropomorphisms and Reliability in the Theology of John Calvin; with a Short Note on Karl Barth,” in Freedom, eds. A. van Egmond & D. van Keulen (Baarn: Callenbach, 1996), 68–77, about the use of anthropomorphisms by God (not for God!); C. van der Kooi, Spiegel, 18, 397f. 53  Van der Kooi, Spiegel, 75–83, 203–205. 54  Van der Kooi, School, 16, 20f, 33.

150

van de Beek

in God’s acts. This gift is present both in preaching and speaking the Word and in sacramental unction, imposition of hands and prayer. Van der Kooi does not have great visions about a calling for the whole of society, neither in the form of Neo-Calvinism nor as Barthianism. Nevertheless, he notices God’s work in human history55—in the variations and limitations which are characteristic of human beings.56 Van der Kooi opts for a theology of consolation and joy. Therefore it should be a critical theology, not only in order to tame those who will grasp the gospel, becoming proud possessors of its power, (here Barth takes the stage in his theology), but also critical against those who are prone to deny any work of the Spirit in precious gifts to human beings. By nuancing the effects of the gospel in human history as subtle and gracious experiences,57 Van der Kooi makes room for the great history which is central to theology: the history of Christ. Or stated differently: because we have heard the great history of Christ, we can be modest about the history of Christians while at the same time enjoying the gifts and side benefits of the great history of Christ. Usually Van der Kooi is well-balanced and he gently reaps the benefits of the two positions. He is not a theologian of harsh positions and exclusions. However, there is one exception: where it concerns the great history, the history of Christ. There he positions himself radically. Christ is God’s own coming and He is this in the real, concrete history of his life, suffering and death. The historical particularity of Jesus is indeed the ground of our speaking of God as a person.58 Van der Kooi, in his book Hinkelen binnen de lijnen59, radically opposes Harry Kuitert, who denies the divinity of Christ and downgrades Him to a mere human being. Jesus is not only God’s representative.60 God is really, personally present in Christ.61 And He is so historically, in the healing narratives of the gospels, and in the sufferings of Gethsemane and the crucifixion. The death of Christ is not only the death of a just, or even the Just par excellence, who gave his life because of his faithfulness to other human beings as 55  Van der Kooi, “Protestantisme,” 84. 56  Van der Kooi, “Godservaringen,” 13; Spiegel, 22f. 57  Van der Kooi, Spiegel, 20: God’s presence in human knowledge and acts is not something to be spoken about loudly or with great aplomb as if God were a demonstrable entity. 58  C. van der Kooi, “De aanspreekbaarheid van God,” Kontekstueel 26.4 (2012), 16–19, 19. 59  C. van der Kooi, Hinkelen binnen de lijnen: enkele krijtstrepen voor een christologie (Kampen: Kok, 1999. 60  Van der Kooi, Hinkelen, 30–32. 61  Van der Kooi, Hinkelen, 41f, 46; C. van der Kooi, “Hoge christologie ter wille van een geschonden wereld: Dogmatische kanttekeningen,” in Jezus bij hoog en bij laag: De christologie van Van de Beek en Kuitert, eds. H.M. Kuitert et al. (Kampen: Kok, 1999), 25–33.

Barth and the Charismatics: How Can They Be Reconciled ?

151

an expression of God’s faithful love for his creatures. It is, according to Van der Kooi, in line with the orthodox tradition of the church, also bearing the wrath of God over human sin.62 Because of Christ’s solidarity with sinners He suffered the punishment which they deserve. Because the core of Van der Kooi’s theology lies in the historical event of Christ, all further expressions of God’s coming in the world are to be viewed in the light of this coming. It is precisely here that Van der Kooi goes beyond both Barth and the charismatics, while gently profiting from what for them is the paramount concern. If the historical Jesus in an historical event is the hallmark of God’s acts, we cannot claim any action of our own as fundamental—that is where Barth is right. The Spirit is always the Spirit of Jesus Christ.63 However, we may trace the side benefits of this event in the power of the spirit in human lives—that is where the charismatics are right. None of them is exclusive, and precisely therefore they can be fruitful. Van der Kooi is positive about charismatic renewal. God’s salutary presence has bodily impact and changes relations. It is about the renewal of the whole human being. This is expressed over and over, and it is clear that this is Van der Kooi’s contribution to the enrichment of classic theology. It is not an uncritical contribution. Healing cannot be grasped by Christians who are filled with the Spirit, and prayer can end in deception. Van der Kooi often points to the cross. The power of the resurrection is never present in this world without knowledge of the cross. Thus, despite its emphasis on personal renewal, Van der Kooi’s version of charismatic theology is not at all a theology of uncontested glory. 5

A Question to Van der Kooi

Finally, one question remains. Van der Kooi gives due attention to the work and the person of Christ. However, does he sufficiently take into account that the historical presence of Christ ends with his agony and death?64 Is God not much more visible than any charismatic expression of healing and joy can display in the crosses of this world—a world which perishes as a result of the power and sin of human beings? Cannot we see God everywhere where human beings, in confrontation with sin and death, wonder: ‘Why?’ The historical 62  C  . van der Kooi, “Dankzij of ondanks de dood van Jezus?” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 51 (1997), 281–297; Van der Kooi, Hinkelen, 74–75, 93–94; 63  Van der Kooi, School, 29. 64  The same question must be asked to Barth and to radical charismatics. Do they speak about God concretely or idealistically?

152

van de Beek

Jesus who died on the cross is the way in which God is visible, and in the prayer of Gethsemane and the words on the cross He is audible. It is in the remembrance of his death in the Eucharist that we touch, smell and taste his body. Van der Kooi claims that the resurrection is something new, in line with the healing acts of Jesus.65 I agree that cross and resurrection belong intrinsically together.66 However, how are they related in the existence of Christians? The healings of Jesus are not so much the beginning of the new world, but rather signs of his authority—which finds its fulfilment in his death on the cross. Therefore, my discussion with Van der Kooi would be on the continuity and discontinuity of the moments of light in human history on the one hand and eschatological reality on the other. How must historical events be interpreted in light of God’s coming? Van der Kooi emphasises again and again that the healing gifts are only a contested beginning—but nevertheless a beginning. There is a continuity between healing in the church and life in the resurrection. Does he really take into account the historical, bodily visibility of God in Christ? His crucifixion is the end of his life in history. His resurrection is beyond history, only present in the world as flashes in the night in his manifestations to the women and to the disciples. Seeing God in history is seeing Him as the crucified One and the reflections of his presence are in those who die every day in this life which is nothing but a steady death. Do we speak—softly—about God’s presence when human beings are healed, or should we rather cry where human beings are sacrificed due to the power of successful people? Van der Kooi states: “It can be that both moments, cross and resurrection in our Christian thought are so balanced that the tension is lost. Then balance has become a deadly balance. The fact is concealed that the gospel itself has revealed the movement from dark to light, from cross to resurrection.”67 Certainly, cross and resurrection are not in balance. The cross is history, resurrection is eternity. In God’s eternal judgement we will receive resurrection. In human history it is well-balanced to focus on the cross. In the death of Jesus on the cross the fate of history was decided: it is dead and Christians in this world are dead for the world. There is no progress.68 Together with the Spirit of Christ and the whole of creation we groan while awaiting the revelation of the children of God. And the last enemy we have to face is death. That is the direction of human history. We suffer with Christ, and if we suffer with Him in 65  Van der Kooi, “Taten Gottes,” 349, 353. 66  Van der Kooi, “Hoge christologie,” 32. 67  C. van der Kooi, “Zonde, schuld en de dienst der genezing,” Kontekstueel 17.5 (2003), 8–11, 11. 68  Van der Kooi already points to this difference in our theology; C. van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest: Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest (Kampen: Kok, 2006), 13.

Barth and the Charismatics: How Can They Be Reconciled ?

153

history we will be glorified with Him (Rom.8:17). That is concrete eschatology, just like the cross is concrete history. Do Christians have to direct their attention to healing or to agony? Or maybe to agony as basic and to healing as a moment of empowerment, because human beings, even or precisely Christian human beings, are too weak to live only with agony? Certainly, the Lord has such power as the gospels tell us, but the apex and true character of his presence is his crucifixion. It is at the cross that God joins human history. I may be blamed for this view, like Origen was blamed by Celsus who accused Christians of having the joy of worms: only searching for dead bodies.69 My answer would be like his: Christians know about the dead bodies of the world since their Lord’s highest glory in this world was his dead body, but He was resurrected to life, and so we and all his members will be. Bibliography Barth, K. Der Römerbrief 1922. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1984. Barth, K. Kirchliche Dogmatik. Zollikon: Evangelische Buchhandlung; Zürich: EVZ; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1932–1970. Barth, K. Christengemeinde und Bürgergemeinde. Zollikon, Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1946 Barth, K. Die Menschlichkeit Gottes. Zollikon, Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1956. Bene, C.Sz. The Identity of God: Modern and Biblical Notions of God. Doctoral dissertation. VU. Amsterdam 2010. Blumhardt, J.C. Die Krankheitsgeschichte der Gottliebin Dittus. Althengstett: Druckhaus Weber, 2010. Busch, E. Karl Barth und die Pietisten: Die Pietismuskritik des jungen Karl Barth und ihre Erwiderung. München: Kaiser Verlag, 1978. Kooi, C. van der. Anfängliche Theologie: der Denkweg des jungen Karl Barth. München: Kaiser, 1987. Kooi, C. van der. “Anthropomorphisms and Reliability in the Theology of John Calvin; with a Short Note on Karl Barth.” In Freedom. Eds. A. van Egmond and D. van Keulen. Baarn: Callenbach, 1996, 68–77. Kooi, C. van der. “Dankzij of ondanks de dood van Jezus?” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 51 (1997): 281–297. Kooi, C. van der. Hinkelen binnen de lijnen: Enkele krijtstrepen voor een christologie. Kampen: Kok, 1999. 69  Origen, Contra Celsum V,14 and 19; see also IV,23: Christians are like worms in a dunghill.

154

van de Beek

Kooi, C. van der. “Hoge christologie ter wille van een geschonden wereld: Dogmatische kanttekeningen.” In Jezus bij hoog en bij laag: De christologie van Van de Beek en Kuitert. Eds. H.M. Kuitert et al. Kampen: Kok, 1999, 25–33. Kooi, C. van der. “Die groβen Taten Gottes: Bemerkungen zu einem unverzichtbaren theologischen Begriff.” In Post-Theism: Reframing het Judeo-Christian Tradition. Eds. H.A. Krop et al. Louvain: Peeters, 2000, 341–353. Kooi, C. van der. Als in een Spiegel: God kennen volgens Calvijn en Barth. Kampen: Kok, 2002. Kooi, C. van der. “Zonde, schuld en de dienst der genezing.” Kontekstueel 17.5 (2003): 8–11. Kooi, C. van der. In de school van de Geest: Triniteits-theologische kanttekeningen bij de charismatische vernieuwing. Gorinchem: Ekklesia, 2003. Kooi, C. van der. “Karl Barths zweiter Römerbrief und seine Wirkungen.” In Karl Barth in Deutschland (1921–1935): Aufbruch—Klärung—Widerstand. Eds. M. Beintker et al. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2005, 57–75. Kooi, C. van der. “Godservaringen in de belevingscultuur: theologische reflecties.” Kontekstueel 20.2 (2005): 9–13. Kooi, C. van der. Tegenwoordigheid van Geest: Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest. Kampen: Kok, 2006. Kooi, C. van der. “Karl Barths Theologie als Einladung, Paradigma und Herausforderung.” Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie 23. 1 (2008): 73–86. Kooi, C. van der. “Uitgenodigd: Calvijn en het kennen van God.” In Calvijn na 500 jaar: Een lees- en gespreksboek. Eds. W. de Greef & M. van Campen. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2009, 29–41. Kooi, C. van der. “Gotteserkenntnis und Selbsterkenntnis: Über die Nützlichkeit der Theologie bei Calvin.” In Calvins Theologie für heute und morgen: Beiträge des Siegener Calvin-Kongresses 2009. Ed. G. Plasger. Wuppertal: Foedus Verlag, 2010, 83–100. Kooi, C. van der. “De aanspreekbaarheid van God.” Kontekstueel 26.4 (2012): 16–19. Kooi, C. van der. “Der Römerbrief: Ein Jahrhundert in neuer Edition.” In Theologie im Umbruch: Karl Barths frühe Dialektische Theologie. Eds. G. Pfleiderer and H. Matern. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2014, 169–184. Kooi, C. van der. “Die Phänomenologie des Heiligen Geistes im Spätwerk Karl Barths.” Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie 30.1 (2014): 33–49. Kooi, C. van der. “Justification and Public Justice: Barth’s ‘Rechtfertigung und Recht’ Reconsidered.” Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie, Supplement series 6 (2014): 195–208. Kooi, C. van der. “De receptie van Barth in de theologie van Martien E. Brinkman.” In Om het godsgeheim: De theologie van Martien E. Brinkman. Ed. C. van der Kooi, 11–24. Amsterdam: VU University, 2015.

Barth and the Charismatics: How Can They Be Reconciled ?

155

Kooi, C. van der. “De Geest als tegenwoordige en vernieuwende kracht.” Weergaloze kennis: Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk aangeboden aan prof. Dr. Barend Kamphuis. Eds. A. de Bruijne, H. Burger, and D. ter Velde. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015, 57–66. Kooi, C. van der. “De theologische betekenis van het protestantisme.” In Waar een Woord is … Het protestantisme doordacht. Eds. S. van ’t Kruis et al. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2016, 75–86. Noordmans, O. Verzamelde werken 2: Dogmatische peilingen. Rondom Schrift en Belijdenis. Kampen: Kok, 1979. Origenes, Contra Celsum Libri VIII. Ed. by M. Marcovich. Vigiliae Christianae Supplement 54. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Rothen, P.B. Auf Sand gebaut: Warum die evangelischen Kirchen zerfallen. Berlin, Vienna: Lit Verlag, 2015. Sluijs, C.A. van der. Prediking in de crisis: Over de scheiding der geesten. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2005. Sluijs, C.A. van der. Reizend naar die stad: Overpeinzingen en overwegingen bij herinneringen. Kampen: Brevier, 2015.

chapter 10

Substitution as a Pneumatological Concept Martien E. Brinkman 1 Introduction In the last lines of the poem “Christ on the Cross” by the Argentine poet Jorge Luis Borges (1899–1986) the following question is raised: “What good does it all to me that that man [Jesus] suffered so, when I am suffering now?”1 Borges wrote this poem two years before his death, when he was staying in Kyoto, Japan. He did not profess a specific religion but was interested in all the major world religions, particularly in their main or founding figures. In this poem he raises the question of the positive effect of Christ’s suffering on those who suffer now. A negative answer to the question seems to be obvious. Christ’s suffering has not had any restraining effect on suffering in any way since then. Borges also knows, of course, that suffering had not been eradicated. And Christ’s death, however cruel it was, was not the cruelest ever. Borges knows that as well. The last line of his poem probably expresses the more general question of the effect of the suffering of this one person. Can one person have a salvific influence on the lives of others? Borges is certainly not the first person to raise this question. It is thus tempting to see here nothing more than the classical Enlightenment question, so illustratively articulated by Kant in his emphasis on the non-transferable character of personal guilt.2 Taking on someone’s guilt is then seen as a denial of that other’s personal responsibility. Does Borges also take his place in what has in the meantime become a long, long line of critics of the doctrine of Christ’s substitutionary death? I do not think that is the case. Instead, he seems to be wrestling with the question how God’s radical incarnation (immanence) can still be related to any form of transcendence. How can any power—such as the power of forgiveness—continue to emanate from one person who, just like so many others, died on a cross? I strongly have the impression that that

1  J.L. Borges, Selected poems, ed. and transl. A. Coleman (New York: Viking, 1999), 463. 2  I. Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft (Königsberg 1794, repr. in Philosophische Bibliothek 45, Hamburg: Meiner, 1990), 77.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_012

Substitution as a Pneumatological Concept

157

is truly an open question for him and not simply a rhetorical one to which the answer is already known in advance. What is striking in this poem is that Borges separates the entire later theological reflection on the person of Jesus from that one suffering human being on the cross, apart from one exception, namely, the doctrine of pardon. That is a doctrine, he writes, ‘with the power to cancel out the past.’ In the Argentina of his time, that of the military junta (1976–1983) with the disappearance of thousands of young people, forgiveness was a burning issue, especially in the decades after the premature amnesty laws. But what does the connection to the cross add to this doctrine? Borges says about Jesus: “He knows he is no god and is a man,” but he holds on, nevertheless, to the connection between the cross and forgiveness. Why? Here we encounter one of the most important questions of the Christian doctrine of reconciliation: What dimension does the cross add to the (socially quite relevant) doctrine of forgiveness? For Borges, it was a doctrine with the power to cancel out the past—especially a guilty past. Can Christ’s cross exercise influence on that at all? In this contribution, I want to underscore the tri-unity of cross, forgiveness, and sacramental participation. To that end, I will emphasize the pneumatological aspect of the doctrine of the sacraments. It is, after all, the Holy Spirit who enables us, through the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, to participate in the forgiveness Christ achieved for us on the cross. I will first point to the role of the idea of substitution in contemporary culture, which I will illustrate by means of contemporary films. Then I will present the connection between cross, forgiveness, and sacrament in Paul. Finally I will return to the question formulated by Borges in the title of this contribution. 2

The Hidden Christ

We have become accustomed in the West to consider the notion of substitution as questionable. It seems to stand in the way of one of the major accomplishments of the Enlightenment: the emphasis on human autonomy. Against that background, I was very surprised to discover that the notion of substitution is one of the most dominant themes in modern film. How can that be explained? Let me first sketch a few general trends in films in which a Christ figure can be detected. This always concerns a so-called hidden Christ. In contrast to the often biographically oriented, explicit Jesus films, the implicit hidden Christ films always present fictional film characters that invoke a comparison with

158

Brinkman

Christ in a significant way.3 The hidden Christ is then a fictional human individual who can be seen as a new embodiment of the meaning to be ascribed to the biblical figure of Jesus in the present. The Christ figure usually includes just enough aspects to break through the immanent frame and thus to create the possibility of reflecting anew on our own existence in light of the God‐human mystery that Jesus personifies. This figure is constantly found at the interface of identity and non‐identity with the historical Jesus figure. It does not, therefore, make much sense to argue that the cinematic Christ figure is distinct from the historical Jesus.4 What is decisive is, of course, the question how this Christ figure can be recognized in such a way that we can identify with him. This, after all, is what this contribution is about. The association with the Christ figure is encountered primarily in films in which the main character displays (1) a high sense of vocation, (2) proclaims a message of a radically different world, (3) devotes his life to the good of others, and (4) in which his life finds completion beyond his own death. To be able to speak about a Christ figure a number of these four characteristics (criteria) has to be present in a sufficiently striking way. They have to determine the life of the Christ figure to a large extent. All these four characteristics, however, do not need to be present in the same way. Sometimes some of them are even lacking. It suffices then that some of the above-mentioned other characteristics are present in such a striking way, that they already are able to evoke the reference to a Christ figure in a convincing way.5 Usually, these films do not explicitly claim to reveal the essence of Jesus’ work. The references belong to the implicit story line. The Christ who encounters us in these films can only be detected in indirect, namely, secular packaging, and that almost always means: open to diverse interpretations. Therefore, sooner or later, all film interpretations that point to an openness for Christian interpretations must be brought into connection with three guiding principles: the Bible, the mainstream Christian tradition, and the mainstream contemporary Christian experience. I do realize, of course, that these broad principles are difficult to apply strictly, but all of them must nevertheless be taken into consideration in order to confirm the authenticity of the reference to the Christ figure. 3  L. Baugh, Imaging the Divine: Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1997), IX. 4  M.E. Brinkman, Jesus Incognito: The Hidden Christ in Western Art since 1960 (Amsterdam, Rodopi, 2013), 41–42. 5  Brinkman, Jesus Incognito, 28–29 and 94–97.

Substitution as a Pneumatological Concept

159

Every film that leaves open the possibility of a reference to a hidden Christ will always start with his humanity. Human behaviour will be central in such a film. In theological jargon, this means that it is always primarily a Christology ‘from below’; it is always a matter of immanent transcendence. That is implied by the Christian belief in the incarnation, the Word becoming flesh. That is why, from a Christian point of view, the perception of our everyday reality can also be suggestive. It can contain hints of another reality. To quote T.S. Eliot’s Four Quartets: “The hint half guessed, the gift half understood, is Incarnation” (Quartet No. 3: “The Dry Salvages”). These films fascinate because of the way in which the divine is depicted. Sometimes, a filmmaker uses traditional symbols like a storm, thunder, or lightning (this accompanies Babette’s arrival in Babette’s Feast) or the ringing of bells in heaven (which can be heard at Bess’ burial at sea in Breaking the Waves). Usually, however, they are more original, surprising references. We often see a reference to an interpersonal experience. The hidden Christ is thus never—the word ‘hidden’ says it all—an obvious Christ. To detect the hidden Christ in modern films, I will turn in the first place to the Routledge Companion to Religion and Film and look at the articles on “Heroes and Superheroes” and “Sacrifice.” The article on “Heroes” says: “Within motion pictures’ dramatic frames, protagonists typically express ethical goals and virtues esteemed by audience members. In acting out those values, they sacrifice themselves to advance the welfare of others.”6 Films like Dead Man Walking (1995), The Straight Story (1999), and Babette’s Feast (1987) portray tasks of moral reconciliation among people alienated from one another or tempted to act vengefully. Their heroes indicate that movements toward reconciliation often require painful courage, especially if hatred has festered for years. In the four Superman films (1978–2006) we recognize how Superman chooses to sacrifice his own personal happiness for the greater good. It is obvious that these heroes (male and female) often have strong messianic characteristics.7 But it is also obvious that the filmmakers make their own selections, especially in films on superheroes like the Star Wars and Superman films. Rather than issuing a call for personal responsibility, these films just summon their audiences to follow leaders who act as vigilantes to rid the world of evil. They do not speak about guilt, and often not about reconciliation either.

6  R. Jewett and J. Lawrence, “Heroes and SuperHeroes,” in The Routledge Companion to Religion and Film, ed. J. Lyden (London, New York: Routledge 2009), 385. 7  See A.K. Kozlovic, “The Structural Characteristics of the Cinematic Christ-Figure,” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 8 (2004), 1–71 (online).

160

Brinkman

In his contribution on “Sacrifice,” Jon Pahl identifies at least four key elements of the idea of sacrifice: (1) selection of a victim or object to be offered, (2) substitution of a victim or object for a larger group, (3) giving up (e.g., burning), expelling, or killing the victim or object, and (4) catharsis. Such a catharsis includes identification with the victim or object and the association of some emotion or attribute that serves as the motive or rationale for the gift, expulsion, or killing.8 He argues that sacrifice in American films often serves very different aims: personal integrity, the progress of whatever cause, the national interest, etc. Often, sacrifice no longer has anything to do with the traditional religious sacrifice, not to mention the sacrifice of Christ. It seems, he says, that Hollywood has created its own zone for sacrifice in films that can be connected with whatever motives one wants. He sees more direct references to sacrifice in the Christian tradition in non-American films like Andrej Tarkovsky’s The Sacrifice (1986), Lars von Trier’s Breaking the Waves (1996), and Gabriel Axel’s Babette’s Feast. In what follows below, I will examine the last two. 3

Substitution in Breaking the Waves and Babette’s Feast

3.1 Breaking the Waves The main character in Breaking the Waves, Bess, is a young woman who, on the basis of her deep Christian faith, knows very clearly what she wants, even though she is rather simple-minded, illiterate, and has a psychiatric past. At the beginning of the film, it is apparent that Bess wants to marry Jan, a non-believer, who works on a drilling rig off the Scottish coast. Her strict Presbyterian faith community follows her intentions with distrust and suspicion. After their marriage in the church, Jan leaves again for the platform. Bess is desperate and prays that God will send him back quickly. That is precisely what happens, but in a different way than Bess had hoped. He was involved in a serious accident on the rig and, paralyzed, is brought back to Bess’ village by helicopter. He undergoes various risky operations. Bess prays for a miracle. More or less hallucinating because of the medicine he is taking, Jan asks Bess to sleep with other men and to think of him while she does so. Beth makes her sacrifice, and makes a pact with God in prayer. In fact, she becomes a prostitute, which leads to her being thrown out of her (parental) home and church. When Bess is injured during her work as a prostitute so badly that she dies, she is denied a church burial. Shortly before her burial, Jan’s co-workers steal her body and bury her at sea. The moment her body slips into the sea, two large church bells ring high in the heavens. At the end of the film Jan is apparently able to walk again. The meaning of the film is 8  J. Pahl, “Sacrifice,” in The Routledge Companion to Religion and Film, ed. Lyden, 465–481.

Substitution as a Pneumatological Concept

161

clear: Bess gave her life for Jan. Does that make her a hidden Christ? Instead of a weak, mentally unstable woman, she is extremely strong-willed with respect to her pact with God and with Jan, her husband. Her willingness defies all our moral judgements. At first glance, it seems that Bess does not survive her own sacrifice: the resurrection is granted to someone else (Jan). Cross and resurrection seem to be divided between two people, but the heavenly bells suggest at least her ascension to heaven. Is she a hidden Christ? 3.2 Babbette’s Feast Babette’s Feast, based on a story of the same name by Karen Blixen, narrates the mysterious experience of conversion undergone by the members of a small pietistic Lutheran community, a conversion occasioned by the presence and activity of a French female refugee, Babette. Set in Jutland (Denmark) in the year 1883, the film centers upon the life of two sisters Philippa and Martina (named after Philip Melanchthon and Martin Luther), daughters of the deceased founder and pastor of the community. Both of them rejected an impassioned suitor in order to serve their father and his legacy as a pastor. The members of the community lead a joyless life till Babette enters the village on a stormy night. Becoming the sisters’ cook, Babette carries out her duties faithfully while concealing the fact that she was once the famous chef of a fancy restaurant in Paris and that she had suffered grievous losses in her family. The transforming moments in the film come when a lottery ticket once purchased in Paris wins an extraordinary prize. Instead of using it to flee her grim circumstances, Babette sets about to give her adoptive community a magnificent feast and orders the supplies for the festive meal from Paris. Babette’s guests become suspicious of the worldly luxury as her culinary cargo begins to arrive, but she patiently coaxes them (twelve people in total) to eat and drink. During dinner, one of the two foreign guests, the former suitor of one of the daughters, who had now become a famous general, delivers a speech in which he compares the extraordinary and lavish character of the dinner with the infinity of God’s grace. This speech is experienced as a blessing by those present; it relaxes them. His words create the space for forgiveness and for wishing one another God’s blessing. The ill-tempered guests begin to overcome long-felt grudges, and the general begins to savor life again. As the mediator of grace, Babette has lovingly given something her community needed, creating within them a new perspective in which they become more accepting of each other.9 The name of Christ is seldom mentioned in the film, 9  Cf. Baugh, Imaging the Divine, 137–145 and C. Marsh, “Did you say ‘Grace’? Eating in Community in Babette’s Feast,” in Explorations in Theology and Film, eds. C. Marsh and G. Ortiz (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 206–218.

162

Brinkman

but in the opening scene we immediately see a row of flatfish drying on a wash line. The hidden Christ is thus present in the form of fish (the well-known Christogram) right from the beginning. Babette places her work as cook within the framework of her development as an artist. Her self-realization as cook occurs along the path of self-sacrifice. According to Philippa, in paradise she will be the great artist God meant her to be. Is she a hidden Christ? 3.3 Analysis In these two films, it is clear that the filmmakers take seriously the possibility that one person can act in a salvific way for another, and even for a whole community. Both films openly treat the theme of substitution. They illustrate the idea that substitution has not disappeared from our Western culture by any means. This is reflected in dozens of films, but, in these two films, substitution occurs in an explicit Christian setting. That is not usually the case in the other films mentioned above. Because of that, it is quite clear that substitution plays a considerably larger role in our Western culture than critics of this doctrine would have us believe. The Westerner is apparently more aware of her own limits and dependence on others than the Enlightenment euphoria would have us believe. To quote the Dutch Roman Catholic theologian Nico Schreurs: “Substitution reflects the real fact that people cannot save themselves. Often persons are entangled in the bad consequences of evil, from which they cannot redeem themselves, so that they have to appeal to somebody else who may then take their place.”10 In many films, substitution is not an ambiguous notion that is viewed as a violation of someone’s own responsibility. On the contrary, substitution leads to inspiring examples. When we ask about the effect, the aim, of substitution, Hollywood’s answer is, as stated above, very differentiated. In this contribution, I will limit myself to what we can determine in this context from the European films Breaking the Waves and Babette’s Feast. Bess makes her promises to God and to Jan partly out of her feelings of guilt. She had, after all, asked for Jan’s quick return! Feelings of guilt and the hope of Jan’s recovery are her primary motivation. Babette acts out of gratitude for the home she has been given and the trust she enjoys. The meal prepared by her is, in a certain sense, a reconciliation meal. For her, it is also a way to reconcile herself to the loss of her husband and son who died during the revolt of the Communards (1871). Her actions are part of a positive process of self-development in which self-sacrifice has an important 10  N.F.M. Schreurs, “Substitution and Salvation: An Example of Systematic Theology in Dialogue with Exegesis,” in Theology between Church, University, and Society, eds. M.E. Brinkman, N.F.M. Schreurs, H.M. Vroom, and C.J. Wethmar (Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003), 133.

Substitution as a Pneumatological Concept

163

place. She sees her work as a chef as her self-development as an artist, and the commitment to others has an important place in that process. If we wonder how voluntary Bess’ self-sacrifice really is, it is more than clear in Babette’s case that it is her own voluntary choice. After all, when she heard that she had won a large sum of money in a lottery, she could have left her humble work in the church community behind her. Theologically, it is extremely fascinating to see what role the communal meal plays in Babette’s Feast. The meal very quickly begins to resemble the Lord’s Supper. The word of grace spoken by the general is given shape in bread and wine and leads to a drastic change in behaviour among those sharing this meal. The effect of the meal plays a key role in this film. Only then, at the meal, do the participants truly understand the meaning of the Gospel words that they heard so often proclaimed from the pulpit, and only now do they also begin to live according to them. The film thus very closely approaches how Paul speaks about the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, to which we turn now. 4

Participation in Christ

Paul ties the life of a Christian very directly to Christ’s cross and resurrection. To be baptized in Christ means, for him, to be buried and risen in Christ: “We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the father, we too may live a new life. If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. For we know that our old self was crucified with him (…)” (Rom.6:4–6a).11 Paul enjoins us here to seek our identity in the identification with someone else, i.e., Christ. Parallels in Greek mystery religions are often brought up in connection with this strict identification, but a direct relation has never been shown until now. There is a wide difference, after all, between a striking analogy and a direct genealogy (descent). There does not seem to be any compelling reason to doubt the originality (effected by the Holy Spirit) of Paul’s emphasis on our identification with Christ. For him, the identification with Christ was the only possibility to obtain a new, unique identity: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal.2:20a). The turn to Christ always implies, for Paul, the willingness to participate in his cross: “Paul had no thought of conversion to Christ somehow independent of the cross. Participation in Christ always 11  Cf. also Col.2:12.

164

Brinkman

included participation in his death.”12 Christ is presented to us on the cross as giving his life “as a ransom for many” (Mk.10:45). Because of that substitution, we participate in the sacrament through the activity of the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit who allows us to participate in his death and resurrection: “we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory” (Rom.8:17).13 The participation in Christ’s cross and resurrection thus forms the heart of his theology of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Participation in these sacraments means participation in his cross and resurrection. “Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor.10:16). This participation brings about a new phase in one’s life: “(…) a new creation. The old has gone, the new has come.” (2 Cor.5:17). For Paul, the substitution that is experienced is therefore an inclusive substitution and never an exclusive one. It presupposes our participation and can never be an excuse for passivity. Participation in the sacraments and the sanctification of life are intrinsically connected. That is why the Reformed tradition has always closely connected justification and sanctification (in this order). Here it followed the early church, which linked both a ritual (the sacrament) and an ethic, a new way of life, with faith in the power of forgiveness and the resurrection of Christ. Dying and rising with Christ was never purely a matter of cognitive assent but also one of acting, both symbolically (ritually/sacramentally) and in one’s actual life. 5

Substitution versus Autonomy?

According to Romans 8, it is the work of the Holy Spirit that transforms the identification with Christ’s death and resurrection to a profound experience of freedom. In this experience, human self-realization is seen as a mirror of God’s self-realization (self-revelation) in Christ. His cross is our cross as well, and His resurrection is also ours. We are invited to become involved in this divine movement from cross to resurrection. To be involved in this movement means to be invited to accept a gift, namely, the gift of our true self. That confronts us with the question of what constitutes our self.

12  J.D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (London: T&T Clark, 2003/1998), 410. 13  C.E. Clifford (ed.), For the Communion of the Churches: The Contributions of the Groupe des Dombes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 59–94 (“The Holy Spirit, the Church and the Sacraments”).

Substitution as a Pneumatological Concept

165

In the post-Enlightenment Western world, we have become accustomed to consider human self-realization as opposed to God’s self-realization (selfrevelation). In such a scenario, more emphasis on God then always implies less emphasis on humans’ own capacities, and vice versa. The self-realization of the one is at the expense of the self-realization of the other. The ‘selves’ of God and humans are considered to be independent entities, isolated from each other. The brief survey above of Paul’s insights showed, however, that the biblical idea of these ‘selves’ is quite another. Our human ‘self’ is not a given fact; it is not an a priori concept. Rather, it has to do with our calling to be children of God, created in the image of God and transformed according to the image of the new Adam, Jesus Christ. The complexity of our daily use of the notion ‘self-realization’ or ‘selffulfillment’ clearly illustrates how problematic and self-contradictory this notion is. In the process of self-realization, the human person is both subject and object. The paradox is then that the self as subject cannot be the same as the self as object. If that were the case, then nothing new could be realized (fulfilled). So, the first self (the subject) must be a different self from the second (the object). But how can the first self (the subject) realize the second one (the object)? What does the first self (the subject) know about that other self (the object)? If it already knows everything about it, it does not make sense to speak about self-realization. The self (the object) is then already present in the mind of the self as subject. It makes sense to speak about self-realization only if the first self is quite different from the second one. That implies that the self is construed as being most truly itself when it is directed to what is not itself, to another in which it can find fulfilment. Only then something new can happen. Of course, the link between the first and the second self will not be totally destroyed, but we shall never be able to indicate in advance what will belong to that link. This is exactly what was meant in classic Reformed doctrine when it spoke about the relation between mortification and vivification. Mortification was never meant as a total annihilation of our self. Rather, it refers to a radical transformation of our old Adam (the sinner in us).14 Dying with Christ (mortification) and rising with Christ (vivification) produces in us a reborn self, a new identity. It constitutes our true self. Therefore, our true self is, biblically speaking, a gift. It is the salvific effect of our connectedness with Christ in his death and resurrection. This connectedness is actually enacted in the sacraments. Hence, participation in the sacraments can be interpreted as real selfrealization. This is not a self-realization in opposition to God, but a gift of God 14  H. Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics set out and illustrated from the sources (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 571–573.

166

Brinkman

effectuated by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, there is a deliberate, Spirit-wrought tri-unity of cross, forgiveness, and participation in the sacraments. We can speak of the autonomy of human persons in the same sense in which we speak about an autonomous work of art—although it is obvious that it is the product of the hands of the artist. ‘Autonomy’ then stands for our own responsibility and our own accountability in order to be able to give adequate answers to the ‘eternal’ questions of the book of Genesis: “Where are you?” (Gen.3:10) and “What have you done?” (Gen.4:10). It concerns a theonomous autonomy in accordance with the Spirit’s encouragement to focus on our destiny as truly free (liberated from our old Adam) children of God.15 6

Borges’ Question

I will now return to Borges’ question: “What good does it all do me that that man / has suffered so, when I am suffering now?” As I stated above, Borges knows, of course, that the cross of Christ didn’t bring an end to human suffering. He also knows that Christ’s suffering was not the worst suffering ever experienced. Therefore, as I stated, I am inclined to interpret his question as an open one. If Jesus indeed shared our human plight without any reservation, what then was revealed in his cross? Borges shows us the ultimate consequence of God’s incarnation: a crucified human as an indication of radical immanence. He still, however, links this suffering to the doctrine of pardon. Is that, in his view, the only worthwhile remainder of the corpus christianum or depositum fidei that he threw away in the rest of his poem? Or is it a deliberate pointer to a crucial aspect of Christ’s message and, as such, an intriguing sign of immanent transcendence? It is clear at least that Borges lacks adequate words to articulate the relation between Christ’s cross and the doctrine of pardon poetically. My thesis in this contribution is that the tri-unity between cross, forgiveness, and sacramental participation can help us to understand the link between God’s self-realization on the cross and our self-realization. If, indeed, Christ’s cross is not an isolated event but one closely connected with our cross and if the same holds true for his resurrection, then the opposition between these two self-realizations has been overcome. The process in which we find our selves is then inextricably related to the way God decided to become 15  M.E. Brinkman, The Tragedy of Human Freedom: The Failure and Promise of the Christian Concept of Freedom in Western Culture (Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi, 2003) 35 and 157– 178 (“Freedom as Realization of the New, Reborn Self”).

Substitution as a Pneumatological Concept

167

incarnate in our world. Only then we can rightly value the rich impact of Paul’s talk of ‘being in Christ.’16 This ‘being in Christ’ can be considered as a gift of the Spirit. The Spirit is the link between Christ and us today. We do not apprehend Christ without the Spirit. To quote Calvin: “Until our minds become intent upon the Spirit, Christ, so to speak, lies idle because we coldly contemplate him as outside our selves—indeed, far from us.”17 It is the Spirit who brings us in contact with the effect of Christ’s death and resurrection in baptism and the Lord’s Supper: “Central to understanding how we are ‘in Christ’ are the cross and resurrection. It was in his death and resurrection that Christ began a new history with a new destiny for all who are incorporated in his new order.”18 As a soteriological idea, the notion of substitution has, from the beginning of the Christian tradition, owed its crucial role to the belief that our existence is inseparably connected with God’s existence through the incarnation of the Son. The church has always expressed that understanding in the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Through our participation in these sacraments, the Holy Spirit connects us time and again with this salvific vicarious gift. Bibliography Baugh, L. Imaging the Divine: Jesus and Christ-Figures in Film. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1997. Borges, J.L. Selected poems. Ed. and transl. A. Coleman. New York: Viking, 1999. Brinkman, M.E. The Tragedy of Human Freedom: The Failure and Promise of the Christian Concept of Freedom in Western Culture. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi, 2003. Brinkman, M.E. Jesus Incognito: The Hidden Christ in Western Art since 1960. Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi, 2013. Burger, H. Being in Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2008. Calvin, J. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. J.T. McNeill and transl. F.L. Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. 16  Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 390–412. 17  J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J.T. McNeill, transl. F.L. Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), III, I,3. See also G.B. Wilson, “The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Reformed Tradition: A Critical Overview,” in The Holy Spirit: Renewing and Empowering Presence, ed. G. Vandervelde (Winfield: Wood Lake Books, 1989) 57–72. 18  L.B. Smedes, “Being in Christ,” in Major Themes in the Reformed Tradition, ed. D.K. McKim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 153. Also H. Burger, Being in Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2008).

168

Brinkman

Clifford, C.E. (ed.). For the Communion of the Churches: The Contributions of the Groupe des Dombes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Dunn, J.D.G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. London: T&T Clark, 2003/1998. Heppe, H. Reformed Dogmatics set out and illustrated from the sources. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978. Jewett, R. and J. Lawrence. “Heroes and SuperHeroes.” In The Routledge Companion to Religion and Film. Ed. J. Lyden. London, New York: Routledge 2009, 384–402. Kozlovic, A.K. “The Structural Characteristics of the Cinematic Christ-Figure.” Journal of Religion and Popular Culture 8 (2004), 1–71. Marsh, C. “Did you say ‘Grace’? Eating in Community in Babette’s Feast.” In Explorations in Theology and Film. Eds. C. Marsh and G. Ortiz. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997, 206–218. Pahl, J. “Sacrifice.” In The Routledge Companion to Religion and Film. Ed. J. Lyden. London, New York: Routledge 2009, 465–481. Schreurs, N.F.M. “Substitution and Salvation: An Example of Systematic Theology in Dialogue with Exegesis.” In Theology between Church, University, and Society. Eds. M.E. Brinkman, N.F.M. Schreurs, H.M. Vroom, and C.J. Wethmar. Assen: Van Gorcum, 2003, 121–136. Smedes, L.B. “Being in Christ.” In Major Themes in the Reformed Tradition. Ed. D.K. McKim. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992, 142–154. Wilson, G.B. “The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Reformed Tradition: A Critical Overview.” In The Holy Spirit: Renewing and Empowering Presence. Ed. G. Vandervelde. Winfield: Wood Lake Books, 1989, 57–72.

part 3 The Lord: Spirit and World

⸪

chapter 11

The Spirit and Wisdom Jan Veenhof 1 Introduction It is a privilege and joy for me to offer a contribution to the Festschrift dedicated to Cees van der Kooi. I am very grateful for the long-standing cooperation and friendship between the two of us. After the retirement of our mutual friend Aad van Egmond, who was my successor in Amsterdam, Cees van der Kooi became Professor of Dogmatics in the theological faculty of the Free University. He studied, taught and wrote about a wide variety of topics. Pneumatology was a field of interest for both of us.1 Many aspects of pneumatology have been reflected on extensively and intensively. I will write about an aspect which up until now has only received a limited amount of attention, namely the relation of the spirit and wisdom. What I can offer, are only some short remarks, mainly in the form of a survey of the biblical sources, which hopefully can stimulate further investigation.2 First we devote attention to a few elements in the Old Testament and also in the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books, a category which is not very well known in protestant circles, although they give interesting information. Next I will move on to the various parts of the New Testament, in order to end up with some concluding remarks. 2

Spirit and Wisdom in the Old Testament

Wisdom, chokma, sophia, in the Bible is never simply intelligence or a theoretical knowledge but always the ability to find good ways to good goals. This ability includes a “feeling” for persons, relations and situations and generally for the conditions of the world and mankind. It supposes intuition, as well 1  Cf. C. van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest (Kampen: Kok, 2006). 2  The Bible quotations in this essay are given in the translation of the New Revised Standard Version.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_013

172

Veenhof

as willingness to understand and help others, love and justice. Learning wisdom is only possible through experience in praxis, because wisdom must always be manifest in praxis. A good illustration of this practical character is the fact that in the Old Testament a skillful technician can also be called wise (cf. Ex.35:30–35). An important element is the conviction that living according to the guidelines of chokma will be blessed. Responsibility and a clear decision are therefore necessary.3 This description has a general character. There are indeed many points of correspondence between the Old Testament tradition and the ancient wisdom traditions in other cultures and religions. Meanwhile specific for the biblical view is the conviction, that the “fear of God,” the respectful love of God is the “beginning” of wisdom. Wisdom includes, as I indicated, taking into account the “laws of life” and the faith of Israel includes the fact that these regulations belong to the creational order constituted by God. Israel praised the creation as work of God’s wisdom (Ps.104:24; Prov.3:19–20; Jer.10:12). Therefore the “beginning” of human wisdom is in God and God is also its final, ultimate goal. At the same time the content of these guidelines is striking in its similarity with the wisdom “outside.” We see here as in other areas—for instance in the character of the New Testament charismata—that elements of “general revelation,” or in other words “creational data,” are integrated in “special revelation.”4 As to the Spirit: In the traditions of the Old Testament the view is prominent that the Spirit is active in creation and in sustaining all life in the cosmos (Gen.1:2; Ps.33:6; Ps.104:29–30). Ruach is air in movement, wind, breath, basis and power for all life. In these traditions we can find much detailed information about the way the Spirit was working in the long history of the people of Israel, mainly in the leaders, judges, kings and prophets. There were, however, also persons not belonging to these offices, who as wise men and women with their understanding and counsel helped others, even kings! Wisdom and discernment were always seen and considered as gifts of the Spirit (cf. Num.11:25–26, Deut.34:9). Wisdom is wholesome for the present as well as for the future. The preaching of the prophets opens perspectives on the salvation to come; in the future the Spirit will bring a renewal of the people and then the Messiah will begin his reign. On him will rest—that implies 3  Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Weisheit in Israel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970) and Jürg Thomas Luchsinger, Die Poetik der alttestamentlichen Spruchweisheit (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 2010). 4  Cf. Jan Veenhof, “Charismata-Supranatural or Natural?” in The Holy Spirit: Renewing and Empowering Presence, ed. George Vandervelde (Winfield: Wood Lake Books, 1989), 73–91.

The Spirit and Wisdom

173

continuity—the Spirit, who is the spirit of wisdom and understanding (cf. Isa.11:2). Understanding also means insight and can be seen as an aspect of wisdom. This qualification is important. The future king will be as David and Solomon in one. As the royal ruler and liberator he will be endowed with the Spirit, who gives him the talents that are needed for his task.5 This prophecy is a fine example of the way in which both terms, wisdom and spirit, are connected. The preaching of the prophets many times presents elements of wisdom even where the spirit is not mentioned explicitly. But we have to concentrate and turn now to the other main testimonies. The figure of King Solomon, the famous teacher of wisdom, is very important. Certainly great parts of the book of Proverbs reflect his teaching. They shed light on the totality of life, in which wisdom is a very important factor for a great variety of relations and situations. A specific element is the tendency of “personalising” wisdom in an eloquent poetical manner (cf. Prov.8), where wisdom is described as a woman. This book continually stresses that it is the God of Israel who gives wisdom.6 The book of Proverbs is also significant, because it marks a transition to later ideas, in the “homeland” and still more in the diaspora. Wisdom (Sophia) and Word (Logos) were prominent in the whole Wisdom Literature and in the literature of Alexandrian Judaism. For our topic it is important that Jesus Sirach, in the same way as Proverbs 8, characterizes wisdom as a divine figure who addresses man and who speaks of herself in the first singular person (cf. Sirach 24:3–38).7 Similar are the ideas of Philo, sometimes called “the Jewish Plato.” In his thinking the Logos occupied a prominent place. The Logos embraces the ideas. The Logos is not only the archetype of things but also the creative power that produces them. This creative power sustains the existence and structure of the whole world and is closely related to the concept of wisdom. The Logos is often presented in personal terms. Philo even qualifies the Logos as the first-born son of God, although not as identical with God.

5  Cf. Jan Veenhof, De kracht die hemel en aarde verbindt. De identiteit van de Geest van God als relatiestichter (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2016), 21–24. 6  The Hebrew name of Proverbs is mishlee, the plural of mashal. The word mashal has a wide meaning. It characterizes different types of pointed words, remarks and statements, cf. what follows in my text. Cf. for full information the two volume commentary of Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). 7  Cf. Daniel J. Harrington, Invitation to the Apocrypha (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).

174

Veenhof

It is certainly true that this does not mean an incarnation in the literal sense of the word, but a personification with very suggestive literary means.8 In the Jewish literature the nearest to the idea of incarnation of wisdom or Logos is the identification of Wisdom with the Torah (explicitly in Sirach 24:3–38). In the current thought in the later Jewish literature the expressions spirit, wisdom and word are very close to each other. They seem nearly equivalents. All these three expressions, so Dunn, “are simply alternative ways of speaking about the effective power of God in his active relationship with the world and its inhabitants.” Meanwhile it is striking to see that the role of the Spirit often has been taken over by the Wisdom—and sometimes by the Word.9 Wisdom can of course refer to human understanding and knowledge, but many times it refers very clearly to the creative power of God, as a pervasive force in the world, which humans can experience as an illuminating, inspiring power (cf. the Wisdom of Solomon, or Wisdom for short, 1:4–7). So it is understandable, that a connection between the Wisdom and the prophets could be made. In Wisdom 7:27 we read about the wisdom: “in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God and prophets.” Certainly the influence of the Hellenistic culture can be traced in a greater part of this later literature. We can observe a sort of coexistence and mutual influence of the old, classic Jewish heritage and motifs of contemporary thinking. It must be noted, however, that the books which belong to the wisdom literature, are stamped by respect for the central and fundamental place and function of the Word, the Torah. In all the political struggles accompanied by the gradual decline of the sacrificial services in the temple, the Torah remains the spiritual and moral guide of the Jewish community in Israel and in the diaspora. The Torah is respected as a document and source of Chokma! The language and thought of the Hebrew Old Testament remained a creative and

8  Cf. A.P. Bos, “Philo van Alexandrië en de Griekse filosofie,” in Filosofie, Jodendom, Joodse filosofie, ed. R.W. Munk (Budel: Damon, 2005), 9–22; David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature. A Survey (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993); O. Kaiser, Philo von Alexandrien. Denkender Glaube. Eine Einführung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015). 9  Cf. Gerrit Cornelis van de Kamp, Pneuma-Christologie: Een oud antwoord op een actuele vraag? (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1983), 236–37. On p. 237 he gives the quotation of Dunn, Christology in the Making (London: SCM, 1980), 219, Cf. also Piet Schoonenberg, Der Geist, das Wort und der Sohn. Eine Geist-Christologie (Regensburg: Pustet, 1992), 65ff.

The Spirit and Wisdom

175

authoritative force. But we should not overlook the differences and the newness of approaches in later Judaism.10 We conclude this paragraph with two quotations because they give us a vivid description of what “wisdom” means in these traditions. The first one has already been partly mentioned. It is the impressive description of the coming Messiah, in Isa.11:2–3. It has become well known in the whole Christian church as the basis of the list of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. “The spirit of the LORD shall rest on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. His delight shall be in the fear of the LORD.”11 The first gift is wisdom. This is no accident, because wisdom can be seen as a “virtue” which includes the following gifts. In fact only six gifts are mentioned. The number seven is due to the fact that the last one—the fear of the LORD—is mentioned a second time. The Greek and Latin versions present a definition with a little variation, in order to give the number seven a linguistic basis. The second quotation is from the book which received its name from King Solomon, and we already briefly referred to this passage as well. It is interesting to read what this text says about Solomon. It describes in a beautiful way the relation of wisdom and the divine Spirit. After telling how the young King preferred to receive wisdom to other important things, the nature of wisdom is characterized: “Wisdom, the fashioner of all things taught me. There is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, (…) she is a breath of the power of God.” And then follows what I cited already: while remaining in herself she renews all things: “in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets” (7:22–27). We turn now to the New Testament and begin with the gospels and their picture of Jesus.

10  Cf. Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975). See also the many publications of Pieter Willem van der Horst on the relations between Hellenism, Judaism and Christianity. 11  We also find the connection of Messiah and Spirit in the community of Qumran, cf. for instance Klaus Berger, Qumran und Jesus. Wahrheit unter Verschluss? (Stuttgart: Quell, 1993), 100ff.

176 3

Veenhof

Spirit and Wisdom in the New Testament

The life of Jesus was from the very beginning led by the operation of the Spirit of God; this Spirit filled him and enabled him in all his work, in his teaching and in his deeds. He was a prophet, who proclaimed in word and signs the coming of the Kingdom of God and fascinated many people. The deep impression he made was due, among other things, to the fact that as a prophet he at the same time spoke as a teacher of wisdom (cf. Matth.13:54; Mark 6:2).12 The hallmark of those teachers was the use of pithy sayings, puzzles and parables. They spoke to the people in the language of the people. Characteristic is the use of mashals, a special branch of the wisdom tradition. A mashal is mostly a short saying or sentence, often in the style of a riddle, which intrigues the hearer, challenging him to find its intention. Jesus also often refers to sayings and aphorisms which belong to the common wisdom of the people. He presented them as guidelines, which are commendable in practical situations of everyday life and in connection with special occasions. I mention some examples. Only a foolish man builds his house on sand (Matth.7:26). Be always watchful, because you don’t know, at which time the thief comes (Luke 12:39). When you are invited by someone to a wedding banquet, do not sit down in the place of honour (Luke 14:8). Many similar examples could be added. Jesus uses all these means and methods to illustrate the character and impact of the Kingdom of God. So the language of practical wisdom receives a new dimension in the communication of shalom. It encourages the hearer to ponder over his or her own life and to look for answers to the central questions of life. The teaching with these means was never abstract. The intention was always very concrete und existential. In this connection it is necessary to take into account that Jesus spoke to great numbers of people, even to crowds, but also engaged himself in personal conversations, in dialogues—like Socrates! The examples I mentioned make clear that in all these activities as prophet and teacher of wisdom, Jesus was inspired by the Spirit.

12  Cf. Klaus Berger, Wer war Jesus wirklich? (Stuttgart: Quell, 1995), 91ff. Important is the study of Hanna Wolff, Jesus als Psychotherapeut. Jesu Menschenbehandlung als Modell moderner Psychiatrie (Stuttgart: Radius Verlag, 1978). For the Parables of Jesus, see Harry Faber van der Meulen, Bijbelverhalen als prikkellektuur. Over gelijkenissen van Jezus (Kampen: Kok, 1989). In the last section of this book the author gives an expanded survey of modern literature about the Parables.

The Spirit and Wisdom

177

We should not however overlook the fact that Jesus can speak about wisdom in a very critical sense. I think of the very moving section Matth.11:25–30.13 At that time Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants. All things have been handed to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” Jesus speaks in a polemical context here. He criticizes representatives of the religious elites. With all their abilities in the areas of knowing and acting, they have no access to the things that are of decisive significance: the existential knowledge of God and of Jesus. Jesus’ words about the divine revelation, the mutual knowing of the Father and the Son and about the children who are privileged to know that mystery, are very impressive and deep. They are rightly sometimes characterized as a “Johanneic Star in the synoptic heaven.” The wise men, referred to by Jesus, don’t have this knowledge. It is hidden from them. The reason is clear: In their arrogance and pride they are convinced that only their wisdom is good and sufficient. There are apparently different types of wisdom and wise people. There is a wisdom which is an intellectual instrument for the will to dominate. Such wisdom, characterizing religious and political leaders in their striving for influence and power, can impose a heavy burden on the life of common people. That was the situation in the society in which Jesus lived and worked. We must keep in view: what he says refers in the first place to religious leaders, although political leaders are not excluded. Instead of these leaders, he praises the children. Children are simply living in a fundamental confidence that they will find attention and care; they are dependent but without fear, they are open to all new impressions which come 13  In his book Jesus in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten (Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1968; ET New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), 92, David Flusser points to the fact, that in this “Jubelruf” (exclamation of exaltation) in Matt.11:25–30 Jesus follows the Hymns of the Essenes, which we know through the scrolls of Qumran. Cf. for the exegesis Ulrich Luz, Matthew. A Commentary II, Matthew 8–20 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001). Cf. also the analysis of Benedict T. Viviano OP, Matthew and His World, The Gospel of the Open Jewish Christians (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 95ff. Viviano refers to the fact that Jesus’ statement in Matt.11:9 has a resemblance to Num.12:3 (the humbleness of Moses). He also points to the two degrees of revelation in Num.12:6–8 and other possible connections between Numbers and Matthew.

178

Veenhof

to them, without pride and prejudices. Those features of children characterize the people who receive and accept this saving, existential knowledge. They are often marginalised in civil and religious society. But with this attitude and approach to life they are exactly on the “frequency modulation” of Jesus, who himself was humble, in full solidarity with all the people who live as marginalised persons, “poor in spirit,” without pretentions, longing for salvation. It is good to see that Jesus does not a priori exclude anyone. He encourages all who hear him to learn this attitude from him. Those who follow him on this way will receive the saving knowledge. So here Jesus is also the teacher of wisdom, the good, wholesome wisdom. This wisdom also has power, but it is might of another kind.14 In this perspective we can understand the promise of Jesus for his followers that in situations of persecution they must not worry about how they are to defend themselves or what they are to say: “(…) for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that very hour what they ought to say” (Luke 12:11– 12). Thus, in very critical situations of accusation and charge by the authorities they will receive the wisdom they need just then! It is this question of the true wisdom which we also encounter in the correspondence of Paul with the church in Corinth. In this section we will explain that, through an analysis of some pivotal elements of the first letter to that Church.15 In the congregation of Corinth there were several phenomena which Paul worried about. From his warnings and criticisms we can conclude what has gone wrong. Two things are characteristic and they are connected with each other. Among the members of the congregation were people who cherished wisdom, sometimes combined with a longing for special gifts as signs of high spirituality. There was also a sort of what I like to call ‘guruism,’ different groups around leading persons, even if these persons themselves did not like that. The consequences were tensions and divisions, rivalry and boasting against each other.

14  Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ. Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 338, rightly says that expressions of Jesus’ divine Sonship are prominent in Matthew. See for John’s Gospel Cornelis Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom. An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel, (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 117–120. 15  For the following section I am indebted to H.J. Jager, De eerste brief aan de Korinthiërs (Kampen: Van den Berg, 1974); Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014); Herman Ridderbos, Paul. An Outline of his Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997); Vincent Branick, First Corinthians. Building up the Church (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2001); Klaus Berger, Paulus (München: C.H. Beck, 2002).

The Spirit and Wisdom

179

It is striking, that Paul begins his letter with a positive appraisal of that which is good. In the Christians in Corinth he appreciates their knowledge and spiritual gifts (1:4–5). Immediately afterwards, however, he begins to speak about the problems and mistakes. In his confrontation with them he proclaims the way to the real understanding of the mystery of God’s wisdom. What is at stake is the message of the cross. For the Jews the crucifixion was a stumbling-block, for the Gentiles foolishness. That is not surprising, because they were looking for signs and wisdom—the very elements, which played a role in the congregation of Corinth! The rulers who were involved in the crucifixion did not understand the wisdom of God’s plan. What Paul says in 1:21 can be interpreted in this way: The world was in (the atmosphere of) the wisdom of God and in spite of that they did not understand it. In this interpretation wisdom refers to the wisdom which God revealed in creation. Paul says that the Gentiles, living in and also thinking about the creation, did not come to the saving knowledge of God. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, Rom.1:19–22. This sharp contrast between wise and fool is mentioned in the following words of Paul. It is striking that Paul, dealing with the negative attitude of the rulers—both of the Gentiles and of the Jews—implicitly speaks about their responsibility and guilt in a differentiating way. If they had understood the significance of God’s plan, so he says, they would not have crucified Jesus (1 Cor. 2:8). This seems to apply especially to the Jewish rulers (though admittedly I extrapolate a bit from Paul’s words here). Paul suggests that if they had understood this they would not have cooperated with the Roman rulers in the crucifixion of Jesus, the Lord of Glory. For in that case they would have eliminated the man, which they acknowledged as their own Messiah—and that is an absurd supposition. We find the same idea here as in Acts 3:1, where Peter says to his Jewish hearers: “I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your rulers.” This certainly implies a limitation of the guilt of the Jews, which in church history is often forgotten. But this historical viewpoint is not the centre of Paul’s argument. His fundamental and central concern is the conviction, that the cross, in itself the infamous and ignominious form of punishment for criminals and slaves, received a new dimension, a new meaning in God’s history. The fact is that the cross has been integrated in the way of salvation, that this death became a ‘tree of life.’ This fact is a mystery, the divine wisdom, which transcends and contradicts all that belongs to natural human wisdom. Thus, Paul can say: Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength (vs. 25). This is an “Umwertung aller Werte,” with far reaching consequences for the preaching of the Gospel, the self-understanding of the congregation, and for

180

Veenhof

the individual behaviour of Christians in all relations (vs. 30). It is striking that Paul does not reject the qualification “power” (vs. 24). It is a power, however, with a special origin and a special character, stamped by the wisdom of God! Therefore he can positively write that his own proclamation was connected with the demonstration of the Spirit and power (2:4). There is a strong link between wisdom, cross, proclamation, spirit and power. They all belong together (cf. Rev.5:12). Here we encounter the mystery which Paul brings to an expression of holy astonishment: “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the human heart conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Cor.2:9). We can paraphrase as follows: What no eye has seen in creation, what no ear has heard in history, what no human heart conceived in philosophy.16 And this is immediately followed by Paul’s statement: “These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit” (vs. 10). It was a precious discovery for me to find the same contrast here that we found in the words of Jesus about the two types of wisdom. In his message Jesus invited his hearers to learn from him to be gentle and humble. There is a direct line from this proclamation to the cross. The cross is the sign of a love which goes the way of self-humbling to the point of death (Phil.2:8). So Jesus did what he taught, and therefore a practical application of believing in the cross is to obey the lessons of Jesus in his teaching! Believing in the cross implies that in human relations all forms of domination, superiority and boasting of one’s own gifts and activities must be excluded. The good way is stamped by solidarity in various situations, willingness to help people in misery and danger, to acknowledge the gifts of the others. One of these gifts is the utterance of wisdom through the Spirit directly linked with the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit (1 Cor.12:8). It is the Spirit who works all these virtues. We have to keep in mind the deep unity between the Spirit and Jesus. In his life and work on earth, as I stated before, Jesus was filled and inspired by the Spirit. Through the cross and resurrection of Jesus the identity of the Spirit received a new aspect. Jesus is hence also the Sender of the Spirit. Certainly, the work of the Spirit in creation and among mankind in the whole wide world goes on. But the identity of the Spirit and his work becomes also characterized through the fact that he is now the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

16  In his commentary (cf. note 15), Jager mentions that Dutch Reformed theologian Schilder has given this paraphrase (50). Cf. for example K. Schilder, Wat is de hemel? (Kampen: Kok, 1954), 138.

The Spirit and Wisdom

181

It is this Spirit which opens our eyes and hearts for the divine Wisdom. The Spirit also gives us the power to live according to this wisdom. What Jesus said in the cited words of Matthew 11 and on other occasions, especially in the Sermon of the mount, is essentially the normative model for a life in the Spirit in our present time. From this viewpoint of divine wisdom we can also profit from other testimonies of wisdom, for instance in the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament. We hear them with the ears and the hearts of those who existentially know about the saving wisdom, embodied in Jesus Christ. It would be good to explore this topic in more depth, but I will confine myself to one example: the epistle of James. We find his letter permeated with references to the teachings of Jesus. James criticizes various transgressions, social sins, economic sins, egoism, and he pleads for practical love and carefulness. It is very striking that he also makes a contrast: the contrast between wrong wisdom and the good wisdom from above (3:13–18). She is “first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without a trace of partiality or hypocrisy” (3:17).17 It is true that virtues and qualities are mentioned, which are generally valid and essential in all human relations. That is an implication of what I stated before about the connection of special and general revelation. But here in this context that which is general is illuminated by the light of the saving work of God in Christ. “From above”—that means: stamped by the presence of Jesus Christ, the prototype of the true wisdom who radiated it through the Spirit! Certainly, James does not speak about the cross and resurrection of Jesus. But he calls him “our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1, cf. 1 Cor.2:8). This and other qualifications, and the whole context of his argument, show that James sees Jesus as the prototype and inaugurator of this wisdom from above. He gives wisdom a new dimension and so she gets a specific quality. We hear the echo of the words of Jesus in Matthew 11 in the message of James, for example when we read: “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (4:6). The wisdom from above is in contrast with the wisdom “from below” but we should not misunderstand it: she has the intention to work on earth! In the first place we can think of the life of the church and the congregations. Many things go awry because of the lack of this wisdom. That was so in the days of Paul and James, and in our time it is often no better. The same is true for other areas, for instance the field of politics and economics. It is my conviction 17  Cf. the analyses of L. Floor, Jakobus. Brief van een broeder (Kampen: Kok, 1999) and Henry Krabbendam, The Epistle of James. Tender Love in Tough Pursuit of Total Holiness (Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft, 20112).

182

Veenhof

that in our time and world with all the problems and dangers this ‘wisdom on earth,’ in the wide sense described above, is indispensable as a condition for better relations. A very valuable encouragement is given in the words of 2 Timothy 1:7: God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline. His meaning is: the Spirit gives only that, what He is himself; consequently not cowardice but power, love and self-discipline. This last word—Greek: sophronismou—can better be translated as prudence, considerateness (German: Besonnenheit). Between the two great words and gifts ‘power’ and ‘love,’ sophronismos is the capacity to mediate between these two and to find a good balance, in the complex reality of practical life! We can observe how in early Christian theology all the words and titles we met before—like Word, Son, Spirit, Wisdom—were used to designate the unique status of Jesus the Christ. In connection with them we find different Christological views, which are classified in modern scholarship as Logos-, Spirit-, and Wisdom-Christology. In later times Logos Christology prevailed. But the reminders of the other views remained and it is rewarding to integrate them into a pneumatology for of our time by investigating the specific accents and perspectives of each of them.18 Because they refer to the same person, they also sometimes coincide linguistically. For example, in the Prologue of the Gospel of John the Logos is described with qualifications which became applied in the Sophia-tradition. For a long time this tradition was a typical mark of the Eastern Church. The Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is a living monument to this. In modern times this Sophia-tradition is given new life in the concepts of Russian theologians, like Serge Bulgakov and others.19 We can learn from this tradition. That would be in accordance with the message of Paul, who wrote to the Corinthians: Christ Jesus became for us wisdom from God (1 Cor.1:30) and to the Colossians: “[we are] teaching everyone in all wisdom … God’s mystery is Christ himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col.1:28; 2:3). This apostle ends his prophetic

18  Cf. Van de Kamp, Pneuma-christologie; see also Van de Kamp’s paper in the present volume, where he continues his discussion of Piet Schoonenberg. Schoonenberg’s Christology can be seen as an attempt to integrate those titles with their implications into a comprehensive view of the person of Jesus Christ. The same can be said of Hendrikus Berkhof. The difference is that Schoonenberg will remain in agreement with the official church dogmas, whereas Berkhof concedes that in some respect he deviates from them. Cf. my article “Pneumachristologie,” Theologische Zeitschrift 59 (2003), 312–334. 19  Sergius N. Bulgakov, Sophia—The Wisdom of God. An Outline of Sophiology (Hudson: Lindisfarne Press, 1993).

The Spirit and Wisdom

183

message about the salvation of Israel and the Gentiles with the exclamation: “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!” (Rom.11:33). 4

Concluding Remarks

We have to bring our expositions to an end. It is my conviction that it would be helpful and fruitful to revise our thinking about wisdom in relation to the Spirit. As we have seen: wisdom is much more and much deeper than intelligence! That is a lesson for theologians. We should never forget that in theology we have to do with the mystery of God’s wisdom. The process of knowing with the instrument of our intellect can never be isolated from our heart. Our heart has priority.20 It is good, that ‘theologists’ are also in a way ‘theosophists’! The German theologian Heinz Zahrnt pleads for theological work that unites thinking and believing. Believing, which for him includes experience and acting, and on the other hand knowing, are like the two focal points in one ellipse. In his long activity over many years he was able to observe how, in the course of time, the intellectual and the existential in himself increasingly came together. In this process he was stimulated by the study of the Wisdom tradition of the Old Testament.21 The comparison with the ellipse is helpful, because the ellipse is the unity of two factors. This unity is the person in its centre, the heart! This combination, or to put it better, the deep unity of intellectuality and spirituality, was always characteristic of the work of Cees van der Kooi and made it effective. We hope that in the coming time he can continue this fine work. Bibliography Bennema, Cornelis. The Power of Saving Wisdom. An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Berger, Klaus. Qumran und Jesus. Wahrheit unter Verschluss? Stuttgart: Quell, 1993. Berger, Klaus. Wer war Jesus wirklich? Stuttgart: Quell, 1995. 20  Cf. the careful exposition of Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink in their Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017). I am thankful that this book, as far as I can see as a “pioneer” among dogmatic handbooks, contains a separate expanded and inspiring chapter on the Holy Spirit (489–532). 21  Heinz Zahrnt, Warum ich glaube. Meine Sache mit Gott (München: R. Piper, 1977), 209ff.

184

Veenhof

Berger, Klaus. Paulus. München: C.H. Beck, 2002. Bos, A.P. “Philo van Alexandrië en de Griekse filosofie.” [Philo of Alexandria and Greek Philosophy] In Filosofie, Jodendom, Joodse filosofie. Ed. R.W. Munk. Budel: Damon, 2005, 9–22. Branick, Vincent. First Corinthians. Building up the Church. Hyde Park: New City, 2001. Bulgakov, Sergius N. Sophia—The Wisdom of God. An Outline of Sophiology. Hudson: Lindisfarne, 1993. Dunn, J.D.G. Christology in the Making. London: SCM, 1980. Faber van der Meulen, Harry. Bijbelverhalen als prikkellektuur. Over gelijkenissen van Jezus. [Biblical Stories as Incitive Literature. On Parables of Jesus] Kampen: Kok, 1989. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. Floor, L. Jakobus. Brief van een broeder. [ James. Letter of a Brother] Kampen: Kok, 1999. Flusser, David. Jesus in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten. Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1968; ET New York: Herder and Herder, 1969. Harrington, Daniel J. Invitation to the Apocrypha. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ. Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Jager, H.J. De eerste brief aan de Korinthiërs. [The First Letter to the Corinthians] Kampen: Van den Berg, 1974. Kaiser, O. Philo von Alexandrien. Denkender Glaube. Eine Einführung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015. Kamp, Gerrit Cornelis van de. Pneuma-Christologie: Een oud antwoord op een actuele vraag? [Pneuma-Christology: An Old Answer to a Topical Question?] Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1983. Kooi, C. van der. Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest. [Presence of Spirit. Exploration on the Field of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit] Kampen: Kok, 2006. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Krabbendam, Henry. The Epistle of James. Tender Love in Tough Pursuit of Total Holiness. Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft, 20112. Luchsinger, Jürg Thomas. Die Poetik der alttestamentlichen Spruchweisheit. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag, 2010. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew. A Commentary II, Matthew 8–20. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Rad, Gerhard von. Weisheit in Israel. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. Ridderbos, Herman. Paul. An Outline of his Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Runia, David T. Philo in Early Christian Literature. A Survey. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Schilder, K. Wat is de hemel? [What is Heaven?] Kampen: Kok, 1954.

The Spirit and Wisdom

185

Schoonenberg, Piet. Der Geist, das Wort und der Sohn. Eine Geist-Christologie. Regensburg: Pustet, 1992. Veenhof, Jan. “Charismata: Supranatural or Natural?” In The Holy Spirit: Renewing and Empowering Presence. Ed. George Vandervelde. Winfield: Wood Lake Books, 1989, 73–91. Veenhof, Jan. “Pneumachristologie.” Theologische Zeitschrift 59 (2003), 312–334. Veenhof, Jan. De kracht die hemel en aarde verbindt. De identiteit van de Geest van God als relatiestichter. [The Power that Connects Heaven and Earth. The Identity of the Spirit of God as Builder of Relationships] Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2016. Viviano, Benedict T. Matthew and His World, The Gospel of the Open Jewish Christians. Fribourg: Academic; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Wolff, Hanna. Jesus als Psychotherapeut. Jesu Menschenbehandlung als Modell moderner Psychiatrie. Stuttgart: Radius Verlag, 1978. Zahrnt, Heinz. Warum ich glaube. Meine Sache mit Gott. München: R. Piper, 1977.

chapter 12

The Spirit of God and Creation: Towards a Pneumatological Interpretation of Biological Emergence Gijsbert van den Brink 1

Introduction: Performing a Task Long Overdue

As a friend and colleague for many years, Kees van der Kooi was among those who read a draft of my book En de aarde bracht voort—a study on the relationship between Christian faith and evolutionary theory—and who commented on it in order to help me improve the manuscript.1 In the final chapter of this book, I discussed ‘any other business’ of theological interest with regard to evolutionary theory, on top of the ‘usual suspects’: biblical hermeneutics, the problem of evil, anthropology, providence, etc.). Among other topics, I asked to what extent pneumatology might be affected when Darwinian evolution is taken seriously. It was my view that hardly any repercussions were to be expected in this realm, so I devoted only a few lines to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.2 Van der Kooi, however, indicated to me that he was not so sure. It was his intuition that pneumatology might after all be very much involved in a Christian theological reflection on evolutionary theory, and he prompted me to examine this issue more closely. At that stage, due to time constraints I felt unable to do so; moreover, I was not quite convinced that Van der Kooi was right. I failed to see why we should have to alter or adapt our pneumatological views once we start to take evolutionary theory seriously. Wasn’t the Holy Spirit sent to us by Christ at Pentecost in order to convince us of the salvific message of the gospel, to personally renew us and to keep us in the faith through his gifts? What on earth could that work have to do with evolution? With the benefit of hindsight, however, I now see that Van der Kooi was right. I still believe that there is no reason to re-negotiate or otherwise adapt 1  Gijsbert van den Brink, En de aarde bracht voort. Christelijk geloof en evolutie (Utrecht: Boekencentrum, 2017); cf. its English-language counterpart, Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming). 2  Van den Brink, En de aarde bracht voort, 338–339.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_014

The Spirit of God and Creation

187

our thinking about the person and work of the Holy Spirit in light of evolutionary theory, as if even pneumatology has to be tailor-made to the demands of contemporary science. But this does not mean that both are totally unrelated. Rather, pneumatology might offer us an important and insightful vantage point from which the historical evolutionary process can be interpreted as a meaningful process used by God in his creative and recreative purposes. Of course, far from being available only after Pentecost, the Spirit (or ‘breath’) of God and talk about its presence go all the way back to the very first verses of the Old Testament. Here as well as elsewhere in the Bible, the Spirit appears first and foremost as the ‘giver of life,’ as it was phrased in the NiceneConstantinopolitan Creed (381). If the Spirit of God is the giver of life, however, and if lifeforms have emerged over long periods of time through evolutionary processes, then how could the Spirit not have to do with evolution? In this paper on the occasion of Van der Kooi’s retirement I will as yet explore the topic of pneumatology and evolution in some more depth. In this way, I hope to fulfill a task which I knew I had to turn to ever since Van der Kooi suggested it to me. I will concentrate especially on the phenomenon of emergence in evolution, that is (briefly put), the self-transcendence of life forms into ever more complex levels of existence. First, I will briefly locate biological emergence within the wider framework of emergentism as a philosophical theory (§2). Next, I will then examine how emergent evolution may be theologically elucidated from the perspective of pneumatology (§3) and how the Spirit’s work in creation coheres with his involvement in our personal renewal (§4). If such a ‘unified’ pneumatological account makes sense, it becomes more plausible to suggest that the theory of (emergent) evolution can be understood in light of the Spirit of God who is intimately involved in the natural world as the Giver and Perfecter of life. Finally, in the concluding section I briefly draw some practical consequences from our findings (§5). 2

Emergentism and Biological Evolution

In order to grasp the notion of biological emergence it is good to first have a look at the theory of emergence more broadly. Historically speaking, ‘emergentism’ has had its ups and downs. Though its use as a technical term goes back to the late nineteenth century, its philosophical elaboration took place in the 1920s by British philosophers Conwy Lloyd Morgan (1852–1936), Samuel Alexander (1859–1938) and C.D. Broad (1887–1971). The theory then faded away under the popularity of logical positivism with its anti-metaphysical bias,

188

van den Brink

which led to its marginalization by the middle of the twentieth century.3 It reappeared on the scene, however, from the 1980s onwards under the new heading of ‘non-reductive physicalism.’ As such, it was criticized by the influential Korean-American philosopher of mind Jaegwon Kim4, but nevertheless it continues to flourish today.5 The body of recent scientific and philosophical literature on emergence (and its conceptual associates: self-organisation and non-reductive physicalism) is vast.6 What does the theory of emergence amount to? William Hasker’s explanation of its core idea is as clear and succinct as one can get: When elements of a certain sort are arranged in the right way, something new comes into being, something that was not there before. The new thing is not just a rearrangement of what was there before, but neither is it something dropped into the situation from the outside. It “emerges,” comes into being, through the operation of the constituent elements, yet the new thing is something different and surprising: we would not have expected it before it appears.7 Emergentism, taken in this way, is the opposite of reductionism—roughly speaking the view that higher-level entities are nothing but the sum of their parts. Usually, authors have a multi-leveled view of reality in mind here, with levels ranging for example from subatomic particles through atoms, molecules, 3  Nancey Murphy, “Reductionism and Emergence,” in Human Identity at the Intersection of Science, Technology and Religion, eds. Nancey Murphy and Christopher C. Knight (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2010), 81. See also Achim Stephan, “The Historical Facets of Emergence,” in Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Non-Reductive Physicalism, eds. Ansgar Beckermann et al. (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 25–48. 4  Jaegwon Kim, “The Myth of Nonreductive Materialism,” in The Mind-Body Problem, eds. Rich Warren and Tadeusz Szubka (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 242–260. 5  Cf. Philip Clayton and Paul Davies (eds.) The Re-Emergence of Emergence. The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion (Oxford: OUP, 2006). 6  To mention a small sample of relevant titles not yet referred to above: Philip Clayton, Mind and Emergence. From Quantum to Consciousness (Oxford: OUP, 2004); Bernard Feltz, Marc Crommelinck and Philippe Goujon (eds.), Self-Organization and Emergence in Life Sciences (Dordrecht: Springer, 2006); Nancey Murphy and W.J. Stoeger (eds.), Evolution and Emergence. Systems, Organisms, Persons (Oxford: OUP, 2007); Mark A. Bedau and Paul Humphreys (eds.), Emergence. Contemporary Readings in Philosophy and Science. (Cambridge: MIT, 2008); A. Corradini and Tim O’Connor (eds.), Emergence in Science and Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2010). 7  William Hasker, “On Behalf of Emergent Dualism,” in In Search of the Soul. Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem, eds. Joel B. Green and Stuart L. Palmer (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005), 76.

The Spirit of God and Creation

189

living organisms, conscious organisms, to persons and societies. Reductionism can be unpacked in several ways, for example as methodological, epistemological, causal, or ontological reductionism.8 Commonly, however, it is taken as stipulating that higher levels can without any residue be causally explained by means of laws and phenomena from lower levels. For example, non-material entities or properties such as minds or consciousness are considered as epiphenomena of states of the brain—that is, they exist but they do not have any causal power, and therefore there is no need to appeal to them for explaining any phenomenon. All causation in the hierarchy of the levels is bottom-up. The axiom lying behind this view is the so-called ‘causal closure of the physical domain.’ Note that the view that there is no ‘downward causation’ is highly counterintuitive from the perspective of common sense. On a common sense reading of things, it is you as a person who consciously decided to have breakfast this morning and to make all sorts of bodily movements in preparation of it. Yet, reductionism holds that the movements of your body “are themselves fully explained in terms of the ordinary laws of physics and chemistry,” so that as a matter of fact your mind has no control over them.9 Emergentism, on the other hand, allows for the appearance of new, non-reducible properties, entities and powers in the higher levels of reality. But how can the appearance of such new phenomena be explained? Do they just pop up in some spooky way? It is interesting that Hasker, when describing the concept of emergence, talked about “the new thing” that has emerged as “something (…) surprising: we would not have expected it before it appears.”10 Obviously, however, what we would have expected depends on what we know in advance. Thus, if we had known all preceding causal conditions, would we still be surprised by the appearance of these new phenomena? In other words, would they really be ‘new,’ or would they, after all, turn out to be extensions or consequences of the physical laws that we had known all along? When emergence is just an epistemic phenomenon, physical reductionists may be right after all on the ontological level. There are sound arguments, however, for thinking that emergence is an adequate ontological concept as well. For a down-to-earth example from ordinary life, compare the recent replacement of traditional traffic intersections in many towns by roundabouts. Whereas a great number of the intersections 8  Cf. Nancey Murphy, “Reductionism and Emergence,” 82. Others also distinguish reductionist views of theories, explanations and meanings. 9  William Hasker, “The Emergence of Persons,” in The Blackwell Companion to Christianity and Science, eds. J.B. Stump and Alan G. Padgett (Chicester: Blackwell, 2012), 482. 10  Hasker, “Emergent Dualism,” 76.

190

van den Brink

needed traffic lights in order to prevent gridlocks, the construction of roundabouts enabled various traffic streams to merge in a much more fluent and efficient way. Apparently, somehow new patterns (or ‘laws’) came into being which were inconceivable in the previous situation, but which influenced the traffic streams in a decisively new way. How can this be explained? Did some new spooky entities or properties pop up that made all car drivers behave in more polite and/or efficient ways? No—it is the larger system itself that exerts constraints on the types of behaviour that are possible, stimulating a type of behaviour that turned out to have optimal results for all participants by making the traffic flow very smooth. Now imagine that roundabouts were not intentionally built by road constructors but somehow arose naturally from traditional intersections. Then we have a nice parallel of what may happen in, for example, biological systems. It is not the case, so Nancey Murphy argues, that somehow new information is added from the outside, but that the organization of the whole may put constraints on what the parts can and cannot achieve. In this way new regularities and possibilities may arise that go beyond what was feasible in the original context. It can now be seen why the concept of emergence is especially put to use in the context of biological evolution.11 Emergence is often invoked to explain, among other things, the rise of consciousness and minds in evolutionary history. Interestingly, it has recently been suggested that the concept might also be used to explain—or at least describe—the rise of human personhood.12 To be sure, some defend a gradualist account here, according to which everything that makes us into human persons developed incrementally, i.e. in a continuous, step-by-step way. “It is difficult to discern any quantum leap along the trajectory,” says renowned archeologist Colin Renfrew.13 Paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall, however, is adamant when insisting on the implausibility of gradualism. It is worth quoting him in some detail: We did not achieve our current cognitive status through a continuous and insensibly modifying sequence of minor acquisitions, as a traditionally gradualist view of evolution would suggest: as far as we can tell, our 11  The epistemic status of evolutionary theory is, of course, a much-contested issue, especially in religious circles. See for what we hope is a well-balanced account Gijsbert van den Brink, Jeroen de Ridder and René van Woudenberg, “The Epistemic Status of Evolutionary Theory,” Theology & Science 15 (2017), 454–472. 12  Cf. Malcom Jeeves (ed.), The Emergence of Personhood. A Quantum Leap? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). 13  Colin Renfrew, “Personhood: Towards a Gradualist Approach,” in Emergence, ed. Jeeves, 65.

The Spirit of God and Creation

191

ancestors did not get smarter in tiny increments over vast periods of time, as cleverer individuals out-reproduced dumber ones. (…) indications are pretty clear (…) that (…) the shift to our unique symbolic mode was made in a single step. (…) it is becoming increasingly clear that our characteristic cognitive style is the result of an emergent event, a phase change, if you will, in which the addition of some new factor—probably unremarkable in itself—gave rise to a brain with an entirely unprecedented information-processing potential.14 In this connection, Dutch philosopher Jacob Klapwijk has questioned the selfevident, almost axiomatic status of what he calls the “naturalistic continuity postulate and the naturalistic reducibility postulate.”15 To be sure, the evolutionary process displays continuity, however drastic phylogenetic changes may look. But “(…) when we consider the precipitous distance between mind and matter or between human freedom and the necessity of nature, why could an element of saltational change or evolutionary disruption not have accompanied evolutionary continuity? Why is the idea of evolutionary discontinuity such a totalitarian taboo?”16 Now the question is: how can we make sense of biological emergence from a theological perspective? 3

A Pneumatological Interpretation of Emergence

Van der Kooi opens his recent study of pneumatology with a chapter on “Cosmological Emptiness and the Spirit of God.”17 He points to the sense of meaninglessness and emptiness that can easily befall us when we realize that we humans have an extremely tiny place and short lifespan in a dazzling universe. What is our existence on planet Earth all about, given “[t]he endlessness, the strangeness and sometimes the atrocious cruelty of the cosmos”?18 It seems that Christianity finds the single locus of meaning in an even more 14  Ian Tattersall, “Human Evolution: Personhood and Emergence,” in Emergence, ed. Jeeves, 39. 15  Jacob Klapwijk, Purpose in the Living World? Creation and Emergent Evolution (Cambridge: CUP, 2008), 46. 16  Klapwijk, Purpose in the Living World?, 47. Klapwijk blames this taboo to the ideology of scientism. 17  Cornelis van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force. The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 1–21. 18  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 2.

192

van den Brink

restricted part of the cosmos, namely the appearance and life of one Jewish man, Jesus the Christ. Van der Kooi goes on, however, to argue that Christology should never be isolated from pneumatology, since the New Testament testifies that the life of Jesus is inextricably and decisively linked up with that of the Spirit of God. It is this Spirit who was already present at creation, and who at the same time “embodies the eschaton, the end-point, the completion, the renewal” that has become manifest already in Christ’s resurrection and awaits further unfolding in terms of new heavens and a new earth where righteousness is at home (2 Pet. 3:13).19 This brings him to conclude that “[t]he universe is not empty. It is the place where God by his Spirit moves, dwells, struggles, and interferes.”20 Recall that the question we are facing is as follows: Can Christian theology help us make sense of the evolutionary history of life on earth, and especially of biological emergence, in a way that shows its continuing ‘explanatory power’ vis-à-vis the natural world?21 If Van der Kooi is right in his observations summarized here, a promising way to address this question is by turning to pneumatology.22 The first and foremost thing we must say about the Spirit is that the Spirit brings life. As is well-known, both the Hebrew word ruach and the Greek word pneuma as they occur in the Bible refer to the phenomena of ‘breath’ and ‘wind.’ The basic idea is that of a sense of movement and life. These original connotations have never been completely lost in biblical Spirit-discourse. Spirit or breath is what ensures that a being is alive. In the Old Testament ruach is in a special way ascribed to God: it is the Spirit of God who brings life on earth and on whom all life depends (Job 34:14–15; Ps.104:29). Ruach is what allows a being to breathe, pulsate, live and act. The same Spirit, however, also resembles a mighty wind when bringing judgment and condemnation on earth (e.g. Isa.4:4; Jer.4:11–13; Ez.13:11–13). We find a telling example of this double role in Psalm 104:29–30, where the Spirit is referred to as the mystery that makes creation come alive and the small green shoots to sprout—but whose withdrawal causes living things to die. In these ways, the Spirit is active

19  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 5. 20  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 8. 21  My approach here is similar and sympathetic to Alister McGrath’s endeavor to develop a “new natural theology” based on inference to the best explanation. See most recently his Alister E. McGrath, Re-Imagining Nature: The Promise of a Christian Natural Theology (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2016). 22  For a broader treatment of pneumatology, see e.g. Cornelis van der Kooi & Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 489–532.

The Spirit of God and Creation

193

in both nature and history. Again, this activity can be constructive and ordering, but it might also be destructive.23 As Finnish-American theologian Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen observes, talk about the Spirit as “the presence of God in the cosmos (…) makes an important connection with contemporary natural sciences.”24 Indeed, viewing the Spirit as God’s life-giving presence within the world neatly links up with the picture of a dynamic, ever-evolving world. The picture of a process in which every now and then evolutionary thresholds are crossed, e.g. in the origin of life, the rise of multicellularity, of sexual reproduction, of self-awareness, personhood and—we might add—religiosity,25 fits well with a pneumatological understanding of God’s creative activity. According to the opening verses of the Jewish and Christian Bible in the beginning the wind or breath of God (ruach Elohim) hovered over the waters (Gen.1:2). Interestingly, the Hebrew word for ‘hovered’ means brooded, as when a mother bird broods over her eggs to bring forth life (cf. Deut.32:11—the only other place in the Old Testament where this verb occurs). On a canonical reading of the Bible, we may interpret this ‘wind of God’ as referring to God’s holy Spirit.26 What happens next in the Genesistext is that upon the word of God new and ever more complex entities come into existence. The “breath of life” is given in particular to all moving creatures (Gen.1:30). In the next chapter, the Yahwist adds that the Lord God breathed the breath of life especially in ha’adam—the human being (Gen.2:7). It becomes clear that “[t]he Spirit which in the beginning moved over the waters is at the same time the power which constitutes and sustains the life of the creation and leads it towards perfection.”27 Thus the picture of new levels of existence that emerged over time, each with its own regularities, easily lends itself to an interpretation in pneumatological terms.28

23  Van der Kooi & Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 493–494. 24  Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Creation and Humanity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 65. 25  Francisco J. Ayala, “Morality and Personhood,” in Emergence of Personhood, ed. Jeeves, 99. Ayala illuminates the concept of an evolutionary threshold by giving the example of a physical threshold: the transition of water into gas that suddenly starts at 100° C. 26  Cf. C. John Collins, Genesis 1–4. A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2006), 45 (n.17). 27  Lukas Visscher, “Giver of Life—Sustain Your Creation!” Ecumenical Review 42 (1990), 144. 28  Cf. Amos Yong, The Spirit of Creation. Modern Science and Divine Action (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2011), 133–172 (“A Pneumatological Theology of Emergence”), esp. 151–162; D. Lyle Dabney, “The Nature of the Spirit: Creation as a Premonition of God,” in Starting with the Spirit, eds. Gordon Preece and Stephen Pickard (Hindmarsh: Australian Theological Forum, 2001), 83–110; Elisabeth Johnson, Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 173: “A boundless love at work in the universe, the Spirit

194

van den Brink

In his commentary on Genesis 1:2, John Calvin already acknowledged a “secret inspiration” of the natural world by the Spirit of God. Indeed, the Spirit is not only at work in human beings but also in the natural world. That reminds us of the fact that from God’s point of view the fascinating world of other living beings is highly valuable in itself and does not just exist for humanity’s sake. At the same time, also the darker sides of creation have to do with the Spirit of God—especially with its mysterious withdrawal (Ps.104:30). Indeed, sometimes we are frightened by the destructive dimension of the Spirit’s working through the evolutionary process; but then again we are surprised by the remarkable emergence of values like care, empathy, compassion and even selfsacrifice through evolution (all of which have received a great deal of attention in recent evolution-research). More accurately, it is precisely through death and destruction that the Spirit engenders ever new and more complex modes of existence. For Christians, this does not come as a surprise, since they know the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ who was raised in a new mode of existence after having gone through the afflictions of suffering and death. 4

The Work of the Spirit in Creation and Recreation

This brings us to the question how this ‘general’ work of the Spirit in creation (interpreted here in terms of emergent evolution) is related to his ‘special’ work in personal renewal and transformation. It seems to me that Van der Kooi is right when in this connection he criticizes the “structural duality” that is to be found in many varieties of Reformed theology.29 “Is it possible to make such a split between the various workings of the Spirit? If the Spirit is the Spirit of the triune God, can the work of the Spirit be divided in such neat sectors? Should we not hold to the unity of God’s Spirit?”30 Yes, we should. At the very least we have to be aware of the analogies in the various works of the Spirit. No doubt the most important of these is that in his work in creation as well as in his recreative work in Christ and in all who belong to Christ, the Spirit brings forth new life out of death. The Spirit is already doing so in the history of the people of Israel (the clearest example here being Ezekiel’s impressive vision reported embraces the chanciness of random mutations, being the source not only of order but also of the unexpected breaks in order that ensure freshness.” 29  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 94; Van der Kooi especially mentions John Calvin and Abraham Kuyper—not the least influential representatives of the Reformed tradition. 30  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 97.

The Spirit of God and Creation

195

in Ez.37).31 He is also doing so when working personal renewal, awakening people from their spiritual death and bringing them to a new life characterized by faith in Jesus as the Son of Man (John 3 being the prime example here).32 Thus, it is not strange when we see the same pattern of bringing forth life out of death in the Spirit’s dealings with creation as related in Genesis 1–2 and other biblical creation texts. In fact, this archetypal work of the Spirit—bringing life in creation—is explicitly applied to personal spiritual renewal through faith by the Johannine Jesus (Joh.6:63; cf. 7:39).33 There is a daunting passage in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics where he even extends this analogy (though not explicitly referring to the Spirit) to the work of God in election as finding its counterpart in Darwin’s theory of natural selection: It is a matter of the utmost seriousness that also on this superlatively high level [viz. of predestination], where the issue is the eternal weal and woe of rational creatures, the day comes up out of the blackness of the night, and light is born out of darkness. It seems that the rule “many are called but few are chosen” is valid everywhere. There’s a deep truth in the saying that one person’s death is another person’s breath. Darwin’s doctrine of the survival of the fittest has universal validity and is in force throughout God’s creation. Thousands of blossoms fall to the ground so that a few may ripen and bear fruit. Millions of living beings are born, yet only a few remain alive (…) Election exists everywhere alongside, and on the basis of, reprobation.34 Note that Bavinck, who rejected evolutionary theory because of a lack of evidence (which in his time was understandable), nevertheless observed a clear parallel between the way in which nature moves to higher levels of existence through natural selection and the way in which God works in saving human beings.

31  Note the explicit references to the Spirit of God in Ez.37:5–9, 14. 32  Note the discourse about a re-birth or birth ‘from above’ as engendered by the Spirit (Joh.3:3, 6–9) and the smooth transition towards talk about believing in the Son of Man (vs. 13–17). 33  For more on the specific roles of the Spirit in the various parts of the Bible, cf. e.g. Anthony C. Thiselton, The Holy Spirit—in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 3–160. 34  Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 2 God and Creation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 399.

196

van den Brink

It seems to me, however, that we must go a decisive step further by not just observing parallels and analogies between the various works of the Spirit but also a common goal. The Spirit is always intent on working life amidst of death, pushing things towards the emergence of ever more complex levels of existence. We may even predict on theological grounds that at some stage in the future a convincing theory on how life emerged from anorganic matter will arise, since this is exactly what is to be expected from what we know about the life-giving work of the Spirit.35 Whereas this work of the Spirit started with his hovering over the waters, it will only end when in the eschatological consummation the natural order that is perishable, prone to brokenness and weak will be superseded by the spiritual order that is imperishable, glorious and powerful (1 Cor.15:43; note the reference to the “life-giving Spirit,” vs. 45, in this connection). This is not an easy thing for the Spirit to accomplish, however, since it goes along with a persistent history of suffering, death and decay in the world, even after the new life has come to light in Christ’s resurrection (Rom.8:18–22). Similarly, the Spirit meets strong resistance when elaborating the new life of righteousness that is made possible by Christ in the hearts and lives of individual human beings. Many people oppose the Holy Spirit (cf. e.g. Act.7:51), but even those who became children of God only have the first fruits of the Spirit—not its full reality. They still have to await the redemption of their bodies (Rom.8:30), but also they are often inclined to grieve the Holy Spirit of God (Eph.4:30). Arguably they do so by refusing to emerge towards a ‘higher’ level of existence, characterized by love and self-sacrifice as exemplified in the life of Christ, instead falling back in sinful patterns that characterize the old life of the flesh. However, whereas to set one’s mind on the flesh is death, setting one’s mind on the Spirit is life and peace (Rom.8:6). Therefore, we are summoned to let the Spirit’s fruits grow in our lives over against all natural tendencies towards the life of the flesh (Gal.5).36 In brief, rather than labeling the work of the Spirit in creation as ‘general’ and ‘non-salvific’ as opposed to the special and salvific work of the Spirit in personal renewal, we should acknowledge that in both situations the Spirit works towards salvation through the resistance of the dual powers of death and sin. Often this is a hard struggle, in which we suffer many losses. But if the 35  So if the capacity to make testable predictions is a hallmark of proper science, then theology is not far off. 36  Cf. Gregor Etzelmüller, “Evolution und Neuschöpfung im Heiligen Geist. Annäherungen an eine Verhältnisbestimmung im Anschluss an Paulus und Schleiermacher,” in Gottes Geist und menschlicher Geist, eds. Gregor Etzelmüller & Heike Springhart (Leipzig: EVA, 2013), 149–160.

The Spirit of God and Creation

197

Spirit of God who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in us, He who raised Christ from the dead will in the end give life to our mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in us (Rom.8:11). 5 Conclusion Finally, to what extent may such a view of the Spirit as active in the natural world just as well as in our personal lives shape our practical orientation? Let me conclude by just very briefly mentioning two important aspects. First, it may inspire in us the hope that, despite its many agonies, evolution is not a blind process without any meaning or purpose, but that we will finally see the transformation of the world through a major event of emergence, an ultimate transition that the New Testament imagines as the final coming of the Kingdom of God. And second, this view may instill in us both a sense of awe vis-à-vis the Creator and a spirituality that is stamped by a strong ecological sensitivity. For if the natural world is experienced as being intimately connected to, and even inhabited by, the Spirit of God, that will affect our sensibilities in ways that foster care of God’s creation. Bibliography Ayala, Francisco J. “Morality and Personhood.” In Emergence of Personhood. Ed. Malcom Jeeves. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015, 87–103. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 2 God and Creation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Bedau, Mark A. and Paul Humphreys (eds.). Emergence. Contemporary Readings in Philosophy and Science. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2008 Brink, Gijsbert van den. En de aarde bracht voort. Christelijk geloof en evolutie. Utrecht: Boekencentrum, 2017. Brink, Gijsbert van den. Reformed Theology and Evolutionary Theory. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming. Brink, Gijsbert van den, Jeroen de Ridder, and René van Woudenberg. “The Epistemic Status of Evolutionary Theory.” Theology & Science 15 (2017), 454–472. Clayton, Philip. Mind and Emergence. From Quantum to Consciousness. Oxford: OUP, 2004. Clayton, Philip and Paul Davies (eds.). The Re-Emergence of Emergence. The Emergentist Hypothesis from Science to Religion. Oxford: OUP, 2006.

198

van den Brink

Collins, C. John. Genesis 1–4. A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Phillipsburg: P&R, 2006. Corradini, A. and Tim O’Connor (eds.). Emergence in Science and Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2010. Dabney, D. Lyle. “The Nature of the Spirit. Creation as a Premonition of God.” in Starting with the Spirit. Eds. Gordon Preece and Stephen Pickard. Hindmarsh: Australian Theological Forum, 2001, 83–110. Etzelmüller, Gregor. “Evolution und Neuschöpfung im Heiligen Geist. Annäherungen an eine Verhältnisbestimmung im Anschluss an Paulus und Schleiermacher.” In Gottes Geist und menschlicher Geist. Eds. Gregor Etzelmüller and Heike Springhart. Leipzig: EVA, 2013, 149–160. Feltz, Bernard, Marc Crommelinck, and Philippe Goujon (eds.). Self-organization and Emergence in Life Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Hasker, William. “On Behalf of Emergent Dualism.” In In Search of the Soul. Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem. Eds. Joel B. Green and Stuart L. Palmer. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005, 75–100. Hasker, William P. “The Emergence of Persons.” In The Blackwell Companion to Christianity and Science. Eds. J.B. Stump & Alan G. Padgett. Chicester: Blackwell, 2012, 480–490. Jeeves, Malcom (ed.). The Emergence of Personhood. A Quantum Leap? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Johnson, Elisabeth A. Ask the Beasts: Darwin and the God of Love. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Creation and Humanity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Kim, Jaegwon. “The Myth of Nonreductive Materialism.” In The Mind-Body Problem. Eds. Rich Warren and Tadeusz Szubka. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994, 242–260. Klapwijk, Jacob. Purpose in the Living World? Creation and Emergent Evolution. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. Kooi, Cornelis van der. This Incredibly Benevolent Force. The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. McGrath, Alister E. Re-Imagining Nature: The Promise of a Christian Natural Theology. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2016. Murphy, Nancey. “Reductionism and Emergence.” In Human Identity at the Intersection of Science, Technology and Religion. Eds. Nancey Murphy and Christopher C. Knight. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2010, 79–96. Murphy, Nancey and W.J. Stoeger (eds.). Evolution and Emergence. Systems, Organisms, Persons. Oxford: OUP, 2007.

The Spirit of God and Creation

199

Renfrew, Colin. “Personhood: Towards a Gradualist Approach.” In Emergence of Personhood. Ed. Jeeves. 51–67. Stephan, Achim. “The Historical Facets of Emergence.” In Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Non-Reductive Physicalism. Eds. Ansgar Beckermann et al. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992, 25–48. Tattersall, Ian. “Human Evolution: Personhood and Emergence.” In Emergence of Personhood, Ed. Malcom Jeeves. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015, 37–50. Thiselton, Anthony C. The Holy Spirit—in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Visscher, Lukas. “Giver of Life—Sustain Your Creation!” Ecumenical Review 42 (1990), 143–149. Yong, Amos. The Spirit of Creation. Modern Science and Divine Action. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2011.

chapter 13

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions: A Neocalvinist Approach Richard J. Mouw 1 Introduction In an essay that he published in 1946, H. Richard Niebuhr distinguished between three kinds of functional unitarianisms that he saw at work in the broad Christian community.1 He was not referring to communities that reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather, he was identifying patterns of thought and practice that result when Trinitarians place a special emphasis on one Person of the Trinity. A “Unitarianism of the Father,” Niebuhr observed, holds sway in communities with a special systematic theological and philosophical bent, often with a strong interest in natural theology.2 A Second Person orientation focuses particularly on the presence of God in historical events, usually with an emphasis on the incarnational ministry of Jesus.3 A Spirit focus, on the other hand, tends to highlight “spiritual awareness” and “the inner life.”4 Niebuhr set forth this scheme out of a desire to promote a sense of unity within the Christian community. It is important, he argued, that each position be aware of the other’s strengths and weaknesses, recognizing that no one of them “can stand alone but must borrow something from the other positions.” The inadequacy of each of them as a stand-alone perspective “does not lie in its affirmations but in its denials, not in its inclusions but in its exclusions.”5 In laying out this typology, Niebuhr’s primary interest was in ethical thought. A First Person ethical perspective will attend to such things as general revelation and natural theology, looking to “laws of nature” for moral guidance. This approach has been especially prominent in Catholic and Reformed moral theology. For a Second Person moral outlook, believers look to “historic 1  H. Richard Niebuhr, “The Doctrine of the Unity and the Unity of the Church,” Theology Today 3 (1946): 371–384. 2  Niebuhr, “Doctrine of the Unity,” 373, 381. 3  Niebuhr, “Doctrine of the Unity,” 374–376. 4  Niebuhr, “Doctrine of the Unity,” 376–377. 5  Niebuhr, “Doctrine of the Unity,” 378.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_015

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

201

revelation,” with the “counsels of the Sermon on the Mount” often looming large. Third Person ethical outlooks seek the “direct awareness of religious experience” in the hope of gaining an “inner knowledge of inner truth and good.”6 A few years later Niebuhr would set forth another typology, his classic depiction in his Christ and Culture, of five ways of understanding the relationship of Christian faith to the patterns and products of cultural formation.7 What Niebuhr’s critics of that scheme said can also be said of his “unitarianism” typology—that it is difficult to find actual positions, as held by real Christian communities, that fit neatly into each of his categories. But the point made by James Gustafson about Niebuhr’s “Christ and culture” scheme also holds for his functional unitarian typology: that in each case Niebuhr is offering, not as a set of “generalizations about literature,” but “an ideal construct of ideas.”8 With that understanding in mind, I think it is helpful to apply Niebuhr’s functional unitarianisms typology to the theology of religions. A First Person approach in this area, for example, features categories that treat with some favor the access of persons of non-Christian religions to an awareness of the biblical God’s purposes for humankind, apart from reliance on the deliverances of what God has revealed in Jesus Christ. This First Person approach is clearly at work in many of the standard classic expressions of Catholic thought. Here, for example, is the 1964 encyclical Lumen Gentium on the subject. [T]he plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25–28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4). Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.9 6  Niebuhr, “Doctrine of the Unity,” 377. 7  H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951). 8  James M. Gustafson, “Preface: An Appreciative Interpretation,” in the 50th anniversary edition of H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 50th anniversary edition (New York: Harper Collins, 2001). 9  Dogmatic Constitution on the Church—Lumen Gentium, Solemnly Promulgated By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, Ch. 2, section 16, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html.

202

Mouw

This kind of perspective does not have to deny the exclusive claims that have been central to the Christian tradition regarding the centrality of Christ’s atoning work. Rather, as Amos Yong puts it, those who hold this viewpoint, distinguish between salvation as “ontologically secured” through the person and work of Christ, while being “epistemically accessed” through, not only the proclamation of the message of salvation through Christ, but also through “other providential means of God.”10 The Second Person emphasis refuses to allow for—or at least to encourage the likelihood of—effective “providential” means of epistemic accessibility. Here the awareness of the claims of Christ is essential to salvation. An example of a Second Person approach can be seen in the perspective of Stephen Neill, who was a founding bishop of the Church of South India. Neill encourages Christians to pay careful attention to the questions being asked by persons of other faiths. “The Christian faith may learn much from other faiths,” he says. In all of this, however, we must maintain our insistence that Christianity “is universal in its claims; in the end Christ must be acknowledged as Lord of all.”11 A Third Person approach has been much evident in recent years in the efforts of those who are attempting to develop a full-fledged “pneumatological” approach to the theology of religions. Amos Yong is one prominent advocate for this approach. Yong acknowledges that any attempt to remedy the “domination of the Second Person over the Third” in a theology of religions must immediately grapple with biblical texts that seem to prohibit the effort. One of his examples is 1 John 4:2–3: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.” This text certainly establishes a close link between the acknowledgement of the supremacy of Jesus Christ and the working of the Spirit. But it also the case, Yong points out, that not all who cry “Lord, Lord” show the presence of the Spirit in their lives (Gal.5:22–23, and Matt.7:15–23). Therefore we cannot simply say that an orthodox-sounding confession about Jesus guarantees the presence of the Spirit. Word and Spirit, Yong insists, are “mutually defining,” with neither being subservient to the other.12

10  Amos Yong, Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2003), 23. 11  Stephen Neill, Christian Faith and Other Faiths: The Christian Dialogue with Other Religions (New York: Oxford University, 1961), 230. 12  Yong, Beyond, 168–169.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

2

203

Common Grace and Religious Diversity

My aim here is to explore important topics regarding the pneumatological approach within a neo-Calvinist framework. I will look at how neo-Calvinist thinkers, following the lead of John Calvin himself in this regard, view the Holy Spirit’s presence and role in other religions in positive terms, while also insisting that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone. I will also offer some observations about how in practical ways this neo-Calvinist pneumatological perspective can inform inter-religious encounters. The obvious place for a neo-Calvinist theology of religions to begin is with the doctrine of common grace. While that doctrine has come to be associated with the stream of Reformed thought affiliated with Abraham Kuyper, there are versions of common grace thinking that lack the pneumatological implications that are clearly present in Kuyper’s treatment. A clear case in point of this lack is the perspective developed recently by Daniel Strange, who makes his case for a Reformed understanding of religions by drawing primarily on the “presuppositionalist” approach of Cornelius Van Til. In doing so, Strange makes prominent use of Van Til’s understanding of the relationship between common grace and the antithesis between belief and unbelief.13 For Strange, any commendable practices or positive content that can be discerned by Christians in other religions is not to be attributed to any merit on the part of persons in those religious communities. Rather it is due to the “general and variegated” work of the Holy Spirit in the world—a work that the Spirit performs exclusively in terms of “divine restraint, the ultimate purpose of which is to serve God’s glory.”14 Furthermore, non-Christian religions always show a measure of inconsistency, which means that any ethical or political agreement that persons of other faiths may happen to share with Christians is due to their “using the ‘borrowed capital’ of the Christian worldview.”15 The seeming merits in a “false religion” are actually due to “the restraint of sin by the Holy Spirit in common grace serving as an ethical ‘check.’”16 Given that the standard interpretation of the doctrine of common grace is that it allows for a non-salvific attitude of divine favor toward the non-elect, it is difficult to find any element of the “divine favor” element in Strange’s depiction of non-Christian religions. He says, for example, that “God permits sinners 13  Daniel Strange, Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock: A Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 79. 14  Strange, Rock, 306–307. 15  Strange, Rock, 276. 16  Strange, Rock, 319.

204

Mouw

to continue in false religions so that he might show his wrath against them, with the larger purpose of displaying his glory to the elect.”17 It is reasonable to ask, then: why do we need a doctrine of common grace at all if what appear to be divine bestowals of truth, beauty and goodness on non-Christians are in reality nothing more than the restraining of unbelievers’ sinful impulses for the benefit of the elect? That was in fact that basic question that Herman Hoeksema persistently raised throughout his career in objecting to the “Three Points” of common grace affirmed by the Christian Reformed Synod of 1924. That synod had declared that God’s non-salvific attitude of favor toward the unredeemed is manifested in these three ways: (1) the provision of natural gifts, such as rain and sunshine, upon creatures in general, (2) the restraining of sin in human affairs, so that the unredeemed do not produce all of the evil that their depraved natures might otherwise bring about, and (3) the ability of unbelievers to perform acts of civic good.18 Hoeksema argued that there is nothing in the phenomena covered by these “Three Points” that requires an attitude of divine favor toward the non-elect. All of this can be accounted for, he insisted, by a doctrine of divine providence that limits God’s dealings with the non-elect to the “external” restraint of sin.19 Hoeksema’s critique makes good sense. And it is difficult to see how Strange’s purposes in invoking of common grace in his treatment of other religions would not be served just as well by a robust doctrine of divine providence. Abraham Kuyper’s understanding of common grace sees the Holy Spirit as going beyond the mere “restraining” operations. He insists that in addition to the “external” aspects of common grace it also functions in an “internal” manner in the hearts and lives of the non-elect. Common grace, he argues, is at work “wherever civic virtue, a sense of domesticity, natural love, the practice of human virtue, the improvement of the public conscience, integrity, mutual loyalty among people, and a feeling for piety leaven life.”20 It is this “internal” working of common grace that allows Kuyper to express admiration for the spiritual impulses at work in Mohammed’s vision of life. 17  Strange, Rock, 314. 18  For the complete text of the “Three Points” of 1924, see Herman Hoeksema, The Protestant Reformed Churches in America: Their Origin, Early History and Doctrine (Grand Rapids: First Protestant Reformed Church, 1936), 84–85. 19  Herman Hoeksema, A Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed Truth: A Critical Treatise on the “Three Points” Adopted by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Churches in 1924, pamphlet, no date, 22. 20  Abraham Kuyper, “Common Grace,” in Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader, ed. James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 181.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

205

“By what magic,” Kuyper asks, “did Mohammed radiate such an unparalleled charisma” that his “imprint is still very evident” even in the “remotest areas” of the Middle East? Kuyper cannot believe that the Muslim prophet was simply engaged in “a deliberate act of deception.” Religious perspectives that are set forth by leaders who want to deceive their followers, he argues, are not sustainable. “Charlatans live a lie,” says Kuyper, and typically “even the highly-polished brilliance of the visionary’s luster is quickly extinguished and does not provide the staying power that governs the centuries.” Mohammed, in contrast, seems to have possessed “[a] spiritual power of the first order,” even if there were also “factors of a lower order ” at work in extending his influence.21 Mohammed’s religious vision was of the sort that “stirs the deepest part of our being.”22 Thus, Kuyper, while rejecting Islam as a true religion for its failure to honour Christ as the only true Saviour, can praise Mohammed for “ his deep conviction of the sinfulness of polytheism and in his robust confession of monotheism.”23 3

Acknowledging Giftedness

In allowing for the “internal” working of the Spirit in the lives of unbelievers, Kuyper is refusing to settle for a mere “restraint” approach to our understanding of their contributions to the cause of truth, beauty and goodness. And in this refusal Kuyper is also insisting that unbelievers are worthy of our praise in their efforts in this regard. He is not only saying that we should admire certain ideas or traits that we encounter beyond the boundaries of the Christian community, but that we should honour the people in whose lives we observe those ideas and traits. This is a step beyond the kind of grudging recognition of non-Christian life and thought that we find, for example, in Augustine’s assessment of non-Christian contributions to the life of the mind. Augustine is very clear in acknowledging that “those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists” have developed thought that “is true and in harmony with our faith.” Therefore, he argues, we must claim this thought “for our own use.” In doing so, however, we should think of ourselves as re-possessing stolen goods. The deliverances of these thinkers contain “gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God’s providence which are everywhere scattered 21  Abraham Kuyper, On Islam, eds. James D. Bratt and Douglas Howard; transl. Jan Van Vliet (Bellingham: Lexham, 2018), 167. 22  Kuyper, On Islam, 167. 23  Kuyper, On Islam, 168.

206

Mouw

abroad.” Therefore, Augustine goes on, when the Christian rightly “separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men,” we ought to take these God-given items with us in order to put them “to a Christian use.”24 The tone of Kuyper’s remarks on the workings of common grace in the lives of unbelievers is much more positive than this. When Kuyper says that we can find such things as “natural love, the practice of human virtue, [and] the improvement of the public conscience” in the lives of unbelievers, he is clearly encouraging us to admire the people in whose lives these traits are on display. The same for his commending Mohammed for possessing “a spiritual power of the first order.” Kuyper is much in tune with John Calvin on this subject. The Reformer never lost the appreciation he had cultivated in his legal studies for several Greek and Roman writers, especially Seneca. In his Institutes Calvin points his readers to an “admirable light of truth shining” in the thoughts of pagan thinkers— evidence, he says, that “the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness,” can still be “clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts.” To refuse to accept, then, the truth produced by such minds is “to dishonor the Spirit of God,”25 who imparts to such persons a “peculiar grace.”26 Herman Bavinck highlights Calvin’s positive assessment of non-Christian cultural contributions, in an essay on common grace that Geerhardus Vos translated for publication in the Princeton Theological Review in 1909. For Calvin, Bavinck says, there is in fallen humanity “still a clear mirror of the operation of God, an exhibition of His manifold gifts.”27 Indeed, Bavinck observes, Calvin speaks glowingly of “a remarkable sagacity [that] is given to men whereby they are not only able to learn certain things, but also to make important inventions and discoveries, and to put these to practical use in life.” And this “sagacity,” Bavinck observed, is a product of the working of the Holy Spirit.28 There is nothing in what Calvin has to say on this, of course, which we can apply with his approval to the specifically theological content of persons of other religions. He means to be highlighting the role of the Holy Spirit in producing truth about matters of the mind in the lives of unbelievers. In his Dogmatics, though, Bavinck extends this emphasis on the Spirit’s inner 24  St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, in Four Books, Ch. 40, No. 60. http://www.ccel.org/ ccel/augustine/doctrine.xli.html. 25  John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill and transl. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), II,3,6; 273. 26  Calvin, Institutes II,2,14; 273. 27  Herman Bavinck, “Calvin and Common Grace,” transl. Geerhardus Vos, The Princeton Theological Review 7.3 (1909), 454. 28  Bavinck, “Calvin and Common Grace,” 455.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

207

working in the minds of unbelievers to persons of other religious faiths, and he does so in an explicitly Trinitarian manner. Remarking that Mohammed and other leaders of non-Christian faith communities should not simply be dismissed as “imposters, enemies of God, [and] accomplices of the devil,” Bavinck offers this theological verdict: “Also among pagans, says Scripture, there is a revelation of God, an illumination by the Logos, a working of God’s Spirit.”29 While acknowledging here the emphases associated with the First and Second Person approaches—general revelation and Christ as the Light of the World—he adds an important dynamic dimension with his reference to “a working of God’s Spirit” in other religions. This active “working” of the Third Person clearly suggests that individual religious perspectives may each benefit in different ways from the active interest that the divine Trinity takes in their particularities. How Buddhism or Hinduism are each impacted by the illuminating work of the Logos and the active “working” of the Spirit may differ significantly from how those same dynamic influences are at work in Islam or Confucianism. And in the case of Islam we must also take into account the ways in which Muslims have from the very beginning been in close interaction with the content of biblical revelation. 4

Focusing on Particularities

Stephen Neill, a founding bishop of the Church of South India, made much of an insistence that we pay attention to deep differences among religious perspectives. Making use of the arguments made by Hendrik Kraemer in his The Christian Message in a non-Christian World, Neill insisted that the “comparative method” approach to the study of religions is wrong in treating “all religions as commensurables.” When scholars take, for example, the idea of the deity and lay various conceptions side by side, they are often ignoring the fact that they are abstracting those ideas from other ideas with which they are interconnected, thus detaching the ideas in question “from the living experiences which has given rise to them. In so doing we rob them of their life,” thus ignoring “the living fabric of the religion from which the idea has been somewhat violently dissevered.”30

29  Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. One: Prologomena, transl. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003) 318. 30  Stephen Neill, Christian Faith and Other Faiths: The Christian Dialogue with Other Religions (New York: Oxford University, 1961), 3.

208

Mouw

This concern about failing to focus on the uniqueness of a specific religious perspective is what has motivated Cornelis van der Kooi—whose important work in developing a robust Reformed pneumatology we are celebrating in this volume—to critique the habit these days of grouping together Christianity, Judaism and Islam under the rubric of “Abrahamic religions.” Simply placing these diverse perspectives under a common “Abrahamic” heading, he argues, can keep us from recognizing deep differences among the three religious systems. These differences can be hidden, says Van der Kooi, when we treat Christianity, Judaism and Islam as sharing a common Abrahamic pattern of belief. That way of putting things, he insists, is “no more than a systematic theological proposal which, in my opinion, does not do justice to the various traditions in their self-understandings.” Is it really plausible to think, Van der Kooi asks, that “our basic [Christian] ideas of incarnation, kenosis and substitution still receive the key position if we theologically return to Abraham?” Christians have to be focused instead, he insists, on “going forward to Jesus Christ and to thinking and living out of Him.”31 The need to discern the uniqueness of different religious perspectives has in fact been at the heart of the missiological focus, in recent decades, on the need to be aware of cultural context in bringing the Gospel to diverse peoples. Much of this has, of course, been articulated with reference to evangelizing and discipling persons from other faith communities—speaking about the Gospel to animists will require attending to different matters than when we are engaging in evangelism in Muslim or Buddhist contexts. To be sure, a theology of religions must surely attend to more than missiological topics. But neither should the sensitivities that have emerged in missiological explorations be ignored. The missiological focus on specific contexts has often been guided by the conviction that the Holy Spirit is present in those contexts, and may in fact be using unique cultural—including religious—aspects of those circumstances to prepare people for the reception of the Gospel. This way of viewing things requires, then, detailed attention to a cultural context as a unique opportunity for discerning how the Spirit may be at work in a specific set of circumstances. This also serves as a more general—beyond the missiological as such—word of encouragement for us to focus carefully on the “incommensurable” features of a specific religious perspective.

31   Cornelis van der Kooi, “Towards an Abrahamic Ecumenism? The Search for the Universality of the Divine Mystery,” Acta Theologica 32.2 (2012), sections V-VIII.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

5

209

Individual Encounters

There are concrete situations of interfaith encounter, however, where different realities must also be taken into account. Simon Chan points us to these realities in his reminder that “there is more to dialogue than formal engagements between religious elites; sometimes more effective dialogues may be occurring at the grass-roots level between faithful practitioners of different faith traditions. This is because faith traditions as whole belief systems are irreducible to a common denominator, practically, in actual personal contact, people of different faith traditions often discover that they are not totally incommensurable.”32 Gijsbert van den Brink and Cornelis van der Kooi make a similar observation when they observe that “the encounter between religions happens only to a limited extent at the level of academic meetings and official dialogues. These efforts are certainly important as signals to leaders and communities, but the real dialogue takes place mostly where people in villages, cities, families, churches, or centers for asylum-seekers meet adherents of other religions in real-life situations.”33 In all of our interfaith encounters, they insist, we must proceed in the conviction that “God may present himself in his freedom and love through the open relationships that followers of Christ enter into with those who believe differently,” and in the awareness of “the hidden but neverceasing work of the Spirit of God, who does not leave people alone and who can also reach people who are closed.”34 This is one of those ways in which, as Amos Yong, puts it, “discerning the religions needs to proceed empirically.”35 6

A Case in Point

In February 2017, the planners of the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC sponsored a post-breakfast seminar on “Muslims and Jesus.” With about two hundred others, I attended the event One of the Muslim panellists described himself as “a Muslim follower of Jesus.” He assured us that he was indeed a devout Muslim. But, he testified, he also regularly reads the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. The New Testament, he said, has become an important part 32  Simon Chan, Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up ( Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2014), 141. 33  Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 196. 34  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 197. 35  Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 185.

210

Mouw

of his life because Jesus has added a dimension to his deeply held Muslim beliefs by teaching him lessons about love and forgiveness. Because of Jesus, he testified: “I have become a more loving and forgiving Muslim.” The audience for this panel was predominantly evangelical, and when the discussion was opened up for questions from the audience, someone immediately challenged the Muslim panellist: “But you Muslims deny the reality of the work of the Cross! How can you say you follow Jesus when you deny what the New Testament says about his atoning work?” The Muslim responded with an almost pleading tone: “Why do you Christian folks always go immediately to that topic? Yes, we Muslims have questions about whether the crucifixion of Jesus really happened. But why is that such a big deal for you Christians?” Then he pointed to the person next to him, an evangelical missionary to the Middle East: “My Christian friend here has been preaching to Muslims about the Cross for ten years, and what are his results? About six converts—six people in ten years! Now, if he had encouraged Muslims to read the Gospels to learn from Jesus about love and forgiveness, he would have thousands of Muslim people reading the New Testament!” I was disappointed that the conversation so quickly took on an argumentative character. Here—in the light of the call to proceed “empirically” in one-toone encounters—is how it might have gone differently. We could have asked the Muslim panellist to be more specific about why he found Jesus so engaging. How, in practical ways, do Jesus’ teachings about love and forgiveness expand upon what he finds in the Quran? In what distinct ways, if any, does Jesus speak to his deepest hopes and fears? To be sure, we ought not to ignore the ways the message of the Cross is a “stumbling-block” to unbelievers (1Cor.1:23). However, we must also allow for the ways in which people can benefit from the redemptive mission completed at Calvary without being intellectually clear in their understanding of that mission. One real possibility, then, is that the Muslim panellist was not aware of the ways in which the love and forgiveness he was experiencing through Jesus is only possible because of what Jesus accomplished by his atoning work. The distinction by Amos Yong, cited earlier, is highly relevant in this case: the possibility that salvation as “ontologically secured” through the person and work of Christ might be “epistemically accessed” through “other providential means of God.” J.H. Bavinck observed that “in Islam there is little room for a life of personal fellowship with God. Allah is so great and so exalted, and his will is so completely dominating, that very little is left on the human side … Even the sense of personal responsibility toward him and the need for forgiveness and

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

211

reconciliation, find no possibility of development.”36 It should not surprise us, then, that Muslim might look to Jesus for something that goes beyond what Islam by itself has to offer. 7

The “Centered Set” Work of the Spirit

The missionary-anthropologist Paul Hiebert has made popular in recent missiological discussions the distinction between “bounded sets” and “centered” ones. A “bounded set” is a category whose requirements for inclusion are linked to clearly definable characteristics: “apples” and “oranges” are bounded sets; we have ways of deciding which objects are “in” or “out” of the set in question. A “centered set,” on the other hand “is created by defining a center, and the relationship things have to that center. Some things may be far from the center, but they are moving towards it; therefore, they are part of the centered set. On the other hand, some objects may be near the center but are moving away from it … While the centered set does not place the primary focus on the boundary, there is a clear division between things moving in and those moving out.”37 The “motion” and “direction” imagery of Hiebert’s discussion comports nicely with neo-Calvinist thought. In his influential study of the neo-Calvinist perspective, for example, Albert Wolters sees “direction” as the fundamental concept for distinguishing between belief and unbelief. Believers and unbelievers both exist within the structures of the ordered creation, but they direct their lives in opposing ways—either toward or away from worship and service of the Triune God.38 This directional theme in turn can serve to capture the more dynamic element that a pneumatological emphasis contributes to a theology of religion. Benno van den Toren wisely observes that when we approach other religions with a proper Trinitarian perspective, “[w]e do not simply look for a more or less distorted recognition of God’s general revelation in his creation or for the universal presence of the Logos through which God created the universe.” To 36  J. H. Bavinck, “Defining Religious Consciousness: The Five Magnetic Points,” in The J.H. Bavinck Reader, eds. John Bolt, James D. Bratt, and Paul J. Visser; transl. James A. De Jong (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 181. 37  Paul G. Hiebert, “Conversion, Culture and Cognitive Categories,” Gospel in Context 1.4 (1978), 24–29. 38  Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 20052), 87–114.

212

Mouw

limit ourselves to those concerns is to limit our assessments of those religions as either outright rejections of Christ or as highly inadequate or distorted versions of his person and work. What we need beyond these concerns is our attempts to discern “how the Spirit has been present” in the lives of the persons whom we are encountering.39 What does this say, then, about our engagement with the Muslim panelist who testified that Jesus brought added dimension to his own spiritual journey as a Muslim? There is certainly no clear basis here for pronouncing a positive verdict regarding his salvific status. But his testimony does provide us with encouragement to continue the conversation with him, focusing on his own affirmations about Jesus, in the confidence that the Spirit is working positively in his life. In acknowledging the importance of recognizing the ways in which the Holy Spirit is at work beyond the boundaries of the community of Christian believers, we must never lose sight of the fact that the mission of the Spirit is indeed linked intimately to the Good News about Jesus. As Van der Kooi argues in his latest book, after having discussed traces of the Spirit in non-Christian cultural contexts: The final step cannot be to recognize theologically that Christ through his Spirit is at work also outside the walls of the church (extra muros ecclesiae). (…) The Spirit points to Christ and to the communion of Father and Son (…) Where the Spirit of the Son of the Father is, there the Spirit looks for the recognition of the work of the Son and of the love of the Father. The work of the Spirit as an incredibly benevolent force seeks to be released from anonymity and to work to the honor and praise of the triune God.40 There are parts if the world these days, of course, where actually speaking to others about that Good News is not an easy thing to do. Indeed, new difficulties are emerging in this regard even in cultures where the Gospel has had a prominent influence in the past. There is a lesson to be learned here from Bishop Neill. Neill predicted, in the mid-point of the twentieth century, that Christian engagement with 39  Benno van den Toren, “The Relationship between Christ and the Spirit in a Christian Theology of Religions,” Missiology: An International Review 40 (2012), 268–269. See also Van den Toren’s contribution on criteria for discerning the Holy Spirit in other religious traditions in the present volume. 40  Cornelis van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force. The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 143.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

213

Hinduism in India would become increasingly difficult. This was not a reason for Christians to be discouraged, though, he suggested. The approach that he recommended makes good sense for interfaith engagement as such in our own day. We have “to face the possibility,” Neill observed, “that the greater part of our work” with persons of other religions must now be “from within” their faith perspectives. We will need to stand alongside the religious others, then, posing questions that may help them to understand themselves better. In learning about their answers to these questions we can look for opportunities to point them to the One in whom their most probing questions “can receive their all sufficient answer, the Lord Jesus Christ.”41 For us today this can be an exciting endeavor if we do not lose sight of the fact that when we learn about the questions being asked by religious others we may well be discerning the ways in which the Holy Spirit is already at work in the deepest places of their inner being. Bibliography St. Augustine. On Christian Doctrine, in Four Books. Bavinck, Herman. “Calvin and Common Grace.” Transl. Geerhardus Vos. The Princeton Theological Review 7.3 (1909), 437–465. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. One: Prologomena. Transl. John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Bavinck, J. H. “Defining Religious Consciousness: The Five Magnetic Points.” In The J.H. Bavinck Reader. Eds. John Bolt, James D. Bratt, and Paul J. Visser. Transl. James A. De Jong. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013, 145–198. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. John T. McNeill. Transl. Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. Chan, Simon. Grassroots Asian Theology: Thinking the Faith from the Ground Up. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2014. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church—Lumen Gentium, Solemnly Promulgated By His Holiness, Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964. Gustafson, James M. “Preface: An Appreciative Interpretation.” 50th anniversary edition of H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture. New York: Harper Collins, 2001. Hiebert, Paul G. “Conversion, Culture and Cognitive Categories.” Gospel in Context 1.4 (1978), 24–29. Hoeksema, Herman. The Protestant Reformed Churches in America: Their Origin, Early History and Doctrine. Grand Rapids: First Protestant Reformed Church, 1936. 41  Neill, Christian Faith, 98.

214

Mouw

Hoeksema, Herman. A Triple Breach in the Foundation of the Reformed Truth: A Critical Treatise on the “Three Points” Adopted by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Churches in 1924. No place, no date. Kooi, Cornelis van der. “Towards an Abrahamic Ecumenism? The Search for the Universality of the Divine Mystery.” Acta Theologica 32.2 (2012), 240–253. Kooi, Cornelis van der. This Incredibly Benevolent Force. The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018). Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Kuyper, Abraham. “Common Grace.” In Abraham Kuyper: A Centennial Reader. Ed. James D. Bratt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998, 165–204. Kuyper, Abraham. On Islam. Eds. James D. Bratt and Douglas Howard. Transl. Jan van Vliet. Bellingham: Lexham Press, 2018. Neill, Stephen. Christian Faith and Other Faiths: The Christian Dialogue with Other Religions. New York: Oxford University, 1961. Niebuhr, H. Richard. “The Doctrine of the Unity and the Unity of the Church.” Theology Today 3 (1946): 371–384. Niebuhr, H. Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951. Strange, Daniel. Their Rock is Not Like Our Rock: A Theology of Religions. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Toren, Benno van den. “The Relationship between Christ and the Spirit in a Christian Theology of Religions.” Missiology: An International Review 40 (2012), 263–280. Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 20052. Yong, Amos. Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2003.

chapter 14

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions: The Search for Criteria Benno van den Toren 1

The Pneumatological Turn in the Theology of Religions

The last thirty years have seen a widespread interest in the activity of the Holy Spirit in non-Christian religions,1 so much so that it has even been referred to as a “pneumatological turn” in the theology of religion.2 It is noteworthy that this is exemplified in a broad range of Christian traditions. One of the first voices was George Khodr who addressed the issue from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, arguing that the Orthodox criticism of the filioque (of the Spirit “who proceeds from the Father and from the Son”) invites one to be open to the work of the Holy Spirit outside the boundaries of the church.3 Similar perspectives were developed in Roman Catholicism by the Jesuit Jacques Dupuis,4 in the circles of the World Council of Churches (WCC) by Stanley Samartha,5 in evangelical Protestant circles by the charismatic Baptist Clark Pinnock,6 and 1  I am aware of the problematic side of the term ‘religion’ (see Benno van den Toren, “Religion,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, eds. Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 20173)) but use it here in a very loose sense for those phenomena outside the Christian tradition that we from a Christian perspective recognize as religious. 2  Amos Yong, “The Turn to Pneumatology in Christian Theology of Religions: Conduit or Detour?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 35.3–4 (1998): 438. 3  George Khodr, “Christianity in a Pluralist World: The Economy of the Holy Spirit,” in Living Faiths and the Ecumenical Movement, ed. Stanley J. Samartha (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1971), 131–42. 4  Jacques Dupuis, “The Cosmic Influence of the Holy Spirit and the Gospel Message,” in Jesus Christ and His Spirit: Theological Approaches, ed. Jacques Dupuis (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1977), 181–210; Jacques Dupuis, “The Cosmic Economy of the Spirit and the Sacred Scriptures of Religious Traditions,” in Jesus Christ and His Spirit: Theological Approaches, ed. Jacques Dupuis (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1977), 211–28; Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1997). 5  S.J. Samartha, “The Holy Spirit and People of Various Faiths, Cultures, and Ideologies,” in Holy Spirit (Nashville: Tidings, 1974), 20–39; S.J. Samartha, “The Holy Spirit and People of Other Faiths,” Bangalore Theological Forum 21.4–1 (1990): 68–93. 6  Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1996).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_016

216

van den Toren

most elaborately by the Pentecostal theologian Amos Yong.7 In my assessment, these different contributions cannot be traced back to a common origin, but rather reflect shared developments in the broader theological scene, such as a renewed interest in the theology of the Holy Spirit in the second half of the twentieth century, the urgency of theological reflection on religious plurality and a desire to move beyond what is perceived as a “Christological impasse” in the theology of religions.8 This pneumatological turn brings a number of gains to the Christian theology of religions. The main is that it allows for an openness to the presence of God in non-Christian religious traditions that is different from a human response to the general revelation of God as Creator and the universal presence of the cosmic Christ. The proper nature of the Spirit’s activity encourages us to also look for the intimate presence of God at work in aspects of other religions as God guides them in various ways towards his purposes. In an earlier article, I have explored some of the main critical issues related to this pneumatological turn.9 In this contribution, I take a step further and explore some of the critical issues concerning the Christian task of ‘discernment of spirits’ in nonChristian religious communities and whether there are criteria that might help us in this task. In what follows, I begin with a brief consideration of the nature of and need for discernment. Subsequently, I focus on two issues that are crucial for bringing the wider debate on discernment and criteria for this discernment a step further. The first issue relates to the question of whether the multiple criteria that have been put forward are sufficiently helpful, precisely because they are multiple and may point in different directions. The second issue is the question of whether the formulation of criteria for discernment will not unhelpfully burden interreligious encounter. When we approach other religious traditions in the light of our own criteria about where God might be present, active or absent, we appear to be coming with a pre-determined point of view which effectively blocks true dialogue. This leads to the central theological issue at 7  Amos Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s) : A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000); Amos Yong, Beyond the Impasse : Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003); Yong, “The Turn to Pneumatology in Christian Theology of Religions”; Amos Yong, “The Holy Spirit and the World Religions: On the Christian Discernment of Spirit(s) ‘after’ Buddhism,” BuddhistChristian Studies 24, no. 1 (2004): 191–207. 8  The expression ‘Christological impasse’ comes from Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), chap. 2. 9  Benno van den Toren, “The Relationship between Christ and the Spirit in a Christian Theology of Religions,” Missiology 40.3 (2012): 263–80.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

217

stake, which has come up in most discussions concerning the pneumatological turn in the theology of religions: the question of the relationship between Christological and pneumatological perspectives in a Christian theology of religions and what it would mean for a theology of religions to be ‘robustly Trinitarian.’ 2

The Nature of and Need for Discernment

According to 1 Corinthians 12:10, “discernment of spirits” is itself considered a gift of the Holy Spirit. This text does not refer to a charismatic gift of the Spirit to specific members of the Christian community, which would risk the designation of a special class whose discernment is beyond criticism. Rather, it is a general gift to the church (the original meaning of charisma),10 the nature of which is not clarified in the passage in 1 Corinthians.11 Such discernment is needed in a variety of contexts: in relation to the personal piety of Christian believers,12 to history and society,13 and also to the presence of the Spirit in other religions. The final contexts raise issues that are different from the first because of the absence of an explicit confession of Christ. These two questions cannot be neatly separated because religions cannot be isolated from the broader societies in which they develop and vice versa. In line with the focus on the theology of religions in this contribution, I concentrate on this final area in which discernment is needed: the discernment of the Spirit in other religious traditions. This question is of crucial importance for missiology and mission, as well as for the theology of religions and interreligious relations, for several reasons.

10  C  ornelis van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest: Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest (Kampen: Kok, 2006), 55–59; cf. Norbert Baumert, Charisma— Taufe—Geisttaufe / Band 1: Entflechtung einer semantischen Verwirrung (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2001). 11  See for a thorough discussion Reinhard van Elderen, “Een gave van onderscheiding,” Geestkracht. Bulletin voor Charismatische Theologie 71 (2013): 20–27. 12  K. Waaijman, “Discernment and Biblical Spirituality: An Overview and Evaluation of Recent Research, ” Acta Theologica 32.2S (2013): 1–12. 13  Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 522–524; Cornelis van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force: The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 140–42.

218

van den Toren

Kirsteen Kim quotes James Dunn as saying that “discernment is the first task of mission.”14 This is a consequence of the growing interest in the Spirit in missiology and the discovery that mission should not first be thought of as our obedience to a general divine command or commission, but as the church joining in with the missio Dei.15 If that is the case, it becomes urgent to discern where God is at work so that, first, we may follow God’s lead. In Christian mission to other religious communities, we need to join in with what God is already doing in communities and people. Second, discernment is also crucial for the theology of religions, because noting that God as Spirit can be at work in other religious communities does not allow us to baptise them in their entirety, just as the presence of the Spirit in the history of the church does not allow us to sanctify this entire history. This is all the more urgent because in the wider human world religions are not only an area where God is working, but also an area where people often do not rise above the merely human or where the demonic may be present. Religions have also been instruments of oppression and dehumanization; they have been institutions that have not only awaked people to God, but also kept people from serving God by offering substitutes. Discernment is crucial precisely because it allows us to recognise that all human religion is a mixed bag and because it also permits us to take the demonic, however understood, with utter seriousness.16 Third, this critical attitude is even more important given the hesitancy with which the Christian community has accepted the idea of God’s presence and activity in other religious traditions. Justin Ukpong points to the fact that as recently as 1983, the WCC could not agree on the statement that “While affirming the uniqueness of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus to which we bear witness, we recognize God’s creative work in the religious experience of people of other faiths.” Subsequently the Central Committee could only agree on the weaker statement “… we recognize God’s creative work in the seeking for religious truth among people of other faiths.”17 Although there are a number of theological reasons and social developments that invite us to be more open to other religious traditions, we should do

14  K  irsteen Kim, “Discerning the Spirit: The First Act of Mission,” Norsk Tidsskrift for Misjonsvitenskap 62.1 (2008): 10; quoted from James D.G. Dunn, The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1998), 72. 15  Kirsteen Kim, Joining in with the Spirit: Connecting World Church and Local Mission (London: Epworth, 2009). 16  Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 127–32. 17  Justin S. Ukpong, “Pluralism and the Problem of the Discernment of Spirits,” The Ecumenical Review 41.3 (1989): 422f; emphasis added.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

219

justice to these traditions in their variegated expressions and varying theological value. Raising the question of discernment allows us to take this seriously. 3

Multiple Criteria

Missiologist Kirsteen Kim proposes a list of four criteria to help guide the process of discernment. Her proposal is a helpful starting point for this discussion because she remains close to biblical pneumatological notions. Kim’s criteria all follow from Christ as the fundamental criterion, but intend to respect the wide range of phenomena that the New Testament explicitly ascribes to the Holy Spirit.18 The ecclesial criterion is the confession of Christ as Lord.19 The ethical criterion is the evidence of the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, etc.20 The third criterion is charismatic and concerns the practice of the gifts of the Spirit.21 The final criteria is liberational and linked to Jesus’s Nazareth manifesto, in which he sees the presence of the Spirit on Him as manifest in his liberating activities and the proclamation of the Good News to the poor.22 In the light of the different aspects of the work of the Spirit presented in the Scriptures, I propose to add a further criterion. The New Testament also points to the remarkable intimacy and closeness expressed in the freedom Christians receive to call God “Abba, Father” as a sign that the Holy Spirit is at work.23 If this is one the Spirit’s intentions, we are encouraged to see a deeper longing for a more intimate relationship with God in non-Christian traditions as a sign of the prompting of the Spirit of Christ. The problem of the multiplicity of criteria is, however, that they can point in different or even contrary directions. The whole exercise of looking for criteria is initiated in the first place because in some context we find according to some criteria, such as liberational practice (criterion four), evidence for Christlikeness, even though Christ is not confessed (criterion one). Kim herself points out that according Scripture each of the criteria is ambiguous. With regards to the first ‘confessional’ criterion, Jesus himself states out that calling Him ‘Lord’ is not necessarily a mark of true obedience.24 Similarly, seemingly 18  Kirsteen Kim, The Holy Spirit in the World: A Global Conversation (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2007), 168f. 19  Cf. 1 Cor.12:3; 1 Jn.4:2. 20  Cf. Gal.5:22. 21  Cf. 1 Cor.12:4–11. 22  Cf. Lk.4:16–21. 23  Rom.8:15; Gal.4:6. 24  Mt.7:21f.

220

van den Toren

Christlike works “may be the result of unregenerate legalism.”25 What looks like a spiritual charisma, may not be, if it lacks love.26 “And […] there is always a caveat to the criterion of liberation: the liberation struggle must be waged in a way that is loving to our enemies.”27 The strength of Kim’s proposal is that she takes a range of biblical evidence into account, rather than focussing on just one criterion, as for example amongst those who would from a liberation theology perspective defend a ‘regnocentric’ or Kingdom-centred approach to interreligious dialogue, focussing on the fourth criterion.28 Yong seems to come close to this latter position when he suggests that “perhaps the moral criterion of humanization is the only positive one we have.”29 Recognizing the multiplicity of biblical criteria and their inconclusiveness when taken by themselves respects the messiness involved in the discernment process. Kim is aware that her criteria should be taken as “indicators, rather than as concrete evidence.”30 Nevertheless, the question remains whether something more can be said or whether we simply need to recognize that we are stuck with multiple criteria that seem to present contradictory evidence in concrete situations of interreligious encounter. One way forward lies in the place of Christ as the fundamental criterion. Is Christ simply the perfect example of humanization, against which we can measure all our imperfect efforts? In biblical theology, the fruit and gifts of the Spirit and the signs of the Kingdom are linked more closely to Christ. Christ is not just the proclaimer and inaugurator of the Kingdom; He is in Origen’s term the autobasileia. The Kingdom is there where Christ is present.31 Similarly, the gifts and fruits of the Spirit are not gifts that could be given by any other person, but are the gifts of the new creation inaugurated by Christ, of which the Holy Spirit is the aparchè (first fruits)32 and the

25  Rom.7:6. 26  1 Cor.13:1–3. 27  Mt.5:43–48; Kim, 168f. 28  See f. ex. Pieris Aloysius, “The Buddha and the Christ: Mediators of Liberation,” in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, ed. John Hick and Paul Knitter (London: SCM, 1988), 162–77; Samartha, “The Holy Spirit and People of Other Faiths,” 258. 29  Amos Yong et al., “Christ and Spirit: Dogma, Discernment, and Dialogical Theology in a Religiously Plural World,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 12.1 (2003): 34. 30  Kim, The Holy Spirit in the World, 169; partly covers the same material Kim, ‘Discerning the Spirit’; cf. also Kim, Joining in with the Spirit, 34–36. 31  John Paul II, “Redemptoris Missio, Encyclical Letter, John Paul II,” 24 July 2014, paras 12–20, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_ 07121990_redemptoris-missio_en.html. 32  Rom.8:23.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

221

arabōn (down payment).33 Christ does not just reveal an entirely “new way to be human” (according to a Switchfoot lyric) but also makes true humanization possible. Yet we still need to go a step further: this new way to be human is not only “Christ-likeness,”34 but also consists in humanity becoming a new creation through being joined to Him in an intimate union (see below). 4

Criteria, Openness, and Fallibilism

I therefore agree with Kim and others who refer to Christ as “the only criterion for discernment on which Christians can agree,”35 but would include more in it than ‘Christlikeness.’ Yong, however, proposes to focus on pneumatology in the theology of religions precisely in order to move beyond the ‘Christological impasse’ he notes. Christological questions such as the question of whether Christ is the Saviour or only a Saviour are very important,36 yet they may need to be bracketed for a time in order to explore whether a pneumatological approach might provide a way forward. In due time, we can return to a “broader trinitarian framework.”37 Yong shares the orthodox hesitations concerning the filioque, allowing him to look for the presence of the Holy Spirit beyond the confines of the church.38 As a tool to recognise this presence without being unduly bound to Christian understandings of the Holy Spirit, he develops a “foundational pneumatology” based on more general spiritual categories.39 This move seems epistemologically problematic, because it remains unclear whether he does this from a Christian perspective (in that case it is unclear why he should not use more explicitly Christological criteria) or from a supposedly neutral perspective (in which case it is unclear how he can avoid the charge of claiming undue neutrality for his own position). Apart from the critical issues with his foundational pneumatology we need to consider two deeper motivations behind his bracketing of Christology that require further attention. Yong is deeply and rightly motivated by the desire to 33  2 Cor.1:22; cf. Benno van den Toren, “De Heilige Geest in schepping en herschepping,” in Vele gaven, één Geest: Meedenken met Martien Parmentier op het gebied van oecumenica, patristiek en theologie van de charismatische vernieuwing, eds. Kees van der Kooi, PeterBen Smit, and Liuwe Westra (Gorinchem: Ekklesia, 2012), 97–107. 34  Kim, Joining in with the Spirit, 36. 35  Kim, The Holy Spirit in the World, 167. 36  Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 57. 37  Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 58. 38  Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 169 n. 5. 39  Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 122–32; Yong, Beyond the Impasse, chap. 3.

222

van den Toren

engage in genuine dialogue with adherents of other religious traditions. He believes that his pneumatological approach allows him to do justice to the “radical alterity—otherness—of the religions.”40 This is most clear in an extended e-mail conversation between Yong, his fellow Pentecostal Frank Macchia, Baptist Dale Irvin and Roman Catholic Ralph Del Colle on his Discerning the Spirit(s).41 Because of the nature of the exchange he is much more able to share his deeper convictions than in his formal academic work. Here he says: “My immediate concern is that our preconceived christologies do not hinder our encountering and engaging in other faiths … and I am exploring ways in which pneumatology may help us in this regard.”42 This also makes it problematic for him to decide upfront, before engaging in particular intercultural dialogues, what criteria should be used to discern the presence of the Spirit in other religions, because this would mean that Christians would judge other religions on foreign Christian terms rather than in themselves as genuinely other. Criteria will therefore need to be discovered in the dialogue itself rather than decided up front. “A pneumatological approach … would emphasize that even the criteria for discerning the Spirit need to be discerned and negotiated afresh at each juncture.”43 This is counterbalanced by other texts in which Yong clearly states that Christian discernment is “normed by Jesus Christ.”44 One way to understand the relationship between the normativity of Christ for the Christian and the openness of pneumatological criteria may be that Christological criteria are precisely normative for the Christian. Yong is aware of the historical and social location of all Christian claims.45 This is part and parcel of his fallibilist epistemology in the line of Charles Peirce.46 He is deeply aware of the fallibility of his own position and is willing to consider that not only his position as a Pentecostal but also the Christian faith itself may be “a historical construction.”47 In this respect Yong is without a doubt in line with central convictions in our postmodern Western culture. It is, however, an important question whether this does justice to the nature of the Christian faith.

40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47 

Yong, Beyond the Impasse, 21. Yong et al., “Christ and Spirit.” Yong et al., “Christ and Spirit,” 18. Yong, “The Holy Spirit and the World Religions,” 204; cf. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 140; Yong et al., “Christ and Spirit,” 34, 54. Yong, “The Holy Spirit and the World Religions,” 203; cf. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 314. Yong et al., “Christ and Spirit,” 32. Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 100f; Yong et al., “Christ and Spirit,” 62. Yong et al., ‘Christ and Spirit,’ 62.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

223

Though it goes beyond the confines of this article to discuss this in detail, I believe that a claim to the finality of God’s self-revelation in Christ is central to the Christian faith. The faith that God revealed himself eschatologically in Jesus of Nazareth and that this Jesus is not a mere prophet or religious sage, but the one and only Son of God incarnate, implies that this is a unique vantage point from which to judge all religious views and practices (including Christian ones) and therefore discern their value and meaning.48 What this means for the confidence Christians can have in their own understanding of Christ is a further question. How do we understand the trustworthiness and clarity of Scripture? How much confidence can we have in the dogmatic formulations of the church?49 These questions do not, however, undermine the basic confidence that God has spoken decisively and eschatologically in Christ, even if many of the treasures contained in that gift still lie waiting to be unpacked. Consequently, a Christian fallibilist epistemology will need to be formulated in a manner that does justice to this decisive revelation. Ultimately, it is not our epistemologies that should decide what we are able to know. Epistemologies should rather do justice to the world as we come to know it and to the way we come to know it—and, for a Christian, to the way we have come to know God in Christ through the Spirit. Therefore, I believe it is justified to continue to see Christ as the primary criterion with which we discern the Spirit in other religious traditions, but how does He relate to the presence of the Spirit? 5

Trinitarian Questions

Yong’s project to develop a pneumatological approach to the theology of religions is driven by his desire to recognize other religious traditions as truly other and is triggered by his Pentecostal experience, but is also motivated by his desire to be more “robustly trinitarian”50 than the theologies that lead to the perceived ‘Christological impasse.’ The question is, of course, what it 48  B  enno van den Toren, Christian Apologetics as Cross-Cultural Dialogue (London; New York: T.&T. Clark, 2011), 204–08; see for an engagement with my thought here Amos Yong, The Dialogical Spirit: Christian Reason and Theological Method in the Third Millennium (Eugen: Wipf and Stock, 2014), 271–80. 49  A different evaluation of the trustworthiness of the central threads of the Christian doctrinal tradition probably leads to a divergent evaluation of the trustworthiness of the basic tenets of Christian anthropology between Yong and myself; see Yong, The Dialogical Spirit, 278. 50  Yong et al., ‘Christ and Spirit,’ 21.

224

van den Toren

would mean to be robustly trinitarian. It is appropriate to end this contribution on discernment in a Festschrift for Kees van der Kooi with this question. On the one hand, Kees has constantly asked some of his more Christologicallyfocussed conversation partners to do full justice to the different aspects of the presence and activity of God in the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, as extraordinary professor of the Theology of Charismatic Renewal (2003–2008), he has shown a continued interest in understanding charismatic experiences within the context of what might also be called a robustly trinitarian theology as witnessed in his inaugural lecture “In the School of the Spirit: TrinitarianTheological Comments on Charismatic Renewal.”51 For Yong, being robustly trinitarian means temporarily postponing further christological reflection in the theology of religions in order to give due attention to the role of the Holy Spirit.52 A number of his critics have rightly asked whether and in what way this can be done.53 It seems right to draw attention to the proper place of the role of the Holy Spirit in the theology of religions. It may be necessary to temporarily place some Christological questions on the backburner in order to begin drawing on pneumatological insights. Nevertheless, this cannot mean that Jesus Christ himself is bracketed out of the conversation. Christians do not know the Holy Spirit as the gift of the New Covenant otherwise than through Christ. Pneumatological approaches to the theology of religions have rightly drawn attention to the fact that there is more to the Holy Spirit than what was received at Pentecost. They have drawn attention to the presence of the Spirt before Pentecost and in creation. In that sense a criticism of the filioque is justified in as far as it has been understood to make the Holy Spirit entirely subordinate to Christ. Nevertheless, this does not justify speaking of “the twofold divine economy”54 as we see in Khodr, who stresses the “hypostatic independence”55 of Son and Spirit. This is his interpretation of the image of the Son and the Spirit as ‘the two hands of God,’ which is used by Irenaeus of Lyons and so loved by many exponents of the pneumatological turn. Nevertheless, if God 51  C  ornelis van der Kooi, “In de school van de Geest. Triniteitstheologische kanttekeningen bij de charismatische vernieuwing,” in Tegenwoordigheid van Geest: Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest (Kampen: Kok, 2006), 209–41. 52  Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 58. 53  E.g., Yong et al., “Christ and Spirit”; James R.A. Merrick, “The Spirit of Truth as Agent in False Religions? A Critique of Amos Yong’s Pneumatological Theology of Religions with Reference to Current Trends,” Trinity Journal 29.1 (2008): 107–125. 54  Khodr, “Christianity in a Pluralist World: The Economy of the Holy Spirit”; George Khodr, “An Orthodox Perspective on Inter-Religious Dialogue,” Current Dialogue 19.1 (1991): 25. 55  Khodr, “An Orthodox Perspective on Inter-Religious Dialogue,” 25.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

225

indeed has two hands, these are not doing different things. The Son and the Spirit work differently and have different roles, but they have these roles in the one economy of salvation of the one God.56 Rending these asunder into two economies would divide the unity of God and his unified will for the salvation of the universe and humanity. Discussions concerning the proper ‘trinitarian spreading’ or ‘trinitarian distribution’57 in the theology of religions easily become an expression of metaphysical taste (preferring plurality or simplicity). The safest way forward seems to be to ground the discussion in salvation history. It is after all through the encounter with God as Father, Son and Spirit that God is known as Trinity and not through metaphysical speculation. In the light of salvation history, it is indeed right to criticize an undue subordination of the Spirit to the Son. If the Spirit depends on Christ, we equally need to say that Christ depends on the Spirit, as is clear in the role of the Spirit in Jesus Christ’s conception and baptism. Following Karl Rahner’s principle, “The ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity,”58 this relationship between Christ and the Spirit in the economy of salvation therefore equally reveals who God is in himself. Rather than posing their relative independence, it would be better to stress the interdependence of Son and Spirit, possibly by complimenting the filioque with a spirituque (‘and by the Spirit’) when speaking of the generation of the Son.59 This would bring the Son and the Spirit closer together rather than drawing them apart. It is justified to respect the different ways in which Son and Spirit work, their different spheres of action, and the different ways in which Father, Son and Spirit each relate to the reality of religious pluralism. This allows for a greater freedom of the Spirit to move where the name of Jesus Christ is not yet known, but does not allow for a separation of that presence and activity from God’s one history of salvation. The history of salvation is therefore a crucial source when looking for criteria for discerning the work of the Spirit in other religious traditions. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide even the sketchiest outline of a biblical 56  V  eli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Spirit and Salvation (A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 176. 57  The notion of trinitarian spreading or ‘trinitarische spreiding’ was first introduced by O. Noordmans and later developed by A.A. van Ruler; Dirkie Smit, Essays on Being Reformed: Collected Essays 3 (Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA, 2009), 44. 58  Karl Rahner, The Trinity, transl. Joseph Donceel (Milestones in Catholic Theology; A Crossroad Herder Book; New York: Crossroad, 2005), 22. Rahner also adds the move in the opposite direction: “… and the ‘immanent’ Trinity is the ‘economic’ Trinity.” I left it out, because it is more contested and not needed for the argument here. 59  Leonardo Boff, Trinity and Society (Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1988), 204.

226

van den Toren

and systematic theology of God’s purposes through salvation history, but such a sketch would need to include a number of elements. It would need to do justice to the revelation of God’s purpose for his creation in both the resurrection of Christ and the gift of the Spirit as the first fruits of the new creation.60 All three persons of the Trinity play an indispensable role in this history of salvation, not only in bringing it about, but as part of the goal to which the whole of history moves: for the entire creation to receive incorruptibility through the Spirit61 and for humanity to find its destiny under one head, Christ (with Irenaeus’ notion of the anakephalaiōsis),62 so that God may be “all in all.”63 Looking back at the criteria listed by Kim, it becomes clear that Christ as the central criterion is therefore not only the norm that we need to recognize the presence of the Spirit, but also the goal. Just as Christ came in order to give the Spirit, so the Spirit was given in order to bring humanity together under Christ. Yet, the language of multiple criteria still makes sense because the confession of Christ is not the only criterion that counts. A trinitarian theology should be equally wary of both Christological reductionism and the separation of Christ and Spirit. One of the characteristics of the work of the Spirit is that it is highly particular, that it reaches people where they are and guides them from there towards the future of Christ. It may well be that we first detect this presence and activity in signs of liberation, or in experiences of healing, in the shaping of character, in a growing longing for God or in an unexpected search for Christ miraculously revealed in a dream or a vision. Some of these signs may be discerned where the name of Christ is yet unknown. It may even be that some signs are present while the name of Christ is rejected, because the Christ who is known is dressed in a cultural garb or linked with social structures that cannot be recognized as Good News. Yet, if it is the Spirit of Christ that is working, this Spirit will keep nudging and drawing people towards Christ, just as the Spirit will keep nudging the church to present Christ in a manner that breaks through the cultural and social boundaries that keep others from embracing Him. On this side of the eschaton, the work of the Spirit always remains partial. Sometimes the name of Christ is heartily embraced, but the fruits of the Spirit are sparse; sometimes we see signs of liberation and healing where the name of Christ is not yet known or recognized. This partiality will remain with us until the eschaton, yet it is crucial that we recognize these signs as partial expressions of a much fuller salvation. From 60  1 Cor.15:20; cf. Col.1:18; Rom.8:23. 61  1 Cor.15:35–49. 62  Eph.1:10. 63  1 Cor.15:28.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

227

a Christian perspective, there can never be full humanization unless human beings are brought into relationship with Christ in whom the fullness of life can be found,64 just as there can be no full humanization without the fruit of the Spirit, an experience of healing and reconciliation, signs of liberation, and hope of the resurrection of the body and the new creation. The recognition that all humanity will find its communal destination under Christ as the incarnate Son does, however, not lead to Christological reductionism, for the Spirit is as much the goal of the work of Christ as vice versa. Christ came in order to baptise his people with the Spirit as the inauguration of the Kingdom of God.65 Creation will find its destiny in relation to God as Father, Son and Spirit. In concrete interreligious encounters we may well detect particular traces of the presence God as Father and Creator, as incarnate Son or as recreating Spirit. Yet, all these are traces of the one Trinitarian God who is nudging humanity and creation towards this one goal of salvation history. 6 Conclusion The conclusions to the foregoing reflections can be grouped into two clusters. The first cluster relates to the multiplicity of criteria and, therefore, the messiness of discernment. There are multiple criteria that do not necessarily point in one direction. This is a consequence of the fact that the Spirit is a dynamic presence in a world with many divergent and often even outright contradictory forces and influences. There are no simple phenomenological criteria whereby we can test the presence of the Holy Spirit in a full proof manner.66 This means that recognizing the Spirit demands wisdom67 and the development of appropriate spiritual disciplines.68 It is always a communal enterprise in which individuals search for the confirmation of their insights by the community to which they belong.69 This communal wisdom is particularly needed given that “we cannot take a priori positions that are detached from concrete historical events.”70 This quote from the Christian Dogmatics by Van den Brink and Van der Kooi concerning the discernment of the Holy Spirit in the realm 64  Jn.10:10. 65  Cf. Frank D Macchia, Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006). 66  Kärkkäinen, Spirit and Salvation, 173. 67  Kim, “Discerning the Spirit,” 17. 68  Greg McKinzie, “Currents in Missional Hermeneutics,” Missio Dei 5.1 (2014): sect. 5. 69  Yong, Discerning the Spirit(s), 314f; Waaijman, “Discernment and Biblical Spirituality,” 7–9. 70  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 523.

228

van den Toren

of history is equally applicable to the discernment of the Holy Spirit in the realm of religions, because the Spirit is “by definition […] filled with freedom and unpredictability.”71 An example of this may be the occurrence of so-called insider movements in other religious traditions,72 which has taken the traditional churches by surprise because it does not seem to easily correspond to known models of mission. Yet we do see signs here of unexpected Christ-ward movements. There are therefore no set criteria against which movements can be judged, because of the need to judge wisely which criteria come closest to a movement’s inner spiritual dynamism. There may even be a need to look out for new criteria that are required for a fuller discernment of the Spirit in a particular movement. In that sense, we do need a “dynamic criteriology”73 to reflect the dynamism of the Spirit. It is therefore more helpful to speak with Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen of guidelines,74 rather than of criteria: we can formulate rich (rather than vague or formal) guidelines that direct the discernment process, but there are no criteria that can be applied in a way that can be fully specified a priori before a deep encounter with other religious communities. Second, the decisive guideline should be the ‘robust trinitarianism’ that Yong himself defends, but that contrary to Yong should balance a new attention for the proper role of the Holy Spirit in the world of religions with an understanding of Father, Son and Spirit as involved in the one missio Dei and of their work as integrated parts of the one history of salvation. Discernment of the work of the Spirit should therefore go hand in hand with witness to the cross and the resurrection of Christ, because it is only in the light of these events that we recognize movements of the Spirit as Christlike. Furthermore, it is only with reference to the victory over death and the inauguration of the new creation in the resurrection of Christ that we can understand movements of the Spirit as movements toward full humanization. In this history, we discover what we are invited to become in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

71  Kärkkäinen, Spirit and Salvation, 174; cf. Ukpong, “Pluralism and the Problem of the Discernment of Spirits,” 424. 72  See e.g. Harley Talman, Understanding Insider Movements: Disciples of Jesus within Diverse Religious Communities (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2015). 73  Yong, “The Holy Spirit and the World Religions,” 204. 74  Kärkkäinen, Spirit and Salvation, 175.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

229

Bibliography Aloysius, Pieris. “The Buddha and the Christ: Mediators of Liberation.” In The Myth of Christian Uniqueness. Eds. John Hick and Paul Knitter. London: SCM Press, 1988, 162–77. Baumert, Norbert. Charisma—Taufe—Geisttaufe / Band 1: Entflechtung einer semantischen Verwirrung. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2001. Boff, Leonardo. Trinity and Society. Tunbridge Wells: Burns & Oates, 1988. Dunn, James DG. The Christ and the Spirit: Collected Essays. Vol.2. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1998. Dupuis, Jacques. “The Cosmic Economy of the Spirit and the Sacred Scriptures of Religious Traditions.” In Jesus Christ and His Spirit: Theological Approaches. Ed. Jacques Dupuis. Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1977, 211–28. Dupuis, Jacques. “The Cosmic Influence of the Holy Spirit and the Gospel Message.” In Jesus Christ and His Spirit: Theological Approaches. Ed. Jacques Dupuis. Bangalore: Theological Publications in India, 1977, 181–210. Dupuis, Jacques. Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1997. Elderen, Reinhard van. “Een gave van onderscheiding.” Geestkracht. Bulletin voor Charismatische Theologie 71 (2013): 20–27. John Paul II. “Redemptoris Missio, Encyclical Letter, John Paul II,” 24 July 2014. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Spirit and Salvation. A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World 4. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Khodr, George. “An Orthodox Perspective on Inter-Religious Dialogue.” Current Dialogue 19.1 (1991): 25–27. Khodr, George. “Christianity in a Pluralist World: The Economy of the Holy Spirit.” In Living Faiths and the Ecumenical Movement. Ed. Stanley J. Samartha. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1971, 131–42. Kim, Kirsteen. “Discerning the Spirit: The First Act of Mission.” Norsk Tidsskrift for Misjonsvitenskap 62.1 (2008): 3–21. Kim, Kirsteen. Joining in with the Spirit: Connecting World Church and Local Mission. London: Epworth, 2009. Kim, Kirsteen. The Holy Spirit in the World: A Global Conversation. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2007. Kooi, Cornelis van der. Tegenwoordigheid van Geest: Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest. Kampen: Kok, 2006. Kooi, Cornelis van der. This Incredibly Benevolent Force: The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017.

230

van den Toren

Macchia, Frank D. Baptized in the Spirit: A Global Pentecostal Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. McKinzie, Greg. “Currents in Missional Hermeneutics.” Missio Dei 5.1 (2014). Merrick, James RA. “The Spirit of Truth as Agent in False Religions? A Critique of Amos Yong’s Pneumatological Theology of Religions with Reference to Current Trends.” Trinity Journal 29.1 (2008): 107–125. Pinnock, Clark H. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1996. Rahner, Karl. The Trinity. Transl. Joseph Donceel. Milestones in Catholic Theology; A Crossroad Herder Book. New York: Crossroad Publ., 2005. Samartha, S.J. “The Holy Spirit and People of Other Faiths.” Bangalore Theological Forum 2.4–1 (1990): 68–93. Samartha, S.J. “The Holy Spirit and People of Various Faiths, Cultures, and Ideologies.” In Holy Spirit. Nashville: Tidings, 1974, 20–39. Smit, Dirkie. Essays on Being Reformed: Collected Essays 3. Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA, 2009. Talman, Harley. Understanding Insider Movements: Disciples of Jesus within Diverse Religious Communities. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2015. Toren, Benno van den. Christian Apologetics as Cross-Cultural Dialogue. London; New York: T.&T. Clark, 2011. Toren, Benno van den. “De Heilige Geest in schepping en herschepping.” In Vele gaven, één Geest: Meedenken met Martien Parmentier op het gebied van oecumenica, patristiek en theologie van de charismatische vernieuwing. Eds. Kees van der Kooi, PeterBen Smit, and Liuwe Westra. Gorinchem: Ekklesia, 2012, 97–107. Toren, Benno van den. “The Relationship between Christ and the Spirit in a Christian Theology of Religions.” Missiology 40.3 (2012): 263–80. Treier, Daniel J, and Walter A. Elwell (eds.). Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 20173. Ukpong, Justin S. “Pluralism and the Problem of the Discernment of Spirits.” The Ecumenical Review 41.3 (1989): 416–25. Waaijman, K. “Discernment and Biblical Spirituality: An Overview and Evaluation of Recent Research.” Acta Theologica 32.2S (2013): 1–12. Yong, Amos. Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003. Yong, Amos. Discerning the Spirit(s) : A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Yong, Amos. The Dialogical Spirit: Christian Reason and Theological Method in the Third Millennium. Wipf and Stock, 2014. Yong, Amos. “The Holy Spirit and the World Religions: On the Christian Discernment of Spirit(s) ‘after’ Buddhism.” Buddhist-Christian Studies 24.1 (2005): 191–207.

Discerning the Spirit in World Religions

231

Yong, Amos. ‘The Turn to Pneumatology in Christian Theology of Religions: Conduit or Detour?’ Journal of Ecumenical Studies 35.3–4 (1998): 437–54. Yong, Amos, Dale T. Irvin, Frank D. Macchia, and Ralph Del Colle. “Christ and Spirit: Dogma, Discernment, and Dialogical Theology in a Religiously Plural World.” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 12.1 (2003): 15–83.

part 4 And Giver of Life: The Spirit and the Human Person

⸪

chapter 15

Retrieving Jonathan Edwards’ Doctrine of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit Willem van Vlastuin 1 Introduction Recently, there has been a revival of interest in Pneumatology1 across the world. Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink mention four historical backgrounds of this renaissance: first, after times during which the rationalism of modernism took center stage, we now see a steady growth of interest in transcendence and the search for meaning. Second, the increasing influence of the ecumenical movement has made theologians conscious of the presence of the Spirit in other Christian traditions.2 Third, the rise of Pentecostalism as the fastest growing Christian movement has globally enhanced interest in the work of the Holy Spirit.3 Fourth and last, a renewed study of the Bible has led to the conviction that the Spirit himself is the great eschatological gift. Cornelis van der Kooi had, and has, his own place in this movement.4 Although there has been much interest in the Spirit in the Western theological 1  See Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 524–530, and cf. the Introduction to this volume. 2  Compare V.M. Kärkkäinen, “ ‘How to Speak of the Spirit among Religions’: Trinitarian Prolegomena for a Pneumatological Theology of Religions,” in The Work of the Spirit. Pneumatology and Pentecostalism, ed. Michael Welker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 47–70. 3  The above mentioned volume (Work of the Spirit) has a section “The Spirit in Pentecostal Theology,” 109–165. 4  This is illustrated by his “De moed tot leven. Enkele lijnen in Van Rulers pneumatologie,” in Men moet telkens opnieuw de reuzenzwaai aan de rekstok maken. Verder met Van Ruler, eds. D. van Keulen, G. Harinck, and G. van den Brink (Boekencentrum: Zoetermeer, 2009), 47–55; “Die Phänomenologie des Heiligen Geistes im Spätwerk Karl Barths,” Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie 30 (2014), 33–49; “Der Heilige Geist bei Schleiermacher und Barth,” in Karl Barth und Friedrich Schleiermacher. Zur Neubestimmung ihres Verhältnisses, eds. M. Gockel & M. Leiner (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 213–218; “Pneumatologie in der Versöhnungslehre Karl Barths,” in Karl Barth als Lehrer der Versöhnung (1950–1968). Vertiefung-Öffnung-Hoffnung, eds. M. Beintker, G. Plasger and M. Trowitzsch (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2016), 331–347.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_017

236

van Vlastuin

tradition, he is convinced that a ‘Geistvergessenheit’ (forgetfulness of the Spirit) has befallen this tradition.5 This forgetfulness is caused by an overly-tight focus on the Spirit’s work in the individual, leaving the broader work of the Spirit to disappear from sight. Against this anthropocentric shift, Van der Kooi highlights the super-personal presence of the Spirit in the church,6 while also asking attention for the work of the Spirit in society and culture.7 This sensitivity led him to reflect on current ecological issues in light of pneumatology8 and on the healing power of the Spirit,9 a theme which aroused his interest when he held the chair of the theology of charismatic renewal at Vrije Universiteit (2003–2008).10 The search for a renewal of the doctrine of the Spirit also led the systematic theologian to develop a Spirit Christology.11 In the Heidelberg Catechism he found some points of connection that he could use to rethink Christian anthropology from the perspective of the unction of Christ and his church with the Spirit.12 On the whole, Van der Kooi understood the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as having the potential to overcome the contrast between transcendence and immanence and to rethink the doctrine of God in a way that stays closer to Scripture than traditional metaphysics.13 5  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 490–491. This approach goes back to Van der Kooi’s Tegenwoordigheid van Geest. Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest (Kampen: Kok, 2006), 7–9. 6  C. van der Kooi, “The Appeal to the Inner Testimony of the Spirit, especially in H. Bavinck,” Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008), 103–112, here 111–112. 7  C. van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 19–21; “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur,” in De werking van de Heilige Geest in de Europese cultuur en traditie, eds. E. Borgman, Kees van der Kooi et al. (Kampen: Kok, 2008), 60–72. 8  “Towards an Ecologically Sensible Pneumatology,” Journal of Reformed Theology, 6.3 (2012), 283–293. 9  Van der Kooi was responsible for the final redaction of “Gebed en genezing. Gezamenlijke verklaring van de Charismatische Werkgemeenschap Nederland en de Nederlandse Lucasorde,” in Bulletin voor Charismatische Theologie, 62 (2008), 1–2. He is also the supervisor of a research project on remarkable healings that received public attention, http:// www.eenvandaag.nl/broadcast/5641 (visited July 18, 2017). 10  Van der Kooi wrote several articles in Bulletin voor Charismatische Theologie, see his personal website http://www.cornelisvanderkooi.com/publications (visited 18 July, 2017). 11  “On the Identity of Jesus Christ. Spirit Christology and Logos Christology in Converse,” in Third Article Theology. A Pneumatological Dogmatics, ed. M. Habets (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 193–206. 12  “De Heilige Geest volgens de Heidelbergse Catechismus,” in Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus, eds. A. Huijgen, John V. Fresko, and Aleida Siller (Utrecht: Kok 2013), 239–248. 13  “De Geest als tegenwoordige en vernieuwende kracht,” in Weergaloze kennis. Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk, aangeboden aan prof. dr.

Retrieving Jonathan Edwards ’ Doctrine

237

In this chapter I would like to investigate Jonathan Edwards’ doctrine of the Spirit in the context of Cornelis van der Kooi’s interests and the current revival of pneumatology. I focus on three issues of Edwards’ doctrine of the indwelling of the Spirit, namely a Spirit-structured theology, the experience of the Spirit and the eschatological Spirit. I relate Edwards’ views to the contemporary coordinates as an interpretative framework for retrieving Edwards’ pneumatology.14 2

A Spirit-Structured Theology

As a puritan theologian, Jonathan Edwards stood in the tradition of Westminster theology, but he did not reduce pneumatology to simply being a function of Christology by limiting the work of the Spirit to the application of salvation. Instead, he explored pneumatology as a distinct area of its own in theology and spirituality.15 This places Edwards’ theology and spirituality in the company of Christians who were critical of an underestimation of the Spirit, such as the Montanists in the early church, the radical protestants in the time of Reformation, early modern pietistic movements in the seventeenth century and—anachronistically—Pentecostal-charismatic movements in the twentieth century. It also makes him an interesting interlocutor for those who are involved in the present revival of interest in the Spirit such as Van der Kooi. Edwards understood the Spirit as the great purpose of Christ’s work16 and as the sum of the blessings of eternal life, which shall be given in heaven (…) ‘Tis through the vital Communications and indwelling of the Spirit, that the saints have all their light, life, holiness, beauty and joy in heaven: and ‘tis through the vital Communications and indwelling of the same Spirit,

B. Kamphuis, eds. A. de Bruijne, H. Burger, and D. te Velde (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015), 57–66, here 60 and 66. 14  See J. Webster, “Theologies of Retrieval,” in Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, eds. J. Webster, K. Tanner and A. Torrance (Oxford: Oxford University, 2007), 583–599. 15  Remarkably, in their recent survey of Christian doctrine Christian Dogmatics. Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), M. Allen and S.R. Swain do not thematize pneumatology. In their survey of Edwards’s theology, M.J. McClymond and G.R. McDermott rightly do include pneunmatology as a discrete field; cf. their The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Oxford: Oxford University, 2012), 262–272. 16  S.H. Lee, “Editor’s Introduction,” in J. Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 21 (New Haven, London: Yale University, 1957–2006), 1–106, here 39.

238

van Vlastuin

that the saints have all light, life, holiness, beauty and comfort on earth; but only communicated in less measure.17 This approach reveals that Edwards had a Spirit-structured understanding of creation and re-creation. In Edwards’ view, Adam originally possessed the Spirit, but the essence of his fall was the loss of the Spirit. This loss offers the context for the work of the last Adam. Although Christ’s redemptive work is more than a restoration of the original proton, it should be understood as at least including such a restoration of the original situation: God’s Son became incarnate and suffered to purchase the Spirit again.18 While the general structures of Edwards’ theology concur with both Reformed and Puritan forms of theology, a closer examination reveals this Spirit-structure to be the backbone of his theology. In a certain way, the encompassing focus on the Spirit places Edwards in opposition to his tradition. If we compare Edwards’ understanding of the Spirit as the sum of eternal blessings with the Heidelberg Catechism as an exemplary window on the reformed tradition, we can easily spot the difference.19 At first sight, the Heidelberg Catechism’s confession that the Spirit is given to us (Lord’s Day 20) appears to concur with Edwards’ understanding of the Spirit as the sum of all blessings. A closer look, however, clarifies that the focus of this Reformed catechism is not on the person of the Spirit, but on his acts of application and comfort. The difference with the Westminster confession is even more pronounced. This confession does not have a special paragraph on the Spirit at all, because the acts of the Spirit are implicitly present in the sections on the order of salvation. The advantage of this focus on the ordo salutis is the emphasis it places on soteriology and the feeling of urgency it conveys about sharing the benefits of Christ. But the reverse of this approach is that these benefits are identified with the person of Christ, that the personal relationship with Christ disappears and that the work of the Spirit is reduced to an impersonal gift from a store that is filled forever by Christ.20 17  W  JE 2:236–237 and 13:466. See also WJE 21:192 and 196; S.R. Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory. An Account of the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Edinburgh: T&T Clark 2000), 182. The Spirit is also the happiness of God, WJE 21:188. 18  W JE 20:153 and 24:1085–1090. See also R.W. Caldwell III, Communion in the Spirit. The Holy Spirit as the Bond of Union in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006), 72–73. 19  Heidelberg Catechism, question and answer 53. 20   Compare J.M. Burger, “Gospel Presentation and the Structure of the Heidelberg Catechism,” in The Spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism. Papers of the International Conference on the Heidelberg Catechism Held in Apeldoorn 2013, ed. Arnold Huijgen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 268–279.

Retrieving Jonathan Edwards ’ Doctrine

239

The comparison with these representative confessions of the Reformed and the Puritan traditions highlights the special characteristics of Edwards’ pneumatology. While in the Reformed tradition the doctrine of the Holy Spirit can—with some exaggeration—be characterized as a Christ-centred functional Pneumatology and in the Westminster tradition as a benefit-centred functional Pneumatology, in Edwards we find a Spirit-centred Christology. The above-cited words of Edwards could even suggest a Spirit-centred functional Christology. Indeed, this tendency is not completely absent in Edwards, but characterizing his Christology as functional would not do justice to the whole of his theology. In the retrieval of Edwards’ Spirit-centred Christology one always has to look out for a balance between Christ and Spirit. Keeping an eye on this balance, the Spirit-centred Christology of Edwards contributes to the present debate about pneumatology in that it underlines the intimate personal relationship the believer has with the Holy Spirit. At first sight Edward’s words about the presence of the Spirit in paradise may cause amazement or wonder, because they are at odds with the eschatological dimension of pneumatology. Deeper reflection, however, reminds us of the fact that, even without sin, as weak and vulnerable human beings we need the effective grace of the Spirit. The presence of the Spirit in paradise also resonates with the current search for the Spirit in the Old Testament.21 Edwards already raised this issue when highlighting the believer’s communion with the Spirit in the Old Testament, thus implicitly sharpening the question whether Pentecost was a radically new phenomenon. 3

The Experience of the Spirit

While the reformed tradition before Edwards spoke about the work, the agency and the grace of the Holy Spirit, Edwards radicalized John Owen’s doctrine of the personal indwelling of the Holy Spirit in God’s people.22 21  A.C. Thiselton, The Holy Spirit in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries and Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 3–21; A. Huijgen, “Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament: From Individual Texts to the Nature of Revelation,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 19 (2017), 251–270. 22  W JE 2:236–237. John Owen called the indwelling of the Holy Spirit “the great and solemn promise of the covenant of grace,” The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1965–1990) 11:330. Cf. B. Kay, Trinitarian Spirituality. John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 175–178. Owen was the first in the Reformed tradition who wrote a monograph about the Holy Spirit, The Works of John Owen 3–4. B.B. Warfield observed: “The developed doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit is an exclusively Reformation doctrine, and more particularly a Reformed doctrine, and

240

van Vlastuin

This approach of Pneumatology fits neatly within the context of modernity, because the indwelling of the Spirit is interpreted as an individual indwelling.23 Edwards had profound convictions about ecclesiology, which led to his detachment from the Congregationalist congregation of Northampton.24 However, these views did not imply that he took the corporate body of Christ as a starting point to think about the individual members of the congregation. Rather, for Edwards Christ’s body was the sum of the individual believers. Conceptualizing this indwelling of the Spirit from the perspective of individual believers raises the question as to how the Spirit is related to the other believers in the local congregation as well as to the worldwide church. Edwards believed that there was a spiritual union between believers in the common possession of the Spirit, which raises the interesting question: how can other believers have the Spirit if the individual has the complete Spirit? The opposite question to this is whether the indwelling of the complete Spirit also implies that there is an indwelling of the trinity. Or is it possible to isolate the Spirit from the Father and the Son? As far as I see, Edwards does not deal with these issues, which may be typical of his modern way of thinking. The independentist tendency in his ecclesiology is strengthened by the specific historical societal context of the spirit of the pioneers that made individualistic skills and characters so important. As Edwards interacted with his own culture in his interpretation of pneumatology, so our retrieval of his doctrine of the indwelling of the Spirit will inevitably interact with our culture. This means that our retrieval of Edwards’ theology in the twenty-first century may prompt us to emphasise the corporative dimension of Christ’s body against the one-sidedness of a hyperindividualistic postmodern culture. Yet, we can still learn from Edwards that the Spirit also indwells in the individual believer.

more particularly a Puritan doctrine,” in his introduction to A. Kuyper, The Work of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), xxv–xxxviii, here xxxiii. 23  Charles Taylor in particular has shown that the turn to the individual human subject is characteristic for modern times, A Secular Age (Harvard: University, 2007), 146. See also his, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1989), 129–136. B.S. Gregory speaks about ‘hyperpluralism,’ The Unintended Reformation. How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society, (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2012), 369. Every individual ‘must be the sovereign of his or her own Cartesianized universe, determining his or her own truth, making his or her own meanings, and following his or her own desires,’ 385. 24  See Edwards’ letter, WJE 16:296–302; for his criticism of independentist church government, cf. WJE 16:355, and his An Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God, concerning the Qualifications Requisite to a Complete Standing and Full Communion in the Visible Christian Church, WJE 12:165–348.

Retrieving Jonathan Edwards ’ Doctrine

241

More particularly, I see three ways in which Edwards’ approach can be made fruitful in our context. First, the indwelling of the Spirit implies that love is a central characteristic in the Christian life, because the Spirit is a Spirit of love.25 For example, Edwards understood baptism of the Spirit as a baptism with the fire of love.26 There are several more examples in which Edwards interprets the Christian life from the perspective of love,27 especially in his sermons about 1 Corinthians 13 which were published as Charity and Its Fruits.28 In a certain way this perspective of love seems self-evident in Christian theology, but the distinctiveness of Edwards’ approach is made clear when it is compared to the Reformed tradition in which the notion of faith was central. Edwards’ emphasis is particularly visible in his understanding of the place of the law. Whereas standard Westminster theology understood the law as the instrument in ensuring obedience to God, Edwards rejected this use of the law, because believers would be discouraged from serving God if they were confronted by the law.29 Believers must not be led by the law, but by the Spirit. Because the law is written in the hearts of believers, believers should not be directed to an outer version of the law to live the Christian life, but to love as the fulfilment of the law. This is doubtless an antinomian aspect of Edwards’ theology and one which also led him to an exegesis of Romans 7:14–25 that conflicted with the common Reformed exegesis. The latter applied the word ‘flesh’ in this passage to the life of the saint, while Edwards understood this as a reference to the unconverted sinner in Adam.30 Retrieving Edwards requires that we honour and elaborate his insight of the indwelling of the Spirit, the implied life of love and the positive understanding of sanctification. At the same time, we may do well to listen to a theologian such as Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge, who was able to maintain the paradox of the Christian as inhabited by the Spirit and yet still living in the flesh of sinful tendencies.31 Second, the indwelling of the Spirit implies that the spiritual life of the believer has an experiential character. Here, Edwards’ theology was in line with 25  W  JE 8:132. J.H. Gerstner called Edwards a theologian of love, The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Orlando: Ligonier 1993) I:568–569. 26  W JE 17:297. 27  W JE 2:114; 17:298, 315, 396, 400. 28  W JE 8:123–397. 29  W JE 15:198–199. See also A.J. Beck and W. van Vlastuin, “Sanctification between West­ minster and Northampton,” Jonathan Edwards Studies 2.2 (2012), 3–27, here 15–17. 30  W JE 17:345. Compare WJE 2:298 and 17:125. Edwards gave a sermon about Rom.7:14 with the title “Men, as they are by nature, are perfect slaves to corruption; or, they are entirely under the dominion of sin.” 31  See his Romans 7: A Paraphrase and “I believe in the Holy Spirit” (Anoka: Faith Alone, 2009). The exegesis of verse 14 is on page 55–67.

242

van Vlastuin

his personal spirituality. In the narrative describing his crucial spiritual breakthrough, he wrote about: (…) a sense of the glory of the Divine Being: a new sense, quite different from anything I ever experienced before (…) and I went to prayer, to pray to God that I might enjoy him; and prayed in a manner quite different from what I used to do, with a new sort of affection.32 In his Personal Narrative he added: I have many times had a sense of the glory of the third person in the Trinity, in his office of Sanctifier; in his holy operations communicating divine light and life to the soul. God in the communications of His Spirit, has appeared as an infinite fountain of divine glory and sweetness; being full and sufficient to fill and satisfy the soul.33 Edwards experienced “light, life, holiness, beauty and comfort” as the characteristics of the Holy Spirit.34 In his magnum opus, A Treatise concerning Religious Affections he clarified that the indwelling of the Spirit consists mainly in holy affections.35 This understanding of the Christian life is related to his interpretation of the human faculties. Instead of giving priority to the intellect, or the will as in the Puritan tradition, Edwards advocated an equality of intellect and will.36 While the Puritan tradition commonly assumed a hierarchy of will, intellect and feelings, Edwards connected the will and the affections. Given the fact that the affections belong to the will, this approach clarifies that the 32  W JE 16:792–793. See also WJE 2:240–253. 33  W JE 16:801. 34  R.W. Caldwell III gleans from Edwards’ texts holiness, excellency, happiness, fullness and grace as facets of God’s love in which we participate by the indwelling of the Spirit, Communion in the Spirit, 49–55. 35  W JE 2:106–108, 113–114, 116, 149, 240. Cf. J.E. Smith, “The Perennial Jonathan Edwards,” in Jonathan Edwards in Our Time. Jonathan Edwards and the Shaping of American Religion, eds. S.H. Lee and A.C. Guelzo (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1–11, here 3. In the same volume see also S.H. Lee, “Edwards on God and Nature: Resources for Contemporary Theology,” 15–44, here 17. 36  W JE 2:95–99. “Nor can there be a clear distinction made between the two faculties of understanding and will, as acting distinctly and separately,” WJE 2:272. R.A. Hutch speaks of a “holistic view of the human personality”; “Edwards’ Analysis of Religious Experience,” Journal of Psychology and Theology: An evangelical forum for the integration of psychology and theology 6.2 (1978), 123–131, here 125. G.M. Marsden calls Edwards a voluntarist: Jonathan Edwards. A Life (New Haven: Yale University, 2003), 282–283.

Retrieving Jonathan Edwards ’ Doctrine

243

affective dimension is essential for the Christian life. For contemporary conversation, this means that Edwards’ concept supports a holistic understanding of heart and head,37 one which criticizes a rationalistic and a reduced dogmatic understanding of Christianity. It is this dimension of Edwards’ theology that unites theology and spirituality.38 This dimension also fits in with current culture, which is critical of theoretical theological views and seeks for authenticity, transcendence, meaning and affection. Third, the indwelling of the Spirit in the heart of Christians implies a kind of participation-theology.39 According to Edwards, believers are seen “as it were as parts of him,”40 so that we also think and act like God.41 Because of these expressions Edwards-scholars have spoken of theosis or deification.42 Depen­ dent upon the definition of deification, Edwards either agreed or disagreed with this qualification. Either way, he was conscious of the sensitivity of this area and rejected both an ontological unification with God43 and an ­annihilation of 37  See M.J. McClymond, Encounters with God. An Approach to the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), vi. 38  Compare H. Boersma, Heavenly Participation. The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 154–184. P. Sheldrake carefully notes: “This implies that to do theology means being a theological person, not merely using theological tools,” Spirituality and Theology: Christian Living and the Doctrine of God (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2004), 22. 39  Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory, 242. W.R. Hastings understands participation as an “overarching motif or meta-thematic center for the theology of Jonathan Edwards,” Jonathan Edwards and the Life of God: Toward an Evangelical Theology of Participation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 1. K.C. Strobel, however, calls his concept a “top-down” interpretation of Edwards’ theology, Jonathan Edwards’s Theology: A Reinterpretation, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2013), 145, 225. See also his “Jonathan Edwards and the Polemics of Theosis,” Harvard Theological Review 105 (2012), 259–279. Cf. S.K. Tan, Fullness Received and Returned: Trinity and Participation in Jonathan Edwards (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014); B. Withrow, Becoming Divine: Jonathan Edwards’s Incarnational Spirituality within the Christian Tradition (Eugene: Cascade, 2011). For an analysis, see W. van Vlastuin, “Jonathan Edwards’ Spiritualis. Towards a Reconstruction of his Theology of Spirituality,” Journal for the History of Reformed Pietism 2.1 (2016), 23–47, here 30–34. 40  W JE 14:403. 41  W JE 14:242. 42  W JE 13:342. Edwards speaks of “a communication of the divine nature and beauty,” WJE 8:233, cf. p. 236–237. Cf. Edwards on 2 Pet. 1:4, WJE 8:132, 158; 13:462, 529; 14:242, 403; 17:208; 18:245; 19:691; 21:122, 129, 156, 194; 24:1183; 25:639 and the editors’ comments at WJE 8:67, 80, 133n, 461n, 730, 734; 21:16. For a present-day discussion, see W.R. Hastings, Jonathan Edwards and the Life of God, 291–315. 43  See Edwards’ “Unpublished Letter on Assurance and Participation in the Divine Nature,” WJE 8:636–640, here 638–640; M.J. McClymond, “Salvation as Divinization: Jonathan Edwards, Gregory Palamas and the Theological Uses of Neoplatonism,” in Jonathan Edwards Philosophical Theologian, eds. P. Helm and O. Crisp (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003),

244

van Vlastuin

human personality,44 in order to understand participation in God as a pneumatological category which respects and renews human reciprocity.45 This approach fits very well in the current search for spirituality and for a theology of participation.46 There are several possible ways of reapplying Edwards’ interpretation of participation. For example, Edwards’ understanding of election and justification as sharing in Christ’s election and justification may contribute to the present debate.47 Another relevant application seems to be his understanding of the meaning of Christ’s active obedience. Through the spiritual union with Christ this obedience is not only imputed to believers, but believers actively participate in this obedience.48 It is conceivable that as a result of this interpretation less attention is given to the passive, imputative aspect of justification and a greater emphasis is placed on the activities of the believer. Next, Edwards underlines that adoption has to be understood as the believer’s participation in Christ’s sonship of the Father, which makes our relationship with God very intimate.49 Finally, this intimate relationship with God is also interpreted as the participation in God’s joy and happiness.50 Retrieving this dimension of Edwards also makes his theology relevant to issues in contemporary society, given the widespread present longing for happiness which is not fulfilled by mere economic progress.51 139–160; A. Morimoto, Jonathan Edwards and the Catholic Vision of Salvation (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1995), 12–69. 44  Edwards uses the metaphor of the sun shining upon a diamond. The diamond does not become the sun, but it reflects the light of the sun, WJE 2:202, Compare C. Cherry, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards. A Reappraisal (Bloomington (reprint): Indiana University, 1990), 41, and 28–29, 30–31, 42–43; Morimoto, Jonathan Edwards and the Catholic Vision of Salvation, 44, 46. 45  W JE 18:157. 46  See Van den Brink and Van der Kooi, Christian Dogmatics, 681; D.E. Tamburello, Union with Christ. John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994); J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ (Oxford: Oxford University, 2008); J.M. Burger, Being in Christ. A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2008); J. Canlis, Calvin’s Ladder. A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). 47  W JE 18:418. 48  W JE 13:174. 49  W JE 13:174, 18:109, 21:448, 25:234. 50  W JE 13:181, 20:455. 51  See World Database of Happiness, http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl; Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, http://www.stiglitz -sen-fitoussi.fr; http://unsdsn.org/?s=happiness+report (visited 28 July 2017); D. Coyle, GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History (Princeton: Princeton University, 2014), 119–140.

Retrieving Jonathan Edwards ’ Doctrine

4

245

The Eschatological Spirit

The foregoing insights raise the complex issue of the eschatological character of Edwards’ pneumatology. According to McClymond and McDermott, Edwards was “most eschatologically minded” and “all of his thought was eschatological.”52 In a concluding statement on his eschatology they observe, in a similar vein, that eschatology in fact occupies a place of central importance within his entire theology. McClymond and McDermott could state this by referring to Edwards’ interest in the end of history.53 According to his interpretation of the biblical prophecies, the ‘glorious times’ of the millennium were close by. The millennium was not only the most important time in history, it was also the window through which the history of salvation, of the church and of the world could be interpreted. For this reason Edward could think about “a body of divinity in an entire new method, being thrown into the form of a history.”54 In this sense Edwards understood the historical-eschatological acts of the Triune God as the starting point for theology.55 When we try to pin down Edwards’ understanding of history and eschatology, the treatment of the issue of the charismatic gifts is important. Edwards was not open to the possibility of contemporary expressions of these gifts, because he connected them to the fulfilment of the history of salvation.56 Because these gifts were not interpreted as symptoms of the reality of Christ’s kingdom as such, but were seen as tokens of the fulfilment of the history of 52  McClymond and McDermott, Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 566, 579. 53  McClymond, Encounters with God, 79; W.M. Schweitzer, God is a Communicative Being. Divine Communicativeness and Harmony in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 113–141. 54  W JE 16:727–728. See also WJE 9:62–63. McClymond and McDermott refer in this context to a “new organizing principle for theology,” Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 17. H.S. Stout observes: “Edwards bypassed systematic theology in favor of cosmic narrative (…) it [= history] is larger than theology itself,” “Edwards and Revival,” in Understanding Jonathan Edwards. An Introduction to America’s Theologian, ed. G.R. McDermott (Oxford: Oxford University, 2009), 37–52, here 39 and 44. 55  G. Vos noted: “The Bible is not a dogmatic handbook but a historical book full of dramatic interest,” Biblical Theology: Old and New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 17. This biblical theology reminds us also of K.J. Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-linguistic Approach to Christian Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005). See also M. Horton, “The Dogma Is the Drama: A Theology for Pilgrims on the Way,” in The Christian Faith. A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 2011), 13–32. History is God’s communication, W.M. Schweitzer, God is a Communicative Being, 118. 56  W JE 8:149–173, 351–365.

246

van Vlastuin

salvation, the tokens could disappear along with the finishing of the canon of Scripture. This implies that Edwards distinguished the gifts of the Spirit from the gift of the Spirit himself, the presents of the Spirit from the presence of the Spirit. People could have the Spirit without the gifts, and vice versa. This historical understanding of the charismatic gifts also coheres with Edward’s view that Pentecost implied the fulfilment of the history of salvation but not yet the eschatological fulfilment of history. Edwards did not interpret the fulfilment of the history of salvation in Christ and Pentecost as the milestones of eschatological time, but he separated Christology and pneumatology on the one hand from eschatology on the other. He spoke about ‘outpourings of the Holy Spirit’ in the Old Testament, emphasising that Pentecost was not an exclusive outpouring of the Spirit, and reminding us that the history of the church was driven by several outpourings of the Holy Spirit. Edwards understood the fulfilment of the history of salvation as laying the foundations for the building of the era of the Spirit, in which God’s kingdom is to be extended into the hearts of believers. In the eschatological future within the boundaries of history, this spiritual building will reach its climax in the millennium. This means that the concept of eschatology has to be interpreted in a certain way to understand the eschatological character of Edwards’ pneumatology. While in current theological thinking eschatology is closely related to Christology and pneumatology, for Edwards eschatology is focused on the end of history and the eternal destination of human beings. Only in this context can it be said that Edwards’ pneumatology has an eschatological character. There is a tension in this interpretation, however. On the one hand, Edwards treated history as a flat history in which nothing really happened to the Spirit and in which Pentecost did not really make a difference. From the perspective of the present-day view of the eschatological dimension of pneumatology, Edwards did not understand this eschatological character of pneumatology. On the other hand, in his thinking the history of salvation functions as a decisive turning point in history from the point of view of the charismatic gifts, which are no longer to be expected in our times. This tension is related to Edwards’ interpretation of the coherence of eschatology and pneumatology. In this unity of eschatology and pneumatology there is no essential difference in the workings of the Spirit in history, but a gradual difference in the applicative power of the Spirit, so that the end of time will show the richest expressions of the saving work of the Spirit. Retrieving Edwards’ doctrine of the Spirit means judging this flat historical view of the Spirit as weak, while the sensitivity for the Spirit in the Old Testament can be judged as strong. Also the distinction between the Spirit and his gifts may be helpful in balancing any overestimation of remarkable phenomena while neglecting the essential and spiritual communion with

Retrieving Jonathan Edwards ’ Doctrine

247

God. A retrieval of Edwards’ pneumatology within the framework of the eschatological dimension of the New Testament will lead to a strong concept of pneumatology. 5

Conclusions and Considerations

Retrieving Edwards in the present theological context means reapplying his profound reflections on the powerful indwelling of the Spirit in the individual life of the believer. Edwards’ Spirit-centred theology helps us to counter any underestimation of the Spirit on the one hand and to explore the reality of spiritual participation in God and the experiential character of this participation on the other. At the same time, applying Kolhbrugge’s insights may help us to qualify the deep spiritual theology of Edwards and make it also resistant to the unruly reality of the old world. The incorporation of a strong theology of sin will save us from disappointment. Edwards’ strength is, at the same time, his weakness. Therefore, his strongly individualistic pneumatology has to be reinterpreted in a corporative, cultural57 and eschatological framework if it is to function in contemporary theology and spirituality. In particular, when placed within the Christ-centred framework of the New Testament, it will make a valuable contribution to Christian life and thought today. Bibliography Allen, M. and S.R. Swain. Christian Dogmatics. Reformed Theology for the Church Catholic. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016. Beck, A.J. and W. van Vlastuin. “Sanctification between Westminster and Northampton.” Jonathan Edwards Studies 2.2 (2012), 3–27. Boersma, H. Heavenly Participation. The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Burger, J.M. “Gospel Presentation and the Structure of the Heidelberg Catechism.” In The Spirituality of the Heidelberg Catechism. Papers of the International Conference on the Heidelberg Catechism Held in Apeldoorn 2013. Ed. Arnold Huijgen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 268–279.

57  In his later years Edwards made a cultural-historical turn in his theology, giving new attention to different religions; McClymond and McDermott The Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 181, 187–189.

248

van Vlastuin

Burger, J.M. Being in Christ. A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2008. Caldwell III, R.W. Communion in the Spirit. The Holy Spirit as the Bond of Union in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006. Canlis, J. Calvin’s Ladder. A Spiritual Theology of Ascent and Ascension. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Cherry, C. The Theology of Jonathan Edwards. A Reappraisal. Bloomington (reprint): Indiana University, 1990. Coyle, D. GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History. Princeton: Princeton University 2014. Edwards, J. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. New Haven, London: Yale University, 1957–2006. Gerstner, J.H. The Rational Biblical Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Orlando: Ligonier 1993. Gregory, B.S. The Unintended Reformation. How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2012. Hastings, W.R. Jonathan Edwards and the Life of God: Toward an Evangelical Theology of Participation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Holmes, S.R. God of Grace and God of Glory. An Account of the Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Edinburgh: T&T Clark 2000. Horton, M. The Christian Faith. A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Grand Rapids: Zondervan 2011. Huijgen, A. “Traces of the Trinity in the Old Testament: From Individual Texts to the Nature of Revelation,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 19 (2017), 251–270. Hutch, R.A. “Edwards’ Analysis of Religious Experience.” Journal of Psychology and Theology: An evangelical forum for the integration of psychology and theology 6.2 (1978), 123–131. Kay, B. Trinitarian Spirituality. John Owen and the Doctrine of God in Western Devotion. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. Kärkkäinen, V.-M. “ ‘How to Speak of the Spirit among Religions’: Trinitarian Pro­ legomena for a Pneumatological Theology of Religions.” In The Work of the Spirit. Pneumatology and Pentecostalism. Ed. Michael Welker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006, 47–70. Kohlbrugge, H.F. Romans 7: A Paraphrase and “I believe in the Holy Spirit.” Anoka: Faith Alone, 2009. Kooi, C. van der, and G. van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Kooi, C. van der. “De moed tot leven. Enkele lijnen in Van Rulers pneumatologie.” In Men moet telkens opnieuw de reuzenzwaai aan de rekstok maken. Verder met Van Ruler. Eds. D. van Keulen, G. Harinck, and G. van den Brink. Boekencentrum: Zoetermeer, 2009, 47–55. Kooi, C. van der. “Die Phänomenologie des Heiligen Geistes im Spätwerk Karl Barths.” Zeitschrift für dialektische Theologie 30 (2014), 33–49.

Retrieving Jonathan Edwards ’ Doctrine

249

Kooi, C. van der. “Der Heilige Geist bei Schleiermacher und Barth.” Karl Barth und Friedrich Schleiermacher. Zur Neubestimmung ihres Verhältnisses. Eds. M. Gockel and M. Leiner. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015, 213–218. Kooi, C. van der. “Pneumatologie in der Versöhnungslehre Karl Barths.” Karl Barth als Lehrer der Versöhnung (1950–1968). Vertiefung-Öffnung-Hoffnung. Eds. M. Beintker, G. Plasger & M. Trowitzsch. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2016, 331–347. Kooi, C. van der. Tegenwoordigheid van Geest. Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest. Kampen: Kok, 2006. Kooi, C. van der. “The Appeal to the Inner Testimony of the Spirit, especially in H. Bavinck.” Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008), 103–112. Kooi, C. van der. “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur.” In De werking van de Heilige Geest in de Europese cultuur en traditie. Eds. E. Borgman and C. van der Kooi et al. Kampen: Kok, 2008, 60–72. Kooi, C. van der. “Towards an Ecologically Sensible Pneumatology.” Journal of Reformed Theology 6.3 (2012), 283–293. Kooi, C. van der. “Gebed en genezing. Gezamenlijke verklaring van de Charismatische Werkgemeenschap Nederland en de Nederlandse Lucasorde.” Bulletin voor Charismatische Theologie 62 (2008), 1–2. Kooi, C. van der. “On the Identity of Jesus Christ. Spirit Christology and Logos Christology in Converse.” In Third Article Theology. A Pneumatological Dogmatics. Ed. M. Habets. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016, 193–206. Kooi, C. van der. “De Heilige Geest volgens de Heidelbergse Catechismus.” In Handboek Heidelbergse Catechismus. Eds. A. Huijgen, John V. Fresko, and Aleida Siller. Utrecht: Kok 2013, 239–248. Kooi, C. van der. “De Geest als tegenwoordige en vernieuwende kracht.” In Weergaloze kennis. Opstellen over Jezus Christus, Openbaring en Schrift, Katholiciteit en Kerk, aangeboden aan prof. dr. B. Kamphuis. Eds. A. de Bruijne, H. Burger, and D. te Velde. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2015, 57–66. Lee, S.H. “Editor’s Introduction,” WJE 21:1–106. Lee, S.H. “Edwards on God and Nature: Resources for Contemporary Theology.” In Jonathan Edwards in Our Time. Jonathan Edwards and the Shaping of American Religion. Eds. S.H. Lee and A.C. Guelzo. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999, 15–44. Marsden, G.M. Jonathan Edwards. A Life. New Haven: Yale University, 2003. McClymond, M.J. Encounters with God. An Approach to the Theology of Jonathan Edwards. New York: Oxford University, 1998. McClymond, M.J. and G.R. McDermott. The Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Oxford: Oxford University, 2012. McClymond, M.J. “Salvation as Divinization: Jonathan Edwards, Gregory Palamas and the Theological Uses of Neoplatonism.” In Jonathan Edwards Philosophical Theologian. Eds. P. Helm and O. Crisp. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003, 139–160.

250

van Vlastuin

Morimoto, A. Jonathan Edwards and the Catholic Vision of Salvation. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1995. Owen, J. The Works of John Owen. Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1965–1990. Schweitzer, W.M. God is a Communicative Being. Divine Communicativeness and Harmony in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Sheldrake, P. Spirituality and Theology: Christian Living and the Doctrine of God. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 2004. Smith, J.E. “The Perennial Jonathan Edwards.” In Jonathan Edwards in Our Time. Jonathan Edwards and the Shaping of American Religion. Eds. S.H. Lee and A.C. Guelzo. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999, 1–11. Stout, H.S. “Edwards and Revival.” In Understanding Jonathan Edwards. An Introduction to America’s Theologian. Ed. G.R. McDermott. Oxford: Oxford University, 2009, 37–52. Strobel, K.C. Jonathan Edwards’s Theology: A Reinterpretation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2013. Strobel, K.C. “Jonathan Edwards and the Polemics of Theosis.” Harvard Theological Review 105 (2012), 259–279. Tamburello, D.E. Union with Christ. John Calvin and the Mysticism of St. Bernard. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Tan, S.K. Fullness Received and Returned: Trinity and Participation in Jonathan Edwards. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. Taylor, Ch. A Secular Age. Harvard: University, 2007. Taylor, Ch. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1989. Thiselton, A.C. The Holy Spirit in Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries and Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Todd Billings, J. Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ. Oxford: Oxford University, 2008. Vanhoozer, K.J. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-linguistic Approach to Christian Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Vlastuin, W. van. “Jonathan Edwards’ Spiritualis. Towards a Reconstruction of his Theology of Spirituality.” Journal for the History of Reformed Pietism 2.1 (2016), 23–47. Vos, G. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948. Warfield, B.B. “Introduction.” In A. Kuyper. The Work of the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969, xxv–xxxviii. Webster, J. “Theologies of Retrieval.” In Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology. Eds. J. Webster, K. Tanner, and A. Torrance. Oxford: Oxford University, 2007, 583–599. Withrow, B. Becoming Divine: Jonathan Edwards’s Incarnational Spirituality within the Christian Tradition. Eugene: Cascade, 2011.

chapter 16

Transforming Spirit: Oepke Noordmans’ Pneumatological View on Being a Human Person Akke van der Kooi 1 Introduction1 “The Spirit is Moving”—the title of this volume—is a recurring theme in the work of Kees van der Kooi, to whom this anthology is dedicated. In his article about “Holy Spirit and culture” he raises the question if the work of the Spirit can be pointed out or identified in European history of the last centuries, an ambivalent history of progress and immense suffering and violence.2 In his reflection on the ways in which this relation between Spirit and European culture has been theologically interpreted, he chooses a path beyond identification and non-identification.3 His own proposal implies contemplation about the working of the Spirit in history as the Spirit of Christ in a process of appropriation, review and discernment, which is based on concrete, daily experience. Pinpointing simple linear connections for the working of the Spirit is no viable option. Daily life implies polyphony and multicontextuality. The focus on daily life creates the possibility of viewing the transformational work of the Spirit, which is primarily recognizable in the work of Jesus Christ as the ultimate bearer of God’s Spirit. According to Van der Kooi, transformation should be interpreted as a lifegiving nearness: people in diverse circumstances are restored to life through 1  Sincere thanks to John de Boer for the translation in English of this article, and to Gerrit Neven and Renée van Riessen for their comments and suggestions on an earlier version of it. 2  Cf. Kees van der Kooi, “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur,” [Holy Spirit and European Culture] in De werking van de Heilige Geest in de Europese Cultuur en Traditie [The Working of the Holy Spirit in European Culture and Tradition], eds. Erik Borgman et al. (Kampen: Kok, 2008), 60–72. 3   With the term “identification” Van der Kooi points to societas christiana or cultural Christianity: the working of the Spirit and societal improvement are identical; with “nonidentification” he refers to sharp differentiation between the Holy Spirit and the human spirit, emphasis on divide instead of continuity. Van der Kooi, “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur,” 62ff.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_018

252

van der Kooi

Jesus’ presence. This is what the Spirit of Christ after Jesus’ resurrection and ascension continuously causes in the lives of both individuals and communities. In his view theology offers the tools to enable us to recognize the working of the Spirit, and offers a perspective on God as the sublime One. At the end of his article the author stipulates: “one may gratefully receive this as a fruit of the Spirit in our culture: a consciousness of the irreplaceabilty and the intrinsic worth of the human person.”4 My contribution starts by this last stipulation: in my opinion Van der Kooi’s approach is extremely valuable and fruitful. In what follows I will attempt to join in on his line of thought. I will do that by pondering over the relation between Spirit and person. What can one say about being a person from a theological perspective? What is constitutive for being a person and what type of reflection and grammar about the Spirit is presupposed in that process? I will once more discuss the work of the Dutch Protestant theologian Oepke Noordmans (1871–1956), who makes a very specific contribution from a pneumatological theological perspective. For half a century, between 1906 and 1956, Noordmans contributed to the renewal of Dutch Protestant Theology through books, articles and many spontaneous publications, which have been brought together in his Collected Works.5 He remained a village pastor all his life. He was nominated twice to become a professor, but to no avail. He was nonetheless a highly regarded academic theologian. This is supported by the correspondence with many of his colleagues, which one can find in the eleven volumes of the Collected Works. Theologians like Miskotte regarded this village pastor as their teacher. Berkhof, who later held Miskotte’s chair, called Noordmans the most exceptional Dutch theologian of the twentieth century. Typical for Noordmans is that the doctrine of the Spirit, the pneumatology, is prioritized in his theological thought. In other words, his thought is marked by his eye for the work of the Spirit. Because of the work of the Spirit the whole saving truth, including the redemptive work of Christ, becomes an inner all-encompassing experience.

4  Van der Kooi, “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur,” 72. 5  Oepke Noordmans, Verzamelde werken [Collected Works], 10 vols. (Kampen: Kok, 1978– 2004). References in the notes refer to these volumes (VW), which are unfortunately only available in Dutch. For an English introduction to Noordmans’ theology see Karel Blei, Oepke Noordmans, Theologian of the Holy Spirit, transl. Allan J. Janssen (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013).

Transforming Spirit

2

253

“Grammar of the Spirit”

How to communicate about God and the Spirit? The past two decades this has been a main question during seminars for Dutch theologians. In answering this question theologians turned to the central tenets of classical theology, especially those put forward by the Dialectical Theology of the last century. Characteristic of this dialectical approach is the belief that knowledge of God is grounded in what has been presented to us as true knowledge: the Biblical discourse about God’s saving, atoning and transformational acts. In theologizing it is paramount to remain close to this original irreducible experience and unravel what it means for living in faith. Thus a biblically oriented grammar forms the basis for a Trinitarian discourse about God that offers orientation in life. By references to amongst others Noordmans, the pneumatological dimension was explicitly mentioned within this Trinitarian discourse about God. Speaking about God pneumatologically voices a way of thinking that acknowledges the heart of the gospel as the nearness of God in creational love. In this way a new path was explored in thinking about the Trinity. Up until that time philosophical theism, characterized by a general concept of God, had only led to an exclusively speculative comprehension of the Trinity, as well as to a loss of relevance of the dogma of the Trinity for life in faith. 3

Person as “Creation of the Spirit”

How can we articulate more precisely the uniqueness of the work of the Spirit? And what does this uniqueness mean for the relation between Spirit and person? In order to answer these questions I will concentrate on the theology of Noordmans. According to Noordmans the specific character of the work of the Spirit is its re-creating work through and for people.6 The Spirit is the One who re-creates. The Spirit represents God’s “last or ultimate things” (the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ), continually bringing them into the present as a life-evoking principle. Noordmans stipulates that this work of the Spirit is filled with great transformative power.7 It is recognized in transformations in individuals and in the community. Without God’s Spirit, Noordmans maintains, human life cannot last long. Left to himself man will destroy himself, 6  Sharply expressed in Noordmans’ main dogmatic work, Herschepping [Re-creation], first published in 1934, republished in Noordmans, VW 2, 214–322. 7  Noordmans, VW 2, 388.

254

van der Kooi

plunging himself on the rocks as it were.8 In contrast to the general human spirit, the Spirit “does not tread down, but lifts up.”9 The Spirit as Re-creator is the Spirit of the Resurrection.10 The immense a priori of this theological approach is the belief in the victory over death. We are re-created by the Spirit for the reality which Christ has carried through death and destruction. Noordmans names this reality the “Kingdom of Heaven.”11 From his viewpoint this reality is the secret to everything that exists. What counts in Noordmans’ theology is that we keep this reality of God in mind while confronted with powers that misform our commitment in personal relations and in the world: material, structural, institutional, cultural, and intellectual powers. In this existential struggle we first learn what makes a human being into a ‘person.’ Next, I will outline the contours of Noordmans’ theological conception of the human person as a creation of the Spirit, as well as explicating on its theological groundwork. For that purpose I will put forward a number of central texts. In order to place Noordmans’ contribution in a broader modern context, I will first deal briefly with modern thought on ‘being a person.’ 4

‘Person’ in Interdisciplinary Discussions

What makes a human being a person? The understanding of ‘person’ has a very long history, originating in Stoical and Christian ideas about human being. Central to these ideas was the emphasis on the shared rationality of human beings and the unicity of the individual. When inner subjectivity became heavily accented in modern times, the idea of personhood became especially appealing. A person was seen as having inherent moral dignity. A number of great thinkers are associated with these ideas, such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. They consider the human person as a “reasoned selfidentity.”12 Immanuel Kant, on the other hand, pointed to the merging of theoretical and practical rationality as the distinctive characteristic of personhood. This emphasis on the inner being of the person remained dominant until the 8  Noordmans, VW 9b, 990. 9  Noordmans, VW 1, 81. 10  Noordmans, VW 2, 300. 11  Oepke Noordmans, Het Koninkrijk der hemelen [The Kingdom of Heaven], first published in 1949, republished in VW 2, 433–551. 12  Niels Henrik Gregersen, “Varieties of Personhood: Mapping the Issues,” in The Human Person in Science and Theology, eds. Niels Henrik Gregersen et al. (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 2000), 2.

Transforming Spirit

255

existentialistic and personalistic philosophies of the twentieth century. More recently however, the modern accentuation of internalized autonomy has been increasingly criticized, by scholars of both Western and non-Western origins. Postmodern thinkers also critically question the limits of ‘personal autonomy.’ There seems to be a developing dissatisfaction with the tendency of identifying person and privacy. In a new way the question of what makes a human being a person assumes new relevance, initiated on the one hand by new scientific developments in for example neuro-science, and on the other hand by discussions about ‘human rights.’ Surprisingly an increasing number of interdisciplinary studies have been published, in which theologians contribute to the exploration of this question in dialogue with representatives of other disciplines. I mention three examples of recently published studies: the volume In Search of Self: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Personhood (2011); Human Significance in Theology and the Natural Sciences: An Ecumenical Perspective with reference to Pannenberg, Rahner and Zizioulas (2011) by Christopher Fisher; and the volume The Human Person in Science and Theology (2000).13 The word ‘person’ appears to be used in a wide variety of contexts and different meanings as we browse through these publications. In some cases, the authors underscore the unicity of ‘being a person’ or they delve into its coming to being; in other cases, in ethical and juridical discussions, attention is drawn to the rights and responsibilities that we attribute to persons as moral subjects. Especially in disciplines such as bioethics, law and political science, philosophy and theology the concept of personhood plays a prominent role. Besides the apparent differences, there is also a point of concurrence: the attempt to get past an essentialistic conception of personhood and the defence of a relational concept of ‘person,’ enmeshed in social relationships, as well as in spiritual and ethical practices. Often this stems from philosophical criticism of essentialistic points of view, such as Nietzsche’s criticism of metaphysics and Sartre’s criticism of idealism. Nonetheless, there is also room for a type of ‘groundedness’ in connection with human identity. A good example is the ‘narrative philosophy’ of thinkers like Alisdair MacIntyre and Charles Taylor.14 They do research into the extent to which a value-laden 13  I n Search of Self: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Personhood, eds. J. Wentzel van Huyssteen et al. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011); Christopher Fisher, Human Significance in Theology and the Natural Sciences: An Ecumenical Perspective with reference to Pannenberg, Rahner and Zizioulas, (Eugene: Pickwick, 2010); The Human Person in Science and Theology, eds. Niels Henrik Gregersen et al. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000). 14  See Alisdair MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1988); Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Reality of Modern Identity, (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989).

256

van der Kooi

view of the world is shaped by the context of formative relations, communities and the cultural contexts in which the person is embedded. Discernable is also a shared sense of urgency concerning the protection of the concrete human person. This stems from the recognition that the concrete person, his thoughts and dreams are in danger to be driven out of the large part of technology and science, which are dependent on programming, functionality and generalization. Philosophers such as Charles Taylor and theologians such as Colin Gunton have pointed out the dangers of homogenization and depersonalisation in modernity.15 In the study mentioned earlier, The Human Person in Science and Theology, Philip Hefner and Michael Welker present a theological viewpoint in the interdisciplinary discussions about the question of ‘being a person.’16 Hefner stipulates that the human person, from a theological perspective, is called to become a portrayal of God’s presence in the world. In his view the Christian concept of man as created in the image of God offers a basis for the possibility of being a person, as well as a sign for his responsibility in the world in the face of his Creator. With this teleological description he criticizes views on the image of God primarily focused on conscious spiritual individuality. Man has nothing in himself that mirrors God, but being an image of God means that man has a destiny. Welker criticizes the development of the auto­ nomous person of European modernity and the manner in which this idea is incorporated into theology. He states that “the modern concepts of morality and rationality were unable to prevent entire societies (…) from being possessed by chauvinist, fascist, racist and ecologically brutal mentalities,” and considers what theology can contribute as constitutive for being a person and how this could subsequently be exemplary for other scientific disciplines.17 Welker gets his inspiration from the line Paul-Luther in the understanding of faith. There God and faith belong together, one cannot speak of the one without the other. That ‘together’ precludes a view on being a person. In this approach he recognizes criticism of modernity, where a reductionist theology and piety

15  Taylor, Sources of the Self; Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge: The Belknap, 2007); C.E. Gunton, The One, the Three and the Many, God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity (The Bampton Lectures 1992; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993, 2005). 16  See for the following Philip Hefner, “Imago Dei: The Possibility and Necessity of the Human Person,” in The Human Person in Science and Theology, 73–94; Michael Welker, “Is the Autonomous Person of European Modernity a Sustainable Model of Human Personhood?” in The Human Person in Science and Theology, 95–114. 17  Michael Welker, “Is the Autonomous Person,” 105ff.

Transforming Spirit

257

with highly abstract concepts of faith and “the God-man relationship” blind one for a Biblical-theological perspective on being a person.18 In a way we may state that in his own time Noordmans anticipated such criticism as Hefner and Welker offer. From his view on the Spirit Noordmans initiates a new discourse on faith and the God-man relationship. He also asks critical questions about the developments in modernity and the impact they have on the concept of ‘person.’ My thesis is that Noordmans’ work reveals that the Christian faith embodies a unique view on ‘being a person.’ 5

Spirit and Person by Noordmans

Because of his theological roots in the so-called ethical theology, an ecclesiastical and theological school, which stems from the nineteenth century and in which one wanted to maintain the unity between God and man, and between dogma and life, Noordmans is sensitive to ‘person’ and ‘personal.’19 In this theological school the sanctification of the person was a weighty matter; “a religious personality” was considered to be the doorway to God. As time went by Noordmans became critical of this theological approach which caused a shift towards dialectical theology. Even though the accents changed, his attention to ‘person’ and ‘personality’ remained throughout his theological endeavors. One could say that his understanding of ‘person’ becomes more and more theological: moving from the emphasis on the inner self and the psychological moment of coming to faith to a vocation-oriented being of a person. This shift does not mean that empirical reality becomes increasingly eliminated in his thoughts about the personal. The opposite is true, which I hope to point out. 5.1 His Earlier Work: The Person as an Open Space From the earlier work of Noordmans I have chosen two texts, firstly “Dogmatic certainty” (1906), a presentation for ordained ministers on the question of the possibility of certainty in the knowledge of faith.20 In his presentation he explores how Catholics and Protestants have dealt with Christian truth as this has been codified in dogma and doctrine. He draws attention to the fact that Luther and the Reformation, in contrast to the Roman Catholic Middle Ages, want to speak about this truth on “the ground level of personal life.”21 18  Michael Welker, “Is the Autonomous Person,” 96. 19  See Blei, Oepke Noordmans, 57ff. 20  Noordmans, VW 1, 52–77. 21  Noordmans, VW 1, 56.

258

van der Kooi

According to Noordmans this implies that the meaning of the Christian truth is not only an intellectual question (via rational explanation), but also a matter of the heart where it creates personal feelings and moves people into action. He recognizes that this intention is lost once again in forms of intellectualism in later Reformation theology. In this presentation he heavily criticizes Kuyper’s scholasticism and appreciates Schleiermacher’s theological renewal, who theologically avoids intellectualistic deduction. Schleiermacher constructively works on the basis of religious feelings. Noordmans does however recognize a danger here, namely that faith becomes something indefinable, losing its content. At this point Noordmans makes clear how he wants to maintain the Refor­ mational approach: the objective-intellectual, the world of ideas, does not lead to knowledge of God. Nonetheless, a one-sided focus on the existential, the withdrawal to a believing consciousness, will not suffice either. What to do? In this early contribution to the discussion Noordmans, at this point still in the terminology of ethical theology, offers an approach which holds both aspects in place in regarding the person as an open space22 where God and man meet each other.23 Knowledge hinges on encounter. In this way, he acknowledges that the Holy Spirit works in history, eliciting life, without saying that history itself generates this life. The Spirit of God and spirit of mankind must meet one another.24 This note keeps resonating in Noordmans’ theological work as a whole. Just after the First World War, in 1919, he publishes an article on “Community and personality.” This theme has tremendous actuality for him, certainly in light of the questions of that time: the Russian revolution, the social question and the plight of the working man. In his opinion the personal way of life is stifled in the actual intellectual attention to social, business-like relations. Abstract individualism causes ‘being a person’ to suffocate. Noordmans writes: The individual himself becomes (…) a construction, an intersection of impersonal lines and powers. Through the suction of these powers on the place an individual inhabits, personality is absorbed (…) Humanity suffers damage (…) Capitalism, industrialism, institutional credit, imperialism, science, general well-being are the names of these systems. On this 22  Noordmans, VW 1, 72. 23  Noordmans, VW 1, 65. 24  H.W. de Knijff, “O. Noordmans als ethisch theoloog,” [O. Noordmans as an ‘ethical’ theologian] in Heel de kerk. Enkele visies op de kerk binnen de “Ethische Richting” [The Whole Church. Some views on the Church within the “Ethische Richting”], eds. Jaap Vlasblom et al. (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1995), 199–221 (201).

Transforming Spirit

259

basis the modern individual is constructed and his personality exploited and destroyed.25 Noordmans expresses his worry about debilitation of the personal through increasing depersonalization of societal relations.26 How can the personal be given a new life line, so that its value can be recognized in different forms of community, also in the world of work and culture? Noordmans elucidates how the term ‘personality’ throughout history changed in meaning, from Boethius to Kant. He mentions John Calvin, who placed societal and political order in the sphere of humanity.27 Calvin saw these as a protective shelter: if they are taken from a Christian, he/she loses his/her humanity.28 However, Noordmans recognizes that personality and community are insufficiently related, because people participate in society primarily as a functioning individual: as a pastor, judge, officer, and so on. Due to this functionalization the value of someone as a person is diminished in the public domain. (Noordmans’ observation on this score is unfortunately still applicable a century later!) The influence of the person is limited to the realm of the family, friendship, religious and esthetic development. In addition functionality is vulnerable. When someone loses his/her function in society it should not mean that one is no longer related as a person to the community.29 That is why Noordmans strongly favours an understanding of personality from a religious point of view and instigates a critical interaction with the aforementioned functionalization.30 What can be the point of departure when being a person has so been weakened by social developments? Noordmans delineates a number of possibilities in recent history: Goethe’s humanistic-idealistic thinking on the subject of personality, Von Humboldt and others affiliated themselves with the ideology of the state, but that proved to be a dead end road in the then recent war. Schleiermacher’s Universe, seeing the whole as developmental for the personality, was a major renewal, but did not include the working community.31 Where can we find a theory which elucidates the possible contribution of religion? The shortcoming observed in Schleiermacher drives Noordmans back to the Reformers, especially Calvin. Agreeing with Wilhelm Dilthey, Noordmans states that Calvin had the deepest feeling for the transcendental 25  Noordmans, VW 1, 212f. 26  Noordmans, VW 1, 217ff. 27  Noordmans, VW 1, 210. 28  Noordmans, VW 1, 214. Cf. Calvin, Institutes IV, 20.2. 29  Noordmans, VW 1, 212. 30  Noordmans, VW 1, 216. 31  Noordmans, VW 1, 222.

260

van der Kooi

meaning of the believing person and the exaltation of human destiny.32 In terms of Christianity and theology one must add: our being a person is constituted by our relation to God. It rests on transcendental ground: God in his free and inscrutable creative action, summarized in predestination as a generative principle.33 “Personality is loosened from its natural base in natural moral law. It gains freedom in God and in history.”34 In this state personality is capable of forming community. Now we have our first inclination of how Noordmans views a person in Christian-theological perspective: a free being, safely held in time and resuscitated by God’s Spirit, capable of contributing to the development of the community. In fact, three related elements present themselves, elements which I want to explore further on the basis of Noordmans’ later work. I differentiate them as follows: The transcendental meaning of person, encounter and being a person, and being vocation-oriented. 5.2 The Transcendental Meaning of Person What does Noordmans mean with the transcendental meaning of being a person? A way to discover this is to analyze how Noordmans affiliates himself with the criticism of the emerging dialectical theology on the cultural theology of the nineteenth century. In 1933, Noordmans writes about thinkers who in line with Kant (Fichte and Schleiermacher in his Monologues) have dealt with the transcendental origin of man, supra-empirical and supra-historical. “In these thinkers,” Noordmans writes, “we can see the creators of the new idea of personality, focal point without sin, divine principle in the empirical human being.”35 Here God and personality are conceptualized in a closed whole. In Goethe and Wilhelm von Humboldt this leads to a “gospel of personality”: “Höchstes Glück der Erdenkinder ist nur die Persönlichkeit.”36 According to Noordmans, dialectical theology has uttered sharp criticism on this view of transcendentality: “History does not produce a godly kingdom, our life not a personality, and our thinking not a system.”37 The true relationship is at a different point: seen from a viewpoint we cannot grasp but “to which all the open wounds of humanity, all unsolvable problems, all cultural scandals, all souls,

32  Noordmans, VW 1, 222, italics mine. 33  Noordmans, VW 1, 223. 34  Noordmans, VW 1, 223. 35  Noordmans, VW 3, 598, cf. VW 3, 627. 36  Noordmans, VW 3, 599 (the quote is from Goethe). 37  Noordmans, VW 6, 603.

Transforming Spirit

261

where all lives point to, there is in history no logos, no discoverable rationality, no encompassing meaning in our lives.”38 What Noordmans and the dialectical theologians disparage is the closed system of cultural theology in the vein of Kant and Schleiermacher. There God is the last stopgap in a human theoretical system. Furthermore, their system takes leave of harsh reality, loses sight of the body of the working man, in short, the human person has become an abstraction.39 In opposition to this line of thought Noordmans stipulates “beyond European ethical and cultural entities such as person, inner being, character, race, and ripeness lies all God-pleasing work: faith as such, relationship with God.”40 “Transcendental meaning of the person” thus implies a relationship that is constituted by God himself: the relation of man to God as the first and primary relation in which man stands and exists.41 Formulated differently, the Christian concept of faith contains a unique understanding of being a person. The most important thing one can say about being a person does not hinge on his origin or historical context. Being a person is independent of every possible human rationalization. It cannot be captured in any common concepts or schemes. Rather, it rests on an irrational base, which Noordmans finds in the classical dogma of predestination, not understood as cause and consequence, not deterministically, but as the goodness of God. Personal being exists so directly by the grace of God that it does not have to be called upon via ideas of the beauty or goodness of man.42 In theological terms predestination is constitutive for being a person.43 With a reference to Calvin, Noordmans states that person and community are awakened and revealed on the basis of predestination, which is part and parcel of the work of the Spirit.44 Predestination is another word for the ethos of God. The origin of personal being is situated in the gospel. Only a human being comforted by God’s Spirit is truly a person.45 Fundamentally when one breathes, he or she does so in the atmosphere of the Spirit. This human being again and again becomes a new creation. Creation is thus affirmed by transformation. Person as “creation of the Spirit” points to a connection between person and Spirit. This is expressed most deeply in prayer. “The Christian who is heard by 38  Noordmans, VW 3, 603. 39  Noordmans, VW 3, 629. 40  Noordmans, VW 3, 603. 41  Noordmans, VW 8, 421. 42  Noordmans, VW 8, 421. 43  Noordmans, VW 2, 243. 44  Noordmans, VW 2, 302; VW 1, 223; VW 3, 411. 45  Noordmans, VW 3, 452.

262

van der Kooi

the Holy Spirit is a child of God.”46 This connection is not passive, but rather a “working unity, unity in action which heals what is broken.”47 The character of this working unity is that God’s Spirit raises us above our own insights. We learn to see with new eyes. Noordmans calls this working of the Spirit fully trinitarian: “Then we live with the Father and the Son, with creation and cross, through the Holy Spirit in sobriety, in spirit and truth. Then the question of the unity of experience becomes evident, the connections in the depth of the Spirit. In contrast evidentiality decreases.”48 Within the unity of Spirit and person, understood as a “working unity,” openness and renewal is key. In a life of Christian faith all things are contingent. Things can suddenly change.49 In this way, Noordmans in his time places a Christian view on the transcendentality of the person in opposition to the absolutely closed circles of Bolshevism and fascism.50 This comprehension of person as “creation of the Spirit” surfaces in many of Noordmans’ meditations. It especially applies in meditations dealing with the patriarchs: Abraham who exposes the universal, Jacob as the image of human destiny, Joseph as a hero of morality.51 A constant theme is the birth of the person in touch with God/Spirit.52 In his concrete situation man meets a border, a resistance. Someone completely breaks with ‘the old self’ and a new orientation is discovered. Noordmans’ famous adagium “Creation is separation”53 is also expressed in his understanding of becoming a person. In contrast, the human being who withdraws into himself, loses his personal being. To Noordmans that is equivalent to unbelief, fearing to tread into open space, withdrawal to one’s own piece of ground and own argumentation.54 The connection between Spirit and faith is the basis for Noordmans to be able to explicate a theological perspective on being a person. 5.3 Encounter and Personal Being About the other elements I can be brief. They form a consequence of what I just discussed, fundamental vocabulary for the new anthropology and ethics which are implied by the connection between Spirit and person as expressed by Noordmans. 46  Noordmans, VW 3, 502. 47  Noordmans, VW 3, 480. 48  Noordmans, VW 3, 401. 49  Noordmans, VW 4, 440. 50  Noordmans, VW 4, 438f. 51  Noordmans, VW 2, 263. 52  Noordmans, VW 8, 143. 53  Cf. note 6. 54  Noordmans, VW 8, 85.

Transforming Spirit

263

Noordmans was sympathetic to the work of Emil Brunner, with his central theme of “Truth as encounter.” More so than in the case of Barth, this dialectical theologian maintains the historical and personal in his discourse on the relation between God and man. In this case God’s truth is also a movement which comes to us and encompasses us. “Truth as encounter” is the fundamental category, the way in which one must understand the primeval relationship for all that is stated in the Bible about God and man. In this context the transcendental of the person means: “We are human in the second person through the claim of the Word.”55 Without God’s Spirit there is no real encounter between people, and between God and man, according to Noordmans. In a meditation about Saul, whose spirit closes in confusion and self-pity, he says: “The human spirit stands in a dialogue, sometimes a fight with God, whereby the essence of his spirit comes to light. Jacob becomes Israel when he wrestles with God.”56 Only in this encounter truth is revealed. 5.4 Being Vocation-Oriented The anthropology and ethics inherent in Noordmans’ pneumatological approach can be characterized as vocation-oriented. In this regard development of a person is “becoming conscious of calling and election.”57 The work of the Spirit does not lead to a spasmodic social program,58 but rather reveals what vocation and responsibility are. At this moment, there is popular interest in the Netherlands in a documentary about a street doctor in Amsterdam, doctor Co, 80 years old. Every day he rides his bicycle and looks in on refugees without formal status. He answers to their calls for help from the run down garages and empty stores where they live. All of this pro bono. Often he is the only person from whom they receive any form of humanity. Questions about his personal drive he cannot answer. What he does say, tells the whole story: “Everyone has some small task, this is mine.” Noordmans wrote: in becoming a person it is not a question of elevation or an improved nature. Our lives must acquire more character. The story of the Spirit wants to sharpen our intellect and senses in relation to a suffering humanity. In an article “Task and Future,” written shortly after the Second World War, Noordmans refers to the cruelty and barbarian violence that has Europe in its 55  Noordmans, VW 3, 552. 56  Noordmans, VW 8, 222. 57  Noordmans, VW 3, 524. 58  H.W. de Knijff, Geest en Gestalte. O. Noordmans’ bijbeluitlegging in hermeneutisch verband [Spirit and Form. The Bible Exegesis of O. Noordmans in a Hermeneutical Context] (Wageningen: Veenman, 1970), 65.

264

van der Kooi

grasp. “Are we still human beings?” he asks.59 Here he enters into a discussion with thinkers who reflect on the developments in Europe, technical developments, historical materialism and nationalism, and expresses the associated threats. Jonas Cohn, Oswald Spengler and Johan Huizinga come into play. He has more appreciation for emerging personalism in the thirties, for proponents such as the French-Swiss thinker Denis de Rougemont. Personal being in this context is resistance to the powers of the century and the struggle for life and remaining a human person.60 Noordmans sees in De Rougemont’s view an overlap with Reformed Protestantism. Paraphrasing De Rougemont, he writes: “For the Protestant the person is vocation, responsibility. He has a place in God’s plan, predestination. A special will of God is incorporated in him. The state must respect him in his own right.”61 Personal being is in essence according to Noordmans: learning to know your vocation. Only that, he writes in a sermon on Heb. 3: 1–3, gives meaning, direction, and a goal to life.62 To achieve that one must keep the eyes focused on Jesus Christ. Then one sees what being called entails. This attitude is the work of the Spirit. 6 Conclusion Where did this walk through Noordmans’ work bring us? In my view, it took us to the realisation that being a person does not encompass a closed egostructure, but regards a humanity that is fundamentally about being addressed, about encounter. Our culture is struggling with the value of the person, because it vacillates between the concept of autonomy and self-creation, stemming from the Enlightenment and idealism, and the view that the person is subordinate to and dependent on anonymous systems. Noordmans, in his time, seems to anticipate this tension and offers his culture-critical, Christian view on the person as the creation of the Spirit. At the end of this article the question arises whether I am still in keeping with Kees van der Kooi’s line of thought, or does his “Moving of the Spirit” include less countermovement than I identify in Noordmans’ work? Perhaps 59  Noordmans, VW 4, 66; VW 8, 244. 60  Noordmans, VW 4, 73. 61  Noordmans, VW 4, 74f. 62  Noordmans, VW 7, 390.

Transforming Spirit

265

Kees and I could discuss this further on a walk to “Mauritsheech,” home ground of our common grandparents, who deeply inspired their offspring’s spirituality. Bibliography Blei, Karel. Oepke Noordmans, Theologian of the Holy Spirit. Transl. Allan J. Janssen. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. Fisher, Christopher. Human Significance in Theology and the Natural Sciences: An Ecumenical Perspective with reference to Pannenberg, Rahner and Zizioulas. Eugene: Pickwick, 2010. Gregersen, Niels Henrik. “Varieties of Personhood: Mapping the Issues.” In The Human Person in Science and Theology. Eds. Niels Henrik Gregersen et al. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 2000. Gregersen, Niels Henrik et al. (eds). The Human Person in Science and Theology. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 2000. Gunton, C.E. The One, the Three and the Many, God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity. The Bampton Lectures 1992; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993, 2005. Hefner, Philip. “Imago Dei: The Possibility and Necessity of the Human Person.” In The Human Person in Science and Theology, eds. Niels Henrik Gregersen et al. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 2000. Knijff, H.W. de. Geest en Gestalte. O. Noordmans’ bijbeluitlegging in hermeneutisch verband. Wageningen: Veenman, 1970. Knijff, H.W. de. “O. Noordmans als ethisch theoloog.” In Heel de kerk. Enkele visies op de kerk binnen de “Ethische Richting.” Eds. Jaap Vlasblom et al. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1995, 199–221. Kooi, Kees van der. “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur.” In De werking van de Heilige Geest in de Europese Cultuur en Traditie. Eds. Erik Borgman et al. Kampen: Kok, 2008. MacIntyre, Alisdair. Whose Justice? Which Rationality? Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1988. Noordmans, Oepke. Verzamelde werken. 10 vols. Kampen: Kok, 1978–2004. Taylor, Charles. Sources of the Self: The Reality of Modern Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989. Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Cambridge: The Belknap, 2007. Welker, Michael. “Is the Autonomous Person of European Modernity a Sustainable Model of Human Personhood?” In The Human Person in Science and Theology. Eds. Niels Henrik Gregersen et al. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 2000. Wentzel van Huyssteen, J. et al. (eds). In Search of Self: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Personhood. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.

chapter 17

He Created Us for a New Beginning: Spiritus Creator and Human Creativity Gerard C. den Hertog 1 Introduction1 The title of this Festschrift definitely conveys more than just a vague umbrella formula for the various contributions; it promises a kind of program. That the Spirit is moving evokes dynamism, implying that the Spirit is writing new ways in time and history, leading and inspiring people to do so as well. In pneumatology we should therefore dare to enter—as the subtitle expresses—“new pathways.” There is no need to add that this title is well chosen, since this is a central focus in the work of Kees van der Kooi. It is worth noticing from the start that the accent on dynamism and liveliness is not today’s or yesterday’s invention: in the creed of Nicea-Constantinople, the Spirit is named “Lord and giver of life,” and in the Christian tradition “Spiritus Creator” is a well-known and familiar name for the Holy Spirit. Van der Kooi’s recurrent plea for the actual renewing work of the Spirit is not just a modern hype. However, if today we affirm the dynamics of the Holy Spirit as—with the title of Van der Kooi’s latest book—an “Incredibly Benevolent Force”2, we have to realize that we do so in the twenty-first century, in which dynamics and flexibility have reached the status of “magic charms.” In his The Invention of Creativity: Modern Society and the Culture of the New,3 Andreas Reckwitz goes so far as to remark that “[f]rom a sociological viewpoint, creativity is not simply a superficial semantic phenomenon but, rather, a crucial organizing principle of Western societies over the last thirty years or so.”4 The characterization 1  Translation of the phrase “Hij schiep ons voor een nieuw begin” (Liedboek voor de Kerken 1973, no. 169). 2  Cornelis van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force: The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018). 3  Andreas Reckwitz, The Invention of Creativity. Modern Society and the Culture of the New, (Cambridge, Malden: Polity, 2017). 4  Reckwitz, Invention of Creativity, 2.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_019

He Created Us for a New Beginning

267

“organizing principle” is surprising, or at least remarkable: what might creativity being labelled as such imply? However, before this question lies another one: what is this creativity? According to Reckwitz, “two significations” of creativity should be distinguished in this context: First, it refers to the potential and the act of producing something dynamically new. Creativity privileges the new over the old, divergence over the standard, otherness over sameness. This production of novelty is thought of not as an act occurring once only but, rather, as something that happens again and again over a longer period of time. Second, the topos of creativity harks back to the modern figure of the artist, the artistic and the aesthetic in general.5 When we consider the first characteristic, we spot an obvious tension, if not a contradiction. Nowadays what is new and other is preferred for that reason, but as there is continuity just in this deliberate focus on the “new,” creativity is no longer seen as a gift, a surprising inspiration, but as a characteristic feature. This puts the one who has to be creative under the obligation to be an artist, whose work can never become routine practice, but always requires inventiveness and—creativity. It is therefore easily observed that the two characteristics Reckwitz mentions are intrinsically linked. It is also obvious that in this “culture of the new,” the stress put on people highly increases. For not only is not being creative a disadvantage and even a serious problem, but not to want to be creative, consciously to leave creative potential unused and to avoid creatively bringing about new things, that would seem an absurd disposition, just as it would have seemed absurd not to want to be moral or normal or autonomous in other times.6 Meanwhile, this is the present situation according to Reckwitz. If anything is characteristic for our culture, then it is that everything must be in motion and

5  Reckwitz, Invention of Creativity, 2. 6  Reckwitz, Invention of Creativity, 1 (italics in the text). This focus on “creativity” is a next stage in the process of individualization that, among others, Ulrich Beck has analyzed: “The individual himself or herself becomes the reproduction unit for the social in the lifeworld. […] Individuals […] become the agents of their livelihood mediated by the market, as well as of their biographical planning and organization biography.” (Ulrich Beck, Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity (London: Sage, 1992), 130.

268

den Hertog

new. Accordingly, we might characterise our culture as secular-marcionite— “marcionite” in focusing exclusively on bringing new things into existence, and “secular” in attributing this to humans instead of God. Of course, as individuals, we cannot do without our own identity, as it is highly estimated and even indispensable, but only such an identity will do that in no way imprisons us! The essence of our current dealing with identity is that it should be the basis and starting point for a constant renewal and shifting of horizons. The attribute “creative,” which has passed over in the past centuries from a divine prerogative to humans, also fits in astonishingly well with this trend and is therefore used time and time again. A random recent example is the Brexit speech the British prime minister, Theresa May, gave to European leaders in Florence on September 22, 2017, in which she used the word “creative” as many as ten times. Needless to say, this example also shows that the use of the word “creative” alone is not yet a guarantee of some real renewal, let alone a breakthrough from an impasse. This, however, does not nullify the fact that if the word “creative” really means something, it stands for bringing new things into existence that used to be beyond the limits of our possibilities. This fascination—or should we say, anonymous and hidden pressure or even coercion?!—was much less dominant or even absent in previous centuries, and therefore we need to realize that we connect other connotations with words like dynamic, inventive and creative than former times used to do. As contributors to this Festschrift we have to ensure our contributions fit the title. Therefore the question of how the title “The Spirit is Moving” relates to deep tendencies in our present culture offered itself as a theme rather naturally. In my contribution, I intend to compare the fascination of our time with “dynamics,” “renewal” and “creativity” with the very nature of the work of the Spirit, especially as seen in relation to the risen Christ. My exploration is a conversation with Kees van der Kooi, who in his new book, according to the website of the publisher Eerdmans, examines the relationship of the Holy Spirit to Jesus Christ and demonstrates how a fuller understanding of the interplay between Christology and Pneumatology can encourage the Christian church to have open eyes and ears for the inbreaking of God’s “incredibly benevolent force” into the cosmological emptiness of today’s world.7

7  https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/7613/this-incredibly-benevolent-force.aspx (accessed November 15th, 2017).

He Created Us for a New Beginning

269

These few lines not only clearly show that the relationship between Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is a central focus in his book, but also that Van der Kooi expands on how everyday experiences can be seen as disclosures of this Spirit. “If we do not meet God there, in everyday life, where will we ever meet him?”8 he asks rhetorically. From this perspective the “spirit of our times” with its emphasis on newness and creativity comes into view again, although not uncritically. In this article, which is a continuation of an unconcluded conversation between Kees van der Kooi and myself, I intend to proceed as follows. First I take a closer look at Van der Kooi’s pneumatology, trying to uncover its systematic structure. Then I compare his understanding of the relation between Christ and the Spirit with the way Johannes Pieter Versteeg elaborated upon this theme. In a following step I draw on recent Luther-research in order to interpret the “everyday experiences” in question as signs of the eschatological presence of the Spirit between creation and redemption. Finally, I restrict myself to a few concluding remarks about what can be discerned as the newness of the work of the Spirit in relation to the desire of our present culture for innovation and creativity. 2

Pneumatological Reorientation

In Kees van der Kooi’s “Explorations on the field of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit” he utters “high esteem”9 for Karl Barth, whose “intellectual progress” between 1909 and 1927 was the theme of his PhD dissertation.10 That does not prevent him, however, from criticising Barth in his pneumatology. Although Barth “in his theology very emphatically makes room for man’s answering the voice of God in creativity”11 and does not erase “human experience,”12 in the structure of his theology he continues to make a sharp distinction between what God does and what humans do in response, between God’s Spirit and the 8  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 17. 9  C. van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest. Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest (Kampen: Kok, 2006), 153. 10  C. van der Kooi, De denkweg van de jonge Karl Barth. Een analyse van de ontwikkeling van zijn theologie in de jaren 1909–1927 in het licht van de vraag naar de geloofsverantwoording (Amsterdam: VU uitgeverij, 1985). 11  C. van der Kooi, “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur,” in De werking van de Heilige Geest in de Europese cultuur en traditie, ed. Erik Borgman et al. (Kampen: Kok, 2008), 65 (my translation). 12  Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 97.

270

den Hertog

human soul.13 According to Van der Kooi, Barth was right in his protest against the proclamation of the euphoria of war as a new “Pentecost” in 1914,14 but he hardly provided us with theological tools to deal with concepts like spiritual growth, fruits of and indwelling of the Spirit in the believer.15 In Barth’s model of pneumatology, revelation is contracted into one point and is in critical opposition towards the world. Therefore this model can be characterized in terms of “non-identity.”16 In this line of thought the Holy Spirit disturbs culture gracefully, but the core question is whether God’s grace gains any kind of continuum. Here, according to Van der Kooi theology has to find new pathways, without identifying the work of the Spirit with achievements in our culture. He formulates his quest as follows: “Is it possible to elaborate a perspective with a theologically motivated openness to the notion that God through His Spirit, in faith, fruits and gifts presents Himself also in the present, avoiding the trap of a ‘theologia gloriae’?”17 Van der Kooi himself answers this question positively, but adds that it requires a “theology that is aware of appropriation, and of the need of testing and discernment.”18 So “appropriation” instead of identification is in order, short-circuiting has to be avoided. What helps us test and discern in order to distinguish the manifestations of the Spirit? In Paul, Van der Kooi notices, the end time is not empty, not a black hole we have to fill in ourselves.19 For Paul, one way of speaking of the work of the Spirit is to speak of it as an “advance” or “foretaste.”20 Van der Kooi understands the apostle in this way: The experience of the Spirit in the present therefore is not all God has to offer; Paul emphatically distinguishes it from the Day of the Lord, the breakthrough of the Kingdom of God. Yet, the Spirit emerges in concrete experiences. This element of concreteness or realism is very important.

13  Cf. Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 105–106. 14  Cf. Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 99. 15  Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 43. 16  Van der Kooi, “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur,” 64; Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 105. 17  Van der Kooi, “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur,” 66 (my translation). 18  Van der Kooi, “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur,” 67 (my translation); the last chapter of Van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force, is named: “Eyes and Ears Open to the World: Discernment and Hope.” 19  Cf. Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 16 (my translation). See also Van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force, XIV, 8, 71, 93 (empty) and 124 (void). 20  Cf. Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 16–18.

He Created Us for a New Beginning

271

It implies that the reality of the Spirit in principle cannot be enclosed by theological reflection.21 This quotation clearly expresses the difference between this world and the world to come, which forbids identification. However, this does not prevent Van der Kooi from stressing the presence of the Spirit as an experience in everyday life. The Spirit is not just at work through belief and renewal, but also, specifically and distinctly, in creation, across the breadth of culture.22 In an article on the presence of the Holy Spirit in European culture and tradition Van der Kooi remarks: “If it is true that the Spirit of God is the interpreter of Christ, who realizes the participation with Christ and in doing so really touches us, then it is preferable to start with (…) concrete experiences in everyday life.”23 Again a plea for searching for the Spirit in everyday life experiences, though here this is connected with the Spirit’s work in realizing our participation with Christ. Still, these experiences have to touch us, and that implies according to Van der Kooi that they closely link up with present-day culture.24 It is of course this which renders the need for discernment so urgent! This need is felt even more strongly when Van der Kooi describes the presence of the Spirit as “multi-contextual” and “polyphone.”25 “The Spirit is said to cause a variety of experiences that cannot be taken together under one denominator.”26 It is therefore preferable to “start our pneumatological reflections with a notion of the plurality of phenomena.”27 Is there no such thing as a common denominator? It definitely is seductive to try to instrumentalize pneumatology for our purposes. But when we do so, Van der Kooi warns, we risk going astray in abstraction and missing the presence of the holy in real life. Van der Kooi stresses time and again that the initiative is on the side of the Spirit. It is neither in the power of human beings nor of theology to make God-experiences out of everyday experiences—that is and remains the secret of the Spirit.28 When it is said that the Spirit creates faith, this means that we become related to something new, to Christ, to God’s love; faith therefore is not 21  Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 18f (my translation). 22  Cf. Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 211–212. 23  Van der Kooi, “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur,” 67 (my translation); cf. Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 24. 24  Cf. Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 24. 25  Van der Kooi, “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur,” 67. 26  Cornelis van der Kooi, “Towards an Ecologically Sensitive Pneumatology,” Journal of Reformed Theology 6 (2012), 286. 27  Van der Kooi, “Towards an Ecologically Sensitive Pneumatology,” 288. 28  Cf. Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 214; see also Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 105.

272

den Hertog

something we decide to start with, but the other way round: something that is discovered, an orientation in which we find ourselves involved and to which we then address ourselves.29 “[I]n the manner of theological speaking, one must be clear from the beginning that the person is at the receiving end, and that he/she is a part of a field where God, through the Spirit reaches people and involve[s] them in his salvation.”30 Summarizing, we can observe in Van der Kooi the central notion of the ‘Christ appropriating’ work of the Spirit, taking place in multifocal experiences in everyday life, with a strong emphasis on God’s initiative, on faith as a gift and action of God. The plea for openness towards creation is grounded in the belief that we are already within the realm of the Spirit, the Spirit representing God’s active nearness.31 Van der Kooi therefore strongly criticizes the “dangerous structural duality” in the theology of Abraham Kuyper, “that we already found in Calvin: the sharp distinction, if not separation, between the universal activity of Christ and the Spirit, on the one hand, and on the other, the saving activity of Christ and the Spirit.”32 Not only does such a separation lead to a division of the realms of our bodily existence in this world and the “inner” world of the “soul,” it also hinders our openness to God’s presence.33 What puzzles me is the specific character of the relation between the strong tie between Christ and the Spirit on the one hand and the everyday experiences on the other hand, seen from the perspective of the presence of the trinitarian God in the Spirit. How is this relation to be conceived? Since Van der Kooi asserts that “[p]rogress in systematic theology and in pneumatology requires close dialogue with biblical scholarship,”34 we now turn to the New Testament, focusing especially on Paul.

29  Cf. Van der Kooi, “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur,” 67–9; see also C. van der Kooi, “Creative Love Theism: The Doctine of God in Reformed and Evangelical Theology,” in Evangelical Theology in Transition. Essays under the Auspices of the Center of Evangelical and Reformation Theology (CERT), eds. C. van der Kooi, E. van Staalduine-Sulman, and A.W. Zwiep (Amsterdam: VU University, 2012), 196. 30  Cornelis van der Kooi, “The Appeal to the Inner Testimony of the Spirit, especially in H. Bavinck,” Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008), 112. 31  Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 77. Van der Kooi refers for this being in the Spirit to Calvin (C. van der Kooi, “Schoon en broos; scheppingstheologie vroeger en nu,” in En God beschikte een worm. Over schepping en evolutie, eds. Cees Dekker, Ronald Meester, and René van Woudenberg (Kampen: Kok, 2006), 88). Astonishing however the reference to the Spirit is in this article on “creation theology” as good as absent. 32  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 94. 33  Cf. Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 96 (and 113). 34  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 31.

He Created Us for a New Beginning

3

273

The Spirit of Life in the Risen Christ Jesus

On one of the first pages of his recent book Van der Kooi refers to the late Biblical scholar Johannes Pieter Versteeg (1938–1987), who thoroughly investigated the relation of the risen Christ and the Spirit in Paul’s letters.35 Versteeg was a New Testament scholar who did not eschew dogmatic reflection. In his inaugural lecture on Pauline eschatology36 he gave a kind of preview of his dissertation37 and frankly engaged in a discussion with contemporary systematic theologians like Hendrikus Berkhof, Jürgen Moltmann and Arnold Albert van Ruler. It certainly is a biblical-theological thesis with systematic-theological implications, when Versteeg claims that Paul does not frame the relation between the risen Christ and the Spirit in ontological but in eschatological terms. That is why I highlighted the word “risen.” Versteeg is not developing a Pneuma-Christology; indeed, he hardly addresses the relationship between the pre-paschal Jesus and the Spirit. Rather, he sketches an eschatological pneumatology which is fundamentally and strictly oriented to Jesus Christ as He who is risen into God’s eschatological Kingdom as the “new man.” Paul’s ignoring of the life of the man Jesus of Nazareth therefore is not just a matter of neglect—it is a theological stand. In His resurrection the crucified Jesus has entered into God’s eschatological Kingdom, where, however, He cannot be followed by those He died for in order to reconcile them with God. The problem is that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor.15:50). It is here, Versteeg argues, that the “Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus” (Rom.8:2) helps, bringing the eschatological future into this old world by regenerating the “old man.” For Paul, pneumatology and anthropology are like two sides of one coin. In Romans 5 and 6, Paul says some very telling things in this respect. In Romans 5:21 he claims that sin reigned as a king, and a few verses before he already wrote that because of the sin of the one man Adam death reigned as a king (Rom.5:17). What type of reality does this evoke? A reality of human beings without any activity, initiative, and so on? No, on the contrary! Paul must have been very well aware of the fact that Rome was a pulsing metropolis, with a great richness in diverse areas of cultural, political and spiritual life. But all in all he frames this life as death, because it is not rooted in the living God. 35  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 5–6. 36  J.P. Versteeg, Het heden van de toekomst. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar aan de Theologische Hogeschool van de Christelijke Gereformeerde kerken in Nederland te Apeldoorn op 16 januari 1969 (Kampen: Kok, 1969). 37  J.P. Versteeg, Christus en de Geest. Een exegetisch onderzoek naar de verhouding van de opgestane Christus en de Geest van God volgens de brieven van Paulus (Kampen: Kok, 1971).

274

den Hertog

Moreover, the reign of sin and death is omnipresent, inescapable and decisive, because there is no real renewal of life through the creative work of the Spirit. This depressing characterization of the reign of sin and death, however, comes from the other side, i.e. the liberation from both. In Romans 5:17 Paul says that those who receive the fullness of grace and the gift of righteousness will live and reign. We should notice attentively that these people, thanks to God’s grace in Jesus Christ, have become “subjects,” which was not the case during the time they were captivated in the realm of sin and death. There the “I” was obscured by the reign of the realities of both “sin” and “death.” Now a new “I” appears, and something new comes into the world. “It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.” (Gal.2:20) The Spirit of Jesus Christ makes a home for Jesus Christ in the hearts of the believers and bestows them with “first fruits” as “warrants” of the full redemption in God’s Kingdom (Rom.8:23). According to Paul the work of the Holy Spirit is very specific—and Versteeg shows that this is also the case in other parts of the New Testament.38 Therefore, we should not frame this work in the wide realm of our perception of the world, but acknowledge that its focus is very special and strict: to make sinners participate in God’s salvation, by re-creating them in Christ. For Versteeg, as for Van der Kooi, this is not just a subsistent theme of New Testament theology besides and apart from other ones; it also highly determines our knowledge of God. We “start below,”39 that is, we do not start from an Archimedean point or overview. No, the following is fundamental: before we know, we are known. According to Paul, there is no such thing as a Christian worldview, but the certainty of faith is a matter of receiving the specific knowledge of faith through the Spirit. Prayer is crucial here, but our prayers face a boundary, because our knowledge is limited. There is the joyous certainty of knowing God in an undoubtable, reliable way through the Spirit, as it manifests itself in the granting of our right as adopted children of God in Christ to say “Abba” to God. However, there still is and remains the boundary of our “not knowing to pray as we ought to” (Rom.8:26).40 Both aspects qualify and determine our knowledge of God. Given this outcome, what is new and renewing in the work of the Spirit? If the core activity of the Holy Spirit is to convince people that their hopes should not just be on what Jesus Christ means for them in this earthly life (1 Cor.15:19), but on the radical re-creation He has brought about in His 38  J.P. Versteeg, “Christus en de Geest” (1978), in J.P. Versteeg, Geest, ambt en uitzicht. Theologische opstellen (Kampen: Kok, 1989), 9–22. 39  Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 28; cf. 59. 40  See J.P. Versteeg, De Heilige Geest en het gebed (Kampen: Kok, 1973).

He Created Us for a New Beginning

275

resurrection from the dead, the principal question is: what do we consider new? In the perspective of Paul, as Versteeg made clear, re-creation is first and foremost being called from death into life. And if you are called into life, what else can that mean but acting and taking responsibility, in faith, hope and love?! However, this brings us back to the question Van der Kooi deals with, namely the relation of this new life to our everyday experiences. Or put in a more theological idiom: how and where does the eschatological work of the Spirit of the risen Christ touch and interfere with God’s work in “everyday experience”?41 If Versteeg is right and the new and renewing in the work of the Spirit is about re-creation, being called into real life from death, what place is left for the preservation and realization of the authenticity and self-realization of our human selves? Do we have to end with the sad conclusion that creation and re-creation are staunchly separate fields of God’s working? 4

Vita Passiva and Creativity

Like Van der Kooi, Versteeg elaborated on the significance in Paul of the specific relation of Christ and the Spirit for our knowledge of God. This knowledge is not a theoretical framework, but a theologia crucis, a guide that helps to find God even where he seems to be absent. This is important, since—as Van der Kooi argues—the problem of the 1960s was the experience of God’s absence. At the time, the reaction in theology was to turn to Christology. The only hope left was that God is present in our world in the figure of the Crucified and appears under this sign.42 Here the dialectics between the “hidden” and the “revealed” God of Luther’s theology of the cross seemed helpful, though it did little to decrease the experience of God’s absence.43 For Luther, however, these dialectics were not just a theological exercise; but rather a method in the genuine sense of the word: allowing us to speak of God’s presence. From Luther’s perspective, the two ways of God’s working (hidden and revealed) are linked by the insight that God is at work, always, in everyone and everything. Humanity is not seen as basically independent individuals, but as included in God’s active and creating presence. Life is fundamentally 41  Cf. Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 3. 42  Cf. Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 13. 43  Cf. Van der Kooi, Incredibly Benevolent Force, 17: “The emphasis on God’s hiddenness can become so overwhelming in Western theology that it often becomes in effect a theology of God’s absence.”

276

den Hertog

vita passiva, and the two options the Middle Ages knew—vita activa and vita contemplativa—are subordinate to this. In the first pages of his Passivität aus Passion, in which he extensively deals with the Late Medieval mystics and Luther,44 systematic theologian Philipp Stoellger acknowledges that he is aware that the notion of “passivity” is alien to the basic framework of experience in our times, also in theology. Far from either trying to restore or saying farewell to this notion, Stoellger underscores that the problem is that in our modernity we don’t have words for the underlying reality of the vita passiva, as long as we keep thinking from the perspective of the autonomous and active individual.45 Is this the eradication of all that is new and the exact opposite to current pleas for creativity? No, Stoellger argues that according to Luther the vita activa—which is not replaced by the vita passiva, but on the contrary is set free and erected—in truth can be called cooperatio, albeit not in the sense of a subsistent autonomy or as some sort of primeval autonomy freed from its chains. No, this freedom is a “permanent heteronomy”; but this is joyful, since we are not condemned to a rigid and unrelenting “heteron,” but released and kept free by the “Heteros,” which is the God and Father of Jesus Christ who “is at work” in us through his Spirit, “enabling” us “both to will and work for his good pleasure” (Phil.2:13). The permanent “strangeness”—as Stoellger names it—of what befalls us, determines both acting and thinking for good.46 Therefore, we cannot miss this “Heteros,” who is good and a warrant for real autonomy, in any respect. How are the two ways of the working of the Spirit, in everyday experiences and in appropriating the salvation in Christ, related in Luther’s work? In his view God’s work in creation and re-creation is of the same kind. However, God’s creatively setting right sinners is not just a variation on the theme of creation—it is the other way round. In Luther’s theology what creation is about, becomes clear from the creative justice which calls the non-existent into existence (Rom.4:17). This justice also entails a creativity which is a unique source of renewal and bestows on those who receive it a true and genuine creativity.47 In what Stoellger derives from Luther the re-creative newness Versteeg found in Paul is preserved. Moreover, “everyday experience” is also shown to full advantage. Van der Kooi loudly protests against the distinction between the 44  Philipp Stoellger, Passivität aus Passion. Zur Problemgeschichte einer “categoria non grata,” (Tübingen: Mohr, 2010). Cf. I.U. Dalferth, Umsonst. Eine Erinnerung an die kreative Passivität des Menschen (Tübingen: Mohr, 2011). 45  Cf. Stoellger, Passivität aus Passion, 5. 46  Cf. Stoellger, Passivität aus Passion, 294. 47  Cf. Stoellger, Passivität aus Passion, 245.

He Created Us for a New Beginning

277

activity of God and the Spirit in the world and the saving activity in Christ. The strong point in Luther, in my opinion, is that the Creator and the Redeemer is one God, but our renewal through the Spirit should be distinguished from our “everyday experiences” because the “new life” is eschatological—constituting a very specific experience, namely of the powerful benevolent force of God’s promissio. 5

“See, I am making all things new” (Rev.21:5)

What are the results and what is the relevance of our exploration for what Andreas Reckwitz calls the “organizing principle” of our current society, “Thou shalt be creative”? It is obvious that the “new pathways” of the Spiritus Creator are quite different from what is labelled as new, innovative and creative by the standards of this “principle”; but the question is how these two relate to each other. This is also why Van der Kooi time and again presses the need for discernment. When he says: “The God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, distinguishes himself by making something new, finding new avenues—something that was not in the past and that is in favor of salvation—and bringing forward his benevolence,”48 this definitely contains some criteria. Only what is “in favor of salvation” and brings forward God’s benevolence can be called “new” in the biblical sense. We established that the specific relation between the risen Christ and the Spirit in Paul implies that “new” is identical with “eschatological.” However, this does not exclude that we may expect “everyday experiences” of God’s benevolence, but it rather means that we have to put all our experiences to the test, to see if they come from and point to the complete renewal of man in God’s reconciling work in the cross and the resurrection of Jesus Christ. What creativity is left to us? Recent Luther research helped us to see that God’s re-creation bestows us with real creativity, which is not an exposition of what we bear in us ourselves but of what God can and will work in and through us. Being involved in God’s vita passiva means becoming able to bring forth what really deserves to be called new: to participate in the triumph over sin and death as life-threatening powers. We participate in God’s renewing work. “He created us for a new beginning,” sings the hymn. Or, in the words of Augustine: “Initium ut esset homo creatus est.”49 The really new is first and foremost—as Hannah Arendt rightly stressed in the deadlocked Western society of the fifties 48  Van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force, 12. 49  Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XII, 20 (“That there be a beginning, man was created”).

278

den Hertog

of the twentieth century50—no longer nailing the other to the trespasses he or she performed, but by forgiving these and opening up new avenues into life for him and her. Arendt referred in this connection to Jesus of Nazareth as a mere human person, framing his pardoning in a strictly historical context and limiting its effects to what human deeds can bring about. Paul and Luther, on the other hand, had in mind God’s radical forgiveness that is nothing less than the breakthrough of His Kingdom in this world, giving way to the creative and innovative power of “the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus” (Rom.8:2). This very “newness” might be more urgently needed in our present societies than much of what is called “innovative” and “creative” but leaves us alone with our “old Adam,” imprisoned in the realm of “the law of sin and death” (Rom.8:2). Bibliography Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958. Augustinus. De Civitate Dei. Beck, Ulrich. Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage, 1992; original German: Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne (es 1365). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp 1986. Dalferth, Ingolf U. Umsonst. Eine Erinnerung an die kreative Passivität des Menschen. Tübingen: Mohr, 2011. Van der Kooi, Cornelis. De denkweg van de jonge Karl Barth. Een analyse van de ontwikkeling van zijn theologie in de jaren 1909–1927 in het licht van de vraag naar de geloofsverantwoording. Amsterdam: VU, 1985. Van der Kooi, Cornelis. Anfängliche Theologie. Der Denkweg des jungen Karl Barth. BevTh Bd. 103; München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1987. Van der Kooi, Cornelis. Tegenwoordigheid van Geest. Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest. Kampen: Kok, 2006. Van der Kooi, Cornelis. “Schoon en broos; scheppingstheologie vroeger en nu.” In: En God beschikte een worm. Over schepping en evolutie. Eds. Cees Dekker, Ronald Meester, and René van Woudenberg. Kampen: Kok, 2006, 82–100. Van der Kooi, Cornelis. “The Appeal to the Inner Testimony of the Spirit, especially in H. Bavinck.” Journal of Reformed Theology 2 (2008) 103–112. Van der Kooi, Cornelis. “Heilige Geest en Europese cultuur.” In De werking van de Heilige Geest in de Europese cultuur en traditie. Eds. Erik Borgman, Kees van der Kooi, Akke van der Kooi, and Govert Buijs et al. Kampen: Kok, 2008, 60–72.

50  Cf. Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958), 238f.

He Created Us for a New Beginning

279

Van der Kooi, Cornelis. “Towards an Ecologically Sensitive Pneumatology.” Journal of Reformed Theology 6 (2012) 283–293. Van der Kooi, Cornelis. “Creative Love Theism: The Doctine of God in Reformed and Evangelical Theology.” In Evangelical Theology in Transition. Essays under the Auspices of the Center of Evangelical and Reformation Theology (CERT). Eds. C. van der Kooi, E. van Staalduine-Sulman, and A.W. Zwiep. Amsterdam: VU University, 2012, 182–202. Van der Kooi, Cornelis. This Incredibly Benevolent Force: The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018. Reckwitz, Andreas. The Invention of Creativity. Modern Society and the Culture of the New. Cambridge, Malden: Polity, 2017; original German: Die Erfindung der Kreativität. Zum Prozess gesellschaftlicher Ästhetisierung (stw 1995). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp 20121. Stoellger, Philipp. Passivität aus Passion. Zur Problemgeschichte einer “categoria non grata.” HUTh Bd. 56; Tübingen: Mohr, 2010. Versteeg, Johannes Pieter. Het heden van de toekomst. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar aan de Theologische Hogeschool van de Christelijke Gereformeerde kerken in Nederland te Apeldoorn op 16 januari 1969. Kampen: Kok, 1969. Versteeg, Johannes Pieter. Christus en de Geest. Een exegetisch onderzoek naar de verhouding van de opgestane Christus en de Geest van God volgens de brieven van Paulus. Kampen: Kok, 1971. Versteeg, Johannes Pieter. De Heilige Geest en het gebed. Apeldoornse Studies no. 6; Kampen: Kok, 1973. Versteeg, Johannes Pieter. “Christus en de Geest” (1978). In J.P. Versteeg, Geest, ambt en uitzicht. Theologische opstellen. Kampen: Kok, 1989, 9–22.

chapter 18

Theodicy, Creation, and Suffering: Drawing on God’s Spirit and Love Michael Welker 1 Introduction For many people, the most difficult and challenging question in all of theology is what is known as the “theodicy question.” The term “theodicy” itself combines the Greek words theos and dike, “God” and “righteousness” or “justice.” The great philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, explicating Romans 3:4 and Psalm 51:6, first introduced this term to a wider audience.1 What today is known as the “theodicy question,” succinctly put, asks, “How can an omnipotent and, at the same time, just and benevolent God allow so much suffering in the world?” Following the lead of the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–271 BCE), the early Christian apologist Lactantius (250–325) presented an exemplary formulation of this question in chapter 13 of his treatise on God’s wrath, De Ira Dei.2 The perennial queries concerning theodicy, that is, concerning the connection between God and justice, can be summarized freely as follows: Either God wishes to avert or take away evil, and is unable; but then God is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; or God is indeed able to take away evil, and is unwilling; but then God is malicious, which is equally at variance with a benevolent and loving God;

1  Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Essais de Théodicée (1710). Rom.3:4 (NRSV, as are all following citations): “Although everyone is a liar, let God be proved true, as it is written, ‘So that you may be justified in your words, and prevail in your judging.’” Ps.51:6(4): “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your sentence and blameless when you pass judgment.” 2  Epicurus, “Fragmente über die Götter,” [Fragments on the gods] in Von der Überwindung der Furcht, ed. O. Gigon (Zürich: Artemis, 1949), 80 (= München: DTV, 1988).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_020

Theodicy, Creation, and Suffering

281

or God is neither willing nor able to take away evil; but then we cannot possibly acknowledge this feeble and simultaneously malicious existence as God; or God is both willing and able to take away evil, which alone is suitable to God; but then from what source does all the evil in the world come, and why does God not remove it? The theodicy question, however, takes on a decidedly more urgent tone the moment we speak not merely about abstract “evil” in the world but about the unmistakably concrete sufferings of good, innocent, and helpless or even powerless people. How, for example, can God allow children to fall ill with cancer and then die in dreadful pain? How can God allow a tsunami suddenly to sweep hundreds of people to their deaths? How can God allow drought and famine to expose thousands of people to the prospect of starving to death? How can God allow the world in which we live to provide the setting for glaring injustice, suffering, distress, malevolence, hatred, and violence? Religious references to God as unconditionally good, to God as love, and to righteousness, justice, and mercy as essential character traits of God—are such references not only utterly unbelievable but also basically hypocritical? Attempts both to articulate and to defuse or at least mitigate the theodicy question generally distinguish between three fundamental forms of evil in the world. 1. So-called metaphysical evil, namely, that we ourselves and all other creatures are merely finite, earthly beings whose power and knowledge are limited, that is, precisely that we are creatures rather than gods. Because these limitations indeed remain utterly beyond our influence, one speaks of “metaphysical” evil. 2. Physical evil in the form of all possible forms of corporeal and spiritual suffering. Physical evil is related in part to so-called metaphysical evil, the difference being that we can indeed address it in part through the healing arts and through healthy, peaceful lives. 3. Moral evil, or more precisely, all forms of evil caused by people themselves, evil for which they are directly responsible; such evil includes the injustices human beings perpetrate toward one another and, consciously or not, even against themselves.3 3  See in this regard W. Härle, Dogmatik (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995), 439ff., esp. 444; Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 328–331.

282

Welker

So-called moral evil is generally viewed as a consequence of humans having the freedom to decide for themselves concerning their actions and thus to choose either good or evil. Situations in which a person decides to act in a morally reprehensible way involve an incorrect understanding of freedom, indeed, an abuse of human freedom. Here the theodicy question transitions to the question of “anthropodicy,” that is, to a question addressing human beings rather than God, to wit: Why do human beings not consistently act benevolently toward themselves, their fellow human beings, and their fellow creatures? Religio-critical discussions, however, have often tended and indeed still tend to direct this question back into the theodicy question. For though a great deal of misery is indeed caused by human beings, why did God not simply create human beings to be flawlessly and unconditionally good moral beings in the first place? To avoid falling into a similarly inescapable theodicy trap of our own making, we must first surrender all false notions concerning God’s omnipotence (§2). To do so, we must examine more closely what the biblical traditions and the great confessions of faith say about that omnipotence (§3). For they direct our attention not merely toward the visible things of creation but also toward the invisible things and toward the realistic powers of the divine and human spirit (§4). God’s power and goodness now move into our field of vision as real forces at work in our real lives. Here we can dispense with all deceptive dreams about God as a “perfect watchmaker” and can abandon our mistaken identification of “good creation” as a perfectly running Disney-like world. 2

Mistaken Notions Concerning God’s Omnipotence

Seriously addressing the theodicy question requires that we correct false notions concerning both creation and divine omnipotence. First, we must abandon primitive theistic notions of God and world that understand God as the “all-causing reality.” Second, we must address the elements of dissatisfaction attaching to these notions and respond to their objections against this construed God, who allegedly allows reality to be so blatantly imperfect. Popular turns of phrase used to describe the relationship between God and omnipotence include references to “God as the ground of being” or “God as the causa prima,” with God then being viewed—usually rather unclearly—as the ultimate reference point, as the highest and final cause within a cosmogony or doctrine of the genesis of the world. According to these views, an even greater power always stands behind the remarkable powers of this world, a power to which, ultimately, they owe their

Theodicy, Creation, and Suffering

283

existence: Deus semper major (Augustine), that is, God is always greater, regardless of whatever else you may be considering! This “ever-greater” God is then often called the “all-determining reality” (recently explicitly by Rudolf Bultmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Wilfried Härle, et al.).4 This God, conceived—or more precisely, construed—as omnipotent, was compared to a perfect watchmaker, for example, by the Christian philosopher William Paley in his influential work Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (1802). This almighty God set the world into motion with a perfect mechanism and either allows it to follow its own internal motor functions (as asserted by what is known as deism) or keeps it in motion by continuing to “determine everything” (thus the theistic position). It is against this background that the previously mentioned problems with omnipotence emerge in the face of all the suffering and distress in the world, along with the worrisome doubts concerning religious and theological clarity and sincerity. The British evolutionary biologist and popular-scientific atheist Richard Dawkins gave his 1986 book the title The Blind Watchmaker and has since indefatigably propagated an aggressive populist atheism. His book The God Delusion even became an international bestseller.5 By contrast, the biblical foundations underlying references to God’s creative power and omnipotence are more complicated.6 The biblical creation story in Genesis 1:1–2:4 describes how God first bestows considerable inherent power on cosmic forces, namely, on heaven and the celestial bodies. Unlike in other ancient Near Eastern creation stories, heaven and the celestial bodies are understood here not as divine powers and entities but rather merely as creatures. They are, however, equipped with great power. Light and warmth and water, essential for life, all come from heaven. The stars fix the times and rhythms of the days and years and even holidays. At the next stage of creation, biological forces are called forth. The earth is to bring forth plants and animals, and the waters all sorts of fish and marine life. And again, although the biblical authors emphasize the power of these creatures, it is clear that neither the earth itself nor the waters with the great sea monsters from the depths are deities such as we encounter in other Near Eastern creation narratives. 4  Rudolf Bultmann, Glauben und Verstehen, vol.1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933), 26ff.; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Theology and the Philosophy of Science (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 302–3; and others. 5  Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (1987; New York: Norton, 2015); The God Delusion (New York: Bantam, 2006). 6  M. Welker, Creation and Reality: Theological and Biblical Perspectives, Warfield Lectures 1991 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1999); The Theology and Science Dialogue: What Can Theology Contribute? (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2012).

284

Welker

The biblical message concerning creation and omnipotence is thus that God the Creator allocates to creatures an enormous portion of creative power; creation and evolution thus come about wholly parallel, and only uncultivated thinking could instead set creation and evolution in opposition to each other. Creation is clearly understood as being replete with its own, inherent power. After cosmic and biological forces, the creation of cultural forces now comes to expression in the biblical creation narrative. The bearers of these forces are human beings, who are charged not only with propagating themselves biologically but also with exercising dominion over plants and animals. Human beings, men and women, are to rule and organize the rest of creation. In so doing, however, they are also to represent God’s own image, that is, they are to act as imago dei, as representatives of God (Gen.1:26–27). Psalm 8:5 formulates this notion by declaring that “you have made them a little lower than God” (cf. Pss.21:5; 82:6; Heb.2:7). Alongside the remarkable power allocated to creatures, however, the biblical traditions also emphasize their powerlessness, earthly transience, and mortality. “You are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen.3:19; cf. Job 10:9; Pss.90:3; 103:14; 104:29). The unmistakable distinction between Creator and creature, however, between God and human beings, does not reside merely in the finitude, transience, and mortality of all earthly life. For all natural earthly life lives unavoidably at the cost of other life. Even vegetarians necessarily destroy essentially an infinitude of life in order to maintain themselves. Natural earthly life inevitably exhibits a predatory character. We must dispassionately discern and acknowledge the disposition of creaturely existence according to this understanding. Nature and life, despite their undeniable beauty and fruitfulness, which we certainly should gratefully acknowledge and richly praise, are ambivalent entities, for they are full of possibilities for mutual endangerment and even self-endangerment. Quite beyond these considerations, however, they, and especially human beings, possess the freedom and power to act contrary to God’s intentions. Cain’s fratricide of Abel is but the first of countless biblical stories of hatred, violence, and evil among human beings. Even Israel, the chosen people of God, lives constantly under the pressure of the world powers Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. The cross of Jesus Christ represents a drastic, glaring high point of human conspiracy against God’s will and even God’s presence. For Jesus Christ is crucified in the name of the world power Rome, in the name of the Jewish religion, with an appeal to both Roman and Mosaic law, and with the approval of public morality and opinion. Even his disciples deny, abandon, and betray him. It is against this difficult background that we must pose the theodicy question rather than only in view of catastrophes affecting our own, personal life

Theodicy, Creation, and Suffering

285

experiences or the broader course of world events. How, given the blatant, concrete experiences of real, natural, earthly life, can we speak persuasively about God’s justice and mercy or about God’s love and benevolence? By far the most promising approach to addressing the difficult theodicy question is, first, to discern quite dispassionately that earthly life is radically different from God. It is finite, mortal, feeble, and endangered, and yet simultaneously also predatory, often guided by evil powers and unfortunately not infrequently inclined to enhance, consciously or not, these same malevolent forces. God grants considerable inherent power to creation for both good and evil. Second, addressing the difficult theodicy question requires that we recognize that God’s so-called omnipotence, about which so many monotheistic religions tend to speak7 and quite rightly praise, consists not in God’s intervention into every possible situation in time and space like some instantaneous fire extinguisher but rather in God’s power to create something new and good even from suffering and distress. It is this power which in the Bible is closely connected to discourse on the recreative work of the Holy Spirit. To understand this insight, let us examine more closely what the Bible itself says concerning God’s omnipotence along with statements articulated in the great Christian confessions of faith. 3

What Do the Bible and the Most Important Christian Confessions of Faith Say about God’s Omnipotence?

Biblical statements concerning God’s omnipotence are both sparse and, unfortunately, unclear. In the Old Testament, the divine name El Shaddai occurs several times in Genesis,8 frequently in Job, and also on the periphery of the Old Testament canon. Although Luther, for example, translates this name as “the Almighty,” following the Greek pantokrator, this translation is questionable and is generally rejected by serious exegetes, who as a rule choose not to translate the divine name at all. The New Testament offers even fewer direct occurrences of terms for “almighty” and “almighty power.” Second Corinthians 6:18 cites the Old Testament itself in one occurrence of El Shaddai. Matthew 26:64, Luke 22:69, and Mark 14:62 speak about how the Son of Man will be “seated at the right hand of the Power” (note that English translations generally use the term “Power,” with an upper-case P, rather than “almighty power”; 7  Cf. e.g. Gijsbert van den Brink, Almighty God. A Study of the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence (Kampen 1993). 8  Gen.17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25.

286

Welker

occasionally a version will translate as “Mighty One,” “God All-Powerful,’ or simply “God”). All these passages are referencing the vision in Daniel 7:13–14, according to which the heavenly Son of Man is given “dominion, and glory, and a kingdom … that will not pass away.” The book of Revelation refers to the pantokrator especially in connection with worship and praise of God. But what exactly do these references to God’s “almighty power” mean? Finding one’s way out of this thicket of problems requires examining quite closely the most important confessions of faith of the Christian churches. The confession of faith most familiar to us, the Apostles’ Creed—many of whose formulations date back to the second century, which in any case is attested in the fifth and by the ninth century is already quite widespread— formulates this notion as follows: I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. The creed of the Council of Nicea (Nicene Creed) from the year 325 declares: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And what is known as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the creed of the Council of Constantinople applicable to all Christendom from the year 381, emphasizes: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. One immediately notices that these creeds do not speak directly about an “almighty Creator” who is then also a benevolent or strict Father, but rather explicitly reference the “almighty Father” who is then also Creator of heaven and earth.9 But how are we to understand the relationship between God, Father, almighty power, Creator, heaven, earth, and, finally, the visible and the invisible? A first step toward avoiding misunderstanding the notion of divine omnipotence is to focus on creation in a differentiated fashion as “heaven and earth.” Various religions or religious approaches are inclined to confuse God and heaven or to ascribe divine powers to the celestial bodies. Still others view in the interplay between heaven and earth the “all-determinative reality” in which the powers of the cosmos, nature, and evolution simply eliminate the 9  See Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 145–48.

Theodicy, Creation, and Suffering

287

need and even the space for divine activity, a view often tending to equate God and nature, for example, in the formulation of the philosopher Spinoza deus sive natura (“God or nature,” Ethics iv, preface). Almighty nature replaces the almighty God.10 These widespread notions, however, are both placatory and primitive. By mixing up correct and incorrect notions in their own turn, ultimately they merely remove any and all theological and creation-theological orientation and end up utterly perplexed when confronted by the question of theodicy. By contrast, references to the creation of “heaven and earth” directs attention to a grand, differentiated correlation of power that, though repeatedly confused with God, is nonetheless radically different from God. But first: Why have precisely God and heaven repeatedly been confused? Natural heaven, differentiated from and yet related to earth, bequeaths light and warmth, rain and water and wind, and along with them powerful forces making it possible for life itself to prosper on earth. But those same natural forces of heaven also include severe and dangerous weather and floods, devastating storms, and a scorching sun. Is heaven then not itself an almighty power, an “all-determinative reality”? The forces of the earth are similarly both enormously powerful and yet utterly ambivalent. Ecological concerns and sensibilities today prompt many people to use the terms “nature” and “life” as salvific references. “If only we would leave benevolent nature to herself, she would soon set things right!” And yet as correct as such opposition to ecological indifference and brutality surely is, just as false is any view that ignores the unequivocal ambivalence of the forces of nature. Yet to concentrate solely on the earth itself, on the visible, natural heavens, and on the history of the earth as such is known to us does not by any stretch encompass the entirety of the divine creation activity, not to speak of God’s paternal almighty power. At the beginning of creation, as the biblical traditions in Genesis 1 tell us, “the earth was a formless void,” and it will become a “formless void” once more and pass away, for it is merely a finite setting for divine activity and divine glory. Natural heaven, related as it is to the earth, will similarly pass away, and with it the entire, so colossally impressive cosmic whole. Unlike German, the English language fortunately allows one important distinction, namely, that between sky and heaven, one that approximates the earlier reference to “visible and invisible things” that we encounter in the great creeds of Nicea and Constantinople.

10  B. Spinoza, Opera, vol.2: Ethica (Darmstadt: WBG, 1967), 380–87 (Pars Quarta, Praefatio).

288 4

Welker

The Created Visible and Invisible Things: The Human and Divine Spirit

Biblical traditions and both the Jewish and the Christian faiths are convinced that the visible world and life represent but an extremely small sliver of reality, a conviction that applies not merely to the personal view of things each of us has: Look at the moon so lonely! One half is shining only, Yet she is round and bright; Thus oft we laugh unknowing At things that are not showing, That still are hidden from our sight.11 Thus the words of Matthias Claudius in his famous “Evening Song.” Yet that other portion of life in all its fullness visible to all the other people in this world at this time is also but a tiny sliver of the universe and its history. Indeed, even the entire cosmos and the entire history of the earth, along with everything that ever was and ever will be visible is but a tiny sliver of the entirety of what is also a spiritual reality. That reality we can begin to discern if we concentrate on our own spirit and then on God’s Spirit as well. Thus, it is pneumatology that makes all the difference. Our spirit includes all our memories and all our thoughts, though also all possible combinations of our memories and thoughts, combined with the remarkable capacity to activate them, summon them, though also to dismiss them into latency and distance. We need only consider the worlds of mathematics and music and poetry to acquire a vague intimation of the extraordinary wealth of the spiritual and intellectual world. Religious conviction holds that this world, too, has been created by God, for it, too, is subject to certain norms and elements of order, regularity, and aesthetics. Similarly, the grand capacity of human beings to communicate over vast temporal and spatial distances, to exchange and mutually enhance experiences, ideas, and emotions, provides an intimation of the enormous dimensions and significance of this largely invisible spiritual and intellectual world that is also God’s creation. Like the visible world, however, so also is the invisible world by no means necessarily good, for like the natural world, it is highly ambivalent. The great forces of the spirit, the intellect, and the invisible world to which we can so easily fall prey and which we—commensurately influenced in a negative 11  A Harvest of German Verse, transl. Margarete Münsterberg (New York: D. Appleton, 1916), 39.

Theodicy, Creation, and Suffering

289

fashion—can even egregiously amplify, include delusions, racism, ethnic hatred, warmongering, mass malevolence, and pitilessness. We can, however, also draw on the good forces of the spirit, the intellect, and the invisible world, that is, on the divine powers of justice and mercy, the search for truth and peace, and freedom and love. Indeed, we can find these very powers within us and cultivate and enhance them both individually and collectively. They “come over us” again and again like a grand gift “from above,” like the welcome rain from heaven, like beneficent sunlight and a refreshing breeze. Biblical and religious references to invisible heaven and the reign of heaven deftly draw attention to this particular sphere of God’s power, a sphere situated above our time and world, before our time and world, and after our time and world, but which is nonetheless not an illusion. That said, this invisible heaven, in and of itself, is indeed quite empty and open to all sorts of illusions. It does not really become an interesting and productive object of consideration until it is comprehended as the sphere of God’s creative forces, the sphere from which such forces then must be revealed, come to earth, and become active among human beings. It is from the perspective of these beneficent forces of God on earth in the midst of all the otherwise ambiguous, life-threatening, indeed, life-destroying powers and forces that we can distantly sense the enormous wealth of divine and heavenly life. Here, too, creedal references to the “almighty Father” finally come into their own. It is in the midst of the power and powerlessness of creation that God’s Spirit comes to expression, as a Spirit of truth, justice, mercy, and love, as well as of freedom and peace. The firm conviction of Christian faith is that this Spirit has acquired clear contours in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. As emphasized earlier, according to the biblical traditions God’s paternal almighty power is revealed as God’s power to create something new and good even in the midst of the breakdown of creation, even in the midst of suffering, distress, and death. This is especially characteristic of the work of the Holy Spirit, ‘the Lord and Giver of Life.’ Beyond all our notions of success and failure, victory and futility, the Spirit of God’s love is active in a creative and re-creative fashion in the visible and invisible parts of his creation (Rom.8:18–23). The God who reveals himself as the Father of Jesus Christ in both cross and resurrection (in the Jewish faith: the saviour and redeemer of Israel) is the truly almighty! This insight can hardly be better comprehended than through a deep and serious understanding of God’s love as effected precisely through his Spirit (Rom.5:5).12

12  See in this regard Ch. 12 of the Christian Dogmatics, as well as Cornelis van der Kooi’s Warfield Lectures, This Incredibly Benevolent Force: The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017).

290

Welker

The biblical understanding of God’s power and beneficence in the Spirit associates it with divine love to the point of straightforward identification: “God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them” (1 Joh.4:16). But God’s power is associated not just with love but also with justice and mercy. The kinship between love and compassion, love and mercy now discloses an access both to God’s love and to a more profound understanding of love in the larger sense. Mercy comes about through free, creative self-withdrawal on behalf of others, and at its most profound level, love is precisely such joyous, free, creative self-withdrawal on behalf of a beloved person. At first glance, this suggestion seems quite implausible. “Self-withdrawal” and “love”?—do we not wish quite to the contrary to be as close and intimate as possible with the beloved? Are not the notions of union, profound connectedness, and indeed self-surrender not much better suited for describing the essence of love than such peculiar references to “self-withdrawal”? Within the context of love, however, we are referring not merely to some arbitrary selfwithdrawal but rather to a joyous and creative self-withdrawal that at once is also wholly salutary to the beloved person. But why must we speak of “selfwithdrawal” in the first place? An enormously important aspect of love comes into view here that is too often overlooked. And that is the element of freedom in love. Genuine, true love always seeks the free development of the beloved person as well as free response. In any genuinely loving relationship, we not only respect the depth and wealth of the other person’s identity; we also rejoice in being part and discovering ever-new dimensions of that person. And we also rejoice in developing our own life and all its wealth precisely in this same relationship and in sharing it with the beloved. However, it is also with regard to the pain and suffering of the beloved that we passionately feel the deprivation and reduced possibilities and accordingly seek compensation and healing. The mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead formulated this insight brilliantly especially with respect to parental love, speaking of “the love of self-devotion where the potentialities of the loved object are felt passionately as a claim that it find itself in a friendly Universe. Such love is really an intense feeling as to how the harmony of the world should be realized in particular objects.”13 Love seeks the free response of the beloved person, and the ultimate joy of love is doubtless a condition in which partners mutually spark and inflame each other ever anew, a condition that has traditionally inspired not a few romantic and even erotic understandings of love. This particular dimension of love, however, still does not quite grasp either the breadth or the depth of genuine love. For true love 13  A.N. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas (1933; New York: Free, 1961), 288–89 (xx, section vi).

Theodicy, Creation, and Suffering

291

continues on through thick and thin and endures in loyalty and patience, faith and hope even through phases that offer neither a direct response nor directly edifying rewards. Thus the affirmation of the Song of Solomon (8:6) that “love is strong as death.” This is the form of love in which God, through his Spirit, turns to his creation, the form of love in which God humbles himself creatively on behalf of his creation, a creation radically different from God. Christian faith finds precisely this love revealed in Jesus Christ, whom the New Testament traditions and early church creeds thus also call the “mediator of creation.” Thus does the Nicene Creed say, “I believe in Jesus Christ … by whom all things were made.”14 Not only are human beings shown this power that passes through the profound powerlessness of suffering, distress, and death; they also come to participate in it through the Holy Spirit. Visible and invisible creation, God’s visible and invisible activity come to be associated here in a way that challenges not only understanding but certainly also faith. This revelation of God’s almighty power discloses to creation not only the enormous distance separating it from God, but at once also its astonishing proximity to him. The cross of Christ, in its own turn, discloses to creation its grave endangerment and even self-endangerment, its forsakenness under the power of sin. It is in this situation that God’s paternal almighty power comes to vivid expression in a merciful and loving fashion in rendering possible a new beginning when human beings are taken up by the Spirit, in an often quite inconspicuous fashion, into new life, that is, into the divine and eternal life. Those who remain in the almighty power of love effected by the Spirit will similarly remain in God and God in them. In love, that is, in free, creative selfwithdrawal on behalf of our fellow human beings, we move in a direction that now runs counter to that unavoidable situation of self-preservation at the cost of our fellow creatures. We now acquire a portion in a higher, loftier life, in eternal life. And it is the creative Spirit of God that gives us the strength to appreciate this life, to entrust ourselves to it, and to allow ourselves to be seized and ultimately elevated by it. The elusive answer to the recalcitrant question of theodicy is, on the one hand, quite sobering and yet, on the other, enormously liberating. It is only in this spiritual way that the problem of theodicy can be adequately dealt with. God created us and the world as finite, mortal, transient beings that live at the cost of other living beings. God does not spare us the experiences of suffering, distress, and death, experiences that often utterly bewilder us and bring home to us how acutely helpless and powerless we are. But we encounter God’s power 14  Cf. Joh.1:3; 1:10; 1 Cor.8:6; Col.1:15; Heb.1:2.

292

Welker

and God’s goodness not just in the many beneficent elements and fruitfulness and beauty in both nature and the cosmos, all of which we should gratefully recognize and acknowledge. We also encounter God’s almighty power and goodness in the power of his Spirit, justice, mercy, and love, with all of which He actively counters the abuse of human freedom and, at the boundaries of our earthly life and earthly possibilities, comforts, consoles, and elevates us. Indeed, even now, in the very midst of our lives, in the midst of a world radically different from God, a world perpetually also characterized by injustice, heartlessness, unkindness, falseness, constraint, and discord, God grants us a portion in the powers of his Spirit, in the powers of justice, mercy, love, endurance, truth, freedom, and peace.15 Bibliography Brink, G. van den. Almighty God. A Study of the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence. Kampen 1993. Bultmann, R. Glauben und Verstehen, vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1933. Claudius, M. A Harvest of German Verse. Transl. Margarete Münsterber. New York: D. Appleton, 1916. Dawkins, R. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. 1987; New York: Norton, 2015. Dawkins, R. The God Delusion. New York: Bantam, 2006. Epicurus. “Fragmente über die Götter.” [Fragments on the gods] In Von der Überwindung der Furcht. Ed. O. Gigon. Zürich: Artemis, 1949 = München: DTV, 1988. Härle, W. Dogmatik. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995. Kooi, C. van der, and G. van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Kooi, C. van der. This Incredibly Benevolent Force: The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Leibniz, G.W. Essais de Théodicée. 1710. Pannenberg, W. Theology and the Philosophy of Science. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Spinoza, B. Opera. Vol. 2: Ethica. Darmstadt: WBG, 1967. Welker, M. Creation and Reality: Theological and Biblical Perspectives. Warfield Lectures 1991. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1999. Welker, M. The Theology and Science Dialogue: What Can Theology Contribute? Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2012. Whitehead, N. Adventures of Ideas. 1933; New York: Free Press, 1961. 15  I would like to thank Douglas W. Stott for translating this article.

chapter 19

Setting Free and Bringing to Purpose: The Work of the Spirit in Cultivating the Virtues Pieter Vos 1 Introduction The field of Christian ethics has shown an impressive revitalization of virtue ethics. Since the publication of landmark works such as Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue1 and Hauerwas’s A Community of Character and The Peaceable Kingdom2 in the 1980s, Christian ethicists have rediscovered the virtues as a substantial part of the theological tradition and as important aspects of the Christian life. One way to think of virtue ethics from a Christian perspective is to interpret the virtues in terms of “the fruit of the Spirit.”3 The emphasis in such approaches is on the particularity of the Christian virtues as mentioned in these and other Biblical texts.4 However, in general, the fact that these Christian virtues are characterized as fruit of the Spirit doesn’t seem to make much difference in understanding the nature of these virtues or the way in which they become part of us. In other words, what does it mean that these virtues find their source in the work of the Holy Spirit? I will take the question of how the work of the Spirit in the cultivation of the Christian virtues is to be understood, especially from Galatians 5, as subject for this contribution in honour of Kees van der Kooi. My contribution is at the intersection of theological interpretations of Christian virtues on the one hand and relevant pneumatological accounts, in particular Van der Kooi’s, on the other. I start with a critical account of Protestant thought on the possibility of the habituation of the virtues. This brings us to the question: How does God’s agency in the Spirit relate to human agency in acquiring and cultivating 1  Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1981 (19842)). 2  Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1981); Stanley Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1983). 3  Gal.5:22–23. 4  Col.3:12–15; 2 Pt.1:5–11.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_021

294

Vos

the virtues? Next I present a short analysis of how virtues as ‘fruit of the Spirit’ are treated in recent accounts of theological virtue ethics, followed by an investigation of some recent pneumatological accounts. I then focus on how participation in Christ opens up a promising point of departure for thinking through the relation between divine and human acting and the work of the Spirit. Finally, contours of how the Spirit may work in cultivating the virtues will be sketched. 2

Divine Agency and Habituation?

The question of how (Christian) virtues become part of the believer by habituation and cultivation is pressing, especially with regard to approaches that are rooted in Protestant thought. In her seminal study Putting on Virtue, Jennifer Herdt argues that early Protestantism developed a hyper-Augustinian view.5 In this view, Augustine’s criticism of ‘pagan virtue’ as wrongly directed toward pride and self-love is radicalized by an over-emphasis on divine agency. According to Herdt, the Reformers were convinced that not just the acknowledgement of the dependency of human agency on God’s grace is required, but also the abandonment of one’s agency in a stance of pure passivity. For instance, Luther’s insistence that prideful human agency is to be displaced by the indwelling Christ who is to renew the sinner from inside out is not understandable in terms of gradual human transformation and habituation of the virtues. Hence she asks: How is a passive, displaced agency to be gradually transformed? How can we be habituated except through our own action? What we find in Luther is an exaggerated insistence on passivity arising out of a competitive understanding of human and divine agency.6 Herdt concludes that in Protestantism any sense that grace can work through ordinary processes of habituation was lost.

5  Jennifer A. Herdt, Putting On Virtue: The Legacy of the Splendid Vices (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2008). 6  Herdt, Putting on Virtue, 188.

Setting Free and Bringing to Purpose

295

It is not the aim of my contribution to respond extensively to this criticism,7 but to take it as a background for exploring the relation between divine and human agency in acquiring and cultivating the virtues, in particular from a pneumatological approach. Notwithstanding the limitations of Herdt’s interpretation of Protestant theology, indeed there seems to be a need for a convincing and meaningful conception of the relation between divine and human agency in acquiring the virtues. As I will argue, this can be found in the concept of participation or being in Christ. As soon as we think of the how of this in Christo, we also need to speak about the work of the Spirit. One could say that whereas the work of Christ in cross and resurrection is something extra nos and pro nobis, the work of the Spirit is first of all about Christ’s presence in nobis. Applying this to the field of virtue ethics and Herdt’s criticism of Protestant accounts of human agency, a pneumatological approach may open up new possibilities for thinking through the relation between human and divine agency in the habituation of the virtues. How is the human person involved in participation in Christ through the Spirit? Let us start exploring this from virtue-ethical accounts of ‘the fruit of the Spirit.’ 3

Virtues as Fruit of the Spirit

Generally speaking, distinctive in Christian accounts of the virtues are: (1) the ordering of the virtues, for instance love as fundamental Christian virtue, (2) the particular understanding of the various virtues, for instance hope as extending beyond death, (3) the acknowledgement of particular virtues that others would not, for instance humility, and (4) how the virtues are to be acquired, for instance not by one’s own activity but received as gifts through divine grace.8 What is of interest to us now is this fourth aspect. In the Christian virtue-ethical tradition an important denominator of the Christian virtues is indeed their passive or receptive character. According to Augustine, it is because of radical evil that the human being is not able to

7  See for a more extensive response to Herdt’s criticism: Pieter Vos, “Neither Hypocrisy Nor Replication: A Protestant Account of Imitating Christ as Moral Exemplar,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 19.3 (2017), 271–286. 8  See, e.g., Michael W. Austin and R. Douglas Geivett (eds), Being Good: Christian Virtues for Everyday Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 2. Cf. Paul Ramsey, Basic Christian Ethics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993 (1950)), 191–233, who distinguishes the measure, the unity and the source of the virtues in discussing Christian accounts of the virtues.

296

Vos

achieve virtue by his own power, but can only receive it as God’s gift.9 Aquinas follows this line of thought in his interpretation of the theological virtues of faith, hope and love (not in his interpretation of the cardinal virtues): they are not acquired by self-mastery but are received as gifts. The theological virtues and the virtues that can be derived from them are all directed towards God and only exist by virtue of God’s grace.10 In his recent plea for a rehabilitation of the theological virtues in virtue ethics and philosophy of the art of life (levenskunstfilosofie), philosopher Paul van Tongeren states: The theological virtues warn […] against an overstressed moral activism and remind us of the importance of a certain passivity. If life is an art, then this art consists not only of doing what we can to become ‘good,’ but also of the cultivation of the ability to become receptive to what is given to us, or to carry what is withheld to us.11 In this understanding, these virtues can be cultivated in a certain way, but what is cultivated is an openness to what we cannot acquire but only receive. In his plea van Tongeren also points to an obverse side: the theological virtues could be dangerous as well, insofar as they may deteriorate not only into too great a passivity, ending up in quietism, but also into fanaticism due to the lack of reasonability and boundaries of what these virtues (for instance love of the enemy) reasonably may ask from me. Therefore, the theological virtues are only prevented from such deterioration if they are connected to the cardinal virtues of courage, temperance, prudence and justice.12 Notwithstanding this critical aspect, van Tongeren demonstrates how the passive or receptive nature of the Christian virtues is not only an indispensable characteristic of Christian virtue ethics but also of any viable virtue ethics. It is this passive nature which indeed is often highlighted in theological accounts of Christian virtues in terms of ‘fruit of the Spirit.’ At the same time, the question is how precisely to understand this passivity in relation to human agency. One problem is precisely the overestimation of divine agency over human agency, as Herdt indicates. We find this for instance in G. Brillenburg Wurth’s book on virtue and the virtues, which at the time (1958) was quite 9  Augustine, De civ. Dei XXII, 24. 10  E.g. ST I-II q 62. 11  Paul van Tongeren, Leven is een kunst: Over morele ervaring, deugdethiek en levenskunst [Life is an art: On moral experience, virtue ethics and the art of living] (Zoetermeer: Klement/Pelckmans, 2012), 174. All translations from Dutch sources are mine. 12  Van Tongeren, Leven is een kunst, 174.

Setting Free and Bringing to Purpose

297

unique in the Dutch Reformed context but stayed unnoticed. Brillenburg Wurth emphasizes that through the work of the Spirit a real transformation takes place in the believers: they not only do good things but become good persons and through the graceful gift of the Spirit show continuity in their virtuous attitudes. So far so good. However, quite confusingly, he also states that although the virtues are present as fruit in our life, “we ourselves do not act them. The Holy Spirit lets them grow in us through his grace.”13 Although Brillenburg Wurth is clear about the reality of the new life which is possible through the transformative presence of the Holy Spirit, in this quotation we find the overemphasis on divine over human agency which Herdt opposes. How can we really become and be virtuous if we do not act virtuously ourselves? It is at least in contradiction with the Aristotelian presupposition that we become virtuous by acting virtuously, just as one becomes a zither player by playing the zither.14 Moreover, in virtue ethical treatments of ‘the fruit of the Spirit’ the ‘how’ of divine agency in the work of the Spirit is often unclear. I give a few examples. In his classical interpretation of the distinctive New Testament virtues Carl F.H. Henry highlights the new life “in the Spirit” but he doesn’t clarify how the Spirit works in the human person in order to acquire or receive these virtues.15 The same holds for more recent accounts. Philosophers Jochem Quartel and Jan Hoogland, for instance, present a Christian art of life in dialogue with secular philosophies of the art of life departing from the nine virtues mentioned in Galatians 5.16 Although they state that the gift of the Spirit is distinctive and that the Spirit invokes a new disposition in people, the fact that these virtues are fruit of the Holy Spirit doesn’t make much difference in thinking about how to cultivate them. More promising is Robert C. Roberts, who posits six emotion-virtues—joy, gratitude, hope, contrition, peace, compassion—as fruit of the Spirit.17 He elaborates more on the specific nature of how to receive these virtues. This is not so much a matter of competitive divine or human agency, but of acquiring a particular openness. For the virtues are based on a particular concern for righteousness and eternal life proclaimed in the gospel which is a prerequisite to 13  G. Brillenburg Wurth, Eerherstel van de deugd [Rehabilitation of Virtue] (Kampen: Kok, 1958), 61. 14   E N 1103a33–1103b2. 15  Carl F.H. Henry, Christian Personal Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [1957]), 472–508. 16  Jochem Quartel and Jan Hoogland, Levenskunst voor iedereen [Art of Life for Everyone] (Utrecht: Kok, 2014), 49f. 17  Robert C. Roberts, Spiritual Emotions: A Psychology of Christian Virtues (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).

298

Vos

the bearing of spiritual fruit. The gospel provides people with a distinctive way of construing and seeing the world. Roberts considers character traits as dispositions to respond with joy, compassion or otherwise in virtue of a spiritual understanding of things. These virtues are an expression of their passion for the Lord and consist in a yearning for righteousness and the kingdom of God. Such passion is not just a matter of human action, but—as the word ‘passion’ itself suggests—passive, something which happens to the subject. It is based on the gospel to which one must have been opened.18 Although Roberts does not identify this being opened as work of the Spirit, I propose to interpret it in that way. The gospel speaks only to people whose hearts are deeply exercised about sin and death and the promise of God’s forgiveness and kingdom. This is the work of the Spirit. It consists in opening people spiritually, providing them with a different view of the self, the other and the world and invoking a passion for righteousness and the kingdom of God. From this passion stem the virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control and several others. Before continuing this line of thought, let us first turn to the field of pneumatology as locus of systematic theology. How is in pneumatology the work of the Spirit related to the cultivation of virtuous qualities? 4

Pneumatology and the Virtues

Generally speaking, pneumatological accounts do not elaborate on the work of the Spirit in the cultivation of virtues as suggested in Galatians 5 and other New Testament texts—fortunately, Kees van der Kooi is a promising exception, as I will show. There may be different reasons for neglecting the virtues. Some forms of pneumatology are focused on a particular interpretation of the work of the Spirit. Jürgen Moltmann’s pneumatology, for instance, centers around the life giving character of the Spirit as a way to integrate the experience of God with life experiences and vice versa. Therefore, in his reading of the Biblical qualities mentioned as fruit of the Spirit, he emphasizes their life promoting character and fruitfulness in contrast to ‘the world of death’ (Welt des Todes).19 Others have fundamental objections to emphasizing human qualities. Abraham van de Beek, for instance, opts for a pneumatology that is firmly rooted in 18  Roberts, Spiritual Emotions, 13–22, 29–31, 93. 19  Jürgen Moltmann, Der Geist des Lebens: Eine ganzheitliche Pneumatologie, Werke 7 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016 (1991)), 168, 298.

Setting Free and Bringing to Purpose

299

Christology.20 One should not look for all kind of ways the Spirit may be active in culture, creation, history and so on, but start from the center of the Christian faith: the crucified Christ, who is present in Word and sacrament. Therefore, he opts for a pneumatologia crucis and relates the work of the Spirit closely to the church as the locus where he works. As a consequence, we should not start from texts about fruit and qualities we can find in people, but only from the crucified Christ. Van de Beek states that Galatians 5:22 is the only place in the New Testament that speaks of the fruit of the Spirit. It speaks of ‘fruit’ in the singular because the emphasis is on the activity of the Spirit rather than on the various expressions of this activity or qualities that can be attributed to human beings. The most visible expression of the Spirit’s work in human beings is when they acknowledge that they are sinners. This makes them open to the healing of their broken lives and relationships through the cross.21 In my view, Van de Beek’s approach may be an important correction of an overoptimistic and unqualified locating of the Spirit in all kinds of phenomena, but becomes one-sided in limiting the Spirit’s work to convincing people of their sinfulness and leading them to the cross. In this respect Van der Kooi’s approach is much more convincing. In Christian Dogmatics he and Gijsbert van den Brink agree that the work of the Spirit is concentrated in Christ and in what he gives, but differently from Van de Beek this starting point does not restrict the work of the Spirit, but gives it a wider scope.22 In describing what the Spirit gives, Van den Brink and Van der Kooi even start with the fruit of the Spirit. The use of the singular ‘fruit’ in Galatians 5 is not so much to direct our attention from ourselves to what the Spirit works, but rather suggests that none of these virtues can be obtained without the others. The renewal by the Spirit is comprehensive.23 This renewal is already a reality and asks the believer to grow in active relationship to Christ. Therefore, the flourishing of the virtues really belongs to the Christian life. Human sinfulness should be acknowledged but this does not mean that the Spirit doesn’t work effectively in renewing human life. Virtues are concrete expressions of renewal by the Spirit. Historically the grow of the Church to a great extent even rested on these expressions of the renewal of life. Rather than seeing ‘fruit’ as an incidental expression in the New Testament, Van den Brink and Van der Kooi 20  Abraham van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus: De theologie van de kerk en de Heilige Geest [Body and Spirit of Christ: The theology of the church and the Holy Spirit] (Zoetermeer: Meinema 2012), 424–436. 21  Van de Beek, Lichaam en Geest van Christus, 416f. 22  Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 490. 23  Rom.12:2; 13:8–14; Eph.4:17–32; 5.

300

Vos

regard the aspect of concrete fruit and the meaning of moral virtues as in full continuity with the Old Testament, for instance in the prominent metaphor of the vineyard24 as image of how a God devoted life flourishes. It includes stopping to trust other gods and powers and opposing social injustice.25 From this broad Biblical and pneumatological perspective it is legitimate and fruitful to use the language of the virtues as this is readopted in theological ethics. Virtues are not exclusively Christian, but for Christians the orientation on Christ and the work of the Spirit are the most important source of the virtues. I would like to take up this line of thought in full agreement and continue it in the direction of the question what this means for the ‘how’ of cultivating the virtues and how divine agency is related to human agency. 5

The Spirit and Participation in Christ

A fitting way to interpret the relation between divine and human agency in the sanctification of life is to adopt the language of participation. As new research of Luther and Calvin demonstrates, the concept of participation or being in Christ is clearly present in the work of the Reformers. The concept of participation has important implications with regard to Herdt’s criticism. Although Herdt refers to new interpretations of Luther by Mannermaa and others of Christ not only offering forgiveness but also being present in the believer,26 she does not see that this interpretation implies a different relation between divine and human agency. In my words, participation in Christ includes a non-competitive account of divine and human agency that is beyond the question whether the effected renewal is Christ’s or one’s own. The effected renewal is not one’s own since it is only present in union with Christ, but at the same time it is one’s own since righteousness is really declared to the believer and Christ is really present in the believer. The point is that the person of the believer can no longer be seen as separated from the person of Christ. At the same time, participation in Christ includes the agency of the believer, as Luther for instance states in his Lectures on the Galatians: “Christians do not become righteous by doing righteous works, but once they have been justified by faith in Christ, they do righteous works.”27 24  Ps.80, Js.5:1–7, Hos.14:9 and Jh.15:1–4. 25  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 507–508. 26  Especially what is known as ‘the Finnish Luther research,’ e.g.: Tuomo Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification, ed. Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005); Herdt, Putting on Virtue, 390. 27   LW 26, 256.

Setting Free and Bringing to Purpose

301

With regard to Calvin, similar new interpretations in the so-called ‘new approach to Calvin’ clarify how participation is a central aspect of his theology. As Todd J. Billings has demonstrated, central to Calvin’s account of the moral life is the duplex gratia: in the first grace of God’s justification believers participate by imputation in Christ’s righteousness, in the second grace of sanctification the believers actually become partakers in Christ’s righteousness and begin “the slow process of transformation.”28 This not only includes human agency, but also opens up possibilities of fostering a Christ-like character and cultivating virtues. Van den Brink and Van der Kooi, too, take up participation as a “bridge” between justification and sanctification. Already in his study on Calvin and Barth, Van der Kooi values human agency as the human part in the reality of being and participating in Christ: the human person responds and responsibly participates in the new reality that is constituted by God in Christ. Van der Kooi concludes: “Thus one can not speak of a sole causality of God.”29 Human agency is included because the human being partakes fully in the new life which is manifesting itself already by virtue of the life-giving Spirit of Christ. This pneumatological nature is crucial. As Van den Brink and Van der Kooi state, “Participation is a pneumatological and not an ontological category.”30 This means that the presence of the Spirit of Christ does not lead to ontological fusion of God and his creature; the relative independence of creation is respected. It also means that the Spirit is the one who makes us participate in Christ. This makes the Christian life including the receiving and cultivating of the Christian virtues dynamical. For the Spirit is not present in a static way, as if he were equally present in all things. Rather is the Spirit to be seen as God who comes to his creation and to his people. This implies that he can also leave or depart. The Spirit moves and is part of the dynamical relation between God and the human being. Sometimes he is very near and intensely present, at other times he leaves.31

28  J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ (Oxford: Oxford University, 2007), 107. 29  Kees van der Kooi, As in a Mirror: John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God, transl. Donald Mader (Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005), 449. 30  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 684. 31  Kees van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest: Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest [Presence of the Spirit: Explorations in the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit] (Kampen: Kok, 2006), 39.

302 6

Vos

How the Spirit Works: Setting Free and Bringing to Purpose

Now the question is how to understand the Spirit’s work in the cultivation of Christian virtues more precisely. Van der Kooi’s exploration of the various ways in which the Spirit works is helpful. In Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, he emphasizes two elements in particular: The Spirit sets us free (vrijzetten) and brings us to our purpose (tot eigenheid brengen). In creation, where the spirit already works, ‘setting free’ means that human beings become subjects, persons who can respond to God.32 A kind of independency and singularity is implied in this ‘setting free’ and makes human beings free to achieve their purpose. Again human agency is not abandoned but affirmed. Furthermore, as Spirit of Christ the Spirit makes what is given in Christ free for us human beings, in such a way that it has effect in our lives and brings us to our purpose and destination.33 I propose to add another aspect of this ‘setting free,’ which has profound implications for a Christian virtue ethics. It stems from the verdict on human agency in justification in the theology of the Reformation. At this point, Luther and Calvin indeed criticize classical virtue ethics in a similar way to Augustine. Their criticism is directed towards human self-sufficient virtuousness as worthless coram Deo. We do not become righteous through habituation of our natural dispositions. True virtues are not an intrinsic part of human beings and do not exist as habitus of human nature, but are divine gifts. Why is this insistence on the divine initiative and on true virtues as divine gifts so important? I think that it is not only because as sinful beings we are fundamentally in need of a merciful God and dependent on justification extra nos, but also because of an ‘ethical’ need: it is the only way to become open to the other. The human being needs to be freed from natural self-centredness and self-serving love. The self needs to be opened up as closed in itself (incurvatus in se). It is in the concrete encounter with God who reveals himself as self-giving love in Christ that we become partakers of his unselfish love, bringing this love into existence in our lives. In a double movement, the believer is not only freed from the need to achieve virtue that will merit salvation, but also freed to “‘put on’ his neighbor and so to conduct himself toward him as if he himself were in the other’s place,” as Luther states.34 As a consequence, good deeds and the virtues from which they stem are no longer self-directed but unselfish and other-centered. Therefore, Luther even calls love “the highest

32  Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 33. 33  Van der Kooi, Tegenwoordigheid van Geest, 39f. 34   LW 31, 371

Setting Free and Bringing to Purpose

303

virtue (summa virtus).”35 Love means to become radically open to the other human being, including the enemy. This other-directedness changes the nature of the virtues from first person virtues (perfection of the natural in the self) into second person or interpersonal virtues (unselfishly directed to the other). In relation to the virtues the work of the Spirit as setting the human being free and bringing to purpose consists precisely in this dispossession and opening up to the other. This is why the fruit of the Spirit corresponds to a crucifixion of the flesh with its passions and desires36 and its excesses37 on the one hand, and consists in particular in other-directed virtues as love, peace, goodness and gentleness on the other. Living in the Spirit means walking in the Spirit and this means to serve the other. Therefore, the text ends in the ethical exhortation not to become conceited, provoking one another or envying one another.38 The work of the Spirit is that we are transformed from inside out into the image of Christ, in order to become really free to God and the other. This does not exclude self-fulfillment. Rather one is freed from securing one’s own existential ground and freed to receive the good life as a true gift, which makes it possible to share it as a common good and to give to others, as the true destination of human life.39 7

The Spirit and Habituation: Condition and Action

By way of conclusion, now we can say more about how the transformative work of the Spirit relates to habituation and cultivation of the virtues. Although the virtues are fruit of the Spirit, who gives what we do not possess naturally, this does not mean that no habituation is needed. In the New Testament the believers are called to let their life be transformed actively by the new orientation on Christ. This includes a particular striving, a training in those virtues that express a life lived in growing conformity to Christ. On the other hand, this does not lead to an increasing moral perfection in such a way that the grace of Christ is needed less and less. Rather, it consists in continuously returning to Christ as graceful source of forgiveness and renewal. Time and again, it will appear that wrong dispositions as envy, indifference, sloth and so on will still

35   LW 27, 58. 36  Gal.5:24. 37  Gal.5:19–21. 38  Gal.5:26. 39  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 688.

304

Vos

be present. Therefore, continuous renewal from outside, by the work of the Spirit, is needed.40 One way to understand the relation between divine agency in the Spirit and human agency in the cultivation of the virtues is in terms of condition and action respectively. This is exemplarily expressed in the biblical exhortation “be fervent in spirit,”41 which most likely refers to the Holy Spirit. Although we cannot guarantee the flame of the Spirit’s presence and although we can only seek the Spirit and ask him to intervene (receptivity), this does not mean that there is nothing to do (activity). In one and the same verse, it is stated that our action is “to serve the Lord.” This suggests that we can develop the virtues of love, hope, joy, patience, hospitality, peace42 by our engagement in intentional, regular acts of service. Paul calls us to practice all kinds of acts that belong to these virtues and to cultivate them, like abhorring evil, distributing to the needs of others, blessing one’s persecutors, not repaying evil by evil, feeding who is hungry, even the enemy, and many other things. As David Horner and David Turner say: “In service we use our abilities and resources to become the hands and feet of Christ to promote the good of others.” At the same time, “It is the fervency of the Spirit, as the prior condition, that gives these practical acts of service their meaning and energy.”43 Finally, aligning human activity to the Spirit as condition makes it possible to counter the risk that the theological virtues may deteriorate into either passivity or fanaticism. Rather than seeing the theological virtues as in need of the cardinal virtues, as Van Tongeren proposes, from the argument in this article it follows that a pneumatological approach, too, can have the virtue of preventing them from deteriorating. A pneumatological dimension in virtue ethics may have a similar function as the Aristotelian mean. As Horner and Turner phrase it: “The pairing of condition and action addresses the vices of fanaticism and sloth.”44 If the cultivation of the Christian virtues is continually related to the transcendent presence of the Spirit, this means that in the end we cannot organize and realize these virtues by our own effort, although they cannot exist without our effort either. Fervent in the Spirit, we will not lag in diligence but continue in serving the Lord, the other and the world. At the same time, it is the Spirit who brings us to our purpose. 40  Cf. Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 690. 41  Rom.12:11. 42  Rom.12:9–10.12–13.18. 43  David A. Horner and David R. Turner, “Zeal,” in Austin and Geivett, Being Good, 72–103, 101. 44  Horner and Turner, “Zeal,” 102.

Setting Free and Bringing to Purpose

305

Bibliography Austin, Michael W. and R. Douglas Geivett (eds). Being Good: Christian Virtues for Everyday Life. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. Beek, Abraham van de. Lichaam en Geest van Christus: De theologie van de kerk en de Heilige Geest. [Body and Spirit of Christ: The theology of the church and the Holy Spirit] Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2012. Billings, J. Todd. Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ. Oxford: Oxford University, 2007. Brillenburg Wurth, G. Eerherstel van de deugd. [Rehabilitation of Virtue] Kampen: Kok, 1958. Hauerwas, Stanley. A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1981. Hauerwas, Stanley. The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1983. Henry, Carl F.H. Christian Personal Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [1957]. Herdt, Jennifer A. Putting On Virtue: The Legacy of the Splendid Vices. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2008. Horner, David A. and David R. Turner. “Zeal.” In Being Good: Christian Virtues for Everyday Life. Eds. Michael W. Austin and R. Douglas Geivett. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012, 72–103. Kooi, Cornelis van der. As in a Mirror: John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God. Transl. Donald Mader. Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2005. Kooi, Cornelis van der. Tegenwoordigheid van Geest: Verkenningen op het gebied van de leer van de Heilige Geest. [Presence of the Spirit: Explorations in the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit] Kampen: Kok, 2006. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017). MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1981 (19842). Mannermaa, Tuomo. Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification. Ed. Kirsi Stjerna. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Moltmann, Jürgen. Der Geist des Lebens: Eine ganzheitliche Pneumatologie. Werke 7. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2016 (1991). Quartel, Jochem and Jan Hoogland. Levenskunst voor iedereen. [Art of Life for Everyone] Utrecht: Kok, 2014. Ramsey, Paul. Basic Christian Ethics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993 (1950). Roberts, Robert C. Spiritual Emotions: A Psychology of Christian Virtues. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

306

Vos

Tongeren, Paul van. Leven is een kunst: Over morele ervaring, deugdethiek en levenskunst. [Life Is an Art: On Moral Experience, Virtue Ethics and the Art of Living] Zoetermeer: Klement, Pelckmans, 2012. Vos, Pieter. “Neither Hypocrisy Nor Replication: A Protestant Account of Imitating Christ as Moral Exemplar.” International Journal of Systematic Theology 19.3 (2017), 271–286.

part 5 One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church: The Spirit and the Christian Community

⸪

chapter 20

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus and the Church Carl J. Bosma 1 Introduction In the concluding paragraph of his response to Robert P. Menzies’s article, “Luke’s Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Pentecostal Perspective,”1 Cornelis van der Kooi points out the central role of prayer in the life of Jesus and the early church in Luke-Acts in connection with the church’s continuous openness to the blessings of the Holy Spirit.2 Since Van der Kooi only mentioned this vitally important connection in passing, this article will demonstrate the crucial relationship between prayer and the Holy Spirit3 in the life and ministry of Jesus and the church as narrated in Luke 3:21–22 and Acts 4:23–37. It will focus primarily on Luke 3:21–22, Luke’s narrative account of Jesus’ baptism, because it serves as the programmatic introduction to Luke’s key themes of Jesus at prayer, the empowerment with the Holy Spirit, God’s attestation of Jesus’ Sonship, and Jesus’ jubilary mission, each of which play an important role in the subsequent context (3:21–4:44) and throughout Luke’s two-volume work. We will first examine the unique compositional position of this important pericope in the Gospel of Luke and then analyze its syntactical structure in comparison with the parallel accounts in Mark 1:9–11 and Matthew 3:13–17. Next, we will analyze its primary themes and then investigate their relationship to Luke 4:18–19, Acts 4:23–37 and Luke 11:13.

1  Robert P. Menzies, “Luke’s Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Pentecostal Perspective,” PentecoStudies 6 (2007), 108–126. 2  Cornelis van der Kooi, “The Wonders of God: A Reformed Perspective on Luke’s Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” PentecoStudies 7 (2008), 34–45 (45). He refers to Act.1:14; 2:42; 6:4; 12:12. 3  In Luke-Acts, the Holy Spirit is a prominent theme. Cf. Lk.1:15.35.41.67; 2:25.26.27; 3:16.22; 4:1.14.18; 10:21; 11:13; 12:10.12; Act.1:2.5.8.16; 2:4.17.18.33.38; 4:8.25.31; 5:3.9.16.32; 6:3.5.10; 7:51.55; 8:15.17.19.29.39; 9:17.31; 10:19.38.44.45.47; 11:12.15.16.24.28; 13:2.4.9.52; 15:8.28; 16:6.7; 19:2.6.21; 20:22.23.28; 21:4.11; 28:25.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_022

310 2

Bosma

Luke 3:21–22

2.1 Compositional Position A synoptic comparison with Mark 1:9–11 and Matthew 3:13–17 reveals that Luke has placed his version of Jesus’ baptism in 3:21–22 in a completely different position. First, Luke shortened the lengthier account of the imprisonment of John the Baptist from Mark 6:17–29 and Matthew 14:3–12 and then transposed it to 3:19–20, in front of his version of Jesus’ baptism. This editorial move allowed Luke to conclude his narrative of the ministry of John the Baptist in 3:1–18 and begin his account of Jesus’ ministry (3:23a).4 Next, Luke inserted his version of Jesus’ genealogy 3:23b–38 (cf. Mt.1:1–17) between his account of Jesus’ baptism and Jesus’ forty-day temptation by the Devil (4:1–13). As we will demonstrate below, these two masterful modification allow Luke to develop the very important Sonship theme in 3:21–4:44 that unifies this unit. 2.2 Syntactical Diagram A synoptic comparison with Mark 1:9–11 and Matthew 3:13–18 reveals that the Lucan account of Jesus’ baptism in 3:21–22 is a drastic reworking of Mark 1:9–11. First, it is much shorter. Next, Luke has transformed Mark 1:9–11 into one single, long complex sentence, the cumbersome syntactical structure of which may be diagrammed as follows: ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος καὶ προσευχομένου ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν Ἐγένετο δὲ  καὶ καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν ἐπ’ αὐτόν, καὶ φωνὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ᶩ ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.

4  Cf. Lk.16:16. Luke’s panel writing in the introductory chapters shows that Luke wanted to finish his account of John’s ministry and then begin his account of Jesus’ ministry (cf. Lk.16:16). Cf. H. Mulder, De Eerste Hoofdstukken van het Evangelie naar Lukas in hun structurele samenhang (Delft: W.D. Meinema, 1948), 142–143. Because of Luke’s premature removal of John from the scene, John plays no major role in Luke’s account of Jesus’ baptism. Instead, the emphasis is on God’s action, who is the implied subject of the passive and deponent verbs.

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus

311

2.3 Syntactical Analysis A syntactical analysis of the above sentence diagram shows, first, that the main clause ἐγένετο δὲ (“and it happened”) is followed by three coordinated impersonal infinitive clauses. Luke’s narrative account centers on the three coordinated aorist infinitives,5 all of which are passive or deponent and imply three divine activities that reach their climax in the celestial attestation of Jesus’ Sonship. Moreover, the introductory temporal clauses provide the backdrop for these three divine activities. The articular aorist infinitive temporal clause ἐν τῷ βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν (“after all the people were baptized”) refers to the baptismal ministry of John the Baptist (even though John is not mentioned). The genitive absolute subordinate temporal clauses καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος καὶ προσευχομένου (“Jesus was baptized too and he was praying”) employ a significant switch in verbal tense. The participle βαπτισθέντος is an aorist that refers to a simple action, while the participle προσευχομένου is a present denoting continuing action. Only Luke reports Jesus praying6 and because of the important switch in verbal tenses, the short statement about Jesus’ baptism has a subordinate role and is referred to rather incidentally. In fact, as the result of Luke’s omission of Jesus’ coming out of the water (Mt. 3:16; par. Mk. 1:10), the divine activities reported in the three parallel infinitival clauses have their primary setting in Jesus’ continuous praying activity instead of his baptism. They did not take place during the baptism but after the baptism and during Jesus’ praying. Consequently, in the Lucan account the opening of heaven, the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the divine attestation of Jesus’ Sonship are God’s response to Jesus’ praying. We will examine these important themes in more detail below.

5  Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 185. Cf. I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 150, 152; Constantino A. Ziccardi, The Relationship of Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologia 65; Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, 2008), 281; Geir Otto Holmås, Prayer and Vindication in Luke-Acts: The Theme of Prayer within the Context of Legitimizing and Edifying Objective of the Lukan Narrative (Library of New Testament Studies 433; London, New York; T&T Clark International, 2011), 85. 6  Alfred Plummer, The Gospel according to St. Luke (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1901), 99. G.W.H. Lampe, “The Holy Spirit in the Writings of St. Luke,” in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, ed. D.E. Nineham (Oxford, Basil: Blackwell, 1967), 159–200 (169).

312

Bosma

2.4 Exegetical Observations on Luke’s Important Themes 2.4.1 Jesus at Prayer (Lk.3:21d) The first theme is Jesus at prayer. Prayer is an important and prominent theme in Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ life and ministry.7 Luke presents this significant theme in two ways: by the example of Jesus at prayer and by Jesus’ direct instruction on prayer. Mark 1:35 mentions Jesus at prayer when he retires from healing the multitudes in Capernaum. Surprisingly, Luke 4:42 mentions his retirement from Capernaum but omits the reference to Jesus at prayer.8 Matthew 14:23 and Mark 6:46 report Jesus ascending a mountain to pray after the feeding of the five thousand. Curiously, Luke 9:17 omits this reference to Jesus at prayer.9 However, Luke is the only gospel writer who mentions Jesus at prayer on nine other occasions.10 Moreover, only Luke reports that Jesus interceded for Peter (22:32) and only Luke reports that upon his arrival at Gethsemane Jesus instructs his disciple to pray so that they will not enter into temptation (22:40).11 Again, only Luke records the parable of the Friend at Midnight (11:5–8)12 and the Unrighteous Judge (18:1–8), both of which enjoin persistence in prayer. Additionally, only Luke narrates the parable of the Pharisee and Publican at prayer in the temple (18:9–14) to illustrate the difference between 7  The verb προσεύχομαι, ‘to pray,’ occurs 85 times in the N.T., 35 of which occur in Luke-Acts. The cognate noun προσευχή, ‘prayer’ occurs 36 times in the N.T., 12 of which occur in Luke-Acts: Lk.6:12 (with verb προσεύχομαι); 19:46; 22:45; Act.1:14; 2:42; 3:1; 6:4; 10:4, 31; 12:5; 16:13.16. To this may be added the verb δέομαι, ‘to plead,’ which occurs 15 times in LukeActs (Lk.5:12; 8:28.38; 9:38.40; 10:2; 21:36; 22:32; Act.4:31; 8:22.24[.34]; 10:2; [21:39]; [26:3]), and the cognate noun δέησις, ‘plea,’ which occurs 3 times in Luke (Lk.1:13; 2:37; 5:33). The verb αἰτέω, ‘ask for,’ occurs 5 times in 11:9–13. For a full analysis of the terminology see: Holmås, Prayer and Vindication, 23–26. For the theme see also Wilhelm Ott, Gebet und Heil: Die Bedeutung der Gebetsparänese in der lukanische Theologie (SANT 12; München: Kösel, 1965); P.T. O’Brien, “Prayer in Luke-Acts,” Tyndale Bulletin 24 (1973), 111–127; Stephen S. Smalley, “Spirit, Kingdom and Prayer,” Novum Testamentum 15 (1973), 59–71; A.A. Trites, “The Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts,” in Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 168–186; Stephen F. Plymale, Prayer Texts in Luke-Acts (AUS 17: TR 118; New York: Peter Lang, 1991); David Crump, Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke-Acts (WUNT 2:49; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992), 143–144. 8  Luke transferred it to 5:16. 9  Because of the Great Omission, Luke transferred the reference to Jesus at prayer to 9:18, before Peter’s confession and the first prediction of the passion. 10  Lk.3:21; 5:16; 6:12; 9:18; 9:28–29; 11:1; 22:41–42; 23:34 and 23.46. Luke only reports the content of Jesus’ prayers in 22:42, 23:34, and 23:46. 11  In Lk.22:40–46, the verb προσεύχομαι occurs 4 times and the noun προσευχή once. These repetitions clearly emphasize prayer in this important episode. 12  After the parable of the Friend at Midnight, Luke adds the rhythmic saying “Ask and it shall be given to you” (11:9–10) and another parable (11:11–13) to encourage the disciples to pray. Both of these sections are also found in Mt.7:7–11.

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus

313

real and unreal prayer. Finally, to the charge “watch” in the Apocalyptic Discourse (Mt. 25:13; Mk. 13:33) Luke adds “at all times, praying that you may prevail …” (21:36).13 Significantly, Luke’s references to Jesus at prayer in Luke 3–24 usually occur at crucial junctures in the narrative and normally precede an important new development or crisis.14 Luke 3:21 is such a crucial juncture. 2.4.2 The Opening of Heaven (Lk.3:21e) The first event in answer to Jesus’ prayer is the opening of heaven (ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν).15 While Mark (1:10) employs the relatively rare but dramatic verb σχίζω, ‘to split,’16 Matthew and Luke use the more common verb ἀνοίγω, ‘to open.’17 In the Septuagint, this verb is commonly used in connection with the opening of heaven.18 Of particular interest is the wish in Isaiah 63:19 LXX (64:1 Engl.), an impassionate petition for a divine intervention (63:19b–4a MT) in Israel’s lament for restoration (Isa.63:7–64:12[11]19). Isaiah 63:19 LXX ἐὰν ἀνοίξῃς τὸν οὐρανόν, τρόμος λήμψεται ἀπὸ σοῦ ὄρη, καὶ τακήσονται …

Brenton LXX English If thou wouldest open the heaven, trembling will take hold of the mountains from thee, and they shall melt …

The thematic sequence in Luke 3:21–22 suggests that the dramatic opening of heaven in Luke 3:21 (par. Mk.1:10; Mt.3:16) represents God’s long awaited answer to Israel’s urgent plea. 2.4.3 The Descent of the Holy Spirit (Lk.3:22a) The second event in response to Jesus’ prayer is the descent (καταβῆναι) of the Holy Spirit in bodily form as a dove on Jesus.20 Like the opening of heaven, the 13  Plummer, Luke, xlvi. 14  A detailed treatment of each text is beyond the scope of this paper. Cf. Holmås, Prayer and Vindication, 77–114. 15  Luke omits the verb εἶδεν, “he saw,” from Mk.1:10. Consequently, Luke has not reported the event as a vision. 16  Cf. Mk.15:38 (par. Mt.27:51); Lk.23:45 (tearing of the temple veil). 17  In Act.7:56, Luke uses the perfect passive participle of the verb διανοίγω in Stephen’s statement that he saw heaven opened. 18  Cf. Gen.7:11; Dt.28:12; Ps.77:23; Isa.24:18; 63:19; Ezek.1:1; 3 Macc.6:18. Cf. Joh.1:51; Act.7:57; 10:11; Rev.4:1; 10:1; 19:11; Test Levi 2:5f.; 18:6–7; Test Jud 24:2; Apoc Bar 22:7; Apocryphon of John 47:30. 19  Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40–66 (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 392; W.A.M. Beuken, Jesaja deel IIIB (POT; Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1989), 10. 20  For Luke’s reworking of Mk.1:10 see: Ziccardi, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 282.

314

Bosma

descent of the Spirit may also have Isaiah 63 as its background because in the Old Testament the descent of the Holy Spirit is only reported in Isaiah 63:14 LXX: κατέβη πνεῦμα παρὰ κυρίου καὶ ὡδήγησεν αὐτούς (“the Spirit descended from the Lord and guided them”).21 Together with the striking opening of heaven, Luke’s addition of Jesus praying after his baptism implies that the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus is also God’s response to Jesus’ prayer.22 The descent of the Holy Spirit here is complementary to its overshadowing of Mary (1:35) and marks the climax of the outburst of the Holy Spirit in Luke 1:1–3:22. In Luke-Acts, the connection between prayer and the reception of the Holy Spirit is a vitally important theme.23 In fact, according to G.W.H. Lampe, “one of the characteristic features of St. Luke’s teaching [is] his insistence upon prayer as the means by which the dynamic energy of the Spirit is apprehended.”24 A clear example is Luke 11:13, in which Jesus assures the disciples that the Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask. This promise anticipates the connections between prayer and the empowerment of the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:1425 and 2:4 and Acts 4:23–30, 31, which we will discuss later. Additionally, in Acts 8:14–17, Peter and John prayed for the converted Samaritans, laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.26 Similarly, in Acts 9:11, Paul is praying and later in verse 17 Ananias laid his hands on Paul so that he might be filled with the Holy Spirit.27 Finally, in Acts 10:2, the centurion Cornelius is introduced as a man of prayer and in verse 44, while Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fells upon those who were listening to the word. Clearly, therefore, in Luke-Acts prayer is an important link for the reception of the Holy Spirit. 21  Stein, Luke, 161. 22  Cf. Lk.1:15 (John), 35 (Mary), 41 (Elizabeth), 67 (Zechariah); 2:25, 26 (Simeon), 3:22 (Jesus). 23  Charles H. Talbert, Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 41. 24  Lampe, “The Holy Spirit,” 169. 25  In his apologetic against Pentecostalism’s attempt to establish prayer as a pre-condition for the reception of the Holy Spirit, Frederick D. Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 162, points out that in Act.1:14 Luke does not indicate the object of the community’s prayer. In fact, in his opinion, the reference to the community’s prayer in 1:14 “is placed in a phrase enough verses removed from the actual Pentecost event to keep it from appearing to be the cause of Pentecost.” Moreover, on p. 163, he suggests that in Act.2:1–2 Luke “missed an opportunity” to make a specific connection between prayer and the Holy Spirit. 26  In Act.19:6, Paul’s imposition of hands on the converted disciples of John the Baptist also resulted in the reception of the Holy Spirit. 27  In his defense before the crowd in Act.22, Paul recalls this turning point in his life in verse 16, “And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.” Curiously, he only refers to his baptism (9:18) but not the reception of the Holy Spirit.

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus

315

What is the purpose of Jesus’ reception of the Holy Spirit in 3:21? To answer this question, we must turn to 4:1, 14a, and 18–19. In 4:1a, in the introduction to the temptation in the wilderness, only Luke emphasizes that Jesus is πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου (“full of the Holy Spirit”28) when he returned from the Jordan.29 Luke’s unique addition indicates first that Jesus’ experience at the Jordan was the moment he “became full of the Spirit.” Moreover, it reveals that, as was the case with King David (1 Sam.16:13), Jesus’ special endowment with the Holy Spirit is permanent during his life and essential for his ministry. In the same verse (4:1b), like Matthew (4:1) and Mark (1:12), Luke reports that Jesus was led30 by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. This second reference to the Holy Spirit in 4:1 is Luke’s way of highlighting that the Spirit orchestrated the impending conflict between Jesus—“the son of Adam, the son of God” (3:38)31—and Satan in 4:2–13. In 4:14a, after Jesus resisted victoriously the temptations by Satan, only Luke reports that Jesus returned to Galilee “in the power of the Spirit”32 to begin his Galilean ministry.33 Finally, as we will explain in more detail later, in his programmatic sermon in the synagogue 28  According to Ju Hur, A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (JSNT.SS, 211; London: T&T Clark, 2001), 167, n. 162, the adjectival phrase “full of the Holy Spirit” occurs in Lk.4:1 and Act.7:55. According to M. Max B. Turner, “Spirit Endowment in Luke-Acts: Some Linguistic Considerations,” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981), 45–63 (54), the phrase “to be full of the Holy Spirit” describes “a quality manifest over a long period of time (weeks or more) rather than an immediate inspiration.” 29  According to Turner, in describing Jesus as “full of the Spirit” Luke “is (proleptically) summing up the whole ministry from the baptism of John onwards and characterizing it as one that manifested the power and presence of God’s Spirit (cf. 4:14.18; Act.10:38).” Cf. Turner, “Spirit Endowment,” 54. 30  The passive indicative verb ἤγετο is an imperfect, denoting continuous action. Like Matthew (4:1), Luke avoids the more violent Marcan verb ἐκβάλλει (1:12). Luke uses the verb ἄγω, ‘to lead,’ which Paul uses in Rom.8:14 and Gal.5:18. 31  In this context, C. van der Kooi and G. van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017, 2011) describe Jesus as a “makeover of the journey of the first Adam” (499). 32  In Luke-Acts, there is a close connection between the Holy Spirit and power (Lk.1:15– 17.35; 4:14; Act.1:8; 10:38). Therefore, when the noun δύναμις, ‘power,’ occurs in LukeActs, it may be a reference to the Holy Spirit’s empowering. Cf. Lk.1:17; 4:36; 5:17; 6:19; 8:46; 9:1; 24:49; Act.4:33; 6:8. In Act.10:38, Peter understands Jesus’ anointing with the Holy Spirit and power (hendiadys) to show itself in healings. The intimate association between the Holy Spirit and power in Lk.4:14 and Act.10:38 argues against E. Schweizer and Robert P. Menzies’ claim that δύναμις refers to miraculous deeds and Holy Spirit to inspired speech. Cf. E. Schweizer, TDNT 6:407; Robert P. Menzies, The Development Early Christian Pneumatology: with Special Reference to Luke-Acts (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 169; Idem, “Spirit and Power in Luke-Acts: A Response to Max Turner,” JSNT 49 (1993), 11–20; Idem, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (London, New York: T&T Clark International, 1994), 112–116. 33  In Lk.4:14, Luke omits the reference to John’s imprisonment in Mk.1:14a and Mt.4:12 because John has been effectively removed from the plot in Lk.3:20.

316

Bosma

of his hometown Nazareth, Jesus applies the composite quotation of Isaiah 61:1, 58:6, 61:2a in 4:18–19 to himself and his ministry in his one short sentence, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (vs. 21).34 The concentration of references to the Holy Spirit in 3:21–4:18 demonstrates clearly that for Luke Jesus’ reception of the Holy Spirit is a quintessential permanent endowment for his ministry. From the moment of his reception of the Holy Spirit Jesus (3:22) continues to act in the power of the Holy Spirit.35 2.4.4 The Celestial Voice (Lk.3:22b) After the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus, there happened a celestial voice (καὶ φωνὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι; “and a voice came from heaven”). In the Old Testament, the voice (φωνή, ‫ )קֹול‬represented a direct communication of God with his people. Israel’s audition of God’s voice at Mt. Sinai in Exodus 19 (cf. Dt.4:33.36) is a significant example. In the Gospels, the divine voice occurs on three significant occasions in the ministry of Jesus, at Jesus’ baptism, at Jesus’ Transfiguration (cf. 2 Pt.1:17), and in John 12:28–30 after Jesus predicted his crucifixion. The fact that in the synoptic Gospels the content of the celestial voice is repeated in similar language underscores its importance. According to rabbinic tradition, the Holy Spirit left Israel after the last prophets (Haggai; Zechariah; Malachi) and, consequently, God only spoke to his people Israel through the ‘echo’ of his voice.36 Against the background of this rabbinic idea, the sudden occurrence of the celestial ‘voice’ in answer to Jesus’ post-baptismal praying and reception of the Holy Spirit marks a sudden and significant restoration of God’s revelation that marks the beginning of a new era in God’s dealing with his people. 2.4.5 The Divine Attestation of Jesus’ Sonship The celestial declaration represents the climax of 3:21–22 and explains the meaning and purpose of Jesus’ reception of the Holy Spirit. Luke adopts the Marcan form of the celestial attestation. Like Mark 1:11, Luke also uses the emphatic second person singular pronoun σύ in Luke 3:22a. As a result, the celestial voice was a private address to Jesus37 and not a public announcement as in Matthew 3:17.

34  In Lk.10:21 Jesus rejoices in the Holy Spirit in response to the successful mission of the seventy-two. 35  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 395. 36  Otto Betz, TDNT 9:288–90. 37  Some read it as a public event. Cf. Ziccardi, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 283.

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus

Greek Text Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ᶩ ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.

317

Translation You are my son, the beloved ᶩ in whom I am well pleased.

The celestial endorsement in Luke 3:22 consist of three parts: Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου, ὁ ἀγαπητός, and ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα. Together they constitute a composite of Old Testament allusions. The exact identification of these Old Testament allusions is the subject of much scholarly debate.38 However, the identification of these Old Testament allusions is vitally important “because the nature of the allusions determines the Christological point made about Jesus.”39 We agree with a majority of commentators that the first part of the celestial declaration, “You are my son,”40 is a quotation of the royal enthronement formula of Psalm 2:7c LXX (Υἱός μου εἶ σύ).41 A comparison with Psalm 2:7c LXX shows that Luke has changed the word order of his quotation to emphasize “the fact that it is Jesus who is God’s Son.”42 To understand the meaning of the term ‘son’ in the celestial endorsement, it is important to recognize that, as is evident from Hebrews 1:5,43 the royal enthronement formula of Psalm 2:7c LXX has its roots in God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:14 that he would be a father to David’s descendants. The connection with 2 Samuel 7:14 suggests that the term ‘son’ in Luke 3:22 must be understood in terms of the royal father-son metaphor that was used in the ancient Near East to describe the relationship between a suzerain and his subject kings. Read together with the concomitant descent of the Holy Spirit, the celestial affirmation Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου in 3:22 is a coronation decree in fulfillment of the angel Gabriel’s promise to Mary (Lk.1:32). In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus’ divine Sonship is extremely important, especially in 3:21–4:44 whose primary concern is to identify Jesus as the Son of God. 38  Darrell L. Bock, Luke Volume 1: 1:1–9:50 (ECNT; Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1994), 341–242. On these pages, Bock lists six positions. 39  Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 341. 40  In connection with the omission of the words “this day I have begotten you” from the quotation of Ps. 2:7, Marshall (Luke, 151) points out that in Lk.3:21 the descent of the Spirit “is not understood as a divine ‘begetting’ of Jesus (Ps.2:7) but rather as equipping him for his task.” The ‘begetting’ of Jesus through the Spirit was already reported in Lk.1:35. 41  Four arguments support our opinion. First, in view of David’s reception of the Spirit of the Lord in 1 Sam.16:13, the quotation of the royal enthronement formula of Ps.2:7c LXX fits well with Jesus’ empowerment with the Holy Spirit. Second, a third person form of these words are quoted again at the Transfiguration (Lk.9:35). Third, Ps.2:1–2 is quoted in the church’s prayer in Act.4:25–26. Fourth, Paul quotes Ps.2:7 in full in Act.13:33. 42  Marshall, Luke, 155. 43  Heb.1:5 links Ps.2:7 and 2 Sam.7:14. Cf. Heb.5:5.

318

Bosma

Already in the angelic annunciation of Jesus’ birth to Mary Jesus is referred to as the “Son of the Most High” (1:31) who would inherit David’s throne (1:35). Moreover, the episodes of 3:21–4:44 are unified by the common theme of Jesus as the Son of God. First, after the emphatic main declaration by the celestial voice, “You are my son” (3:22), there follows immediately a note on Jesus’ age at the beginning of his public ministry (vs. 23a) and a lengthy genealogy (Lk.3:23b-38) that traces his true ancestry through “the (son) of God” (3:38).44 Furthermore, in the wilderness temptation (4:1–13), two of Satan’s temptations make specific reference to Jesus as the Son of God (Lk.4:3, 9), “… if you really are the Son of God.” These logical conditions assume that the statement in the protasis is true. Additionally, during his ministry in Capernaum, demons recognized that Jesus is “the Holy One of God” (4:34) and “the Son of God” (4:4145) because, according to Luke’s editorial comment in 4:41, “they knew that he was the Christ.”46 After this concentration of references to Son of God in these three episodes, the title Son of God occurs only sparingly. First, the voice at Jesus Transfiguration announces Jesus’ divine Sonship to the disciples (9:35). Finally, in his report of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, only Luke records the council’s question, “Are you then the Son of God?” (22:70) in response to Jesus’ modified allusion to Daniel 7:13. Jesus answers their question affirmatively but in a peculiar way, Ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι (“You say that I am”). The celestial affirmation “You are my son” is modified by the appositional phrase ὁ ἀγαπητός, “my beloved.” Commentators disagree about the origin of this appositional phrase because it is not found in Isaiah 42:1 LXX.47 However, it is found in Genesis 22:2, 12, 16, where Isaac is called “your beloved son” (τὸν υἱόν σου τὸν ἀγαπητόν). Consequently, James R. Edwards, for example, considers Genesis 22:2, 12 and 16 to be “a clear prototype of the heavenly declaration to Jesus.48 However, except for the adjective ἀγαπητός, there is, according 44  The genealogy in the Gospel of Matthew begins with Abraham (Mt.1:1). In contrast to Matthew’s genealogy, the Lucan genealogy goes beyond Abraham to Adam, which relates Jesus to all humanity, a common Lucan theme. 45  Omitted in Mk.1:34. 46  Cf. Lk.8:28 and 1:31. 47  E. Schweizer, TDNT 8:386, notes that the Targum on Ps 2:7 offers ‫ = חביב‬ἀγαπητός (“beloved”). 48  James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 118. Cf. Lampe, “The Holy Spirit,” 179. Lampe notes that only Luke uses the phrase τὸν ἀγαπητόν with the noun τὸν υἱόν μου in the Parable of Wicked Husbandmen (Lk.20:13). For Lampe, the phrase τὸν ἀγαπητόν “is probably intended to link Jesus with the ‘only’ son of Abraham, the sacrificial victim, Isaac.”

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus

319

to Darrell L. Bock, no clear Isaac typology in Luke49 and, according to Peter Mallen, “beyond the adjective ὁ ἀγαπητός (…) there is little to connect the two narratives.”50 Since Luke was quite aware of the election terminology from Isaiah 42:1d LXX,51 we suggest that he used the appositional phrase ὁ ἀγαπητός to emphasize the unique filial relationship between “Jesus as the only Son and God as his Father.”52 The concluding relative clause ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα (“in whom I have been pleased”) in the celestial pronouncement echoes some version of Isaiah 42:1.53 The words of this clause do not reflect Isaiah 42:1 LXX (προσεδέξατο αὐτὸν ἡ ψυχή μου; “my soul has accepted him”). In fact, it is closer to the Greek version of Isaiah 42:1d quoted in Matthew 12:18 (εἰς ὃν εὐδόκησεν ἡ ψυχή μου), which is closer to the Hebrew text (‫) ָר ְצ ָ ֣תה נַ ְפ ִ ֑שי‬. Even so, a majority of scholars argue for an allusion to Isaiah 42:1d here.54 A supporting argument is the reference to Yahweh’s endowment of his servant with his Spirit in Isaiah 42:1e,55 which fits nicely with Luke 3:22. In our opinion, therefore, the concluding relative clause ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα56 of the divine voice indicates that God’s gracious pleasure is the basis for the unique filial relationship between Jesus and God. 2.4.6 Synthesis Based on the above reading of the words of the celestial voice, we infer from the verbatim quotation of Psalm 2:7c and the paraphrase of Isaiah 42:1 that 49  Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 342. 50  Peter Mallen, The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts (Library of New Testament Studies 367; London/New York: T&T Clark International, 2008), 129, n. 107. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I–IX (Anchor Bible Commentary, 28; New Haven, London: Yale University Press, 1970), 486, and Robert H. Stein, Luke (New American Commentary, 24; Nashville: Broadman Press, 2003), 163 also consider it highly unlikely. 51  Whereas Matthew (17:5) and Mark (9:7) retain the appositional phrase ὁ ἀγαπητός in the celestial voice at the transfiguration, Luke 9:35 employs the substantive participle ὁ ἐκλελεγμένος (LXX Isa.42:1, ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου). Luke uses the adjective ἐκλεκτός, ‘chosen,’ in the saying of Jesus’ detractors in Luke 23:35 (Ἄλλους ἔσωσεν, σωσάτω ἑαυτόν, εἰ οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἐκλεκτός). Significantly, the SBL Greek N.T. edition now reads οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς τοῦ θεοῦ in Joh.1:34, which echoes Isa. 42:1 LXX (ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου). 52  Marshall, Luke, 156. 53  Curiously, Luke and Mark omit this relative clause in the Transfiguration account; Matthew retains it. 54  Marshall, Luke, 156. Cf. Fitzmyer, Luke I–IX, 486; Green, Luke, 187. 55  Marshall, Luke, 156. Marshall also notes that Judaism interpreted Isa.42 in connection with Ps.2:7. 56  The meaning of the aorist verb εὐδόκησα is debated. Cf. Marshall, Luke, 156.

320

Bosma

the celestial voice in Luke 3:22 validates Jesus as the Davidic regal Messiah anticipated in Luke 1:32–33, and 69. Moreover, it endorses Jesus as the royal SonServant (Isa.42:1)57 and calls him to his ministry (cf. Lk.3:23a). Furthermore, the Spirit empowers Jesus as the Davidic regal Messiah of Psalm 2:7c (cf. Isa.11:1) and the royal Son-Servant (Isa.42:1) for his mission. Despite the claims of many commentators, however, the celestial voice did not explicitly explain for which ministry Jesus was empowered with the Holy Spirit. It could be deduced from the allusion to Isaiah 42:1ef, in which the Servant received the Spirit to bring about justice. However, unlike Matthew (12:18–21), who quoted Isaiah 42:1–4 in connection with Jesus’ healing ministry (Mt.12:15), Luke did not follow Matthew’s example. Instead, to define the ministry for which Jesus was empowered by the Holy Spirit (3:22), Luke uses a mixed quotation from Isaiah 61:1–2a and Isaiah 58:6, a passage that parallels Isaiah 42:1–958 and probably interprets this text.59 To understand Jesus’ commission, therefore, we must also examine Jesus’ quotation of Isaiah 61:1–2 in Luke 4:18–19, a passage that marks the climax of the literary trail of Luke’s emphasis on the Holy Spirit (3:21; 4:1.14.18) in 3:21–4:44. 3

Luke 4:18–19

3.1 Quotation of Isaiah 61:1–2a According to Luke 4:16–21, a pericope which Luke has intentionally transposed as a frontispiece to Jesus’ ministry, Jesus read Isaiah 61:1–12 and 58:6 in 4:18–19 during the worship service in the synagogue of his home town Nazareth and applied to himself in verse 21, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” Since Jesus claimed in 4:21 that Isaiah 61:1–2a was fulfilled in his ministry, a careful analysis of this reading is necessary for understanding the precise nature of Jesus’ ministry. The following table shows that Luke’s quotation of Isaiah 61:1–2 LXX is based primarily on the Septuagint’s translation of the Hebrew text.

57  Mallen, Transformation of Isaiah, 209. In Act.3:13.26 and 4:27, Luke actually refers to Jesus as God’s servant. 58  E.J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, Volume III, Chapters XL-LXVI (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 452. 59  B.J. Koet, Five Studies on Interpretation of Scripture in Luke-Acts (Studiorum Novi Testamenti Auxilia XIV; Leuven: Peeters, 1989), 32.

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus Isaiah 61:1–2 LXX 1a Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ, b ᶩ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με, c εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, d ἀπέσταλκέν με,60 e ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ, f κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν g καὶ [..] τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν,61 2a καλέσαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτὸν b καὶ [..] ἡμέραν ἀνταποδόσεως…

321

Luke 4:18–19 18a Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ, b ᶩ οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέν με, c εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, d ἀπέσταλκέν με, e f κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν g καὶ [..] τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, h ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει, 19a κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν.

The table also shows that Luke has made several significant modifications. Luke has quoted Isaiah 61:1a-d LXX literally. However, NA28 and UBS omit clause e (ἰάσασθαι τοὺς συντετριμμένους τῇ καρδίᾳ; “to heal the broken hearted”) from Isaiah 61:1.62 Luke quotes clauses f-g from Isaiah 61:1 but after that he inserts a modified form of a command from Isaiah 58:6 LXX (ἀπόστελλε τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει).63 Because of this odd insertion, the noun ἄφεσις occurs twice in Luke 4:18. The insertion of Isaiah 58:6 was motivated perhaps by the fact that the clauses of Luke 4:18c-19a form a concentric structure with the healing of the blind at the center. A 18cd εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, ἀπέσταλκέν με, B f κηρύξαι αἰχμαλώτοις ἄφεσιν C g καὶ [..] τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν, B’ h ἀποστεῖλαι τεθραυσμένους ἐν ἀφέσει, A’ 19a κηρύξαι ἐνιαυτὸν κυρίου δεκτόν. Next, Luke changes the aorist infinitive καλέσαι, ‘to call,’ in Isaiah 61:2a to κηρύξαι, ‘to proclaim,’ in verse 19a. As a result, the verb κηρύσσω occurs twice in Luke 4:18–19 and enhances the parallel between verses 18cd and 19a in the concentric structure above and makes preaching a prominent aspect of Jesus’ ministry. Finally, in verse 19, Luke stops the quotation of Isaiah 61:2 mid-sentence and, as a result, omits the important reference to the day of vengeance (καὶ 60  Cf. Isa.48:16 (“And now the Sovereign Lord has sent me with his Spirit”). 61  Cf. Isa.35:5 LXX. 62  For the text critical issues, see Marshall, Luke, 182. The KJV includes this clause in the text. 63  Marshall, Luke, 182. Significantly, the adjective δεκτός (‘pleasing’) of Isa.61:2a occurs in 58:5 and the noun πτωχός (‘poor’) also occurs in 58:7.

322

Bosma

ἡμέραν ἀνταποδόσεως) from Isaiah 61:2b LXX.64 This significant omission was probably deliberate to underscore that now is the time of God’s grace (Isa.49:8; cf. 2 Cor.6:2). The day of vengeance is still outstanding. 3.2 Meaning of the Composite Quotation in Luke 4:16–20. By applying the reading of Isaiah 61:1–2a and 58:6 to himself, Jesus first claims that his pneumatic anointing at the Jordan in 3:22 is the fulfillment of Isaiah 61:1ab (cf. Act.10:38). The quotation of Isaiah 61:1ab is a retrospective explanation of his reception of the Holy Spirit in 3:22 as a divine anointment. Later Luke confirms this interpretation in Acts 4:27 (ὃν ἔχρισας; “whom you anointed”) and 10:38 (ὡς ἔχρισεν αὐτὸν ὁ θεὸς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ δυνάμει; “how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and power”). Next, Jesus asserts that God has sent him to evangelize the poor,65 to preach release to prisoners, recovery of sight to the blind, to send the oppressed in release, and to preach the year of the Lord’s favor.66 The double reference to ἄφεσις, “release,” in 4:18–19 suggests that Jesus’ task is to proclaim Jubilee (cf. Lev.25:10) in the year of the Lord’s favor (δεκτός)67 because in the Septuagint the term ἄφεσις is used in connection with Jubilee legislation.68 The significance of Jesus’ proclamation of Jubilee in these infinitive clauses is debated. Liberation theologians emphasize 4:18c to lend support to their socio-political interpretation of Jesus’ announcement of Jubilee. In connection 64  Marshall, Luke, 183. 65  The punctuation of the infinitive clause εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς (“to evangelize the poor”) is debated. The issue is whether εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς is subordinate to ἔχρισέν με (NA 27; UBS) or ἀπέσταλκέν με (NEB; JB). Following the MT and E. Nestle, “Zu Luc 4,18.19,” ZNW 2 (1901), 153–157, we read a period after the pronoun με in 4:18b. As a result, the infinitive clause in question stands in the emphatic position with ἀπέσταλκέν με in 4:18d. Jesus’ response to the crowd in 4:43 (see below) argues for this punctuation. 66  Green, Luke, 210, considers the first infinitive clause to be fundamental and the remaining three subordinate. In our opinion, the concentric pattern of the clauses appear to argue against this explanation. 67  Marshall, Luke, 184, interprets the “year of the Lord’s favor” to be Jubilee. However, Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Vol. 1: The Gospel of Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 67, observes that “this remains a possibility but has not been proved.” In support of Tannehill’s doubt, we would note that the term δεκτός (‘pleasing’) does not occur in Lev. 25 LXX. Of the 34 occurrences in the Septuagint, it occurs nine times in Leviticus with sacrifices. In Isa.49:8, quoted in 2 Cor.6:2, the term is paralleled by the noun ‘salvation.’ In his exposition of Isa.61:2, Beuken, Jesaja deel IIIA, appears to link this verse with Jubilee. 68   Lev.25:10.11.12.13.28 (2x).31.33.41.50.52.54. Cf. Lev.27:17.18.21.23.24; Num.36:4; Dt.15:1.2 (2x).3.9; 31:10; Jer.41:8.15.17. Significantly, in Luke-Acts, with the exception of 4:18, ἄφεσις is used with the forgiveness of sins. Cf. Lk.1:77; 3:3; 24:47; Act.2:38; 5:31; 13:38; and 26:18.

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus

323

with their interpretation, we would first observe that Luke employs the term πτωχός, ‘poor,’ ten times,69 while Matthew70 and Mark71 employ it only five times each. Clearly, the poor occupy an important place in Luke’s Gospel. Moreover, a survey of the ten occurrences of the term in Luke shows that the poor are clearly people in a lower socio-economic position. A clear example is first beatitude in 6:20, the opposite of which is the “woe” on the rich (6:24). Unlike Matthew 5:3, where we read “Happy are the poor in spirit,” Luke 6:20 reads “Happy are the poor.” This example, therefore, shows clearly that for Luke the term ‘poor’ does not refer to ‘spiritually poor.’ Nevertheless, although Luke portrays Jesus as preaching and teaching about the poor, he does not depict Jesus as a socio-political activist. 3.3 Luke 4:43 An important clue to Luke’s interpretation of Jesus’ ministry as defined by the reading of Isaiah 61:1–2a and 58:6 is provided in Luke’s complete reformulation of Mark’s account of Jesus’ withdrawal from Capernaum to a deserted place (ἔρημος) to pray (Mk.1:35–39) in 4:32–43. Significant for our argument is Luke’s complete revision of Jesus’ response to the crowds (not to Peter; Mk.1:37–38) in 4:43: Καὶ ταῖς ἑτέραις πόλεσιν εὐαγγελίσασθαί με δεῖ τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅτι ἐπὶ τοῦτο ἀπεστάλην (“I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also, because that is why I was sent”). In this briefer mission statement, Jesus employs two key terms from his citation of Isaiah 61:1 in 4:18, the verbs εὐαγγελίζω72 and ἀποστέλλω.73 Moreover, he added the vitally important phrase τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ‘the kingdom of God,’ the first occurrence of 69  Lk.4:18; 6:20 (beatitude; par. Mt.5:3); 7:22 (par. Mt.11:15); 14:13.21 (Banquet); 16:20.21 (Lazarus); 18:22 (rich young ruler; par. Mk.10:20 and Mt.19:21); 19:8 (Zacchaeus); and 21:3 (poor widow; par. Mk.12:42.43). According to S. John Roth, The Blind, the Lame, and the Poor; Character Types in Luke-Acts (JSNT.SS, 114; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 112–134), Luke’s use of the noun πτωχός reflects Septuagint usage. Joel B. Green, “Good News to Whom? Jesus and the ‘Poor’ in the Gospel of Luke,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology, eds. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 59–74; Idem, The Gospel of Luke, 211, interprets the noun ‘poor’ in terms of ancient Mediterranean shame-honour culture as disadvantaged persons Cf. Lk.11:41 and 12:33. 70  Mt.5:3 (par. Lk.6:20); 11:15 (par. Lk.7:22); 19:21 (par. Mk.10:21; Lk.18:22); 26:9.11 (par. Mk.14:5.7). 71  Mk.10:21 (rich young ruler; par. Mt.19:21; Lk.18:22); 12:42.43 (poor widow; par. Lk.21:3); 14:5.7 (costly ointment; par. Mt.26:9.11). 72  Significantly, the verb εὐαγγελίζω occurs 25 times in Luke-Acts: Lk.1:19; 2:10; 3:18; 4:18 (Isa.61:1).43 (with kingdom); 7:22 (cf. 4:18); 8:1 (with kingdom); 9:6 (with healings); 16:16 (with kingdom); 20:1; Act.5:42; 8:4.12 (with kingdom).25.40; 10:36; 11:20; 13:32; 14:7.15.21; 15:35; 16:10; and 17:18. 73  For God’s sending of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke see also Lk.9:48 and 10:16.

324

Bosma

this significant phrase in Luke’s gospel (cf. 1:33)74 and within which, according to 22:29–30, Jesus was granted royal authority. “To evangelize the kingdom of God” is a summary statement of Jesus’ mission statement in his quotation of Isaiah 61:1–2a and 58:6 in 4:18–19.75 Together these statements frame the intervening material. This frame shows first that the essence of Jesus’ teaching in Capernaum (4:31.36) was similar to his teaching ministry in Nazareth (4:16–30). Moreover, it also demonstrates that the exorcisms (4:33–36, 41) and healings (4:38–39, 40) in 4:31–41 were also an essential part of Jesus’ ministry of announcing Jubilee,76 a ministry that was empowered by the Holy Spirit (4:14a). This suggests that the “release” that Jesus effects has been expanded to include a release from the oppressive power of Satan.77 This suggestion finds support in Peter’s affirmation in Acts 10:38 that “God had anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and power” and that, as a result, Jesus “went about healing all who were under the power of the devil.”78 Together, therefore, the teaching in Nazareth (4:16–30) and exorcisms and healings in Capernaum (4:31–41) narrate what in the words of Acts 1:1 (cf. Lk.24:19) Jesus did and taught. 3.4 Synthesis To summarize our discussion of the quotation of Isaiah 61:1–2a and 58:6, the frame of Luke 4:18–19 and 4:43 shows that in the diptych of 4:16–30 and 4:31–41 Luke did not picture Jesus as a political and economic reformer in 4:16–44. Rather Luke portrayed Jesus’ expanded Jubilee ministry in terms of teaching and preaching, exorcisms and healings. Moreover, it is important to note that Luke did not depict Jesus releasing the poor in his Gospel. This could only happen after the promised outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Lk.24:49; Ac.1:8) in

74  Its first occurrence here replaces Jesus’ preaching of the Gospel of God that the Kingdom has arrived in Mk.1:15 (par. Mt.4:17). 75  Luke also uses this phrase again in 8:1; 9:2.60; 16:16 to summarize the essence of Jesus’ ministry. Cf. Act.8:12. For other mission statements see: 5:32; 12:49–53; and 19:10. 76  The exorcisms and healings are connected by the repetition of the verb ἐπιτιμάω, “rebuke,” in 4:35, 39 and 41. The exorcisms and healings are part of the release in Lk.4:18–19 as is evident from the use of the verb ἀφίημι in 4:39 to denote the release of the fever. This association between “evangelizing the poor” and healings is confirmed in Jesus’ reply to the disciples of John the Baptist. In 7:21, Jesus first “cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind.” Then he instructed them to tell John that “the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor.” 77  For this transformed sense of Jubilee, see 11 QMelch. Cf. Ziccardi, Jesus and the Kingdom, 333. 78  Cf. Lk.13:16.

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus

325

Acts 2:44–47 and 4:32–37.79 For the purpose of this essay, we will limit our discussion to Acts 4:23–36 because this episode clearly narrates the thematic sequence of prayer, empowerment by the Holy Spirit, and mission in the church’s life that is similar to Luke 3:21–4:44. Moreover, this unit contains an important thematic link to Jesus’ programmatic quotation of Isaiah 61:1–2a and 58:6. 4

Acts 4:23–36

Acts 4:23–36 begins with the release of John and Peter from prison (v. 23). In response, the nucleus of the church prays the longest prayer recorded in Acts (4:24–30).80 After a lengthy introduction (4:24–28), in which they quote Psalm 2:1–2 and recognize that God anointed his servant Jesus, they specifically requested boldness to speak God’s word (v. 29) and that the Lord would stretch out his hand to heal and perform miracles through the name of his holy servant (παῖς) Jesus (v. 30). In answer to their prayer, their meeting place was shaken81 and “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (v. 31ab).82 As a result, in answer to their first petition in verse 29, they continued to speak the word of God boldly (vv. 31c, 33). Luke only reports the fulfillment of their second petition (v. 30) in the summary statement of 5:12–16, not after verse 31, as one might have expected. Instead, Luke once more provides his readers with another summary description of the believers’ life-style (vv. 32–36). The fact that Luke provides a second summary description in connection with the community’s being filled with the Holy Spirit indicates that it is very important. In fact, the continued use of

79  Rebecca I. Denova, The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts (JSNT.SS, 141; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 134. 80  Cf. Holmås, Prayer and Vindication, 179–184. 81  Cf. Ex.19:18; Ps.17:7–8 LXX; Isa.6:4; and 4 Ez.6:29. According to I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale N.T. Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 107, the shaking of the place indicates that the filling of the Holy Spirit was the Lord’s response to prayer. Hans Conzelman, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 35, also refers to Vergil, Aen. 3.89– 90 as a possible background. Cf. Pieter W. van der Horst, “Hellenistic Parallels to Acts (chapters 3 and 4),” JSNT 25 (1985), 37–46 for additional examples. 82  Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit, 171, notes that the church did not specifically ask for the filling with the Holy Spirit. They only asked for boldness to speak.

326

Bosma

imperfect verbs in this second summary implies that for Luke this was an additional result of the community’s being filled with the Holy Spirit.83 Luke’s second summary in Acts 4:32–35 is thematically very similar to the first one in Acts 2:42–47. The table below shows that Acts 2:44–45 and 4:32–35 share important lexical terms. Acts 2:44–45 2:44 καὶ εἶχον ἅπαντα κοινά 2:45a καὶ τὰ κτήματα καὶ τὰς ὑπάρξεις ἐπίπρασκον 2:45b καὶ διεμέριζον αὐτὰ πᾶσιν καθότι ἄν τις χρείαν εἶχεν

Acts 4:32–35 4:32 ἀλλ’ ἦν αὐτοῖς πάντα κοινά. 4:34 ὅσοι γὰρ κτήτορες χωρίων ἢ οἰκιῶν ὑπῆρχον, πωλοῦντες ἔφερον τὰς τιμὰς τῶν πιπρασκομένων 4:35 διεδίδετο δὲ ἑκάστῳ καθότι ἄν τις χρείαν εἶχεν.

However, a comparison of these two summary statements also shows that in 4:32–37 the emphasis is considerably more on sharing property for which 4:32 forms the basis. For our purposes the statement in verse 34a that “there were no needy persons among them” (οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνδεής τις ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς) is of particular interest. This statement is a clear echo of Deuteronomy 15:4 LXX (ὅτι οὐκ ἔσται ἐν σοὶ ἐνδεής), a passage that contains legislation concerning the practice of Jubilee. There is little evidence in the Old Testament that Israel actually practiced this part of Jubilee legislation. In fact, in Jeremiah 34:14 (Jer. 41 LXX),84 God states that Israel failed to practice Jubilee. According to Jeremiah 34:8, when Nebuchadnezzar’s troops were fighting against Jerusalem and its surrounding cities, King Zedekiah entered into an agreement with the nobles to proclaim Jubilee. After they had released the slaves (vs. 10), however, they changed their minds (vs. 11). Therefore, this one attempt to practice Jubilee failed.85 In light of God’s promise of the effect of his Spirit on restored Israel in Ezekiel 36:27, we infer that without the Spirit of the Lord Israel was not able to practice Jubilee. Now, however, with the empowerment of Holy Spirit the believers who represented restored Israel of the last days (Act.2:17)86 were able to practice Jubilee, thereby fulfilling Jesus’ Isaianic mission (Isa.61:1–2a; Lk.4:18–19). 83   Richard N. Longenecker, “Acts,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Revised Edition, Volume 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 780. 84  M. Kessler, “The Law of Manumission in Jer. 34,” Biblische Zeitschrift 15 (1971), 105–108. 85  Although the term ‘jubilee’ does not occur in Nehemiah 5, perhaps this was another attempt to practice the legislation of Lev.25:39–40. 86  Luke T. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (Missoula: Scholar’s, 1977), 200, is of the opinion that Luke used the motif of the community of goods to depict the early Christians as the faithful Israel.

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus

327

In this summary statement, therefore, Luke emphasizes that being filled with the Holy Spirit empowered the Christian community not only to speak boldly (vs. 31) or practice healing ministries (5:12–16) but, more importantly, it also empowered them to alter their economical practices—the Levite Barnabas, a man “full of the Holy Spirit” (Act.11:24), being a prime example. 5

Luke 11:13

The contemporary relevance of the Spirit empowered dramatic change in the life of the early church needs further investigation but is beyond the scope of this essay. However, an important lesson to be learned from this paradigmatic account is the vital importance of prayer for the Holy Spirit, which leads us to make a few brief comments on Luke 11:13, which Edward J. Woods relates to Acts 4:23–36.87 Luke 11:13 belongs to the hypothetical question of verses 11–12 that constitute the climax of Jesus’ teaching on prayer in 11:2–13, a teaching that was requested by one of the disciples after Jesus finished praying (11:1). Verse 13 is formulated in a traditional “lesser to greater” rabbinic argument and reads as follows: “If you then, though you are 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.” To appreciate Jesus’ argument in Luke 11:13, it is important to note that Matthew 7:9 also reports this “lesser to greater” argument; however, instead of the Holy Spirit, Matthew reads “good things.” Clearly, Luke’s emphasis is on the connection between prayer and the Holy Spirit and in his version of this dominical saying, Jesus is teaching his followers to pray for the Holy Spirit. His “lesser to greater” argument assures them that the Father will certainly give them the Holy Spirit. 6 Conclusion We concluded our essay with a brief note on Luke 11:13 because, in our opinion, it has a vitally important practical implication for the contemporary church, especially non-Pentecostal Protestant churches. The experience and spectacular rapid growth of Pentecostal churches has certainly taught non-Pentecostal churches that the Holy Spirit is still active. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit is not a once for all event, limited to Pentecost Day (Act.2). On the contrary, 87  Edward J. Woods, The ‘Finger of God’ and Pneumatology in Luke-Acts (JSNT.SS, 205; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 228.

328

Bosma

as is evident from Acts 4:31, 8:14–17, 9:17, 10:44–48 (cf. 11:15–17; 15:8), 19:2–6, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is a continuous activity that accompanies the church on its mission. As the rapid decline in numbers shows, many churches in Western Europe and North America are in need of experiencing anew the work of the Holy Spirit like the early church and the Azusa Street Revival. In his response to Menzies’s article, Van der Kooi clearly recognizes this need when he writes, “the churches, also the Reformed Churches, may long for and reach out to be blessed by the gifts of the Holy Spirit for empowerment in their own cultures.” We would agree wholeheartedly. Luke 11:13 clearly teaches us that to receive these blessings the church needs to pray continuously.88 Jesus prayed, received the Holy Spirit (3:21–22) and his Spirit empowered Jubilee ministry produced a pervasive public impact (4:15; 5:15; 6:17–19; etc.). The early church prayed (Act.1:14; 4:24–30), received the Spirit (Act.2; 4:31) and grew exponentially. In Luke 11:13, Jesus teaches us that our heavenly Father will certainly give us the Holy Spirit if we ask persistently. Our personal experience in Reformed churches suggests that pastors rarely exhort their parishioners to be open to the ongoing work of the Holy Spirit through prayer. Yet, in Question and Answer 116, the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism teach that Christians need to pray “because God gives his grace and Holy Spirit only to those who pray continually and groan inwardly, asking God for these gifts …” Bibliography Beuken, W.A.M. Jesaja deel IIIB (POT). Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1989. Bock, Darrell L. Luke Volume 1: 1:1–9:50. ECNT; Grand Rapids, Baker, 1994. Bruner, Frederick D. A Theology of the Holy Spirit: The Pentecostal Experience and the New Testament Witness. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970. Conzelman, Hans. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Crump, David. Jesus the Intercessor: Prayer and Christology in Luke-Acts. WUNT 2:49; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1992. Denova, Rebecca I. The Things Accomplished Among Us: Prophetic Tradition in the Structural Pattern of Luke-Acts. JSNT.SS, 141; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Edwards, James R. The Gospel according to Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015.

88  Van der Kooi, “The Wonders of God,” 43–44.

Prayer, the Holy Spirit and Jubilee in the Life of Jesus

329

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible Commentary, 28; New Haven, London: Yale University, 1970. Green, Joel B. “Good News to Whom? Jesus and the ‘Poor’ in the Gospel of Luke.” In Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Eds. Joel B. Green and Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994, 59–74. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Holmås, Geir O. Prayer and Vindication in Luke-Acts: The Theme of Prayer within the Context of Legitimizing and Edifying Objective of the Lukan Narrative. Library of New Testament Studies, 433; London: T&T Clark International, 2012. Horst, Pieter W. van der. “Hellenistic Parallels to Acts (chapters 3 and 4).” JSNT 25 (1985), 37–46. Hur, Ju. A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts. JSNT.SS, 211; London: T&T Clark, 2001. Johnson, Luke T. The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts. Missoula: Scholar’s, 1977. Kessler, M. “The Law of Manumission in Jer. 34.” Biblische Zeitschrift 15 (1971), 105–108. Koet, B.J. Five Studies on Interpretation of Scripture in Luke-Acts. Studiorum Novi Testamenti Auxilia XIV; Leuven: Peeters, 1989. Kooi, Cornelis van der. “The Wonders of God: A Reformed Perspective on Luke’s Baptism in the Holy Spirit.” PentecoStudies 7 (2008), 34–45. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics. An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017). Lampe, G.W.H. “The Holy Spirit in the Writings of St. Luke.” In Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot. Ed. D.E. Nineham. Oxford/Basil: Blackwell, 1967, 159–200. Longenecker, Richard N. “Acts.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Revised Edition, Volume 10. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007. Mallen, Peter. The Reading and Transformation of Isaiah in Luke-Acts. Library of New Testament Studies 367; London, New York: T&T Clark International, 2008. Marshall, I. Howard. Commentary on Luke. NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Marshall, I. Howard. The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale N.T. Commentaries; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Menzies, Robert P. The Development Early Christian Pneumatology: with Special Reference to Luke-Acts. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. Menzies, Robert P. “Spirit and Power in Luke-Acts: A Response to Max Turner.” JSNT 49 (1993), 11–20. Menzies, Robert P. Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts. London, New York: T&T Clark International, 1994.

330

Bosma

Menzies, Robert P. “Luke’s Understanding of Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Pentecostal Perspective.” PentecoStudies 6 (2007), 108–126. Mulder, H. De Eerste Hoofdstukken van het Evangelie naar Lukas in hun structurele samenhang. Delft: W.D. Meinema, 1948. Nestle, E. “Zu Luc 4,18.19.” ZNW 2 (1901), 153–157. O’Brien, P.T. “Prayer in Luke-Acts.” Tyndale Bulletin 24 (1973), 111–127. Ott, Wilhelm. Gebet und Heil: Die Bedeutung der Gebetsparänese in der lukanische Theologie. SANT 12; München: Kösel, 1965. Plummer, Alfred. The Gospel according to St. Luke. ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1901. Plymale, Stephen F. Prayer Texts in Luke-Acts. AUS 17: TR 118; New York: Peter Lang, 1991. Roth, S. John. The Blind, the Lame, and the Poor; Character Types in Luke-Acts. JSNT.SS, 114; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Smalley, Stephen S. “Spirit, Kingdom and Prayer.” Novum Testamentum 15 (1973), 59–71. Stein, Robert H. Luke. New American Commentary, 24; Nashville: Broadman, 2003. Talbert, Charles H. Reading Luke: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Third Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1982. Trites, A.A. “The Prayer Motif in Luke-Acts.” In Perspectives on Luke-Acts. Ed. Charles H. Talbert. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978, 168–186. Turner, M. Max B. “Spirit Endowment in Luke-Acts: Some Linguistic Considerations.” Vox Evangelica 12 (1981), 45–63. Tannehill, Robert C. The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation, Vol. 1: The Gospel of Luke. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Westermann, Claus. Isaiah 40–66. OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. Woods, Edward J. The ‘Finger of God’ and Pneumatology in Luke-Acts. JSNT.SS, 205; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Young, E.J. The Book of Isaiah, Volume III, Chapters XL–LXVI. NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Ziccardi, Constantino A. The Relationship of Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologia, 65; Rome: Editrice Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, 2008.

chapter 21

Christ’s Presence through the Spirit in the Holy Supper: Retrieving Abraham Kuyper Maarten Wisse … the Holy Supper, in which lies the focal point of the whole of our religion …1

∵ 1 Introduction Kees van der Kooi has addressed the theme of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper various times during his career. It receives most elaborate attention in his book As in a Mirror, where he devotes a chapter to John Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper.2 Also, in his more recent Christian Dogmatics, a joint effort with his colleague Gijsbert van den Brink, the doctrine of the sacraments receives attention.3 In both cases, Van der Kooi shows his adherence to what we might call ‘the Reformed answer’ to the question of the Lord’s presence in the sacrament. One could describe this Reformed approach as the affirmation of praesentia realis, though the ‘real presence’ refers not to a physical presence or the omnipresence of Christ’s body but, instead, to Christ’s real presence through the Holy Spirit. Van der Kooi, as so many of his Reformed colleagues in the Anglo-Saxon world,4 makes an attempt at reinvigorating theology and spirituality around 1  Abraham Kuyper, E voto Dordraceno: toelichting op den Heidelbergschen Catechismus (Amsterdam: Wormser, 1892), vol. III, 136, http://archive.org/details/evotodordracenot02kuyp: ‘… het heilig Avondmaal, waarin toch het brandpunt van onze geheele religie ligt …’; Cf. Cornelis van der Kooi, As in a Mirror: John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God: A Diptych, transl. D.H. Mader (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 189; Abraham Kuyper, Onze eeredienst (Kampen: Kok, 1911), 443. 2  Van der Kooi, As in a Mirror, chap. 4. 3  Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), sec. 14.7. 4  Cf. Jelmer Heeren and Maarten Wisse, “Reprioritizing the Lord’s Supper among the Reformed,” forthcoming in: Calvin Theological Journal 54 (April 2019). © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_023

332

Wisse

the Lord’s Supper by emphasizing Calvin’s doctrine of Christ’s real presence in the Lord’s Supper. The Reformed tradition after Calvin, they argue, has followed the line of Huldrych Zwingli more than that of Calvin.5 This Zwinglian approach led to a neglect of the sacraments and the Lord’s Supper in particular. The theology of Calvin provides insights that help to reverse this development and place the Lord’s Supper at the center of Christian worship anew.6 Meanwhile, the pneumatological approach to Christ’s real presence and the appeal to Calvin are not without problems. Wim Janse, for instance, has pointed out that Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper is much broader and more ambiguous than the pneumatological approach suggests.7 In fact, next to the Calvin who holds on to real presence, there are Zwinglian and Lutheran aspects in Calvin. This variance depends largely on whom Calvin is in conversation or polemic with at a certain point in time.8 An important concern in Van der Kooi’s account of Calvin on the Lord’s Supper is the role of materiality in Calvin’s theology. Van der Kooi opposes a reading of Calvin in which the materiality of creation and the material mediation of Christ’s presence play no role.9 Christ is already present in creation, Van der Kooi argues, and is all the more present in the Supper.10 In a recent article, Hugo Meijer and I have explored the history of pneumatology in Reformed scholasticism.11 We saw Van der Kooi’s concern confirmed. The Reformed tradition quickly departed from Calvin’s view of the Lord’s Supper, and the notion of praesentia realis faded into the background.12 So far, it is an open question what role the tradition of neo-Calvinism plays in this development. Does neo-Calvinism, as its name may suggest, also rediscover Calvin’s view of real presence? In this essay I would like to address the reception of the pneumatological approach to Christ’s real presence in the first stage of the neo-Calvinist tradition. Because of the space available and the research that has already been 5  Van der Kooi, As in a Mirror, 190, 198–99. 6  Van der Kooi, As in a Mirror, 213. 7  Wim Janse, “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology: Three Dogma-Historical Observations,” in Calvinus Sacrarum Literarum Interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 27–69. 8  Bavinck’s article from 1887, see below, comes close to the same observation. Van der Kooi does not address the problem explicitly. 9  Van der Kooi, As in a Mirror, 191, 194, 215, 219. 10  Van der Kooi, As in a Mirror, 209. 11  Maarten Wisse and Hugo Meijer, “Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal,” in Brill Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 465–518. 12  Wisse and Meijer, “Pneumatology,” 509–14.

Christ ’ s Presence through the Spirit in the Holy Supper

333

done,13 I will concentrate myself on the work of Abraham Kuyper, comparing him with Herman Bavinck. I will pay attention to three aspects: first, I will ask to what extent Kuyper advocates a pneumatological view of the Lord’s Supper and, if so, how he relates this view to the Reformation period. Subsequently, I will address how Kuyper relates this view to the distinction between spirit and body. Finally, I will explore what the distinct aspects of Kuyper’s view are by comparing him with Herman Bavinck. I will address the differences between them and based on this comparison, I will investigate what questions still remain unanswered in the light of our present day challenges to understand and rediscover the significance of the Lord’s Supper for theology and spirituality. 2

Abraham Kuyper on the Lord’s Supper

We have various resources for Kuyper’s theology of the sacraments and, more precisely the Lord’s Supper. His earliest elaborate exposition is in E voto Dordraceno (from now on: EV), his exposition on the Heidelberg Catechism, published as articles in the Heraut and published as a whole in 1893. Subsequently, in 1897, students’ notes from his lectures on dogmatics at the VU were published as the Dictaten Dogmatiek (from now on: DD).14 Although it was authorized by Kuyper himself, the DD must be used with some care. The last elaborate discussion of the sacraments can be found in Onze Eeredienst, which began as a series of articles and was published in 1911. The articles on the Lord’s Supper in Onze Eeredienst never appeared in the Heraut. They were written for the published version of the collection as a whole.15 We will not discuss Onze Eeredienst because it does not offer an additional theological account of the Lord’s Supper, and from a liturgical perspective, Kuyper changed his mind only at minor points. In EV, Kuyper offers an extensive doctrine of the sacraments. A rough comparison with the DD shows that in the latter, the material is presented in a more intellectual way. However, in terms of content there is not much difference between the two. Often the same scheme is visible, even when EV follows the flow of the Heidelberg Catechism.

13  For literature on Bavinck, see below. On Kuyper, see Willem Hendrik Velema, De leer van de Heilige Geest bij Abraham Kuyper (’s Gravenhage: Uitgeverij Van Keulen, 1957), 201–18. Unfortunately, Velema’s discussion of Kuyper is strongly determined by normative convictions about the tenability of Kuyper’s views. 14  Abraham Kuyper, Dictaten dogmatiek: college-dictaat van een der studenten (Grand Rapids: Hulst, 1910). 15  Kuyper, Onze eeredienst, 5.

334

Wisse

Unfortunately, there is no space available here to discuss Kuyper’s doctrine of the sacraments as a whole. When we ask whether Kuyper proposes a pneumatological approach to Christ’s real presence in the Lord’s Supper, the answer must be affirmative, although it must be nuanced immediately. A thoroughly Trinitarian view of the sacraments is important to Kuyper. In this view, the work of the Spirit is important, but it is not more, and perhaps is even less important than that of the Father and the Son. Kuyper does explicitly situate his view of the sacraments in the Reformed tradition and especially Calvin.16 Calvin figures as a middle between Rome and the Lutherans on the one hand, and Zwingli on the other. Kuyper notes that the mode of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper is a pneumatological one, but he pays rather little attention to this and, as we will see, speaks about real presence primarily from a Christological perspective. Regularly, Kuyper simply appeals to Calvin by mentioning his name to indicate that Calvin’s view is to be preferred over Rome, Luther and Zwingli. Rome and Luther are near to each other, whereas Kuyper sees Zwingli in one line with modern theologians of his own time. Different from Bavinck,17 Kuyper makes no attempt to rehabilitate Zwingli.18 Zwingli is an example of how the Reformed view on means of grace can go wrong, because with Zwingli, grace is given so unmediatedly that means of grace become superfluous.19 Kuyper is careful to avoid this extreme and he gives the means of grace a substantial role in spite of a very strict doctrine of grace. Kuyper certainly fits into the pattern of those who appeal to Calvin for renewing the theology of the sacraments and who especially appeal to Calvin’s pneumatological view of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper. Nevertheless, Kuyper stresses the Trinitarian character of God’s activity in the sacraments.20 He explicitly regrets that the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was not formulated

16  Kuyper, E voto, vols. II, 430–431, 483, III, 127–129; Kuyper, Dictaten dogmatiek, IV, Locus de Sacramentis, 231–236. 17  Herman Bavinck, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” transl. Nelson D. Kloosterman, Mid-America Journal of Theology 19 (2008): 129; Herman Bavinck, “Calvijn’s leer over het Avondmaal,” in Kennis en Leven: Opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere jaren, ed. C.B. Bavinck (Kampen: Kok, 1922), 166–67, http://www.neocalvinisme.nl/hb/knl/knl01.html; Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 2nd ed. (Kampen: Kok, 1911), vol. IV, 609–611; Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, transl. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), vol. IV, 557–558. 18  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 126. 19  Kuyper, Dictaten dogmatiek, vol. IV, Locus de Sacramentis, 229: ‘Zijn geheele stelsel is dus, dat God immediaat op het hart werkt door den Heiligen Geest.’ 20  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 135–154; Kuyper, Dictaten dogmatiek, vols. IV, Locus de Sacramentis, 32–40.

Christ ’ s Presence through the Spirit in the Holy Supper

335

from this perspective.21 In EV, the role of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in the Lord’s Supper is discussed in three chapters. In the chapter on the Father, Kuyper speaks extensively about the work of the Father in creation, from which the signs that are used in the sacraments have been taken.22 Elsewhere, he has already phenomenologically linked these signs of water, bread and wine to our created nature.23 At this point, Kuyper gives nature a prominent place in Reformed theology, thereby renewing the Reformed doctrine of the sacraments. Similarly striking are the many examples from technology that appear throughout his discussion of the sacraments in EV. Nevertheless, the work of the Son receives most attention. It is already present in the discussion of the work of the Father, who sends the Son. A separate chapter is devoted to the Son, and, in the same way, the pneumatological chapter is not so much a discussion of the work of the Spirit, as it is a discussion of the mode of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper.24 The pneumatological view of Christ’s presence is advocated from within a strongly Christocentric view of the Lord’s Supper where the unio mystica with Christ takes center stage.25 In DD, where the discussion of the Trinity is a part of the general doctrine of the sacraments, Kuyper pays even less attention to the work of the Spirit.26 There, he merely formally affirms that Christ is present in the community of faith and in the soul of the believer through the Spirit. That Kuyper’s major work on the Holy Spirit, published in 1888, pays no attention to the work of the Spirit in the sacraments further reinforces the impression of a pneumatological deficit in Kuyper’s doctrine of the sacraments.27 3

Comparison and Further Analysis

We will grasp the specific aspects of Kuyper’s view of the Lord’s Supper and the role of pneumatology in it more easily when we discuss them more explicitly in comparison with Herman Bavinck, primarily presented in his Reformed Dogmatics (RD, from now on) and an early article on “Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” published in De Vrije Kerk in 1887. George Harinck says that for 21  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 136. 22  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 135–138. 23  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 457–462, III, 87–92. 24  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 147–154. 25  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 143–145, 162–167, 169–175. 26  Kuyper, Dictaten dogmatiek, vol. IV, Locus de Sacramentis, 36. 27  Abraham Kuyper, Het werk van den Heiligen Geest (Amsterdam: Wormser, 1888); Velema, De leer van de Heilige Geest, 203.

336

Wisse

neo-Calvinism, Kuyper and Bavinck should not be seen as individuals but as a common brand name, such as Goldman and Sachs, Mercedes and Benz, and so on.28 This is certainly true, but it does not mean that they always agree with each other. Theologically, they are further from each other than their close cooperation might lead us to expect. A select comparison of their views of the sacraments and the Lord’s Supper in particular will shed more light on their respective ways of construing the pneumatological character of Christ’s presence in the sacraments. As previous research has already shown,29 and as Bavinck himself has made amply clear in an article from 1887 on “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper,” Bavinck agrees with Kuyper on the significance of Calvin’s pneumatological approach to Christ’s presence for a Reformed understanding of the Lord’s Supper. A first remarkable difference has to do with the role of the Trinity in Kuyper’s doctrine of the sacraments and the absence of that doctrine in Bavinck’s account. Kuyper makes an attempt to use the doctrine of the Trinity as a regulative principle in the doctrine of the sacraments.30 In doing so, he operates within a classical Trinitarian frame of reference, in which the incomprehensibility of God and the strict indivisibility of the works of the persons in the Trinity, ad extra, have a decisive role. Kuyper continually qualifies his theological language as inappropriate because the works of the Trinity ad extra are undivided.31 There is another interesting difference that I cannot discuss at length. Both Kuyper and Bavinck put a major emphasis on the unio mystica in the doctrine of the sacraments. Kuyper, however, explicitly connects this with the notion of the church as the body of Christ. Whereas in Bavinck’s account of the Lord’s Supper, the mystical union is primarily an individual phenomenon, in Kuyper the mystical union with Christ is primarily a collective and social notion, particularly in the general account of the sacraments in EV part 2.32 In Kuyper’s 28  George Harinck, “Herman Bavinck and Geerhardus Vos,” Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010): 18, found in James Eglinton, Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif (London: T&T Clark International, 2012), 19. 29  Ronald N. Gleason, “Calvin and Bavinck on the Lord’s Supper,” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 273–303; Ronald N. Gleason, “Herman Bavinck’s Understanding of John Calvin on the Lord’s Supper” 2009, http://www.richardsibbes.com/_hermanbavinck/ hermanbavinck.org-Gleason2.pdf; Hans Burger, Being in Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 119–25. 30  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 135–136. 31  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 135, 155. 32  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 479–484; Cf. van der Kooi, As in a Mirror, 189–90, who uses the same insight when interpreting Calvin.

Christ ’ s Presence through the Spirit in the Holy Supper

337

description of the Lord’s Supper that follows, the mystical union is described in both individual and collective terms.33 However, the most fundamental difference between Kuyper and Bavinck is to be found in their views of the relationship between Word and Sacrament and, in close connection with this, the relationship between Word and Spirit. On this point, Bavinck roughly follows the Heidelberg Catechism which installs a hierarchy between Word and Sacrament.34 The Word produces faith. The sacrament is nothing without the Word, whereas the Word without the sacrament still brings about salvation.35 In the essay from 1887 Bavinck stresses the communion with Christ in the Lord’s Supper to such length that he seems to give the Lord’s Supper its own weight over and against the Word of God. In RD, however, the hierarchy between Word and sacrament is emphasized repeatedly.36 As the Word makes us partakers in Christ’s person, so does the sacrament.37 He says this once in the article of 1887,38 but there the lively communion with Christ in the sacrament plays such a big role, that it seems to overshadow this connection. The emphasis on the hierarchy between Word and sacrament raises the question of what specific roles the sacrament and the materiality of the sign in it have. Bavinck does not raise this issue. While in the essay most of the emphasis is on mystical union with Christ, in RD the emphasis seems on the mode of Christ’s presence, namely through the Spirit and the spiritual character of the sacraments.39 In the sacraments God gives nothing which God could not give otherwise.40 Behind this is a specific view of the relationship between Word and Spirit. Bavinck acknowledges that the Spirit needs to join the Word for the Word to effectively unite us with Christ preached in the Gospel,41 but he is very insistent to bind the Spirit as tightly as possible to the Word of God. The Word is never without the Spirit, even when the Spirit does not always use the Word

33  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 115–116, 119–120, 162–167, 169–175. 34  Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. IV, 448–449; Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vol. IV, 490. 35  Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. IV, 479; Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vol. IV, 524. 36  Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. IV, 479, 569; Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vol. IV, 523, 634. 37  Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. IV, 479; Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vol. IV, 523. 38  Bavinck, “Calvin’s Doctrine,” 132; Bavinck, “Calvijns leer,” 170. 39  Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. IV, 569; Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vol. IV, 634–635. 40  Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. IV, 479; Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vol. IV, 523. 41  Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. IV, 460; Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vol. IV, 504.

338

Wisse

to the same purpose.42 Where the Word is, whether or not in connection with the sacraments, there is also the Spirit. To be sure, at the very beginning of his exposition on the means of grace in RD, Bavinck acknowledges the possibility of God working salvation through the Spirit without the Word, but he does not want to give this insight any substantial theological significance.43 This is markedly different in Kuyper. Right from the beginning, Kuyper construes a strict relationship between Word and Spirit, aligning it to the relationship between God and human beings, noting the distinction between divine and human action.44 The confession of God’s free sovereignty (vrijmachtige souvereiniteit) did not permit that the work of God would be bound to the service of humans. And this is why one [the Reformed lay people in Kuyper’s time] could not be led away from this confession that there were means of grace that the Holy Spirit uses in the work of grace, but that what is worked through these means, was by no means the whole of the work of the Holy Spirit; that the Holy Spirit also works without means, and that particularly the recreation from death to life, like creation itself, excluded every use of means.45 Thus, the relationship between Word and Spirit is strictly aligned with the doctrine of grace. On the basis of this starting point, Kuyper concludes that the work of the Spirit is always primary and is basically unmediated as long as it is concerned with the gift of grace. In this, we have to hold on to the view that the Holy Spirit, insofar as he uses means of grace, is bound to them only to this extent as God has ordained this, so that we do not exclude or restrict the direct working of the Holy Spirit next46 to the mediated one. This statement has to be made explicit, because not a few think they can derive from precisely this 42  Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. IV, 459; Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vol. IV, 502–503. 43  Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. IV, 446–448; Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, vol. IV, 486–489. 44  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 485–486. 45  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 406, my translation. 46  This translation of ‘naar’ as ‘next to’ comes down to an emendation of the Dutch original. The Dutch, as EV in this print has it, does not make sense. I have changed the ‘naar’ to ‘naast.’ This corresponds to Kuyper’s argument at this point.

Christ ’ s Presence through the Spirit in the Holy Supper

339

question [and answer] 65 that also the Reformed church denies the direct and unmediated work of the Holy Spirit. If namely, so they reason, the whole of salvation depends on a sincere faith and it stated here that the Holy Spirit works and strengthens this, but in such a way that he brings it about through the means of grace of the Word and strengthens it through the use of the Sacraments, then it is clear that here too, everything happens in a mediated way. This misunderstanding has to be precluded right away. The Catechism clearly states that the Holy Spirit works faith, not in an unmediated way through the proclamation of the holy Gospel, and afterwards strengthening this faith through the use of the Sacraments. God may use means, but God need not do so. If God acts savingly, God primarily acts independently from human actions, and, therefore, Kuyper agrees with Zwingli and various Reformed scholastics who argue that God may and indeed does save people who had never heard the Gospel.47 In Kuyper’s view, given that children are often born again before they have any ability to act or think consciously, this is in fact God’s ordinary way of action. The germinating of the seed of faith always precedes our conscious response to the Gospel.48 Obviously, we see here the basis of Kuyper’s doctrine of presumptive regeneration (veronderstelde wedergeboorte), but it is important to see that Kuyper’s view of the sacraments is not the product of this doctrine. Instead, this doctrine is the product of a much more rigorous way of thinking through the relationship between divine and human action than was usually the case in the Reformed tradition before him, especially in the Reformation to which Bavinck primarily appeals.49 Kuyper does not state it explicitly, but, although EV is an exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, he basically disagrees with its statement about the Word working faith and the sacraments only strengthening faith. His conviction is that neither the Word nor the sacraments produce faith.50 Kuyper paraphrases the passage from the Heidelberg Catechism as follows, after he has elaborately discussed various answers to the question of whether the Catechism means the unconscious God given power to believe (the habitus fidei) or our conscious actual response to the proclamation of the Gospel (the actus fidei):

47  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 403–406. 48  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 70–74. 49  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 470–475. 50  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 403–406, 470–472.

340

Wisse

From the Holy Spirit, who implants the power to believe in us in regeneration, and evokes the conscious act of faith in our hearts through the proclamation of the holy Gospel; in the same way, [the Holy Spirit] confirms the implanted power to believe through the Sacrament of infant baptism, and strengthens conscious faith through the Baptism of adult persons, and through the Sacrament of the holy Supper.51 Only God can bring forth faith, not the means of grace. Kuyper uses the scholastic distinction between the habit and the act of faith to explain the nature of faith.52 As to the seed of the habit of faith, the Word or Sacraments cannot give this. Means of grace can only function as just that: means through which the God given seed can be brought to growth and flourishing. But the means of grace cannot give us the seed of faith.53 As I said above, Kuyper’s view of baptism is based on this understanding, and leads to his much contested idea of presumptive regeneration, though this is not the place to reflect on that. Instead, I would like to show what this view of the role of the means of grace means for Kuyper’s view of the Lord’s Supper. There too Kuyper departs from a strict distinction between the opus Dei and the opus hominum. Now that Kuyper has concluded that neither the Word nor the sacraments bring about salvation, the possibility opens up to ascribe the sacraments a role as a specific means of grace, apart from that of the Word. Although both strengthen faith, they do so in different ways. This is not possible for Bavinck, because in Bavinck the function of the Word wholly determines the function of the sacraments. In Kuyper the sacraments are now separate from the question of salvation as such. Salvation is a work of God, so we cannot do anything about salvation. Kuyper explicitly works with a distinction between a divine perspective, in which means of grace have no place because God works faith directly through the Spirit, and a human perspective, in which means of grace are crucial, because they evoke and strengthen the active side of faith and bring it to maturity.54 This is why we hear the Word of God and this is also why the Word of God calls us to conversion, not in the sense of bringing grace into our heart, but our conscious turning ourselves to God in faith.55 51  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 405, my translation; quotation marks and unusual capitalization are in the original. 52  For a history of these concepts in theology, see Maarten Wisse, “Habitus Fidei: An Essay on the History of a Concept,” Scottish Journal of Theology 56.2 (2003): 172–189. 53  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 425–426. 54  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 464–465. 55  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 74–76, 220.

Christ ’ s Presence through the Spirit in the Holy Supper

341

Thus, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper receives its own place in strengthening faith. Through it, we are in communion with Christ in a bodily way, not only in an individual way but also corporately as the mystical body of Christ which is the church, the community of believers:56 If one would ask, what this special, this peculiar, this extraordinary and distinguishing character is of the strengthening of our faith through the sacrament, this should no doubt be sought in the communion with the Body of Christ. Holy Baptism leads our faith into this communion, and Holy Supper feeds and nourishes this communion.57 Construing this specific role of the sacraments, Kuyper is concerned in a different way about the theology and spirituality of the Lord’s Supper than Bavinck. For Bavinck, the concerns around the Lord’s Supper are particularly theological, related to Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Zwinglian ‘errors’ with respect to the mode of Christ’s presence. For Kuyper, those concerns about such errors are also there, but he is much more concerned about the practical neglect of the sacrament among believers. This neglect may be because believers have become so modern that they cannot see any benefit in the sacrament or because they are so concerned about approaching the Lord in the sacrament with the right disposition and spiritual experience of regeneration that they stay away from it.58 From this perspective, Kuyper puts considerable emphasis on the actual celebration of the sacrament.59 In the 1890s, he still argues in favor of weekly communion, and he deplores the low frequency usual in most Protestant churches. Although this changes over time,60 he aims to bring Word and Sacrament to a more equal level of importance as means of grace. More than once he notes that the Reformed view of the sacraments developed in the direction of Zwingli quickly after the Reformation.61 As we have seen above, the attempt to present Word and Sacrament as equally important means of grace is rooted in his fundamental view of the opus Dei and opus hominum: Word and Spirit 56  Kuyper has a peculiar preference for the two senses of hearing and seeing, although one might think that feeling and tasting are equally important in the sacraments: Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 407, 426–428. 57  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 479, my translation. 58  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 211–219. 59  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 74–76, 219–242. 60  K.W. de Jong, Ordening van dienst: achtergronden van en ontwikkelingen in de eredienst van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (Baarn: Ten Have, 1996), 41–48, 78–79. 61  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 431, 483, III, 126.

342

Wisse

or, maybe more accurately Spirit and Word. For Kuyper, baptism, confession and the Lord’s Supper belong inextricably together. This is why he so strongly opposes believers’ refusal to partake in the Supper. This does not mean that Kuyper has no eye for the experiential side of faith.62 An experiential thread is present throughout his discussion, in which he repeatedly notes the sweet experience of the children of God when they partake in the Lord’s Supper.63 4

Conclusion and Discussion

We have seen that Bavinck and Kuyper differ considerably in their view of the sacraments. Bavinck remains rather traditional. Bavinck’s view of the Lord’s Supper is primarily concentrated around an appraisal of Calvin’s notion of real presence and mystical union with Christ. What exactly the specific role of the sacraments is in strengthening this union and what the differences are between the sacraments and the Word of God, remains unclear. Also, Bavinck does not reconceive the relationship between Word and Spirit, trying to keep them as closely together as possible, but at the same time being forced to admit that the salvific work of the Spirit is distinct from the Word. Compared to this, Kuyper’s contribution is much more creative and more radical. Kuyper not only follows the Reformed tradition but also assesses its strengths and weaknesses. He diagnoses that the relationship between Word and Spirit is a problem in the Reformed tradition. The efficacy of the Word depends on the work of the Spirit, who remains free to give grace to whom God wants. This opens the possibility that there will be hearers of the Word who will not receive grace, and also, it opens the possibility that some will receive grace who never heard the Gospel. Thus, Word and Spirit cannot be held together to the extent in which the Reformation sometimes suggested them to be, and as Bavinck upholds. He also sees the problematic consequences of this in the doctrine of the sacraments, and he proposes a way ahead from a more consistent point of view. As far as I can see, Kuyper has taken very significant steps towards rethinking sacramentology from a Reformed perspective. He saw that the relationship between Word and sacrament needed renewal. He also rightly diagnosed that the Heidelberg Catechism is part of the problem here with its distinction between working and strengthening faith in Word and sacrament. He rightly concluded that this idea is not fully consistent with the Reformed doctrine of 62  Kuyper, E voto, vol. III, 225. 63  Kuyper, E voto, vol. II, 414, 423–424, 487.

Christ ’ s Presence through the Spirit in the Holy Supper

343

grace, in which God alone can save so that means of grace can only be necessary for us but not for God. On the basis of his implicit criticism of the tradition, Kuyper develops his own view of the sacrament. He astutely sees that the Reformed scholastic distinction between the habit and act of faith helps us to construe a consistent relationship between divine and human activity. Within the realm of our actions, the sacraments can be perceived as ways in which believers grow in the community with Christ and one another through the bodily dimensions of the Lord’s Supper and the coming together of believers in the church. However, one may ask to what extent Kuyper gives us a view of the sacraments that is suitable to the questions of the twenty-first century. In the context of this essay, we have to stay close to his theology, and we can by no means offer a full-scale doctrine of the Lord’s Supper or address all of the challenges that we face when we develop a contemporary doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. The question that Kuyper leaves unsolved is how to construe the role of the means of grace when God’s grace is fundamentally unmediated. Kuyper tries to solve this problem through his teaching of presumptive regeneration, a very controversial issue already in his own time. This solution is not convincing, because it runs against Kuyper’s own careful distinction between God’s work and ours. By presenting the work of a God as something that we can presume, Kuyper turns the divine perspective into something that is in our own hands. The distinction between opus Dei and opus hominum, which is intended to teach us humility, is made ineffective because of the presumption that God is on our side. Another open question is to what extent the Reformed approach to praesentia realis is tenable. As mentioned above, Kuyper and Bavinck’s ways of framing the issues, following Calvin, which claim that Christ’s person is bodily present in the Lord’s Supper are problematic because the Reformed tradition claims that bodies are located at a certain place. Here again, it seems that Kuyper still confuses the divine and the human perspectives. There is a whole conundrum here that would need to be disentangled to make the point fully and convincingly, but I will nevertheless point to a solution to which I think Kuyper hints but does not reach completely. If we follow strictly Kuyper’s distinction between God’s saving work and our use of means of grace to grow in faith, then we can say that our communion with Christ in the Lord’s Supper is bodily real but not in the sense that Christ is bodily present in a way that jeopardizes his being in heaven according to his human nature. The bodily presence that counts for us is the specific material character of the signs under which God is present to us and through which God nourishes and feeds us. In the Lord’s Supper, different from the hearing of

344

Wisse

the Word, God is present in a bodily way. Participating in it is not automatically linked to eternal salvation. Such linkage would be the divine perspective. Our perspective, while ordained and effected as it is by God through the Spirit, is that we grow in faith not only through reason. In partaking of the sacrament, God does this by letting us grow through bodily means, that is by eating and drinking rather than hearing. This bodily presence makes us grow in faith and justice through the Spirit. Thus, the ‘bodily’ in the bodily presence does not point to a special magical way in which the body of Christ is present where it cannot be present, but it points instead to the nature of the means through which God makes us flourish and grow in faith. Thus, we can and have to claim that Christ is bodily present in the Lord’s Supper, even when this does not mean that we receive grace ex opere operato. Through these bodily signs and through performing this rite we enjoy communion with God in Jesus Christ, because it is the Holy Spirit who decided to strengthen us in this particular way, a way which fits particularly to our bodily existence. Not only this, but we experience communion with one another as the body of Christ. This communion as such is already our salvation, but it is also a means for transforming us into the image of Christ. Is Christ present in the Lord’s Supper? Yes, he is. Is he bodily present? Yes, in a way, in the sense that he is present according to bodily means, through which means the Holy Spirit unite us more and more with him and with one another. From this point of view, we can also see why the sacraments are of the utmost importance, indeed, as important as the proclamation of the Word of God. They are necessary for us because they make us grow in faith in a way that the proclamation of the Word of God can never do since the Word of God is a cognitive means of communicating with us. Word and sacraments are the two ways in which God chose to be with us and transform us on our way towards the heavenly Kingdom.64 Bibliography Bavinck, Herman. “Calvijn’s leer over het Avondmaal.” In Kennis en Leven: Opstellen en artikelen uit vroegere jaren. Ed. C.B. Bavinck. Kampen: Kok, 1922, 165–83. Bavinck, Herman. “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.” Transl. Nelson D. Kloosterman. Mid-America Journal of Theology 19 (2008): 127–42. Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. Kampen: Kok, 19112.

64  I would like to thank dr. Kyle J. Dieleman for correcting my English.

Christ ’ s Presence through the Spirit in the Holy Supper

345

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Ed. John Bolt. Transl. John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003. Burger, Hans. Being in Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009. Eglinton, James. Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif. London: T&T Clark International, 2012. Gleason, Ronald N. “Calvin and Bavinck on the Lord’s Supper.” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 273–303. Gleason, Ronald N. “Herman Bavinck’s Understanding of John Calvin on the Lord’s Supper.” 2009. Harinck, George. “Herman Bavinck and Geerhardus Vos.” Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010): 18–31. Heeren, Jelmer, and Maarten Wisse. “Reprioritizing the Lord’s Supper among the Reformed.” Calvin Theological Journal 54 (2019). Janse, Wim. “Calvin’s Eucharistic Theology: Three Dogma-Historical Observations.” In Calvinus Sacrarum Literarum Interpres: Papers of the International Congress on Calvin Research. Ed. Herman J. Selderhuis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008, 27–69. Jong, K. W. de. Ordening van dienst: achtergronden van en ontwikkelingen in de eredienst van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland. Baarn: Ten Have, 1996. Kooi, Cornelis van der. As in a Mirror: John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God: A Diptych. Transl. D.H. Mader. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Kuyper, Abraham. Dictaten dogmatiek: college-dictaat van een der studenten. Grand Rapids: Hulst, 1910. Kuyper, Abraham. E voto Dordraceno : toelichting op den Heidelbergschen Catechismus. Amsterdam: Wormser, 1892. Kuyper, Abraham. Het werk van den Heiligen Geest. Amsterdam: Wormser, 1888. Kuyper, Abraham. Onze eeredienst. Kampen: Kok, 1911. Velema, Willem Hendrik. De leer van de Heilige Geest bij Abraham Kuyper. ’s Gravenhage: Van Keulen, 1957. Wisse, Maarten. “Habitus Fidei: An Essay on the History of a Concept.” Scottish Journal of Theology 56.2 (2003): 172–189. Wisse, Maarten, and Hugo Meijer. “Pneumatology: Tradition and Renewal.” In Brill Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy. Ed. Herman J. Selderhuis. Leiden: Brill, 2013, 465–518.

chapter 22

The Spirit of the Supernatural: The Rise of Apostolic Networks in the Netherlands Miranda Klaver 1 Introduction Over the course of the last decade, international networks of neo-Pentecostal revivalists have entered the Netherlands. The impact of these revivalist networks is observed in the presence of self-acclaimed apostles, prophets, and healing evangelists at conferences, emerging new bible schools, and through the extensive use of online media like online seminars and courses. Prominent is the coming of those revivalists’ part of the network called Revival Alliance,1 which consists of six independent charismatic leaders and their ministries: Randy Clark (Global Awakening), John and Carol Arnott (Catch the Fire), Che Ahn (H-Rock church), Heidi and Roland Baker (Iris Ministries) and Bill Johnson (Bethel Church). What unites these members is their link with the Toronto Blessing, the often called largest 20th century Pentecostal revival in the North Atlantic in the mid-1990s.2 Different from the past, these new networks do not only influence Dutch Pentecostalism and revivalist evangelicalism but also increasingly affect the mainline Protestant church and smaller Calvinist churches in the Netherlands. The call for and promises of revival, proclaimed by (mostly) American apostles 1  The website of the Revival Alliance has been changed in the beginning of December 2017. The Revival Alliance as a network of the six ministries are no longer presented on the website http://revivalalliance.com/ but announces the upcoming revival Alliance conference in 2018 with the following speakers: Che Ahn, Heidi Baker, Todd White, Georgian Banov, Claudio Freizon, Lou Engle, Bill Johnson, Jerame Nelson and Lance Wallnau. accessed December 7, 2017. The website seems to be hosted by Harvest International Ministry (HIM), the apostolic network of Che Ahn, see harvestim.org, accessed December 7, 2017. Randy Clark is not mentioned at this conference but has changed his website of Global Awakening around the same time. A new network page has been added and Clark has established a new global network around his own ministry, see https://globalawakening.com/, and https://globalawakening .com/network/about-network , accessed December 7, 2017. 2  Michael Wilkinson, “Charismatic Christianity and the Role of Social Networks. Catch the Fire and the Revival Alliance,” Pneuma 38.1–2 (2016): 33–49.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_024

The Spirit of the Supernatural

347

and prophets, offer a hopeful perspective in a context of church decline and apostasy. Their grand and optimistic visions for Europe, promoting an experiential apologetics of signs and wonders supported by stories of miraculous healings and supernatural revelation, ignites the desire for a change in secular Europe: a revitalization of the church and a revival of the masses turning back to God. The influx of international revivalist groups and ministries in the Netherlands is in itself not new. After the second World War, many evangelistic groups like Youth for Christ, the Navigators, Campus Crusade for Christ, and Youth with a Mission crossed the Atlantic and came to the Netherlands to bring the gospel afresh, often aimed at specific groups like students or young adults.3 However, the recent expansion of apostolic networks might indicate a transition within Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity or even Christianity at large. In their book Network Christianity (2017), Christerson and Flory signal a profound change arising within American Christianity. While traditionally organized Christianity is declining, networks of Pentecostal/charismatic ministries and independent churches are explosively growing. They introduce the term Independent Network Christianity (INC) to capture fast growing movements in Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity, which include the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement, (coined by C. Peter Wagner4) but are at the same time broader: not all INC groups identify themselves with the NAR. Organizationally, INC is a “collection of strong leaders who know each other and combine and recombine for specific projects, but who are functionally independent of one another” [and] “gain their legitimacy and influence based on their perceived ability to access supernatural power to produce ‘signs and wonders.’”5

3  Hans Krabbendam, “The American influence on Dutch Religion,” in Four Centuries of DutchAmerican Relations: 1609–2009, eds. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen & Giles Scott-Smith (Albany: State University of New York, 2009), 1027–1038. 4  C. Peter Wagner described a new era for the Christian church around the year 2000, the end of institutional Christianity and the rise apostolic leadership. He revived an older concept already used in early Pentecostalism and was systemized through the Latter Rain movement as a concept of both charismata and church governance. See Jon Bialecki, “Apostolic Networks in the Third Wave of the Spirit. John Wimber and the Vineyard,” Pneuma 38.1–2 (2016): 25 and Margaret M. Poloma and Matthew T. Lee, “New Apostolic Reformation: Main Street Mystics and Everyday Prophets,” in Prophecy in the New Millenium: When Prophets Persist, eds. Sarah Harvey and Suzanne Newcombe (London: Routledge, 2013), 75–88. 5  Brad Christerson and Richard Flory, The Rise of Network. How Independent Leaders Are Changing the Religious Landscape (New York: Oxford University, 2017), 11.

348

Klaver

INC leaders are in the first place recognized by their practices: physical healing, prophecy understood as receiving direct words from God, and deliverance of evil spirits. Together these practices belong to the key identifying practices of the Pentecostal movement. But different from Pentecostal doctrines, INC leaders do not teach a distinct or unified theology of the Spirit. Two theological themes characterize these networks: the restoration of apostles and prophets, essential for the restoration of the fivefold ministry as governance model of biblical leadership and, secondly, the impartation of gifts of the Spirit through the laying on of hands. Both themes can be traced back to the Latter Rain movement, an innovative restoration movement in 1948.6 In this chapter, I will examine the ways in which the influence of charismatic networks has been taking place in the Netherlands over the last decade and the implicit theology of the Spirit that they bring. The focus will be on practices as this emerging mode of Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity emphasizes practices over belief by introducing healing and other charismatic practices that they deem most important and largely absent in traditional Protestantism. Practices, being sets of successive acts expressed in bodily forms, are imbued with meaning and according to Cartledge “saturated with theology.”7 They are observed in the concurrence of language and performance of leaders on platforms, in the desired participation of the audience, and in the implicit understanding of how God dwells in the world. The characteristic Pentecostal spirituality of encounter centres around key issues of “presence” and “mediation’ addressing the overall question: how is God, through His Spirit to be experienced in the world?8 2

Mediation, Presence, and Power

In the field of Anthropology of Christianity there is a growing trend to use a mediation framework to understand and analyse the relationship between

6  See further Richard Riss, “The latter Rain Movement of 1948,” Pneuma 4.1 (1982): 32–45 and Mark Hutchinson, “The Latter Rain Movement and the Phenomenon of Global Return,” in Winds from the North Canadian Contributions to the Pentecostal Movement, eds. Michael Wilkinson and Peter Althouse (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 265–284. 7  Mark J. Cartledge, “Pentecostal Experience: An Example of Practical-Theological Rescripting,” JEPTA 28.1 (2008): 21–34. http://www.eptaonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/JEPTA -28-1-2008-Cartledge-PentExperience.pdf. 8  Julia L. Cassaniti and Tanya Marie Luhrmann, “The Cultural Kindling of Spiritual Experiences,” Current Anthropology 55.S10 (2014): S333–43, doi:10.1086/677881.

The Spirit of the Supernatural

349

believers and the transcendence.9 Mediation, although used in various ways, “refers to the ways in which religious groups use sensational and materially based forms, including bodily activities, to bridge the assumed distance between the transcendence and humans.”10 One of the key arguments in approaching religion as a practice of mediation is that it corrects a rationalist and language-centred Protestant understanding of religion as belief because it is in mediation practices that the invisible transcendent God becomes visible and present. In a recent article, Hovland suggests that the focus on presence in this mediation framework might be more complicated than often is assumed. “Christianity not only pursues presence, but also absence, as well as ambiguous presence, undecidable (or must-always—be-decided) presence, antipresence, nonpresence, failed presence, unrealizable presence and postponed presence.”11 Instability, variation and failure are therefore intrinsic part of the dynamic relation between people and the transcendent, she argues. The ambiguity and even failure of mediation raises questions of authentication and authorization of mediation practices and paying attention to power relations, modes of control, and discipline. Questions of how divine presence is to be recognized and who is in the position to claim presence (or failure) are thus directly related to theological understanding of religious leadership and authority. In order to investigate the current influx of apostolic networks in the Netherlands, I present three cases, based on ethnographic and online research12 and describe them along with the question of presence, mediation, and power. An anthropological approach can serve as a lens to study the varied 9   Birgit Meyer, “Aesthetics of Persuasion: Global Christianity and Pentecostalism’s Sensational Forms,” South Atlantic Quarterly 109.4 (2010): 741–763, and Birgit Meyer “Mediation and the Genesis of Presence, Towards a Material Approach to Religion,” Inaugural Lecture, University Utrecht 2012. 10  Ingie Hovland, “Beyond Mediation: An Anthropological Understanding of the Relationship Between Humans, Materiality, and Transcendence in Protestant Christianity,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, lfx054, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/lfx054. Published Online 23 November 2017, 2. 11  Hovland, “Beyond Mediation,” 8. 12  Over the course of the last decade, I have been following Mattheus Van der Steen, through online media like watching live stream registrations of conferences, videos of sermons through the website of House of Heroes TV on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ channel/UCCvtEx9q-8OIN_ZpyFDpEqA, accessed 01-12-2017), Christian websites and other media outlets. I attended a revival night at his center with Todd White, March 25, 2017. One of my students Eva Korfker conducted ethnographic research at the School for Supernatural Ministries in Spring 2017. I also attended twice a conference day with Randy Clark, in September 2016 and 2017.

350

Klaver

and ambiguous theological frameworks put forward through the practices observed in these revivalist networks. 3

Mattheus van der Steen, the Dutch Node in Global Apostolic Networks

In 2008, Mattheus van der Steen, a tall, blond Dutch evangelist in his midthirties, hosted the first apostolic and prophetic “Heaven on Earth” conference in the city of Rotterdam. Most of the international speakers were connected to the Revival Alliance network: Heidi Baker, John and Caroll Arnott, Che Ahn, Wesley and Stacy Campbell, and Bill Johnson. Van der Steen established his revivalist ministry “Touch Reach and Impact the Nations” (TRIN) in 2002 and had since then travelled to many countries organizing evangelistic mass campaigns. Being a person with great dreams and visions, he modelled his ministry after charismatic preachers and evangelists like Derek Prince and Reinhart Bonnke. He established a relationship with Heidi Baker during a visit to Mozambique in 2006 and visited the Lakeland Outpouring revival with Todd Bentley in 2008. He called it “the purest revival ever.”13 Two more national revivalist conferences followed in the successive years and Van der Steen, whose calling and anointing was recognized by the apostles of the Revival Alliance, founded both the “Revival Alliance in the Netherlands” (RAN)14 network and founded a church called “the Arch” in 2009. During the second conference in 2009, a group of befriended Pentecostal leaders of Van der Steen, publically “commissioned” him and his wife on stage. As one leader said: “On behalf of all spiritual leaders in the Netherlands who discern the movement of the Spirit, we bless and commission the couple.” An older Dutch Pentecostal pastor shared that Van der Steen and he had been connected through Derek Prince Ministries in the past. He recalled that an American friend had prophesied that God would bring a blond young man in his life and that he would be like a father for this man. “He will be attacked but you will protect him because God will use him in the Netherlands,” the man had said. The older pastor continued saying: “We are very grateful for the leaders from abroad that surround him but as leaders in the Netherlands we want to also recognize you, we have deep respect for you. You are not alone, 13  Interview with Mattheus Van der Steen in Reformatorisch Dagblad 02-02-2012, https:// www.rd.nl/kerk-religie/mattheus-van-der-steen-christenen-zijn-bang-voor-de-geest -1.653155 accessed 01-12-2017. 14  Website https://revivalalliance.nl, accessed 01-12-2017.

The Spirit of the Supernatural

351

when they criticise you, they criticise us, we protect each other and we stand together for the Netherlands.”15 Other leaders prayed and prophesied over Van der Steen and his American wife stressing the special anointing God had given on their lives, and proclaiming that the stronger criticism, the stronger the anointing would rest upon them. At the end of the ritual, the audience clapped and cheered loudly to give them and God praise. The live stream casting of the conference online not only added to the public recognition of the commissioning but also caused a lot of critique, commentaries, and discussion online. The Dutch Christian satiric website called Goedgelovig (litt. Translated as “Gullible”)16 related the commissioning ceremony of Van der Steen directly to the commissioning of the controversial Canadian evangelist Todd Bentley during the Lakeland outpouring, a year earlier. Peter Wagner and apostolic leaders of the Revival Alliance leaders such as Bill Johnson, Che Ahn, and John Arnott publicly recognized Bentley as an apostle and supported the Lakeland Outpouring on June 23, 2008. It was only a month later that Bentley resigned because of an adulterous relationship and separation from his wife. Bentley was dissociated from the Revival Alliance network.17 The replication of Bentley’s commissioning ceremony by national Pentecostal leaders with Van der Steen, in the presence of a number of Revival Alliance apostles raised therefore doubt and questions concerning the claimed apostolic and prophetic authority of the foreign and Dutch leaders. The Dutch Christian satiric website18 showed a special interest in the situation of TRIN and Van der Steen. His previous reputation as a pastor of a youth church and his involvement with a dubious fundraising project resulted in close monitoring his whereabouts. With the expansion of the TRIN ministry, Van der Steen received fierce criticism for the spread of spectacular healings and conversion stories, for the lack of financial transparency of

15  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBm0-AKhzok, accessed 28-11-2017. 16  https://goedgelovig.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/hoe-meer-kritiek-hoe-meer-zalving/ accessed 2017-12-02. 17  Bentley remarried and went through a process of restoration with the ministry of Rick Joyner. Three years later Bill Johnson wrote a public endorsement letter for Bentley when he returned to the revival ministry. See Matthew T. Lee, Margaret M. Poloma and Stephen G. Post, The Heart of Religion, Spiritual Empowerment, Benevolence, and the Experience of God’s Love (New York, Oxford: Oxford University, 2013), 210. 18  The satiric website Goedgelovig was active from 2007–2015. The group of bloggers contributing to the website remained anonymous but were most likely former or postPentecostals/evangelicals. The archive of the website is still online https://goedgelovig .wordpress.com/about/, accessed 28-11-2017.

352

Klaver

the organization, and his claims for the appearance of gold dust in his Bible.19 Next to the online critique, Van der Steen also was discussed and judged in Christian newspapers by evangelical theologians and Reformed evangelists: from preaching prosperity gospel to promoting occult practises. A journalist investigated the claimed healing of several children in a Burmese institute for the blind and concluded that this was not true.20 These negative media attention and exposure of Van der Steen affected the donations and resulted in the cancellation of the fourth Heaven on Earth conference of 2011. The organization TRIN had to downsize but rose out of ashes with a new name called Gospel Music Festival and renamed the church House of Heroes in 2014. Van der Steen continued his relations with the Revival Alliance and other apostolic networks, participated in international conferences, and continued organizing revival nights in the Netherlands with visiting apostles and prophets from abroad. Under the auspices of the Revival Alliance in the Netherlands, leadership seminars continued to be organized, often with leaders from Bethel like Bill Johnson, Kris Valloton and Danny Silk. In spite of the downsize and rebranding of his ministry, Van der Steen continued his church, the monthly revival nights in the Netherlands and his international evangelistic tours. He expanded his ministry with the School for Supernatural Heroes in September 2016. This one year part-time Saturday bible school is held once a month and includes a few revivalist conferences during the year. Visiting revivalists, many from Bethel church speak on Saturdays and preach the following day at the House of Heroes church. The school attracts around 500 attendees including some international visitors and people from a variety of church backgrounds. The practice-based program offers worship, teaching, and evangelism: students go out to the streets to pray with bystanders for healing and share prophetic words. Afterwards, participants are encouraged to share their testimonies on stage.

19  The claim of golddust was by activist of the satiric website collected during one of the services and had it tested by a jeweler, see https://goedgelovig.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/ trin-goud-officieel-onderzocht/ accessed 28-11-2017. 20  This led among others to an investigation of the claimed miracles healing of several blind children in Birma by the journalist Karel Smouter. No healings were confirmed. Trouw 2011-10-08 “Blinden Burma zijn helemaal niet genezen door Nederlander,” https:// www.trouw.nl/home/blinden-burma-zijn-helemaal-niet-genezen-door-nederlander ~a010f46e/. Accessed 28-11-2017.

The Spirit of the Supernatural

4

353

The Dutch Pentecostal Movement: The Quest for Apostolic Leadership

In the fall of 2016, disputes over leadership structures within the ranks of the Dutch Pentecostal movement led to disagreements and a crisis over the succession of the chairman of the Dutch association of Pentecostal churches VPE.21 An influential group of neo-Pentecostal pastors nominated Daniel Renger who envisioned restructuring the organization according to the “biblical” principle of the “fivefold ministry.” Other Pentecostal leaders, having ties with the American Assemblies of God,22 raised serious objections to this leadership model as this would lead to a hierarchical centralized organization with a few leaders on top and a removal of the general conference with decisions by voting of the members of the association. Leadership based on this principle would render a fertile breeding ground for abuse of power because of the lack of accountability structures. The debate within the association found its way in Christian newspapers and online media.23 At the general meeting, Renger did not get enough votes. He decided to step down from the council and announced that he would dedicate his time to the full time ministry in the church of Van der Steen. A few months later, a new chairman was chosen. Although he is sympathetic towards the fivefold ministry, he is more diplomatic and seems to be able to bridge the differences within the movement. However, the monthly leadership seminars organized by the Revival Alliance in the Netherlands, are promoted with the logo of the VPE. 5

The Mainline Protestant Church and Randy Clark

In 2016 the Dutch evangelical renewal movement (EW),24 organized a leadership conference “There is More” with healing evangelist Randy Clark. The mission of EW, founded in the mid 1990 by a group of pastors from mainline 21  Nederlands Dagblad, 5 October 2016, “Strijd om leiderschapsvorm binnen evangelie gemeenten,” https://www.nd.nl/nieuws/geloof/strijd-om-leiderschapsvorm-binnen.2170031 .lynkx accessed 22-11-2017. 22  The American Assemblies of God distanced themselves from the New Apostolic Refor­ mation movement by publishing an official position paper “Apostles and Prophets,” August 6, 2001. https://ag.org/Beliefs/Topics-Index/Apostles-and-Prophets, accessed 03-12-2017. 23  Nederlands Dagblad 17-11–2016, “Beoogd voorzitter verdeelt VPE,” https://www.nd.nl/ nieuws/geloof/beoogd-voorzitter-verdeelt-vpe.2337973.lynkx, accessed 22-11-2017. 24  The Protestant Church in the Netherlands is the largest protestant church in the Netherlands.

354

Klaver

protestant churches, is to bring renewal and revival as a response to secularization within the church as well in society. The conference was announced through several media platforms including a Facebook page: The EW has an intense desire for the revival in the church. An empowerment of the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit so that people of the Netherlands will know Jesus. That is why we organize from Septem­ ber 8–10 a large international leadership conference There is More with Randy Clark and Paul Martini of Global Awakening. We want to encourage and empower hundreds of church leaders from protestant and other denominations with the Holy Spirit. Do you have this desire for more? Sign up!25 Around 500 pastors and church leaders from diverse church backgrounds attended the conference and the organizers succeeded in creating a unique event by bringing people from Pentecostal movements, charismatic renewal movements and mainline protestant churches in the Netherlands together around the topic “More of the Holy Spirit.” During the conference Clark spoke several times and his messages were centred on healing and impartation. Before he started preaching, Clark showed a short video to ‘build up faith” of the audience, as he explained. It was a bombardment of fast moving images of large crowds in stadiums around the world alternated by testimonies of people being healed. It demonstrated the healing evangelist Clark in action, touching and praying for people often accompanied by ecstatic bodily behaviour. As a mode of visual rhetoric, the video confirmed his authority and narrated Gods wonderful work through Clark. According to Clark, showing the video served to build up an atmosphere of faith as a necessary condition for God to act, to heal and bless. This practice demonstrates Clark’s Pentecostal theology of presence: in order for God to be present, believers have to “tune in,” “build up their faith,” and have a high expectation of God “showing up.” 25  https://www.facebook.com/ThereisMoreEW/?hc_ref=SEARCH, published 14-03-2016. “Het EW verlangt intens naar een herleving in de kerk. Dat het Lichaam van Christus bekrachtigd wordt door de Heilige Geest en zo Nederland Jezus leert kennen. Daarom organiseren we van 8–10 september in Ede een grote internationale leiderschapsconferentie There is More! met Randy Clark en Paul Martini van Global Awakening. We willen aan de start van het seizoen honderden kerkleiders van protestantse kerken en andere denominaties bemoedigen en bekrachtigen met de Heilige Geest. Verlang jij ook naar meer? Geef je op!.”

The Spirit of the Supernatural

355

Next to the video, Clark used many testimonies of remarkable healings in his talk. Bible verses deemed secondary. The stories recalled of miracles, prophesies, and words of knowledge so accurate that it had to be divine inspiration. The religious discourse continuously emphasized the God of encounter and of immediate presence, which was captured in a revivalist framework of supernatural living. Clark further authorized his position of being a healing evangelist and apostle by telling stories of how other revivalists like Heidi Baker, had experienced a personal transformation and a breakthrough in their ministry, after he laid his hands on them for the impartation of the Spirit. Through these stories, Clark situated himself in a spiritual lineage of revivalist evangelists, especially when he recalled how John Wimber had laid his hands on him and commissioned him for ministry. Clark emphasized God’s presence is to be experienced through the affects, meaning unusual bodily sensations like heat, heaviness or tinkling but also through thoughts and mental images. Bodily sensations are to be interpreted as the evidence of God making himself known. Clark invited the audience to receive an impartation of the Spirit while he would lay his hands on people and pray for them. Through this practice of mediation, he authorized his position of being an anointed apostle, who, like a priest, mediated divine power and fire of the Holy Spirit to the people. The last night of the conference, participants were encouraged to bring along those who needed physical healing. Clark and the organizing team announced that many would get healed during the last night. However, the expected spectacular healings did not occur. The audience was encouraged to humble themselves for God and the night ended with joyous worship and celebration Afterwards, the organization asked people to send stories of healing to the office. Although many recalled that they were blessed and renewed in their faith, the stories of healing were rare. It underscored what Clark had said: healings in the Western world are far more difficult than in for example Brazil because expectancy and faith, according to Clark the basic conditions for God to move—are lacking in secularized contexts. 6

Narratives, Discourse, and the Body

In the performance of Clark, and observed among other revivalists, storytelling fulfills a crucial role in the performances on stage. Often the retelling of biblical stories, testimonies and personal stories are intertwined and run into each other. Like showing videos of revival, narratives serve to counter doubt and ambivalence the audience might have in accepting leaders like Clark since

356

Klaver

his authority depends on the endorsements of other leading revivalists. Also, telling testimonies strengthens the collective identity between the speaker and the audience. Stories of healing, of miraculous answered prayers, are received with joy and thanksgiving, and through identification, everyone shares in the divine interference. The schematic structure of testimonies, the telling of the before and after and the catharsis of the God encounter vest testimonies with universal and timeless significance. They can easily be embedded in other stories even beyond the personal and private. In the revivalist setting of the apostolic movement, testimonies stimulate believers to envision doing great and remarkable things like Jesus, healing the sick, and even raise the dead, captured in the revivalist discourse of “bringing heaven on earth.” The used discourse of the supernatural and heroes reflects a particular theological understanding of what it means to be a Christian. Believers are declared to be a special group; set apart to do extraordinary deeds and to accomplish a special mission in life. The lyrics of the songs (predominantly Bethel music), the performance and messages of the visiting apostles, they underscore a lifestyle and outlook on the world focused on success, victory, influence, reaching one’s potential and having a special destiny in life. As is demonstrated in Bill Johnson’s ending of his sermon at the House of Heroes: … you probably know this, but you have unusual influence all over the world. If I can use this allegory: He wants you to be King but He also wants to make sure that you know how to strengthen yourself. In other words, He wants to release greater glory, measure and authority deep in the sense of the royal assignment. […] You are designed to live in victory, there is a unique calling for this place here. […] I feel God has promises for you that you have not thought of. […] You are already extremely influential. I pray for supernatural hope to rest upon you, contagious hope to rest upon you, personal and corporate. God I pray for a spirit of breakthrough, that every individual will attract promises. Words of hope, discernment, that will help to discern and that empowers. That this will be a house of breakthrough, a house of extreme miracles. Where the enemy will throw a stone, not only will that attack fail but that those who throw that stone will be most impacted by the power of the gospel. That you reverse the effect of every assault. […] release them the destiny and purpose and that God will release the great breakthrough …26

26   House of Heroes, 31-03-2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxiuv98NBQw, accessed 27-11-2017.

The Spirit of the Supernatural

357

Supernatural living means not being satisfied with the ordinary life but means living in a zone where heaven and earth collide, while expecting the impossible being made possible when God “shows up.” Resistance is recognized in a framework of spiritual warfare discourse where victory is a given. These empowering messages build the self-esteem of the listeners, as each person is born and called to make a difference in the world. This task is primarily accomplished by “doing the stuff Jesus did.” In terms of agency, believers are encouraged to live with high expectations, to take risks and think in possibilities. The emphasis on the supernatural coincides with the stress on the “more” God wants to do and give. In the sermon, Johnson illustrated the distinction between supernatural and natural further by giving an account of his leadership in the Bethel church in Redding. Every Wednesday morning I meet with my staff, part of the 500 employees we have in Redding. So I meet with them for about two hours. The first one and a half we just share testimonies. I do not want us making decisions based on human reasoning. I do not want to choose our directions based on human talent. But I want to make decisions based on the God who makes the impossible possible, of God invading the impossible. This fragment shows that sharing testimonies not only describes the reality of God but also changes and transforms social reality. Like Clark, Johnson underscores that testimonies as a performative practice, render effect as they create an atmosphere of faith, which is the condition for God to guide and speak to the leaders. In spite of the often acclaimed high view of the Bible as the Word of God, here we encounter an experiential theology of mediated immediacy, prioritizing supernatural experiences over the Bible, mediating Gods voice and guidance. God’s presence is located in concrete observable effects: in the spectacular, in miracles, and extraordinary experiences, and primarily grounded in the body. Tangible, sensorial embodied experiences authenticate and proof that God is present and real. This stress on the ‘real’ power and presence of God reveals a modern epistemology, longing for empirical evidence. Johnson’s example also displays the modernist understanding of the divide between the natural and the supernatural. ‘Natural’ capacities like reason, professional competencies, life experience, gifts, and talents are posed over against a ‘supernatural’ form of knowledge and wisdom acquired through immediate divine inspiration by God. The presence of God through his Spirit is confined to the realm of the supernatural, which is separated from this world. Consequently, desacralized ordinary life needs to be ‘invaded’ by a force and power from beyond the natural world.

358 7

Klaver

Apostolic Networks: Presence, Mediation, and Power

Apostolic networks like the Revival Alliance put forward a Pentecostal spirituality that locates the presence of God in the realm of the supernatural. In doing so, emerging revivalists confirm a modern sacred versus secular divide as God seems divorced from this world altogether. Consequently, the absence of God in everyday life, renders a dualistic Manichaeistic view of the world, a warfare worldview in which good and evil are locked in a cosmic conflict. In this scenario, believers play a defining role as God’s presence in the world can only be realized and experienced through Spirit filled believers who live a “supernatural” lifestyle and “bring heaven to earth.” They are like God’s special forces, living in anticipation of God moving, acting, and speaking through them to others in this world. The repetitive rhetoric of “doing the things Jesus did” recognizes the charismatic dimension of Jesus ministry. It stresses a Spirit Christology with Jesus as the Spirit filled man, proclaiming the inauguration of the Kingdom of God with signs and wonders. But objective aspects of faith, the incarnated Christ and the Bible, are marginalized. They are subjected to personal experiences, expressed in the form of testimonies and observed in sensory experiences of the body. Here we encounter a Spirit Christology with a strict divide between the natural and supernatural, which leaves no room for the Sprit in creation and a mission of the Spirit in this world. Natural potentials present in human bodies to be cured or the created natural capacities that can be animated by God are not recognized and have no place in this dualistic framework. One of the important contributions of Pentecostal and Charismatic renewal movements is to supplement the dominant Logos Christology of the protestant traditions with a Spirit Christology. Yet, in the current emerging apostolic movements, the affirmative relation between the two is not upheld. Theologically speaking, citing van der Kooi and Van den Brink: the “work of Christ is absorbed in the work of the Spirit.”27 This experiential subjective spirituality is not embedded in communities but in individualized fluid networks of self-appointed apostles and their ministries. As a new mode of clergy, they mediate God’s empowering presence through the “impartation” of the Spirit by the laying on of hands.28 The apostles are horizontally connected through 27  Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 504. 28  In early Pentecostalism, most first generation leaders seemed to have the capacity to heal through the power of God. Yet, as Wacker suggests, “the power to transmit Holy Spirit gifts to others might have constituted a more significant leadership credential, and “this skill

The Spirit of the Supernatural

359

apostolic revivalist networks and vertically connected with those apostles whom they consider their “spiritual fathers,” often linked to spectacular revivals or successful ministries.29 In these networks, apostles and prophets are more than icons of Holy Spirit presence: they also become mediators of divine presence through practices of impartation. As is imbued in their practices, their authority is based on mutually recognized gifting and access to supernatural power of the Spirit, observable in their ability to heal the sick and receive prophetic words, directly inspired by God.30 Fluid apostolic networks presuppose therefore an elitist group of apostles forming nodes in spiritual networks where supernatural power flows from one node to the other and through them to “ordinary believers.” It is by the laying on of hands that followers gain access to the supernatural power that flows within the apostolic networks. Followers also have another option to participate in these networks: through financial support they are promised to share in God’s favour and blessings of the ministry of the apostle.31 8

To Conclude

The rise of charismatic networks illustrates the development of more networked forms of Christianity that expand alongside and have their impact on mainline Protestantism as well as the Pentecostal movement in the Netherlands. For Pentecostals, apostolic networks offer a hopeful narrative of continuity of renewal, which is necessary to retrieve their tradition. New is the broader acceptance and appropriation of the apostolic charismatics’ theology of encounter among mainline Protestants. It underscores the deeply felt need for alternative and promising narratives for the future of the church in Europe against the background of church decline and secularization. As a result of the growing influence of apostolic networks the boundaries between believers from mainline churches and Pentecostal/evangelical groups are fading. was a sign of the double measure of ‘divine blessing’ ,” Grant Wacker, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University, 2001), 149. 29  Bill Johnson presents himself as a fifth generation pastor, suggestion an intersection between a spiritual and biological descent. Clark and others also authorize themselves by writing themselves into a selectively constructed revival history. See for example Randy Clark, Kingdom Foundations Workbook (Mechanicsburg: Apostolic Network of Global Awakening, 2011), 91, 92 where a succession of revivalist movements is displayed: Reformation—Great Awakening—Wesley and Whitefield—Cane Ridge Revival— Pentecostal revival—Charismatic revival. 30  Christerson and Flory, Rise of Network Christianity, 11. 31  Christerson and Flory, Rise of Network Christianity, 54.

360

Klaver

Emerging apostolic networks offer a pragmatic, experiential and individualized theology of the Spirit, which locates the presence of God in subjective experiences located in and through the body. The presumed dichotomy between the supernatural and the natural world withdraws the view on the Spirit in this world. What is left is the sacralisation of believers’ bodies through the “ministry of impartation” by the self-acclaimed apostles. Bibliography Althouse, Peter and Robby Waddell. “The New Charismatic Networks and Other Theological Concerns.” Pneuma 38.1–2 (2016): 1–4. Bialecki, Jon. 2016. “Apostolic Networks in the Third Wave of the Spirit. John Wimber and the Vineyard.” Pneuma 38.1–2 (2016): 23–32. Cartledge, Mark J. “Pentecostal Experience: An Example of Practical-Theological Rescripting.” JEPTA 28.1 (2008): 21–34. Cartledge, Mark. J. “‘Catch the Fire’: Revivalist Spirituality from Toronto to Beyond.” PentecoStudies: An Interdisciplinary Journal for Research on the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements 13.2 (2014): 217–238. Cassaniti, Julia L. and Tanya Marie Luhrmann. “The Cultural Kindling of Spiritual Experiences.” Current Anthropology 55.S10 (2014): S333–43. Christerson, Brad and Richard Flory. The Rise of Network Christianity How Independent Leaders Are Changing the Religious Landscape. New York: Oxford University, 2017. Clark, Randy. There is More. The Secret to Experiencing God’s Power to Change Your Life. Minneapolis: Chosen Books, Baker, 2013. Clark, Randy. Kingdom Foundations: A School for Healing and Impartation Workbook. Mechanicsburg: Apostolic Network of Global Awakening, 2011. Faupel, D. William. “The New Order of the Latter Rain: Restoration or Renewal?” In Winds from the North, Canadian Contributions to the Pentecostal Movement. Eds. Michael Wilkinson and Peter Althouse. Leiden: Brill, 2010, 239–264. Gunther Brown, Candy. “Global Awakenings: Divine Healing Networks and Global Community in North America, Brazil, Mozambique and Beyond.” In Global Pentecostal and Charismatic Healing. Ed. Candy Gunther Brown. Oxford: Oxford University, 2011, 351–370. Hovland, Ingie. “Beyond Mediation: An Anthropological Understanding of the Relationship Between Humans, Materiality, and Transcendence in Protestant Christianity.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion. Published Online 23 November 2017.

The Spirit of the Supernatural

361

Hunt, Stephen. A History of the Charismatic Movement in Britain and the United States of America: The Pentecostal Transformation of Christianity. Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellen, 2009. Hutchinson, Mark. “The Latter Rain Movement and the Phenomenon of Global Return.” In Winds from the North. Eds. Michael Wilkinson and Peter Althouse. Leiden: Brill, 2010, 265–284. Kay, William K. “Apostolic Networks in Britain Revisited.” Pneuma 38.1–2 (2016): 5–22. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics. Michigan: Eerdmans, 2017. Krabbendam, Hans. “The American influence on Dutch Religion.” In Four Centuries of Dutch-American Relations: 1609–2009. Eds. Hans Krabbendam, Cornelis A. van Minnen, and Giles Scott-Smith. Albany: State University of New York, 2009, 1027–1038. Lee, Matthew T., Margaret M. Poloma, and Stephen G. Post. The Heart of Religion: Spiritual Empowerment, Benevolence, and the Experience of God’s Love. New York, Oxford: Oxford University, 2013. McClymond, Michael J. “After Toronto. Randy Clark’s Global Awakening and Rolland Bakers’s Iris Ministries, and the Post-1990s Global Charismatic Networks.” Pneuma 38.1–2 (2016): 50–76. McClymond, Michael J. “Charismatic Renewal and Neo-Pentecostalism: From North American Origins to Global Permutations.” In The Cambridge Companion to Pentecostalism. Eds. Cecil M. Jr. Robeck and Amos Yong. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2014. Meyer, Birgit, “Aesthetics of Persuasion: Global Christianity and Pentecostalism’s Sensational Forms.” South Atlantic Quarterly 109.4 (2010): 741–763. Meyer, Birgit. Mediation and the Genesis of Presence. Towards a Material Approach to Religion. Inaugural Lecture, University Utrecht, 2012. Poloma, Margaret M. and Matthew T. Lee. “New Apostolic Reformation: Main Street Mystics and Everyday Prophets.” In Prophecy in the New Millenium: When Prophets Persist. Eds. Sarah Harvey and Suzanne Newcombe. London: Routledge, 2013, 75–88. Riss, Richard. “The latter Rain Movement of 1948.” Pneuma 4.1 (1982): 32–45. Wacker, Grant. Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University, 2001. Wilkinson, Michael. “Charismatic Christianity and the Role of Social Networks. Catch the Fire and the Revival Alliance.” Pneuma 38.1–2 (2016): 33–49.

chapter 23

Of Muddy Boots & Roadways: Becoming Theologians of the Word and the Spirit Cory B. Willson 1 Introduction Cornelis van der Kooi’s recent work on pneumatology is nothing short of a clarion call for a reorientation in systematic theology. A pivot must be made away from a methodology that simply looks to the past and stays inside academic guilds to one that incorporates an inquiry into the activity of the Holy Spirit in the life of Christians in the global church—a church whose composition is rapidly becoming more southern. Writing about the future of Western theology, van der Kooi expresses a note of hope that contact with Christians from the majority world will reinvigorate theology in the West.1 This essay explores the truth and significance of this statement by placing his biblical and systematic discussion on the person and work of the Holy Spirit into dialogue with a group of Latin American evangelical theologians known as the Latin American Theological Fellowship (FTL, in Spanish: Fraternidad Teologica Latinoamericana).2 Latin America has seen a dramatic growth in the numbers of Protestant Christians in recent decades.3 What has been overlooked, however, is the development of a substantial theological corpus written in contexts of oppression, poverty and suffering in Latin America. These social locations leave an imprint on one’s theology. The value of theology in these contexts is tested not

1  Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction, transl. Reinder Bruinsma and James D. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 515. 2  Ruth Padilla DeBorst, “Songs of Hope Out of a Crying Land: An Overview of Contemporary Latin American Theology,” in Global Theology in Evangelical Perspective: Exploring the Contextual Nature of Theology and Mission eds. Jeffrey P. Greenman and Gene L. Green (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2012), 86–101 (93–94). See also: Daniel Salinas, Latin American Evangelical Theology in the 1970’s: The Golden Decade (Leiden: Brill, 2009). 3  Pew Report, “Religion in Latin America: Widespread Change in a Historically Catholic Region,” (2014), http://www.pewforum.org/2014/11/13/religion-in-latin-america/ (accessed November 23, 2017).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_025

Of Muddy Boots & Roadways

363

simply by scholarly guilds but also by whether it contributes to the vitality of the Christian communities from which they emerge. Sadly, engagement with these theological conversations by theologians in North America and Western Europe has taken the form of an “imposition of categories and contestations from one part of the global church on the rest” rather than a willingness to listen to those who “compose hopeful songs out of … crying lands.”4 What gifts from the Holy Spirit await the church in the West if they would attentively listen and learn from their brothers and sisters in the global south? In what follows I explain how the growth of Christianity in the majority world has led to the rise of global theologies and the need for truly reciprocal exchanges that overturns the unilateral North-South transfer of theological concepts. I then expound on several aspects of van der Kooi’s work on pneumatology that opens up Western theology beyond its own echo chamber and receive the gifts of contextual theologies from the South. I conclude by putting forward several methodological distinctives of the FTL that can reinvigorate Western theology and open theologians up to the work of the Holy Spirit in lives of Christians in the majority world. 2

The Rise of Global Theologies

The provenance of theology is the lived experience of the church as it participates in God’s mission. Andrew Walls demonstrates how Christian theology differs from sciences in that the primary workshop of theology is not the intellect or the library but rather “lies in the life situations of believers or of the church. Theological activity arises out of Christian mission and Christian living, from the need for Christians to make Christian choices and to think in a Christian way.”5 As such, a recurrent stimulus to theological reflection throughout church history is the spreading of the gospel to new cultures.6 4  Padilla DeBorst, “Songs of Hope,” 88. Cornelis van der Kooi, “The Challenge of Migrant Churches: Some Reflections on Theological Issues and Practical Strategies in an Unexpected Situation,” in Fruitful in This Land: Pluralism, Dialogue and Healing in Migrant Pentecostalism, eds. André Droogers, Cornelis van der Laan, and Wout van Laar (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2006), 115–124 (120). 5  Andrew Walls, “The Rise of Global Theologies,” in Global Theology in Evangelical Perspective: Exploring the Contextual Nature of Theology and Mission, eds. Jeffrey P. Greenman and Gene L. Green (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2012), 19–34 (19–20). 6  René Padilla, “Hermeneutics and Culture: A Theological Perspective,” Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture, eds. Robert T. Coote and John Stott (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 63–78 (74).

364

Willson

New cultural realities and life situations pose fresh questions concerning how to act and think Christianly. This pattern goes all the way back to the early chapters of the book of Acts as Peter reluctantly followed the leading of the Holy Spirit and crossed into religiously forbidden space of a Gentile, Cornelius’s, home (Acts 10:9–22). This crossing of a cultural boundary flew in the face of deeply ingrained religious taboos. Who could foresee that the gift of the Holy Spirit would lead to such a direct violation of purity laws and create conflict among believers (Acts 11:1–3 and 15:1–6)? And yet it was precisely this initiative of the Holy Spirit that opened up a whole new chapter in Christian theology and ensured that a narrow backward-looking, ivory tower vantage point would be insufficient for Christian theology. There is no way to contain or predict where the Holy Spirit will lead, hence theological reflection needs to include empirical reflection on everyday realities of Christians throughout the world.7 3

The Need for Exchanges between Contextual Theologies

Attentiveness to empirical realities requires a contextual approach to theology. It would not be an overstatement to say, as Stephen Bevans does, that “there is no such thing as theology; there is only contextual theology … Doing theology contextually is not an option, nor is it something that should only interest people from the Third World.”8 At the very heart of the theological task is to understand and live the Christian faith in our respective contexts. Thus, context leaves an indelible imprint on theology. And yet, in spite of the rapid growth of Christianity in the majority world, Norberto Saracco argues that a “theological change has not accompanied this shift in modern Christianity’s configuration.”9 Old habits die hard, and the proliferation of theological literature has continued to follow the pattern of

7  Walls, “The Rise of Global Theologies,” 19; van der Kooi and van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 512–13; 588; Samuel Escobar, Changing Tides: Latin America & World Mission Today (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2002), 131, 138. 8  Stephen B. Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2002), 3. 9  Norberto Saracco, “I Will Pour out My Spirit on All People: A Pastoral Reading of Joel 2:28–30 from Latin America,” Calvin Theological Journal 46 (2011), 269–277 (275–276). See also Lamin Sanneh, “A Conversation with Lamin Sanneh on World Christianity, Christian-Muslim Relations, & Translating the Christian Message,” The Global Church Project, May 2, 2016 https://theglobalchurchproject.com/conversation-lamin-sanneh-world-christianity-islam -mission-translation-cultural-renewal/ (accessed 19 October 2017).

Of Muddy Boots & Roadways

365

Western missions as a unidirectional movement from the West to the rest of the world.10 Saracco explains: Churches in the northern hemisphere continue to attempt to define an agenda and impose a theology that is foreign to churches in the southern hemisphere, as with the example of the role of women in church … What is the point of arguing over the ministry of women in a context where they have founded churches, pastor vigorous churches, and account for over 80 percent of the ministerial force of each congregation?… Should not the churches of the northern hemisphere rethink their theologies in view of the experience of the Spirit poured on all people in the southern hemisphere?11 (emphasis mine) The Spirit of God has given wonderful gifts to each part of the church, and the Western theological tradition should share its theological traditions with others. But we must resist the view that Western Christianity is an “advanced stage of what World Christianity will eventually become.”12 This is the tried and true path of paternalism and insularity. The essence of the Christian faith, the nature of the church and the activity of the Holy Spirit demand a reorientation in how systematic theology is pursued. If Western theologians are to serve the global church they must learn to listen to voices in the majority world or risk perpetuating antiquated Eurocentric and US-centric visions of the Christian faith—imperialism living on inscribed in the theological texts we publish and distribute around the globe.13 In order to make this shift, majority culture theologians in the West will need to undergo a profound transformation. At present “theologians seem to be at home in handling words from the Word and in formulating precise orthodox propositions about the content of the faith,” writes Samuel Escobar. “[However] they do not know exactly how to handle the reality of the Holy Spirit at work in the church and in the world.”14 This profound vision for theology, and its requisite competences for theologians, has much in common with van der Kooi’s vision for theology with a pneumatological accent. 10  Jehu Hanciles, “Beyond Christendom: African Migration and Transformations in Global Christianity,” Studies in World Christianity 10.1 (2004), 93–113 (101). 11  Saracco, “I Will Pour Out My Spirit On All People,” 275–276. 12  Sanneh, “A Conversation with Lamin Sanneh.” 13  Sanneh, “A Conversation with Lamin Sanneh.” See also van der Kooi, “The Challenge of Migrant Churches,” 117. 14  Samuel Escobar, The New Global Mission: The Gospel From Everywhere to Everyone (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003), 126.

366 4

Willson

The Significance of Van der Kooi’s Pneumatology

Van der Kooi’s writings are especially conducive to constructive interchanges between the contextual theologies of Western Europe and the global south. 4.1 Mission and the Two Hands of God In order to open up to the workings of the Spirit in the world he revises the Christocentrism of his Barthian heritage. After acknowledging the value of Karl Barth’s Christological approach to the theology he goes on to argue that: [t]heology should no longer be bound by the caveats and restrictions that were imposed by a theology of the Word in its emphasis on Christology as the key and norm of theology … On the contrary, room must be made for an outlook that exposes itself to the societal and political challenges that we face today. What one can observe is a new way of doing theology, which takes the criticism of Pannenberg seriously: dialectic theology separated itself from the sciences only at a great loss.15 (emphasis mine) God’s revelation is accessed in Scripture (the norming norm) and also creation.16 Van der Kooi points to the wider work of the Spirit in creation and the knowledge of God that can be found therein. But he argues that safeguards must be put in place to ensure that theology is not “taken hostage by powers of politics, economics, and ideologies.” He sets aside Barth’s analogy of the relationship between the Father and Son as a method for analyzing the relationship between the church and society because it overlooks the “deep rift between Barth’s cultural contexts and ours.”17 More problematic is the tendency to reduce the mission of the Holy Spirit to the mission of the Son. By conflating the two missions we fail to do “justice to the biblical story and our experience with it.” Christ’s work for us is finished. The Spirit’s mission is to “connect us to the completed work of Christ,” but also to lead and guide us in the present age.18 What is needed is a fuller account of Scripture and a Trinitarian configuration of the mission of God in 15  Cornelis van der Kooi, “Towards an Ecologically Sensitive Pneumatology,” Journal of Reformed Theology 6 (2012), 283–293 (284). 16  Van der Kooi is critical of the categories of special and general revelation as the latter assumes a passive work of God and static notion of revelation, see Cornelis van der Kooi, “Herman Bavinck and Karl Barth on Christian Faith and Culture,” Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010), 72–78. 17  Van der Kooi, “Towards an Ecologically Sensitive Pneumatology,” 284. 18  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 502.

Of Muddy Boots & Roadways

367

light of Irenaeus’ description of the Son and Spirit as the two hands of God. This opens the theologian up to consider the empirical realities of the Holy Spirit’s work in the world today.19 4.2 Upholding Diversity of Biblical Texts as Essential for Discernment Van der Kooi opens theological reflection to everyday realities of Christians as well as the full scope of the testimony of Scripture concerning the Holy Spirit. His approach builds on the constructive criticisms of Jürgen Moltmann’s work by Michael Welker. Moltmann’s books God in Creation20 and Spirit of Life21 chipped away at the dichotomy between divine revelation and human experience and provided a theological vision that took up the pressing injustices and problems of society. But for all its merits of providing a compelling narrative of God’s active presence in the world, van der Kooi finds Moltmann’s theology portraying the work of the Spirit with “broad brushstrokes” that hover at altitudes far removed the complexities and paradoxes of social life.22 Moltmann’s portrayal of the Spirit’s activity in the world unwisely harmonizes the plurality of voices in Scripture on this matter. If Christian theologians want to avoid lapsing into the ideological cooption that Barth feared, tools for discernment are needed to identify the genuine work of the Spirit of God in the world. Harmonizing Scripture’s diverse testimony to create a unified vision is a methodological misstep for “[t]he work of the Spirit [described] in the Bible is always multifaceted and multi-layered.”23 From creation to new creation the Holy Spirit’s activity includes giving life and tending to the development the world as the ruach, or the breath of God24 by which the majesty and glory of God is revealed through creation,25 convicting,

19  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 501–503, 492. 20  Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985). 21  Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992). 22  Van der Kooi, “Towards an Ecologically Sensitive Pneumatology,” 284–85. 23  Van der Kooi, “Towards an Ecologically Sensitive Pneumatology,” 286. Van der Kooi goes on to argue that “we would do better not to use unifying language that suggests that the Spirit is everywhere and in all. Christian theology should take the variety of the biblical imagery seriously as well as the differentiation in the biblical language on salvation history” (Van der Kooi, “Towards an Ecologically Sensitive Pneumatology,” 290). Elsewhere he categorizes the biblical texts discussing the work of the Spirit under the following headings: The Spirit as Creator of Life, The Spirit as Liberating Power, and The Spirit as Gift of Renewal (Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 493–98). 24  Ps.104:29–30; Isa.40:6–7; Ps.33:6–7. 25  Ps.19:1–4; Rom.1:18–20.

368

Willson

sanctifying and leading God’s people into truth,26 groaning with creation and humanity in their sufferings,27 and being a pledge of God’s eschatological completion of God’s purposes for creation.28 For van der Kooi, this variety of biblical images describing the Holy Spirit’s work in the world is an invaluable “deposit of possible images at our disposal that can be” utilized as needed in the discernment process.29 This opens theology to complexity, multiformity and paradox, all of which are necessary for attending to the diversity of the Spirit’s work in the world. Such efforts at discernment—especially of the Spirit’s work in broader society—are never final and must remain open to contestation and revision within the community of believers. This should not surprise us since we find in Scripture a testimony that the “Spirit is moving—a driving force for people and the church … [and yet] the fullness of his presence is yet to come.”30 We find ourselves in the tension between the reality of the completed mission of Christ and the real-but-not-yet-complete mission of the Holy Spirit.31 4.3 Pneumatology and Discernment Today To acknowledge the importance of theological engagement with the sciences is significant, but to push, as van der Kooi does, into the realm of empirical inquiry is an even bolder step. With Barth and Moltmann, he believes that theologians must engage the social issues of their times. Yet departing from Barth, van der Kooi refuses to collapse the Spirit’s work to that of Christ—the biblical accounts of the mission of Christ and the mission of the Spirit show us that these missions are inseparable and yet unique. He also deviates from Moltmann’s method of seeking an abstract unifying vision of God’s presence in the world. We always stand “with our boots in the mud,” writes van der Kooi, with no supra-historical vantage point from which we can discern the Holy Spirit’s work in the present.32 For it is in our present circumstances that we find the Spirit at work in us and in the world. The starting point for discernment for van der Kooi, is in writing a selfconsciously contextual theology for Europe and the United States. His boot are, so to speak, in the mud of the contemporary Western social imaginary. 26  Jn.16:8–11; Rom.8:12–17; Jn.14:15–18.25–26; Jn.16:12–16; 1 Jn.2:20–27. 27  Rom. 8:18–27. 28  Lk.3:15–18; Act.2:1–36; 2 Cor.1:21–22.5:5; Eph.1:13–14; Rev.22:16–18 (Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 492). 29  Van der Kooi, “Towards an Ecologically Sensitive Pneumatology,” 290–91. 30  Van der Kooi, “Towards an Ecologically Sensitive Pneumatology,” 291. 31  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 503. 32  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 513; 502; 523.

Of Muddy Boots & Roadways

369

Rather than remaining naïve about how his context shapes theology, he calls for attention to be given to the non-Western world where the church is growing rapidly.33 He writes: Globalization, the shifts of economic power in the world, enormous streams of migrants, the shift of the church’s numerical strength to the Southern Hemisphere, the growing influence of Islam in Europe—all of these developments may confuse us, but in pneumatological perspective, they might stand in a different light. They are possibilities where the Spirit may penetrate. The church must pray for the gift of discernment. For that reason our ecclesiological reflection must be very empirical. We can discern where the church is, where the Spirit is leaving his tracks, only by constantly reconnoitering our global, multicontextual reality.34 (emphasis mine) Empirical studies of the church and Christians often incorporate qualitative research methods, such as ethnography, to organize the study in a coherent way. The discernment that van der Kooi envisions involves using these qualitative research tools to listen to stories and gain knowledge from individuals and groups experiencing the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians. This is evaluated in light of the vision of the Trinitarian purposes and mission of God revealed in Scripture. What must be emphasized at this point is that this discernment should not simply entail an imprimatur on new movements but an openness to the transformation of the church through the new work of the Spirit! The story of Gentile inclusion into the people of God recorded in Acts is a poignant illustration of this type of surprising and church-transforming event.35 Prayerful discernment is a responsibility of the church as a whole and theologians must see their vocation as serving this dimension of discipleship. They need a methodology to guide the study of texts and an analysis of present contexts for evidences of the Holy Spirit’s work. Theologians in the Latin American 33  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, xii. 34  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 513; see also 580. 35  Word of Peter’s fraternizing with Cornelius got back to the disciples in Jerusalem prompting an outcry of critics in the church. Peter’s defense was unapologetically pneumatological. For him, his actions were a response to the Holy Spirit’s initiative which he interpreted in light of Scripture (Act.11:1–18; see also Act.15:6–11; 15:12–21). The inclusion of Gentiles as converts (not as proselytes) into the people of God was an unprecedented and unexpected watershed in the history of the Church (Andrew Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of the Faith (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1996), 51–53).

370

Willson

Theological Fellowship (FTL) have spent decades forging methods for attending to text and context as part of hermeneutical strategy under the guidance of the Spirit of God. In the next section I will discuss insights from these Latin American theologians that offer helpful resources for broadening our understanding of theologizing and reorienting Western academic methodologies.36 5

Latin American Theological Fellowship (FTL)

By the time the liberation theology movement got off the ground with the publication of Gustavo Gutiérrez’s book, Teoligía de la liberación: Perspectivas (published in 1971), a group of Latin American evangelical theologians had already been hard at work developing contextual theologies for several years. Theologians in the FTL engaged liberation theologians as well as Catholic, Marxist and mainline voices as they sought an evangelical methodology to interpret Scripture, context and person simultaneously.37 Rather than attempting to adapt an “existing [Northern] theology of universal validity to a particular situation,”38 they sought at theological methodology “forged in the heat of evangelical reality in Latin America in faithfulness to the word of God.”39 Several methodological characteristics of FTL theologians contribute to the reorientation of Western theology that van der Kooi desires. I will focus here on two: a change in the social location of the theologian in solidarity with the laity, and a hermeneutical strategy that analyzes contemporary contexts and Scripture in an ongoing manner.

36  Luis G. Pedraja, “Doing Theology in Spanish: Hispanic Theological Methodology, Dialogue and Rationality,” in Hispanic Christian Thought at the Dawn of the 21st Century, eds. Alvin Padilla, Roberto Goizueta and Eldin Villafañe (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 168–175 (168–169). 37  Samuel Escobar, “Doing Theology on Christ’s Road,” Global Theology in Evangelical Perspective, 72–73; Daniel Salinas, “The Beginnings of the Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana: Courage to Grow,” Journal of Latin American Theology 2.1 (2007), 8–160 (14); David C. Kirkpatrick, “C. René Padilla and the Origins of Integral Mission in Post-War Latin America,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 67.2 (2016), 351–371 (370). 38   Escobar, “Doing Theology on Christ’s Road,” 71, quoting C. René Padilla, “Biblical Foundations: A Latin American Study,” Evangelical Review of Theology 7 (1983), 79–88 (86). 39  Escobar, “Doing Theology on Christ’s Road,” 71; originally in Samuel Escobar, “Biblical Content and Anglo-Saxon Trappings in Latin American Theology,” Occasional Bulletin, Latin American Theological Fraternity 3 (October 1972), 1–11 (2).

Of Muddy Boots & Roadways

6

371

From the Balcony to the Road: The Social Location of the Theologian

Discerning the Spirit’s work in the world requires a new social location for the theologian. In his essay, “Doing Theology on Christ’s Road,” Samuel Escobar describes John Mackay’s influence on the theological method of FTL. Scholars had long focused their energies on the texts and developing methods for discerning the relationship of the author and text in their original context. Strict adherence to methodologies that are (supposedly) neutral, detached and disinterested are requisite qualities of a theologian in this schema. Yet it is precisely this disposition and approach that makes discerning the Spirit’s work in the world problematic.40 Mackay addressed the social location and attitude of the theologian by contrasting two locations from which to approach theology: constructing theology from the balcony or from the road. Balcony theology originates in academic circles and rarely leaves them. From this location the theologian is a spectator “for whom life and the universe are permanent objects of study and contemplation.”41 This leads to theology abstracted from the realities and messiness of daily life. A theology from the road, on the other hand, begins with the lived needs, questions, and circumstances of particular people. In layman’s terms, the theologian must have “skin in the game,” a vested interest in the life and mission of the community they seek to serve. FTL theologians made a clear decision to not contemplate “Christ from the comfortable distance of the balcony, a secure and easily received orthodoxy, but follow[ed] him on the troubled roads of [their] Latin American lands.”42 The integrity of their theology was not measured simply according to the categories and terms of Western academic theology, but went further and addressed life in contexts of poverty, oppression and injustice.43 Simply repeating doctrinal propositions abstracted from sociopolitical contexts would only lead, to borrow from Herman Bavinck, “[to a reliance on] intellectual arguments and abstract ideas no one cares about and no soul can live by …”44 40  Escobar, “Doing Theology on Christ’s Road,” 70, quoting John A. Mackay, A Preface to Christian Theology (New York: Macmillan, 1941), 27; Pedraja, “Doing Theology in Spanish,” 168. 41  Escobar, “Doing Theology on Christ’s Road,” 27. 42  Escobar, “Doing Theology on Christ’s Road,” 71; 29–30. 43  Padilla, “My Theological Pilgrimage,” 98. 44  Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Abridged in One Volume (Grand Rapids, Baker, 2011), 117, (emphasis added). See also Ruth Padilla DeBorst, “Songs of Hope Out of A Crying Land,” 97–98; Padilla, “Hermeneutics and Culture,” 73.

372

Willson

Theologies from the road are birthed in places of “conflict and concern were choices are made and decisions are carried out.”45 Indeed, it was the inability of Western theology to bring the gospel of Jesus to bear on the dire circumstances of the populace facing oppressive regimes, violence and poverty that drove the founding members of FTL to raise new questions for theological reflection.46 Their “boots were in the mud” alongside their brethren, as van der Kooi would describe it, and this social location shaped how they undertook their work of theology. Moving from the balcony to the road enables theologians to consider the fresh work of the Spirit in the everyday lives of Christians. This social location and disposition cultivates theologians who attend to the Word and to the Spirit. The path of scholarship in the West is entrenched in balcony theology. To outgrow their scholastic habits, theologians must learn to take their “directions from the people and their lived experience.”47 Escobar, Saracco and Eldin Villafañe show us how to do this. Exploring the rapid growth of Protestantism in Latin America they have found that the Holy Spirit is at work in a grassroots movement among the poor. While they are the descendants of Moravian, Pietist and Wesleyan missionaries, it is the Reformed doctrine of the priesthood of all believers that has proven helpful in empowering the laity for mission.48 Positioning oneself alongside the community of believers affords the theologian with the proper vantage point to discern the fresh work of the Spirit in the lives of people. Liberation theologians are also concerned with the lived experience of the oppressed populace in Latin America, but as we will see the theological method of FTL differ from liberation theologians on a few critical points.

45  Escobar, “Doing Theology on Christ’s Road,” 29–30. 46   Escobar, “Doing Theology on Christ’s Road,” 67–68; Mariano Avila, Towards a Latin American Contextual Hermeneutics: A Critical Examination of the Contextual Hermeneutics of the Fraternidad Teologica Latino-Americana (PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1996), 3, 26; Orlando Espin, “The State of U.S. Latina/o Theology: An Understanding,” in Hispanic Christian Thought at the Dawn of the 21st Century, eds. Alvin Padilla, Roberto Goizueta and Eldin Villafañe (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 98–116 (101). 47  Sanneh, “A Conversation with Lamin Sanneh.” 48  Escobar, Changing Tides, 99–103, 137; Saracco, “I Will Pour Out My Spirit On All People,” 275–6; Eldin Villafañe, “Spirit Without Borders: Pentecostalism in the Americas: A Profile and Paradigm of ‘Criollo’ Pentecostalism,” in Hispanic Christian Thought at the Dawn of the 21st Century, eds. Alvin Padilla, Roberto Goizueta, and Eldin Villafañe (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 176–183 (181–182).

Of Muddy Boots & Roadways

7

373

Text and Context: A Hermeneutic for Communal Transformation

The attentiveness which van der Kooi devotes to the diverse accounts of the Spirit’s work in Scripture must be matched by equal sensitivity to the activity of the Spirit. A hermeneutical bridge connecting the historical text and contemporary context is needed for the theologian to traverse back and forth since the domain of the Spirit is not strictly in Scripture but also in the contemporary world. The FTL and liberation theologians (LT) both sought to develop theology that spoke to people immersed in oppression and suffering. Both understood that the biblical text and social context must be considered in the hermeneutical process and both looked to social sciences for help in this process. But FTL theologians saw tendencies in LT to make Marxist categories and socialscientific analysis a canon outside of the canon, hence making it “an ‘ideological straight-jacket’ for the Bible.”49 A mediating analysis is necessary to bring theology to bear on society and social sciences are tools at the theologian’s disposal, but human experience must not be given a revelatory status displacing the normativity of Scripture (the potential danger of LT). On the other hand, it is untenable for the life of the followers of Jesus to have a hermeneutic that produces theology that is abstracted from the life of the world and church (the contribution offered by LT).50 René Padilla explains this tension that FTL theologians sought to uphold in their hermeneutics: without discarding the aim to understand the original historical context and the original meaning of the text, the task of interpreters had to be expanded to include, right from the start, the aim of articulating the biblical message for the sake of lifestyle transformation, for individuals and communities, according to the moral vision of Scripture.51 It is the telos of transforming Christian communities for living in light of God’s will in their concrete situation that necessitates focused attention on the contemporary context of interpreters.52 In order to accomplish this, the FTL’s 49  Escobar, Changing Tides, 128–29; Kirkpatrick, “C. René Padilla and the Origins of Integral Mission,” 363; Avila, “Towards a Latin American Contextual Hermeneutics,” 3, 26–28, 64. 50  Avila, “Towards a Latin American Contextual Hermeneutics,” 3, 64, 72, 139–40; Nicholas Wolterstorff, Until Justice and Peace Embrace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 45–46. 51  C. René Padilla, “My Theological Pilgrimage,” Journal of Latin American Theology 4.2 (2009), 91–111 (99). 52  Padilla, “Hermeneutics and Culture,” 63; Avila, “Towards a Latin American Contextual Hermeneutics,” 96–98.

374

Willson

hermeneutic requires interpreters to be situated “within a trifold reading—of Word, person, and context—in constant redefinition” in community under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.53 The Spirit of God comes to us in the particularity of our contexts and addresses us through Scripture. “We read and are read by the Word of God in light of our contextual realities,” writes Ruth Padilla DeBorst, “which ask questions of the Word and are in turn questioned by the Word. It is a coming and going between person, contexts and Word, a hermeneutical flow that permits neither independent propositional abstraction nor non-reflective pragmatic action.”54 The traditional grammatical-historical approach interprets the message of Scripture in light of its original historical context. With this approach we can see how the texts shaped the believing community for faithful life in the historic socio-cultural context. The FTL hermeneutic goes further and seeks to make explicit the non-neutrality of the contemporary community of interpretation by examining their socio-historical context as well as the worldview they bring with them to the reading of Scripture. As both lines of inquiry into the historical and contemporary contexts are pursued it is possible to explore connections between how the biblical message formed the believing community in the past and how this message can “bring our lives into conformity with the will of God” today.55 This hermeneutical spiral is a lifelong task of remaining faithfully rooted in the Biblical story of the people of God in our ever-changing world.56 Van der Kooi’s pneumatology sensitizes us to the diverse ways that the biblical texts speak of the Holy Spirit’s presence which offers tools for discerning his activity in the world today. In light of this he calls for the incorporation of empirical analysis of Christian mission and experience into theology. FTL’s work in hermeneutics provides a way forward methodologically. Theologians are offered theological competencies that go beyond examinations of texts so that they can learn to “discern where the church is, where the Spirit is leaving his tracks” as they attempt to understand present reality.57 These methodological 53  Ruth Padilla DeBorst, “From Lausanne III to CLADE V,” Journal of Latin American Theology 6.1 (2011), 7–13 (11). 54  Padilla DeBorst, “From Lausanne III to CLADE V,” 11; Pedraja, “Doing Theology in Spanish,” 169; Avila, “Towards a Latin American Contextual Hermeneutics,” 15. 55  Avila, “Towards a Latin American Contextual Hermeneutics,” 87. 56   Padilla, “Hermeneutics and Culture,” 75; 68–74. Avila, “Towards a Latin American Contextual Hermeneutics,” 66–67, 80–82, 85–86; Padilla DeBorst, “From Lausanne III to CLADE V,” 12; Padilla, “My Theological Pilgrimage,” 99. 57  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 513; see also 580 and Escobar, The New Global Mission, 126.

Of Muddy Boots & Roadways

375

competencies are essential for constructing theology that assists in the transformation of the community of believers in their concrete situations. 8

Fruitful Intercultural Theological Exchanges

Learning to be theologians of the Word and Spirit is no easy feat. Because the provenance of theology is the lived experience of the church as it participates in God’s mission, theologians must remain open to the new work of the Spirit and not entrenched in guarding their tradition. As the center of gravity of World Christianity continues to shift to the South, and voices of minority communities in the West grow stronger, majority culture Western theologians face the challenge of moving beyond the printed texts and learn from the laity and their experience of the Holy Spirit’s work in their midst.58 Van der Kooi rightly emphasizes the unique mission of the Spirit alongside the mission of the Son by upholding the diverse ways Scripture speaks of the work of the Spirit. In so doing he broadens our vision of God’s purposes and re-envisions the work of the theologian as attending to the empirical realities of the church as it engages in God’s mission. FTL theologians show us how to live into this work of theology by following the leading of the Spirit on the road with God’s people. This social location and solidarity are vital for theologians seeking to equip the priesthood of all believers to bring the whole gospel to the whole reality of their social existence. With the outpouring of the Spirit in Latin America Protestants needs still remain. “If indeed the Pentecostal churches have done the best job of reaching the Latin American in his [sic] concrete situation through the form of ministry they have developed,” writes Norberto Saracco, “they still have not (for the moment) been able to apply their human resources to the work of sociopolitical liberation.”59 It may be that Van der Kooi’s pneumatology will provide for fruitful exchanges with Latin American Protestants given his evangelical commitments and emphasis on the social embodiment of the gospel message.60 It is impossible to predict what God will do, but both Scripture and history 58  Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 515, 512–3; See also Van der kooi, “The Challenge of Migrant Churches,” 117. 59  Norberto Saracco, “Type of Ministry Adopted by the Pentecostal Churches in Latin America,” International Review of Mission 66.261, (1977), 65–70 (69). Escobar expresses a similar sentiment: “Doing Theology on Christ’s Road,” 83. 60  Van der Kooi lays out a holistic vision of God’s purposes for all of life and a theological vision for the church and its mission in society (Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, 578–9; 523; 518).

376

Willson

show us that rich gifts await us when theology takes its lead from the Holy Spirit’s leading of God’s people in mission. Bibliography Avila, Mariano. Towards a Latin American Contextual Hermeneutics: A Critical Examination of the Contextual Hermeneutics of the Fraternidad Teologica LatinoAmericana. PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1996. Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Abridged in One Volume. Grand Rapids, Baker, 2011. Bevans, Stephen B. Models of Contextual Theology. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2002. Escobar, Samuel. “Biblical Content and Anglo-Saxon Trappings in Latin American Theology.” Occasional Bulletin, Latin American Theological Fraternity 3 (1972), 1–11. Escobar, Samuel. Changing Tides: Latin America & World Mission Today. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2002. Escobar, Samuel. The New Global Mission: The Gospel From Everywhere to Everyone. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003. Espin, Orlando. “The State of U.S. Latina/o Theology: An Understanding.” In Hispanic Christian Thought at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Eds. Alvin Padilla, Roberto Goizueta, and Eldin Villafañe. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005, 98–116. Hanciles, Jehu. “Beyond Christendom: African Migration and Transformations in Global Christianity.” Studies in World Christianity 10.1 (2004), 93–113. Kirkpatrick, David C. “C. René Padilla and the Origins of Integral Mission in Post-War Latin America.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 67.2 (2016), 351–371. Kooi, Cornelis van der. “The Challenge of Migrant Churches: Some Reflections on Theological Issues and Practical Strategies in an Unexpected Situation.” In Fruitful in This Land: Pluralism, Dialogue and Healing in Migrant Pentecostalism. Eds. André Droogers, Cornelis van der Laan, and Wout van Laar. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2006, 115–124. Kooi, Cornelis van der. “Herman Bavinck and Karl Barth on Christian Faith and Culture.” Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010): 72–78. Kooi, Cornelis van der. “Towards an Ecologically Sensitive Pneumatology.” Journal of Reformed Theology 6 (2012), 283–293. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction. Transl. Reinder Bruinsma and James D. Bratt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Mackay, John A. A Preface to Christian Theology. New York: Macmillan, 1941. Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

Of Muddy Boots & Roadways

377

Padilla, C. René. “Hermeneutics and Culture: A Theological Perspective.” In Down to Earth: Studies in Christianity and Culture. Eds. Robert T. Coote and John Stott. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, 63–78. Padilla, C. René. “Biblical Foundations: A Latin American Study.” Evangelical Review of Theology 7 (1983), 79–88. Padilla, C. René. “My Theological Pilgrimage.” Journal of Latin American Theology 4.2 (2009), 91–111. Padilla DeBorst, Ruth. “From Lausanne III to CLADE V.” Journal of Latin American Theology 6.1 (2011), 7–13. Padilla DeBorst, Ruth. “Songs of Hope Out of a Crying Land: An Overview of Contemporary Latin American Theology.” In Global Theology in Evangelical Perspective: Exploring the Contextual nature of Theology and Mission. Eds. Jeffrey P. Greenman and Gene L. Green. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2012, 86–101. Pedraja, Luis G. “Doing Theology in Spanish: Hispanic Theological Methodology, Dialogue and Rationality.” In Hispanic Christian Thought at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Eds. Alvin Padilla, Roberto Goizueta, and Eldin Villafañe. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005, 168–175. Pew Report. “Religion in Latin America: Widespread Change in a Historically Catholic Region.” (November 13, 2014). Salinas, Daniel. “The Beginnings of the Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana: Courage to Grow.” Journal of Latin American Theology 2.1 (2007), 8–160 (14). Salinas, Daniel. Latin American Evangelical Theology in the 1970’s: The Golden Decade. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Sanneh, Lamin. “A Conversation with Lamin Sanneh on World Christianity, ChristianMuslim Relations, & Translating the Christian Message.” The Global Church Project (May 2, 2016). Saracco, Norberto. “Type of Ministry Adopted by the Pentacostal Churches in Latin America.” International Review of Mission 66.261, (1977), 65–70. Saracco, Norberto. “I Will Pour out My Spirit on All People: A Pastoral Reading of Joel 2:28–30 from Latin America.” Calvin Theological Journal 46 (2011), 268–277. Villafañe, Eldin. “Spirit Without Borders: Pentecostalism in the Americas: A Profile and Paradigm of ‘Criollo’ Pentecostalism.” In Hispanic Christian Thought at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Eds. Alvin Padilla, Roberto Goizueta, Eldin Villafañe. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005, 176–183. Walls, Andrew. The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of the Faith. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1996. Walls, Andrew. “The Rise of Global Theologies.” In Global Theology in Evangelical Perspective: Exploring the Contextual nature of Theology and Mission. Eds. Jeffrey P. Greenman and Gene L. Green. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2012, 19–34. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Until Justice and Peace Embrace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

chapter 24

Spirit, Chaplaincy, and Theology: Why Should a Chaplain Read Dogmatics? Margriet A. Th. van der Kooi-Dijkstra ♫ Enemy of apathy and heavenly dove She sits like a bird, brooding on the waters,  Hovering on the chaos of the world’s first day; She sighs and she sings, mothering creation, Waiting to give birth to all the Word will say. She wings over earth, resting where she wishes, Lighting close at hand or soaring through the skies; She nests in the womb, welcoming each wonder, Nourishing potential hidden to our eyes. She dances in fire, startling her spectators, Waking tongues of ecstasy where dumbness reigned; She weans and inspires all whose hearts are open, Nor can she be captured, silenced or restrained. For she is the Spirit, one with God in essence, Gifted by the Saviour in eternal love; She is the key opening the scriptures, Enemy of apathy and heavenly dove. John Bell1

∵ 1  Church Hymnary: Full Music (London: Canterbury, 2005).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004391741_026

Spirit, Chaplaincy, and Theology

379

1 Introduction ♫ The Spirit nests in the womb, welcoming each wonder It was with some apprehension that I accepted the invitation to contribute a chapter to this book. Unlike the other contributors I am not an academic working at a university or seminary. I am a theologian, however—one who lets herself be inspired and formed by a decent theology as a believer as well as a chaplain or spiritual care-giver in hospitals and elsewhere. In that statement I am invoking the constantly repeated adage of my husband: dogmatics is nothing but proper thinking about God, humanity, and the world.2 ♫ For she is the Spirit, one with God in essence, Gifted by the Saviour in eternal love My second introductory comment is this: if at some point we have the chance to experience an awareness of God, to learn something about Him, recognizing that our existence is a gift and that we are held safe above the abyss, it is in worship. ‘There the courage is born to hang on to the preliminary nature of salvation to and not lose courage.’3 That is why the Spirit-song of John Bell is the accompanying tune beneath and beyond this piece. In this article I want to explore how my theological understanding of the work of the Spirit is helpful in being guided and learning to love and discern4 as a chaplain in a hospital. It helps me to reflect on what I do and how I interact with patients as I do. Good chaplaincy needs to be rooted not only in good psychology, but above all in good theology. We draw from those sources, not only consciously but also unconsciously. Providing spiritual guidance rooted in a theological frame of reference is also what people ask for and expect when they call for a chaplain.

2  See Cornelis van der Kooi and Gijsbert van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), chapter 1 and passim. 3  Kees van der Kooi, Heil en verlangen. Centrale thema’s in het geding tussen christelijk geloof en nieuwe-tijdsdenken (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1995), 107. 4  Phil.1:9–10: “And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ.” (RSV).

380 2

van der Kooi-Dijkstra

Chaplaincy and the Spirit:5 Midwife and Fellow-traveler ♫ She wings over earth, resting where she wishes

Theology starts already before a conversation with patient starts. Every form of counseling presupposes all sorts of theological convictions with regard to the situation in which the chaplain finds herself. Is this space full of God’s presence or not? For me it is a space full of God’s Spirit. Before I enter the ward or the room or ring a doorbell, God’s Spirit has long been present and at work in the person I am going to visit. That means that I do not have to sit on the edge of my chair to do my utmost, as if everything depends on my attentiveness, wisdom, or clever interventions. My task is to listen and thereby bring to the surface what the Spirit has already prepared. In that sense the pastor is like a midwife who only brings forth what the Spirit has prepared. My second presupposition is that the God of the Bible is a God who speaks.6 This demands that I must do what I can to hear Him. This too requires training and, above all, a receptive attitude: personal Bible reading, prayer, meditation, theological study, persevering in barren times, and sometimes the joy of becoming aware of and experiencing God’s presence.7 It presupposes a concept of God that differs from moralistic-therapeutic deism.8 Whether that is a theologically adequate concept is dubious, but it does seem to describe quite precisely the idea of God that I often encounter in my work with people young and old. They agree that God is indeed our cause or beginning, but they seem to believe or presuppose that God is no longer involved with us; he demands proper 5  Cornelis van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force. The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017). 6  Cf. e.g. Gen.1, Ex.3 and cf. Kees van der Kooi and René van Woudenberg, Brieven over God, geloof en zeker weten (Kampen: Kok, 2002), 59. 7  C.S. Lewis writes about this in his hilarious book The Screwtape Letters (London: G. Bles, Centenary, 1942). 8  A concept coined by Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford: Oxford University, 2005). The authors find that many young people believe in several moral statutes not exclusive to any of the major world religions. It is this combination of beliefs that they label Moralistic Therapeutic Deism: – A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth. – God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions. – The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself. – God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem. – Good people go to heaven when they die.

Spirit, Chaplaincy, and Theology

381

behaviour and facilitates good feelings. This makes religion a potpourri of useful vintage,9 something of a bricolage that does not worry about borrowing from another religion if that fits or feels good. The Christian faith teaches that I myself am not normative, nor whether something feels good or not; rather, I have to allow myself to be told that God is my Creator and that I come to commit, entrust myself to him.10 And also I prefer a theology that persists in the unrelinquishable idea that God may be found in everyday life, and that the church exists for the people and for God, and not vice versa. The treasure entrusted to the church for the sake of the world is the good news that God cares for us: the gospel. It is the great ontological mystery that Christ became incarnate. ‘God cloth’d himselfe in vile man’s flesh, that so / Hee might be weake enough to suffer woe.’11 This mystery means that God does not despise his creation; not only has he made everything but also may be found in everything. Any hint at his presence, any emotional experience, any longing for meaning points to Him. God is the secret of the world. Not a riddle that we may solve, but a mystery. A mystery that wants to be tasted. ♫ Nourishing potential hidden to our eyes The theological frame of reference from which the chaplain operates, is not only a set of theoretical convictions in the chaplain’s brain, but determines the totality of her being present in the pastoral situation, from the words spoken to the body language to the clothing all actions performed. The pastor is a fellow-traveler; she does not go ahead nor lag behind but stays nearby, so that a conversation may develop about whatever comes to mind. She recalls what she found in Psalm 121 where the writer cries out: ‘The future appears like a mountain, from where can I expect help?’ The pastor does not find answers to every question. But she has enough of an answer to be able to live with all those questions.12 She trusts that we come from somewhere, that there is direction, that sense and cohesion can be found. A pastor has a collection of stories and metaphors about how God dealt with people in the past, and she tries to 9  R. Ganzevoort defines the contemporary spiritual coach as a “broker in wisdom.” To my opinion this is a questionable metaphor. 10  Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the religions of the Book. The word Islam itself means ‘submission.’ I believe this points to a difference among the religions of the Book: Christianity is not about submission but about commitment. This is more than a subtle difference in words. 11  John Donne (1572–1631), ‘Divine Poems XI,’ in: John Donne, The Complete English Poems (New York/London/Toronto, 1991), 441. 12  Van der Kooi, Heil en verlangen, 147.

382

van der Kooi-Dijkstra

connect these with the life stories of people today. She tries to reinterpret the stories of people with their light and darkness, hope and despair, in the light of God’s story, which gives meaning to their story. She does not abstractly ascribe things to God but trusts that meaning and insight are disclosed in God’s reality. This enables us to see in a new way and to see new things, and to be surprised. We turn from vagabonds into pilgrims.13 This cannot be programmed, but we can open ourselves up to the process. Once on that path, the pastor is encouraged again and again to seek connections with the stories of the Bible, for in those stories the footprints of God from the past are found and recognized. Good pastoral work is a continuous effort to bring together the story of God and the stories of people. 3

A Case Study: Elisabeth ♫ She sits like a bird, brooding on the waters, Hovering on the chaos of the world’s first day

One Sunday afternoon I had a call: a nurse was passing along the request of a patient for me to come that very day. M’lord of the manor had just added a new chunk of wood to the fireplace. I told him I expected to be back by the time he added the next one. He knew better and smiled. ‘Go as quickly as you can,’ he said. So I went to see Elsbeth,14 a woman in her early fifties. She was scheduled to have major, life-threatening surgery the next day. She told me that much had gone wrong in her life, but that things had begun to change for the better. She had just applied for a job and was on her way to a new phase in life; she was one of the two remaining candidates. That was four weeks before. Less than a week later she went to see her family doctor, who suspected she had cancer. An appointment with the lung specialist confirmed that it was so. Now another week later she was in the hospital on a chemo-drip. That is when we met. ‘I will die,’ she said, ‘the doctor has been clear.’ And then in one and the same breath: ‘Are you willing to conduct my funeral when my time is up? But I hope I will still be here for my birthday.’ ‘When were you born,’ I asked. ‘June 9,’ was the short reply. 13  M  argriet van der Kooi, Pelgrims en zwervers: Gesprekken over God en ons (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2010). 14  Elsbeth died the following July. I tell her story, with her name, with her consent.

Spirit, Chaplaincy, and Theology

383

‘How will you manage?’ ‘I have no idea. If there is a God, He owes me an answer why this happens,’ she said. ‘In the past I used to believe, but I stopped going to church.’ Silence. ‘You mention God …? Did you ever experience something from Him?’ She shook her head. ‘Don’t be too hasty,’ I said. ‘Experience shows that such stories are not so obvious, but also that many people do in fact experience something that comes from God.’ She was silent for a while. Then, suddenly, she said, ‘Yes, when I was ten.’15 ‘Please tell me,’ I said, ‘exactly as you remember.’ Her little brother of seven had died in a truck accident; she had been able to jump away just in time, but had not succeeded in pulling her brother with her. Ever after her father had blamed her for this—while she was only ten! Her parents had become locked up in their distress and lost each other. The atmosphere in the home became silent, sad, and heavy. ‘About a year and a half later,’ she continued, ‘I awoke during the night; everything was quiet and dark. In some strange way I was drawn towards the window; I had to go towards it. There, in the garden, in the darkness stood Jesus, in a bright light, in white clothing. He looked at me and I looked at Him, and I felt an immense comfort, as if everything would turn out well, forever. It was very peaceful and good. ‘He knew that it had not been my fault that I could not save my brother! As sure as He stood there and I was alive. I wished that He would stay and that we could have looked at each other endlessly. But after a while he signaled that I should go back to bed. He turned around and walked down the path.’ ‘How did you know it was Jesus?’ I asked. ‘You simply know,’ she reacted with some irritation. Mine, apparently, was a stupid question. ‘And He came to tell you,’ I said, ‘that it was not your fault?’ ‘Yes,’ she replied. ‘God is your witness,’ I said.

15  This story reminded me of the beautiful way Kathleen Norris speaks about Annunciation. See Kathleen Norris, Amazing Grace (New York: Riverhead, 1998), 71ff.

384

van der Kooi-Dijkstra

Later I would tell her that this is actually the meaning of her name: Elsbeth, Elisabeth—God is my oath, my witness. I happened to know this for she shares that name with one of my daughters. ‘Sometimes I think that people who go through a lot of difficulties get such foretastes of the presence of Jesus. It is a gift that remains with you,’ I said. Next Sunday she was in the hospital church. In accordance with the church calendar the service focused on Jesus’ transfiguration on the mountain.16 It was about Peter, that enthusiastic follower of Jesus, who wanted to hold on to this manifestation of Jesus. ‘So that is in the Bible too!’ Elsbeth said. ‘Peter understood.’ She added that it had been a long time since she had last attended church. ‘Funny,’ she added about her own childhood experience of seeing Jesus: ‘I never talked about it and there were years when I did not even think about it.’ ‘But you do remember it exactly,’ I said, ‘as if it happened yesterday. Hold on to it tightly; it will help you to face what is happening to you.’ I believe that Peter, James, and John in those days, and this Elisabeth in our day and age, are among those who have seen something of the kingdom of God in their own lifetime. I suspect that much more is seen by those around us than we tend to think. 4 Dogmatics ♫ She is the key for opening the scriptures Why does a chaplain need dogmatics in such a situation? A woman in distress has a kind of vision as a child, forgets it, and then relives it. Why would a chaplain pay so much attention to this? She could have underlined how sad it was for a child to experience such an accident, and to have to bear the grief and suffer the reproach of her parents. She could have explored the impact of the incident on the life of this woman and suggested mental skills that could help her to cope with her current moments of sickness and anxiety. 16  Sunday Reminiscere, Lk.9:28–36.

Spirit, Chaplaincy, and Theology

385

No doubt, these are important topics to discuss. As a side note: all the things narrated by Elsbeth were brought to the table through a theological question, backed up by the firm conviction on the side of the pastor that the Spirit of God is working all around us: whether she had ever had experienced God. Elsbeth had not sent for a social worker or a psychologist, but for a pastor, even though she said she no longer had much use for faith and the church. It would be a mistake not to recognize this. Did Elsbeth only want to make adequate arrangements for her funeral? Or did she expect something else from me? I take my role very seriously: my intervention does not begin with psychological coping strategies, however useful these may be; rather, I look for an experience of hope which may serve as a ground of certainty when all other certainties disappear, and which is anchored in the Scriptures. Of course, this immediately raises the question of what value may be attributed to such a vision—a child’s vision at that. Those who support a so-called ‘cessationist’ theology want to have nothing to do with this. They believe that God’s (self-)revelation ended with the disciples. In this view faith concerns first and foremost being converted and believing in the Crucified Christ, the death of Christ to atone for our sins, according to the Scriptures, his burial and resurrection, his appearances to many—a message encapsulated in the words of Paul as found, for instance, in 1 Corinthians 2:2 and 10:1–11. My toolbox also provides me with other instruments for dealing with such experiences. I need these so that I can also be a fellow-traveler and a midwife, not just a preacher who stands at the foot of the bed without worrying about whether or not his words get through. I trust that God speaks and somehow makes Himself known in the lives of people. This is not something that drops down from the sky, nor has it anything to do with a feel-good theology. It demands accountability. This accountability is rooted in the conviction that the God of the Bible is a God who speaks, and who does this in every time and in every language in an original, unrepeatable manner. I must not expect to be confronted on my path with a burning bush, or that, like William Cowper, I will receive directions when surrounded by a thick fog. When the children in the Narnia Chronicles17 return from the land of Aslan and tell their wonderful stories, there are people who want to share that experience. But when they enter the wardrobe to get access to Narnia, they end up with a splinter in their lip and do not find a door. C.S. Lewis wants to impress us with some old wisdom: God the Lord cannot be tempted to repeat Himself. He does not imitate Himself. Every time He speaks in a new way, to each human being in a manner that fits that person. 17  C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1950).

386

van der Kooi-Dijkstra

Of course, this view is immediately subject to speculation, interpretation, and projection. Is every instance that has been labeled an experience of God truly a revelation of God? Surely, to say so would be fooling ourselves: we would be embracing all forms of projection and wishful thinking. In our book about the need for a theological toolbox Kees and I provide some examples of what cannot and must not be allowed. The self-proclaimed prophet18 who predicts someone’s death, or the funeral director19 who interprets a flittering butterfly as the spirit of the boy who had just died come back to assure everyone that all is well, are to be tested just like all other prophets and spiritual experiences. Those who are searching for a way between the Scylla of denying all traces of God in our times and the Charybdis of uncritically accepting every interpretation of a religious or feel-good experience can benefit from Van der Kooi’s thoughts on this. In my well-equipped theological toolbox I look for the measuring-sticks that can help me make the crucial separations and differentiations.20 Some markers, among others: Does the experience point to Christ? Does God receive his place as the Creator and do humans remain creatures? In other words, does the prophet stay away from entering the control room where he has no business?21 In her encounter with Jesus Elisabeth was confirmed in her innocence with regard to the death of her little brother. God is her witness, He does not abandon her, and He does not forsake her in her devastating loneliness. Therefore, there is reason to trust that in the next phase of her journey He will be the same God: Immanuel. The following Sunday the Bible falls open and the text of the day touches her: the Jesus-encounter of Peter, John and James, and the recognizable sentiment of Peter: Please stay here! So do Bible stories connect with stories of fearful, discouraged people. That must undeniably be the fingerprints of the work of the Spirit.

18  Margriet van der Kooi and Kees van der Kooi. Goed gereedschap is het halve werk: de urgentie van theologie in pastoraat en zielzorg (Utrecht: Boekencentrum, 2017), 109ff. 19  Van der Kooi and Van der Kooi, Goed gereedschap is het halve werk, 20ff. 20  Cf. for criteria for recognizing God’s Spirit in Prophetic Phenomena: Cornelis van der Kooi, This Incredibly Benevolent Force, 135ff. 21  Cornelis van der Kooi, “Barth, Bell, and Hell” (Calvin College, Grand Rapids, October 21, 2011), https://vimeo.com/30922869.).

Spirit, Chaplaincy, and Theology

4.1

387

Excursus—an Early Experience of God ♫ She weans and inspires all whose hearts are open Nor can she be captured, silenced or restrained.

Good theology is an important part of the chaplains toolkit. The light of the Spirit also permeates the person of the pastor, her history and character. The work we do, the things we say are never ‘objective’; they are a part of our psychology, and God moves in a mysterious way using all that material. Therefore I tell this personal story, showing how my role as a pastor is inextricably bound to my own personality and history. During a musical evening with eight friends, we suddenly landed in a discussion about dreams. Someone said he had read a book, a book calling dreams ‘the forgotten language of God.’ That got us going. Earlier, someone in the group had related how much she was still troubled by childhood memories of the way her pastor, especially just before Easter, went on and on about the ‘rugged cross’ and the wounds and blood of Jesus. Of how she had shivered in the pew and listened with horror to the pastor’s voice and to his way of telling the story, ‘as if he found pleasure in it.’ Of how, ever since, she has hardly been able to listen to this story of cross and resurrection and had come to reject it as something ‘that does not fit with the Christian faith.’ Then, suddenly, the topic shifted to dreams, particularly about whether dreams could perhaps be a forgotten language. I think they are. Not all dreams originate from on High but perhaps they do more often than we recognize. I am sure of this, given the abundance of Bible stories. There was Joseph who had to interpret a dream to the pharaoh in the land of Egypt, and the later Joseph of Nazareth who dreamed about things he had not understood during the day, was sent to Egypt, and subsequently, again through a dream, understood that he could return with his wife and the Child. When I think about it, we find so many stories in the Bible about dreams, night-visitations, and other visionary experiences. And, with some hesitation, I add that, as a little girl, I had a dream that made an enormous impression on me. However, it disappeared under a layer of dust, as do so many signs of God’s Presence that we remember only vaguely, perhaps to God’s sorrow and dismay. In recent years that dream resurfaced, but it took a good pastor22 to unlock it for me. 22  With deference and respect I wish to mention the name of Pastor Jan van der Linden (1940–2018), carer of my soul and my Moses.

388

van der Kooi-Dijkstra

It was the kind of dream that, upon waking up, will stay with you for the rest of the day. It may have been just before Easter, although I am not sure. I was eight years old, and we lived in India, a far-away land without a breath of Christianity. I dreamed about Jesus hanging on the cross. He suffered, was tired and wounded. But the dream was not at all about the cross and the blood but about the way He looked. I stood a little way away but close enough to be able to see his eyes. He looked at me and I looked at Him. It was very quiet and I could hardly breathe, since I saw that He was suffering. I looked intently, but it was clear that there was nothing I could do, and that I was not meant to do anything but simply experience this moment. I was sharing in something mysterious. He looked at me and said, Margriet, I do this also for you. I was deeply touched; it was good and peaceful, ‘fascinosum et tremendum,’ so to say. It concerned the suffering of the whole world and the way in which the world had failed. Later I would learn to say it like this: we fail towards God and we fail towards each other even though we do our best. We cannot save the world with what we do. That entire day I kept thinking of how He looked at me, of how it had been to be there. Good and frightening. Mostly good. I did not tell anyone. That was strange because I tended to tell my parents everything. But I ‘treasured it and pondered it in my heart.’ As time went on our family experienced a lot of misery. Because of my father’s depressions we had to return to the Netherlands prematurely. He was hospitalized to the closed psychiatric ward of Utrecht University Hospital. That was awful. How awful a child may come to understand only later, but she feels it all the time. The pastor who unlocked the dream asked: ‘Is it possible that already at such an early moment the Lord wanted to assure you that He knows all things, also the things that are awful, difficult, unbearable? To give you solid ground under your feet in His time—that is, on time?’23 It was then that I came at peace with the sad heritage I had. By then I was in my fifties. For me there is no question: God can speak in a dream. And Calvary is not a thriller in which we must be overwhelmed by blood and a rugged cross. When I was eight I already began to understand that God knows all suffering and that He does something about it. I keep this mystery with me and ponder it. God speaks many languages. In his glorious majesty He goes about his mysterious ways. Bible words, visions, dreams—God leaves his traces in history and in the lives of people. It is essential that we discover, decode, and test these traces.

23  See Cornelis van der Kooi, As in a Mirror. John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God, a Diptych (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 384ff, where Van der Kooi writes on eternity, time and God’s acting today.

Spirit, Chaplaincy, and Theology

5

389

The Chaplain ♫ She sighs and she sings, mothering creation, Waiting to give birth to all the Word will say

One of the requirements of my profession is to know who you are, to know your own life story, and to be aware of the power, the vulnerabilities, and hurdles you carry along. Chaplains need to recognize the possibilities and limitations of their own personalities in order to hear clearly and eliminate static from their own communication. In continuing education courses and under the eye of mentors and supervisors, these insights—often painful—are made visible24 and professional skills are enhanced. This is an extremely useful and necessary part of a lifelong learning curve. Journalists, professors, doctors, nurses, and teachers may profit from following a similar trajectory. ‘So often I like to deceive myself,’ a professor in Nijmegen said during a class in spiritual counseling.25 Those words hit home. I too am very proud of my own insights, on being right. Part of being a chaplain is a willingness to face this temptation and to ask for another pair of eyes. Every spiritual counselor must herself receive spiritual counseling to become able to see what really matters. This implies that the chaplain must have insight into herself so that she can keep her own emotional and spiritual house in order: to some extent she is her own instrument. The Spirit employs her service, with all her limitations and inadequacies. That is why I want to tell something about myself. In addition to this professional learning trajectory there is theological training itself. I may well be Kees’ most devoted student precisely because I so often encounter in my work as pastor/spiritual counselor the dangers and damage of inadequate theology. Good theology, relevant to its time and (in our case) rooted and grounded in the Christian tradition, is the toolbox urgently needed in pastoral care.26 Early on Professor Jan Veenhof was my inspired and inspiring teacher who made dogmatics into a lively and living discipline, but since then I have had the unique opportunity of developing my theological thinking via daily life with Kees, whom I married in 1975. Kees and I first met in the fifth 24  See, e.g. Henri J.M. Nouwen, The Wounded Healer (Garden City: Doubleday, 1979), translated into numerous languages and continually reprinted. 25  Hein Blommestijn, Course in Spiritual Counseling at the Titus Brandsma Institute in Nijmegen. 26  See Van der Kooi and Van der Kooi, Goed gereedschap is het halve werk.

390

van der Kooi-Dijkstra

year of the Christian Gymnasium in Leeuwarden (Huizum) and soon recognized in each other the same interest in and enchantment with literature and beauty. With our different personalities we first had to carve out our own paths and care for our four beautiful children; but when they were no longer with us for our daily meals, we found opportunity for another kind of conversation. Not that that conversation started only at that point in time: dogmatics learns from practice and practice learns from dogmatics.27 Dogmatics is not a set of propositional truths and concepts that must simply be swallowed—even if many apparently do not want to say farewell to this old idea,28 probably because they drag it along from the previous century (or centuries!) and from their own biography. In the actual practice of the contemporary university we see a significant gap between the fields of practical and systematic theology; the prejudices and ignorance on both sides are at times considerable.29 Those who find their own toolkit to be worn-out or inadequate are, strangely enough, often no longer interested in the resources of others. The possibility that other people might have instruments that they could benefit from, and for which they might even want to exchange their own tools, seems far beyond their horizon. ‘Bias’ is just as rampant in the university or the church, as elsewhere. This should not surprise us, as we are all human. I do realize I have written extendedly about my own biography, but I did that purposely. The ground where we are born, where we greeted the sunlight for the first time, where we learned to use our senses, make an imprint on our spiritual soul. The experiences of love and rejection, good and evil, of joy, trust, grief and fear and the way we processed them; the growth of our character, the events in our history, the development of our prejudices and preferences that nestle down in our hearts, our brains and thoughts and intellect—the Spirit has to deal with all this human material. He chooses to use it, nourishing potential hidden to our eyes. God moves in a mysterious way.

27  Cf. Van der Kooi and Van den Brink, Christian Dogmatics, passim. 28  Cf. Ruard Ganzevoort, Spelen met heilig vuur. Waarom de theologie haar claim op de waarheid moet opgeven (Utrecht: Ten Have, 2013); in Dutch literature Maarten ’t Hart is a prime example of lasting resentments. 29  See Van der Kooi and Van der Kooi, Goed gereedschap, 152.

Spirit, Chaplaincy, and Theology

391

Bibliography Church hymnary: full music. 2005. London: Published on behalf of The Church Hymnary Trust by Canterbury Press. Donne, John. The Complete English Poems. New York/London/Toronto, 1991. Ganzevoort, Ruard. Spelen met heilig vuur. Waarom de theologie haar claim op de waarheid moet opgeven. Utrecht: Ten Have, 2013. Kooi, Cornelis van der. This Incredibly Benevolent Force. The Holy Spirit in Reformed Theology and Spirituality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Kooi, Cornelis van der. As in a Mirror. John Calvin and Karl Barth on Knowing God, a Diptych. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Kooi, Cornelis van der. “Barth, Bell, and Hell.” Lecture, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, October 21, 2011. Kooi, Cornelis van der, and Gijsbert van den Brink. Christian Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017. Kooi, Kees van der. Heil en verlangen. Centrale thema’s in het geding tussen christelijk geloof en nieuwe-tijdsdenken. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1995. Kooi, Kees van der, and René van Woudenberg, Brieven over God, geloof en zeker weten. Kampen: Kok, 2002. Kooi, Margriet van der. Pelgrims en zwervers: Gesprekken over God en ons. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2010. Kooi, Margriet van der, and Kees van der Kooi. Goed gereedschap is het halve werk: de urgentie van theologie in pastoraat en zielzorg. Utrecht: Boekencentrum, 2017. Lewis, C.S. The Screwtape Letters. London: G. Bles, Centenary, 1942. Lewis, C.S. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1950. Norris, Kathleen. Amazing Grace; a Vocabulary of Faith. New York, Riverhead, 1998. Nouwen, Henri J.M. The Wounded Healer. Garden City: Doubleday, 1979. Smith, Christian and Melinda Lundquist Denton. Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers. Oxford: Oxford University, 2005.

Index of Authors Ahn, C. 346, 350–51 Aitken, J.K. 26n5, 35 Albertz, R. 32n13, 34 Alexander Monachus 68 Alexander, S. 187 Allen, M. 237n15, 247 Aloysius, P. 220n28, 229 Althouse, P. 348n6, 360–61 Ambrosiaster 70–71 Andresen, C. 81n15, 89 Arendt, H. 277–78 Arndt, W.F. 38n4, 50 Arnott, C. 346, 350 Arnott, J. 346, 350–51 Athanasius 43, 69, 70n24 Augustine xvi, 2, 44–45, 51, 70n25, 81n18, 117, 125, 131n25, 205–206, 213, 277–78, 283, 294–95, 296n9, 302 Aune, D.E. 95n12, 105 Ausloos, H. 28n7, 35 Austin, M.W. 295n8, 304n43, 305 Avila, M. 372n46, 373n49–50, 373n52, 374n54–56, 376 Ayala, F.J. 193n25, 197 Baarda, T. 99n42, 107 Baker, H. 346, 350, 355 Baker, R. 346, 361 Bakker, H.A. xi, 11, 93 Balthasar, H.U. von 104–105 Balz, H. 39n5, 50 Barclay, J. 49–50 Barnes, M.R. 57, 62 Barrett, C.K. 48, 50 Barth, K. xiv, xvi, 6, 12, 45–46, 50, 77, 83–84, 86, 89, 124–37, 138–55, 235n4, 248–49, 263, 269–70, 278, 301, 305, 366–68 Basil of Caesarea 43 Bates, M.W. 10, 80, 81, 83, 88–89 Bauer, W.F. 38, 50, 65n4, 75 Baugh, L. 158n3, 161n9, 167 Baum, G. 79n8, 89 Baumert, N. 217n10, 229 Bavinck, H. xv, 18, 64, 73, 75–76, 195, 197, 206–207, 213, 332n8, 333–44, 371, 376

Bavinck, J.H. 210, 211n36, 213 Baynes, L. 100n50, 105 Beck, A.J. 241n29, 247 Beck, U. 267n6, 278 Beckermann, A. 188n3, 199 Bedau, M.A. 188n6, 197 Beek, A. van de xi, 6n10, 12, 74, 75, 113n19, 12, 138, 298–99, 305 Beintker, M. 145n39, 154, 235n4, 249 Bell, J. 378–79 Bene, C.Sz. 145, 153 Bengel, J.A. 73, 75 Benjamins, R. 24n2, 25, 27 Bennema, C. 178n14, 183 Bentley, T. 350–51 Berger, K. 175n11, 176n12, 178n15, 183–84 Berkhof, H. 93, 182n18, 252, 273 Betz, O. 316n36 Beuken, W.A.M. 313n19, 322n67, 328 Bevans, S.B. 364, 376 Bialecki, J. 347n4, 360 Billings, J.T. 244n46, 250, 301, 305 Blacketer, R.A. 79n8, 89 Blankenberg, B. 111n9, 122 Blei, K. 252n5, 257n19, 265 Blixen, K. 161 Blommestijn, H. 389n25 Blumhardt, J.C. 143, 145, 146n42, 148, 153 Bock, D.L. 317n38–39, 319, 328 Boer, E.A. de xi, 9, 64, 68n17, 75, 105 Boersma, H. 10, 82–84, 88–89, 243n38, 247 Boff, L. 225n59, 229 Bolt, J. 211n36, 213, 334n17, 345 Bonnke, R. 350 Borges, J.L. 13, 156–57, 166–67 Borght, E. Van der 20 Borgman, E. 236n7, 249, 251n2, 265, 269n11, 278 Bos, A.P. 174n8, 184 Bosma, C.J. xi, 18, 309 Bowald, M.A. 80n12, 107 Bowen, A. 103n65, 106 Branick, V. 178n15, 184 Bratt, J.D. 204n20, 205n21, 211n36, 213–14, 362n1, 376

394 Bray, G.L. 44n21, 50 Brillenburg Wurth, G. 296–97, 305 Brink, G. van den xii, 19, 1n3, 7n14, 14, 32–34, 37, 50–52, 62–64, 76, 94n5, 107, 116n36, 121–23, 183n20, 184, 186, 190n11, 192n22, 193n23, 197–98, 209, 214, 217, 227, 230, 235, 236n5, 244n46, 248, 281n3, 285n7, 286n9, 292, 299, 300n25, 301, 303n39, 304n40, 305, 315n31, 316n35, 329, 331, 345, 358, 361, 361n1, 364n7, 366n18, 367n19, 367n23, 368n28, 369n33–34, 374n57, 375n58, 375n60, 376, 379n2, 390n27, 391 Brinkman, M. xii, 13, 143n24, 154, 156, 158n4–5, 162n10, 166n15, 167–68 Broad, C.D. 187 Brownson, J. 100n48, 106 Bruggen, J. van 70n24, 76 Bruijne, A.L.Th. de 78n7, 90, 105–106, 149n47, 155, 237n13, 249 Bruinsma, R. 362n1, 376 Bruner, F.D. 314n25, 325n82, 328 Brunner, E. 263 Bulgakov, S.N. 182, 184 Bultmann, R. 283, 292 Burger, J.M. 78n6–7, 89–90, 105–106, 149n47, 155, 167, 237n13, 238n20, 244n46, 247–49, 336n29, 345 Busch, E. 138, 139n4–8, 141n12–15, 142n16, 144, 147n45, 148n46, 153 Caldwell III, R.W. 238n18, 242n34, 248 Calvin, J. xi–xiii, 12, 14, 18, 45, 50, 77, 79–80, 83, 89, 149, 167, 194, 203, 206, 213, 259, 261, 272, 300–302, 331–32, 334–36, 342–43 Campbell, S. 350 Campbell, W. 350 Campen, M. van 149n51, 154 Canlis, J. 244n46, 248 Cartledge, M. 348, 360 Casanellas, P. 53, 61–62 Cassaniti, J.L. 348n8, 360 Chan, S. 209, 213 Charlesworth, J.H. 95n12–14, 96n16, 96n21, 98n36, 99n40, 101n57, 102n59, 106 Cherry, C. 244n44, 248 Childs, B.S. 80, 89

Index of Authors Christerson, B. 347, 359n30–31, 360 Clark, R. 346, 349n12, 353–55, 357, 359n29, 360 Claudius, M. 288, 292 Clayton, Ph. 2n4, 188n5–6, 197 Clifford, C.E. 164n13, 168 Coffey, D. xiii, 11, 93, 109–10, 116–22 Cohn, J. 264 Collins, C.J. 193n26, 198 Collins, J.J. 42n14, 51 Conzelman, H. 325n81, 328 Coote, R.T. 363n6, 377 Corradini, A. 188n6, 198 Costache, D. 110n3, 123 Coyle, D. 244n51, 248 Cranfield, C.E.B. 47–48, 50 Crisp, O.D. 111n8, 122, 243n43, 249 Crommelinck, M. 188n6, 198 Crump, D. 312n7, 328 Cullmann, O. 127n12, 137 Cunitz, E. 79n8, 89 Cyril of Alexandria 110, 134 Dabney, D.L. 193n28, 198 Dalferth, I.U. 276n44, 278 Danker, F.W. 38, 50 Davies, P. 188n5, 197 Dawkins, R. 283, 292 Dekker, C. 272n31, 278 Dekker, P.D. 20 Dekker, W.M. 3n6 Del Colle, R. 93, 109, 116n37, 118n48, 119n56, 121, 222, 231 Denova, R.I. 325n79, 328 Denton, M.L. 380n8, 391 Descartes, R. 83 Dilthey, W. 259  Dingemans, G.D.J. 93, 104n70, 106 Dittus, G. 146  Donceel, J. 225n58, 230 Donne, J. 381n11, 391 Donner, H. 80n11, 89 Doss, M. 93n1, 106 Drijvers, H.J.W. 95n12, 97n29, 106 Droogers, A. 363n4, 376 Dubbink, J. 30n11, 34 Dunn, J.D.G. 4n8, 48, 50, 113n20, 164n12, 167n16, 168, 174, 184, 218, 229

Index of Authors Dupuis, J. 215, 229 Dyk, J.W. 23n1, 34, 77n1, 90 Eagleton, T. 34 Edwards, J. xv, 15–16, 235–250 Edwards, J.R. 318, 328 Eglinton, J. 336n28, 345 Egmond, A. van 149n52, 153, 171 Elderen, R. van 217n11, 229 Eliot, T.S. 159 Elwell, W.A. 215n1, 230 Epicurus 280, 292 Epiphanius of Cyprus 38, 59, 60n39, 63, 99 Erasmus, D. 71n28, 76 Erp, S. van 116n36, 122 Escobar, S. 364n7, 365, 370n37–39, 371–72, 373n49, 374n57, 375n59, 376 Espin, O. 372n46, 376 Etzelmüller, G. 196n36, 198 Eusebius of Caesarea 38, 43 Evans, C.S. 42n14, 51 Faber van der Meulen, H. 176n12, 184 Faupel, D.W. 360 Fee, G.D. 4n8, 178n15, 184 Feltz, B. 188n6, 198 Fichte, J.G. 260 Fisher, C. 255, 265 Fitzmyer, J.A. 48n36, 51, 319n50, 319n54, 329 Floor, L. 181n17, 184 Flory, R. 347, 359n30–31, 360 Flusser, D. 177n13, 184 Fowl, S.E. 80n12, 89 Frede, H.J. 71n27 Fredriksen-Landes, P. 44n22, 51 Fresko, J.V. 236n12, 249 Fuchs, E. 131, 137 Ganzevoort, R. 380n9, 391 Garnsey, P. 103n65, 106 Geest, P. van xiv Geivett, R.D. 295n7, 304n43, 305 Gerstner, J.H. 241n25, 248 Gigon, O. 280n2, 292 Gingrich, F.W. 38n4, 50 Gleason, R.N. 336n29, 345 Gockel, M. 235n4, 249 Goethe, J.W. von 259–60

395 Goizueta, R. 370n36, 372n46, 372n48, 376–77 Goujon, Ph. 188n6, 198 Greef, W. de 149n51, 154 Green, G.L. 362n2, 363n5, 377 Green, J.B. 188n7, 198, 311n5, 319n54, 322n66, 323n69, 329 Greenberg, M. 28n9, 32n14, 34 Greenman, J.P. 362n2, 363n5, 377 Gregersen, N.H. 254n12, 255n13, 265 Gregory of Nazianzus 111 Gregory of Nyssa 68–69, 103 Gregory, B.S. 240n23, 248 Grossfeld, B. 60n40, 63 Grynaeus, S. 79n8 Guelzo, A.C. 242n35, 249–50 Gunther Brown, C. 360 Gunton, C.E. 256, 265 Gustafson, J.M. 201, 213 Gutiérrez, G. 370 Haas, C. 94n10, 106 Habets, M. 93, 116n36, 119n57, 120n59, 121n70–71, 122, 236, 249 Haight, R. 93 Hanciles, J. 365, 376 Harinck, G. 235n4, 248, 335, 336n28, 345 Harkins, A.S. 95n12, 106 Härle, W. 281n3, 283, 292 Harrington, D.J. 54n9, 58n33, 63, 173n7, 184 Harris, R. 97n22, 98n31, 98n36, 99n41, 101n55, 102n61, 106 Harvey, S. 347n4, 361 Hasker, W. 188–89, 198 Hasselaar, J.M. 84n27, 90 Hastings, W.R. 243n39, 243n42, 248 Hauerwas, S. 293, 305 Hauschild, W.-D. 109n1, 122 Haya-Prats, G. 53n7 Heeren, J. 331n4, 345 Hefner, Ph. 256–57, 265 Heijckers-Velt, I. 20 Heijer, C.J. den 93 Helm, P. 243n43, 249 Hengel, M. 175n10, 184 Hennecke, E. 100n44, 106 Henry, C.F.H. 297, 305 Henry, M. 61n44, 63

396 Heppe, H. 165n14, 168 Herdt, J.A. 294–97, 300, 305 Hertog, G.C. den xii, 16, 78n5, 90, 266 Hick, J. 220n28, 229 Hiebert, P.G. 211, 213 Hilary of Poitiers 38 Hobbes, T. 254 Hoeksema, H. 204, 213–14 Hofheinz, M. 116n36, 122 Holmås, G.O. 311n5, 312n7, 313n14, 325n80, 329 Holmes, S.R. 238n17, 243n39, 248 Holms, M.W. 74n48, 76 Hoogland, J. 297, 305 Horner, D.A. 304–305 Horst, P.W. van der 175n10, 325n81, 329 Horton, M. 245n55, 248 Hossfeld, F.-L. 28n8 Hovland, I. 349, 360 Howard, D. 205n21, 214 Huijgen, A. xii, 10, 27n6, 33n18, 34, 77, 78n6, 80n13, 87n36, 89, 236n12, 238n20, 239n21, 247–49 Huizinga, J. 264 Humboldt, F.W.C.K.F. von 259–60 Humphreys, P. 188n6, 197 Hunt, S. 361 Hunter, D.  xiv  Hunter, H. 93n1, 106 Hur, J. 315n28, 329 Hurtado, L.W. 178n14, 184 Hutch, R.A. 242n36, 248 Hutchinson, M. 348n6, 361 Irenaeus of Lyons 224, 226, 367 Irvin, D. 222, 231 Jacobs, A.S. 60n38, 63 Jager, H.J. 178n14, 180n16, 184 Janse, W. 332, 345 Janssen, A.J. 252n5, 265 Jeeves, M. 190n12–13, 191n14, 193n25, 197–99 Jenson, R.W. 12, 124–26, 128–131, 136–137 Jewett, R. 36n1, 48–49, 51, 159n6, 168 John Chrysostom 43–44 John Damascenus 111 John Paul II, Pope 220n31, 229 Johnson, B. 346, 350–52, 356–57, 359n29

Index of Authors Johnson, E. 193n28, 198 Johnson, L.T. 326n86, 329 Jones, H.S. 39, 51 Jong, J.A. de 211n36, 213 Jong, K.W. de 341n60, 345 Jonge, H.J. de 99n42, 107 Jonge, M. de 41n10–11, 51 Jonkers, E.J. 70n25, 76 Josephus, Flavius 57, 67 Justin Martyr 59, 63 Kaiser, O. 174n8, 184 Kamp, G.C. van de xiii, 11–12, 93, 106, 109, 118n48, 121n64, 122, 174n9, 182n18, 184 Kant, I. 83, 156, 254, 259–61 Kariatlis, Ph. 110n3, 123 Kärkkäinen, V.-M. 1n2, 193, 198, 225n56, 227n66, 228–29, 235n2, 248 Kay, B. 239n22, 248 Kay, W.K. 361 Kelly, J.N.D. 4n9 Kessler, M. 326n84, 329 Keulen, D. van 64n1, 76, 149n52, 153, 235n4, 248 Khodr, G. 215, 224, 229 Kim, J. 188, 198 Kim, K. 218–21, 226, 227n67, 229 Kim, Y.R. 60n39, 63 Kirkpatrick, D.C. 370, 373n49, 376 Klapwijk, J. 191, 198 Klaver, M. xiii, 1n1, 19, 346 Knight, C.C. 188n3, 198 Knijff, H.W. de 84n26, 87n37, 89, 258n24, 263n58, 265 Knitter, P. 220n28, 229 Koet, B.J. 320n59, 329 Kohlbrugge, H.F. 241, 248 Kooi, A. van der xiii, 16, 84n26, 89, 251 Kooi, C. van der xiii–xiv, 1n3, 5–10, 12, 14, 16–20, 23, 26, 32–34, 37, 46, 50–52, 62–64, 76–78, 79n9, 83, 85, 88–90, 93, 94n5, 103n69, 105–107, 113n19, 121–23, 128, 135, 136n36, 137–38, 140, 142n19, 142n22, 143n23–28, 144n30–31, 145n38–39, 146n, 43–44, 148–55, 171, 183–84, 186–87, 191–92, 193n23, 194, 198, 208–209, 212, 214, 217n10, 221, 224, 227, 229–30, 235–37, 244n46, 248–49,

Index of Authors 251–52, 264–66, 268–79, 281n3, 286n9, 289n12, 292–93, 298–99, 300n25, 301–302, 303n39, 304n40, 305, 309, 315n31, 316n35, 328–29, 331–32, 336n32, 345, 358, 361–63, 364n7, 365–76, 379n2–3, 379n5, 380n6, 381n12, 386, 388n23, 389n26, 391 Kooi-Dijkstra, M. van der xiii, 20, 378, 382n13, 386n18–19, 389n26, 390n29, 391 Korfker, E. 349n12 Kozlovic, A.K. 159n7, 168 Krabbendam, Hans 347n3, 361 Krabbendam, Henry 181n17, 184 Krans, J. 40n8–9, 51 Krop, H.A. 149n50, 154 Kruis, S. van ’t 146n44, 155 Kuitert, H.M. 93, 113n19, 122, 150, 154 Kuty, R. 57, 63 Kuyper, A. xiv, 14, 18–19, 64, 194, 203–206, 214, 240n22, 250, 258, 272, 331–345 Laan, C. van der 3n7, 363n4, 376 Laar, W. van 363n4, 376 Lactantius 103, 280 Lagrange, M.-J. 48, 51 Lampe, G.W.H. 311n6, 314, 318n48, 329 Lane, A.N.S. 79n8, 81n18, 90 Lattke, M. 95n11–14, 96n15, 96n17, 96n20–21, 97n23–28, 98n35–36, 99n40, 100, 101n55–56, 102, 103n65, 107 Lawrence, J. 159n6, 168 Lee, M.T. 347n4, 361 Lee, S.H. 237n16, 242n35, 249–50 Leene, H. 30, 34 Leibniz, G.W. 280, 292 Leiner, M. 235n4, 249 Lemmelijn, B. 28n7, 35 Levey, S.H. 58n34, 63 Levison, J.R. 57n27, 60n41, 63 Lewis, C.S. 380n7, 385, 391 Liddell, H.G. 39, 51, 65n4–5, 76 Lietaert Peerbolte, L.J. xiv, 8–9, 36, 40n8–9, 41n12, 51 Linden, J. van der 387n22 Locke, J. 254 Lohse, E. 48n36, 51 Longenecker, R.N. 326n83, 329 Lossky, V. 2

397 Luchsinger, J.T. 172n3, 184 Luhrmann, T.M. 348n8, 360 Luther, M. 16, 45–46, 51, 81n18, 90, 161, 256–57, 275–78, 285, 294, 300, 302, 334 Luttikhuizen, G.P. 99n42, 107 Luz, U. 177n13, 184 Lyden, J. 159n6, 160n8, 168 Macchia, F. 222, 227n65, 230–31 MacIntyre, A. 255, 265, 293, 305 Mackay, J.A. 371, 376 Mader, D.H. 301n29, 305, 331n1, 345 Mallen, P. 319, 320n57, 329 Mann, F. 68n20, 76 Mannermaa, T. 300, 305 Marcellus 38 Marga, A. 126n10 Marius Victorinus 113 Marsden, G.M. 242n36, 249 Marsh, C. 161n9, 168 Marshall, I.H. 311n5, 317n40, 317n42, 319n52–56, 321n62–63, 322n64, 322n67, 325n81, 329 Martini, P. 354 Maximus Confessor 111 McClymond, M.J. 237n15, 243n37, 243n43, 245, 247n57, 249, 361 McCormack, B. xiv, 12, 124, 125n6, 134n34, 137 McDermott, G.R. 237n15, 245, 247n57, 249–50 McDonald, L.M. 70n24, 76 McGowan, A.T.B. 74, 76 McGrath, A. 1n1, 192n21, 198 McGuckin, J.A. 103n66, 107 McKinzie, G. 227n68, 230 Meester, R. 272n31, 278 Meijer, H. 332, 345 Melanchthon, Ph. 161 Menken, M.J.J. 99n42, 107 Menzies, R.P. 53n7, 309, 315n32, 328–30 Merrick, J.R.A. 224n53, 230 Meyer, B. 349n9, 361 Migne, J.-P. 51, 70n24, 76 Mingana, A. 97n22, 98n31, 98n36, 99n41, 101n55, 102n61, 106 Minnen, C.A. van 347n3, 361 Mohammed 14, 204–207

398 Moltmann, J. 1n1, 4, 6, 273, 298, 305, 367–86, 376 Montanari, F. 39n6, 51 Morgan-Wynne, J.E. 102, 107 Morgan, C.L. 187 Morimoto, A. 244n43–44, 250 Mouw, R.J. xiv, 14–15, 200 Mulder, H. 310n4, 330 Munk, R.W. 174n8, 184 Münsterberg, M. 288n11 Murphy, N. 188n3, 188n6, 189n8, 190, 198 Neill, S. 202, 207, 212–14 Nes, J. van 65n2 Nestorius 134 Neve, L. 56n26, 63 Neven, G.W. 84n26, 90, 251n1 Newcombe, S. 347n4, 361 Niebuhr, H.R. 200–201, 213–14 Nietzsche, F.W. 255 Nineham, D.E. 311n6, 329 Noordmans, O. xiii, 10, 16, 79, 84–88, 90, 145n40, 155, 225n57, 251–265 Norris, K. 383n15, 391 Nouwen, H.J.M. 389n24, 391 Novak, M.A. 95n12, 107 O’Brien, P.T. 312n7, 330 O’Byrne, D. 116n37, 123 O’Connor, T. 188n6, 198 O’Keeffe, M.E. 115n30, 119n56, 123 O’Neill, J.C. 40 Opitz, P. 78n7, 90 Origen of Alexandria 38, 42–43, 79n8, 100n44, 101, 153, 155, 220 Ortiz, G. 161n9, 168 Osiek, C. 94n9, 107 Ott, W. 312n7, 330 Otto, R. 103n64, 107 Owen, J. 239, 250 Packer, J.I. 82 Padgett, A.G. 189n9, 198 Padilla DeBorst, R. 362n2, 363, 371n44, 374, 377 Padilla, A. 370n36, 372n46, 372n48, 376–77 Padilla, C.R. 363n6, 370n38, 371n43–44, 373, 374n56, 377

Index of Authors Pahl, J. 160, 168 Paley, W. 283 Palmer, S.L. 188n7, 198 Pannenberg, W. 6, 78, 90, 255, 283, 292, 366 Papantoniou, A. 110n3–5, 111n6–7, 123 Parker, D.C. 45n25, 50 Parker, T.H.L. 45n25, 50 Peacocke, A. 2n4 Peels, H.G.L. 78n6, 89 Peursen, W.Th. 23n1, 34, 77n1, 90 Philo of Alexandria 65–67, 76, 173 Pickard, S. 193n28, 198 Pinnock, C.H. 93, 107, 215, 230 Plasger, G. 149n51, 154, 235n4, 249 Plummer, A. 311n6, 313n13, 330 Plymale, S.F. 312n7, 330 Poll-van de Lisdonk, M.L. van 71n28, 76 Poloma, M.M. 347n4, 351n17, 361 Post, S.G. 351n17, 361 Preece, G. 193n28, 198 Prince, D. 350 Propp, W.H.C. 28n7, 35 Pseudo-Philo 60 Pseudo-Zonaras 39 Quartel, J. 297, 305 Rad, G. von 172n3 Rahner, K. 116n39, 117–18, 121, 125n6, 225, 230 Ramsey, P. 295n8, 305 Reckwitz, A. 266–67, 277, 279 Reiling, J. 94n10, 107 Renfrew, C. 190, 199 Reuss, E. 79n8, 89 Riches, A. 104n71, 107 Ridder, J. de 190n11, 197 Ridderbos, H. xi, 178n15, 184 Riessen, R. van 251n1 Riss, R. 348n6, 361 Robeck, C.M. Jr. 361 Roberts, R.C. 297–98, 305 Roth, S.J. 323n69, 330 Rothen, P.B. 145n37, 155 Rougemont, D. de 264 Rudolph, K. 97n28, 107 Rufinus, Tyrannius 38, 43 Ruler, A.A. van 225n57, 273 Runia, D.T. 174n8, 184

399

Index of Authors Safrai, S. 66, 67n12, 76 Saldarini, A.J. 54n9, 58n33, 63 Salinas, D. 362n2, 370n37, 377 Samartha, S.J. 215, 220n28, 229–30 Sanneh, L. 364n9, 365n12–13, 372n47, 377 Saracco, N. 364–6, 72, 375, 377 Sarisky, D. 80n12, 90 Sattertwhaite, P.E. 82n18, 90 Schäfer, P. 52n2, 53, 54n9, 55n14, 63 Schilder, K. 180n16, 184 Schillebeeckx, E. 93, 116n39 Schleiermacher, F. xiv, 124, 127, 128n14, 258–61 Schneemelcher, W. 100n44, 106 Schneider, G. 39n5, 50 Schoot, H.J.M. 121n69, 123 Schreurs, N.F.M. 162, 168 Schweitzer, W.M. 245n53, 245n55, 250 Schweizer, E. 53n7, 315n32, 318n47 Schwöbel, C. 21n5 Scobie, A. 131n26, 137 Scott, R. 39, 51, 65n4–5, 76 Scott-Smith, G. 347n3, 361 Selderhuis, H.J. 332n7, 332n11, 345 Semler, J.S. 80n10, 90 Sheldrake, P. 243n38, 250 Silk, D. 352 Siller, A. 236n12, 249 Sirks, G.J. 1n1 Sluijs, C.A. van der 139n9, 140n10, 155 Smalley, S.S. 312n7, 330 Smedes, L.B. 167n18, 168 Smit, D. 225n57, 230 Smit, P.B.A. 221n33, 230 Smith, B.D. 42n14, 51, 60, 63 Smith, C. 380n8, 391 Smith, J.E. 242n35, 250 Smouter, K. 352n20 Spengler, O. 264 Spijker, W. van ’t 78n7, 90 Spinoza, B. de 85, 287, 292 Springhart, H. 196, 198 Spronk, K. xv, 29n10, 35 Staalduine-Sulman, E. van xiv, 1, 9, 42n15, 52, 53n4, 63, 272n29, 279 Steen, M. van der 349n12, 350–53 Stein, R.H. 314n21, 319n50, 330 Stephan, A. 188n3, 199

Stern, M. 66n11, 67n12, 76 Stoeger, W.J. 188n6, 198 Stoellger, Ph. 276, 279 Stott, D.W. 292n15 Stott, J. 363n6, 377 Stout, H.S. 245n54, 250 Strange, D. 203–204, 214 Strobel, K.C. 243n39, 250 Studebaker, S. 93n1, 107 Stump, J.B. 189n9, 198 Swain, S.R. 237n15, 247 Szubka, T. 188n4, 198 Talbert, C.H. 314n23, 330 Talman, H. 228n72, 230 Talstra, E. xv, 5, 8, 23, 25n4, 26n5, 28n7, 29n10, 35 Tamburello, D.E. 244n46, 250 Tan, S.K. 243n39 Tannehill, R.C. 332n67, 330 Tanner, K. 237n14, 250 Tattersall, I. 190, 199 Taylor, C. 240n23, 250, 255–56, 265 Teilhard de Chardin, P. 118 Tertullian 38, 71, 94n9, 101 Theodotianus 38 Thiselton, A. 3n6, 195n33, 199, 239n21, 250 Thomas Aquinas 117 Tischendorf, C. von 38, 51 Tittmann, J.A.H. 39n7, 51 Tolstaja, E.V. 46, 50 Tongeren, P. van 296, 304, 306 Toren, B. van den xvi, 15, 211, 212n39, 214–15, 216n9, 221n33, 223n48, 230 Torrance, A. 237n14, 250 Treier, D.J. 215n1, 230 Trites, A.S. 312n7, 330 Trowitzsch, M. 235n4, 249 Turner, D.R. 304–305 Turner, M.B. 53–54, 63, 315n28–29, 323n69, 329–30 Turner, R. 5 Ukpong, J.S. 218, 228n71, 230 Valloton, K. 352 Van Til, C. 203 Vandervelde, G. 167n17, 168, 172n4, 185

400 Vanhoozer, K.J. 104, 105n73–74, 107, 245n55, 250 Veenhof, J. xv, 13, 94n4, 94n7, 107, 171, 172n4, 173n5, 185, 389 Velde, D. te 78n7, 90, 105–106, 149n47, 155, 237n13, 249 Velema, W.H. 333n13, 335n27, 345 Versteeg, J.P 4n8, 16, 269, 273–76, 279 Villafañe, E. 370n36, 372, 376–77 Visscher, L. 193n27, 199 Visser, P.J. 211n36, 213 Viviano, B.T. 177n13, 185 Vlasblom, J. 258n24, 265 Vlastuin, W. van xv, 15, 235, 241n29, 243n39, 247, 250 Vleugels, G. 95n11, 95n14, 100n52, 103n63, 104n72, 108 Vliet, J. van 205n21, 214 Vogels, H.J. 70n26 Vondey, W. 3n7 Vos, G. 206, 213, 245n55, 250 Vos, P. xv, 17, 293, 295n7, 306 Vriend, J. 207n29, 213, 224n17, 345 Vroom, H.M. 162n10, 168 Waaijman, K. 217n12, 227n69, 230 Wacker, G. 358n28, 361 Wagner, C.P. 347, 351 Walls, A. 363, 364n7, 369n35, 377 Waltke, B.K. 173n6, 185 Warfield, B.B. 64, 65n4, 76, 239n22, 250 Warren, R. 188n4, 198 Webber, M. 96n14, 108 Webster, J. 78n6, 90, 237n14, 250 Welker, M. xvi, 6n11, 17, 93, 235n2, 248, 256–57, 265, 280, 283n6, 292, 367

Index of Authors Wentzel van Huyssteen, J. 255n13, 265 Westermann, C. 32n13, 34, 313n19, 330 Westra, L. 221n33, 230 Wethmar, C.J. 162n10, 168 Wettstein, J.J. 47, 51 Whitehead, A.N. 290, 292 Wieringen, A. van 29n10, 35 Wilckens, U. 48n36, 51 Wilkinson, M. 346n2, 348n6, 360–61 Willson, C. xvi, 5, 19, 362 Wilson, G.B. 167n17, 168 Wimber, J. 347n4, 355, 360 Wisse, M. xvi, 1, 18–19, 331, 332n11–12, 340n52, 345 Withrow, B. 243n39, 250 Wolff, H. 176n12, 185 Wolters, A.M. 211, 214 Wolterstorff, N. 373n50, 377 Woods, E.J. 327, 330 Woudenberg, R. van 190n11, 197, 272n31, 278, 380n6, 391 Wright, D.F. 82n18, 90 Yong, A. 193n28, 199, 202, 209–10, 214, 215n2, 216, 218n16, 220–24, 227n69, 228, 230–31, 361 Young, E.J. 320n58, 330 Zahrnt, H. 183, 185 Zenger, E. 28n8 Ziccardi, C.A. 311n5, 313n20, 316n37, 342n77, 330 Zoutendijk, A.J. 3n6 Zwiep, A.W. 272n29, 279 Zwingli, H. 332, 334, 339, 341

Index of Biblical Citations Genesis 1 7n15, 287, 380n6 1:1–2:4 283 1:2 72n34, 99n37, 172, 193–94 1:2–3 94n3 1:26–27 284 1:30 193 2:7 71n31, 72n32, 193 3:10 166 3:19 284 4:10 166 6:3 60 7:11 313n18 17:1 96n19, 285n8 22:2 318 22:12 318 22:16 318 28:3 285n8 35:11 285n8 43:14 285n8 48:3 285n8 49:25 285n8 Exodus 3 380n6 3:15 28 14 25 16 25 17:3 27 19 316 19:18 325n81 28 66 32 25 32:7 27 32:12 25 33 25, 27 33:1 27 33:13–15 25 35:30–35 172 Leviticus 25 322n67 25:8–9 132 25:10 322 25:10–13 322n68

25:28 322n68 25:31 322n68 25:33 322n68 25:41 322n68 25:50 322n68 25:52 322n68 25:54 322n68 27:17–18 322n68 27:21 322n68 27:23–24 322n68 Numbers 11:25–26 172 12:3 177n13 12:6–8 177n13 36:24 322n68 Deuteronomy 4:33 316 4:34 31 4:36 316 6:4–6 29 9 25 10:12 29 10:16 29 15:1–3 322n68 15:4 326 15:9 322n68 26:8 31 28:12 313n18 29:1–3 30 30:6 29 31:10 322n68 32:8 66 32:11 99n37, 193 34:9 172 Joshua 24 23 Judges 3:10 55n17, 61 6:34 55n18 11:29 55n18 13:25 55n18

402 Judges (cont.) 14:6 55n18 14:19 55n18 15:14 55n18 1 Samuel 2:1 55n16, 57, 59 10:5–6 72n36 10:6 55n17 10:10 55n17, 72n36 11:6 55n18, 58n32 12 23 16 54n9 16:13 315, 317n41 16:13–14 55n18 16:14 58 16:14–16 54, 55n19 16:15 58 16:23 55n19 17:43 58 18:10 55n19 19:9 55n19 19:20 55n17 19:23 55n17 2 Samuel 7:14 317, 317n43 23:2 55n17 1 Kings 18:12 55n15 18:46 55n18 22:21–23 54, 55n20 22:24 55n17 2 Kings 2:9 55n16, 57, 59 2:16 55n15 3:15 55n17 5:26 55n16, 57, 59 Job 10:9 284 34:14–15 192 Psalms 2 45 2:1–2 317n41, 325

Index of Biblical Citations 2:7 45, 317, 317n40, 317n41, 317n43, 318n47, 319, 319n55, 320 8:5 284 17:7–8 325n81 19:1–4 367n25 21:5 284 33:6 172 33:6–7 367n24 51:6 280 77:23 313n18 78 23, 24, 28 78:4 28 78:5 28 78:7 28 78:57 23, 28 78:59 28 78:65 28 80 300 82:6 284 90:3 284 103:14 284 104:24 172 104:29 192, 284 104:29–30 172, 367n24 104:30 194 106 24 106:33 28 Proverbs 3:19–20 172 8 13, 173 Song of Songs 8:6 291 Isaiah 4:4 192 5:1–7 300 11 7n15 11:1 320 11:2 55n15, 56:22–23, 59 11:2–3 175 24:18 313n18 26:19 97n22 32:15 55n11 35:5 321n61 38:14 55:11

403

Index of Biblical Citations 40:6–7 367n24 40:7 55n15 40:13 55n14 42 319n55 42:1 55n14, 127n12, 318–19, 319n51, 320 42:1–4 320 42:1–9 320 42:5–9 30 43:1 127n12 43:24 26 44:3 55n14 48:6–7 30 49:15 96n18 48:6 316 48:16 321n60 49:8 322, 322n67 58:5 321n63 58:6 320–21, 323–25 58:7 321n63 61:1 55n17, 61, 100, 316, 321–23, 323n72 61:1–2 320–26 61:1–12 320 61:2 316, 321, 321n63, 322, 322n67 61:3 56:24 63 314 63:7–64:12 313 63:9–10 57 63:14 314 63:19 313n18 64:1 313 65:17 30 66:11–13 96n18 Jeremiah 2:5 27 4:11–13 192 4:12 55n20 10:12 172 12:3 27 24:5–7 30 24:7 30 31:31–34 30 32:37–41 30 34:8 326 34:10 326

34:11 326 34:14 326 36:3 27 41:8 322n68 41:15 322n68 41:17 322n68 44:21 29 49:36 32 Ezekiel 1:1 313n18 1:3 55n17 2:2 55n12, 100 3:12 55n12 3:14 55n12 3:22 55n17 3:24 55n12 8:1 55n17 8:3 55n12 11:1 55n12 11:5 55n17 11:19 56n22, 59 11:24 55n12, 55n17, 58 12:3 27 13:11–13 192 18 31 18:30–31 31 20 23, 31 20:9 31 20:13 31 20:17 31 20:18 28, 31 20:21 31 20:32 23, 31 33:30–32 31 36–37 23 36 7n15, 30 36:24–26 31 36:27 23, 31–32, 55n14, 61, 326 37 8, 31–32, 195 37:1 32, 55n17 37:1–14 32 37:5–9 195n31 37:5–10 32 37:6 31 37:9 31–32, 72n32 37:12 32, 55n13 37:14 31–32, 55n14, 195n14

404 Ezekiel (cont.) 39:29 55n14 40:1 55n17 40:2 55n17 43:5 55n12 Daniel 7:13 318 7:13–14 286 Hosea 4:12 56n21 5:4 56n21 14:6 97n22 14:9 300 Amos 4:13 32 Joel 2:28–3:32 4 3:1 61, 72n35 3:1–2 55n14 Jonah 3:1 58 Micah 3:7 55n17 3:8 55n17 Habakkuk 2 7n15 Zechariah 1:5 29 6:5 32 12:10 54, 56n26, 59 13:2 55n18 4 Ezra 6:29 325n81 3 Maccabees 6:18 313n18 Sirach 24 13 24:3–38 173–74

Index of Biblical Citations Wisdom of Solomon 1:4–7 174 7:22–27 175 7:27 174 Matthew 1:1 318n44 1:1–17 310 3 7n15 3:13–17 309–310 3:16 132, 311, 313 3:17 316 4:1 315, 315n30 4:12 315n33 4:17 324n74 5:3 323, 323n69–70 5:43–48 220n27 7:7–11 312n12 7:9 327 7:15–23 202 7:21–22 219n24 7:26 176 11 181 11:9 177n13 11:15 323n69–70 11:25–30 177n13 12:15 320 12:18 319 12:18–21 320 12:28 127n12 13:54 176 14:3–12 310 14:23 312 17:5 319n51 19:21 323n69–71 23:37 96n18 25:13 313 26:9 323n70–71 26:11 323n70–71 26:64 285 27:51 313n16 Mark 1 7n15 1:9–11 309–310 1:10 311, 313, 313n15 1:12 133, 315, 315n30 1:14 315n33 1:15 324n74

Index of Biblical Citations 1:34 133, 318n45 1:35 312 1:35–39 323 1:37–38 323 1:39 133 3:15 133 2:23 133 6:2 176 6:13 133 6:17–29 310 6:46 312 7:26 133 9:7 319n51 9:18 133 9:28 133 10:20 323n69 10:21 323n70–71 10:45 164 12:42–43 323n69, 323n71 13:33 313 14:5 323n70–71 14:7 323n70–71 14:62 285 15:38 313n16 16:9 133 Luke 1 100 1:1–3:22 314 1:13 312n7 1:15 309n3 1:15–17 315n32 1:17 315n32 1:19 323n72 1:31 318, 318n46 1:32 317 1:32–33 320 1:33 324 1:35 47, 99n39, 309n3, 314, 315n32, 317n40, 318 1:41 99n39, 309n3 1:67 309n3 1:69 320 1:77 322n68 2:10 323n72 2:25–27 309n3 2:37 312n7 3 7n15, 18 3–24 313

405 3:3 322n68 3:1–18 310 3:15–18 368n28 3:16 309n3 3:18 323n72 3:20 315n33 3:21 312, 312n10, 313, 317n40, 320 3:21–22 309–310, 313, 316, 328 3:21–4:18 316 3:21–4:44 309–310, 317–18, 320, 325 3:22 309n3, 313, 316–20, 322 3:23 310, 318, 320 3:23–38 310, 318 3:38 315, 318 4:1 309n3, 315n28, 320 4:1–2 133 4:1–13 310, 315, 318 4:3 318 4:9 318 4:14 133, 309n3, 315, 315n29, 315n32–33, 320, 324 4:15 328 4:16 67n14 4:16–20 322 4:16–21 219n22 4:16–30 324 4:16–44 324 4:18 309n3, 315n29, 320, 322, 322n65, 322n68, 323, 323n69, 323n72 4:18–19 132–133, 309, 316, 320–22, 324, 324n76, 326 4:21 316, 320 4:31 324 4:31–41 324 4:32–43 323 4:33–36 324 4:34 318 4:35 324n76 4:36 315n32, 324 4:38–39 324 4:39 324n76 4:40 324 4:41 318, 324, 324n76 4:42 312 4:43 322n65, 323, 323n72, 324 5:12 312n7 5:15 328

406 Luke (cont.) 5:16 312n8, 312n10 5:17 315n32 5:32 324n75 5:33 312n7 6:12 312n7 6:17–19 328 6:19 315n32 6:20 323, 323n69–70 6:24 323 7:21 324n76 7:22 323n69–70 8:1 323n72, 324n75 8:28 312n7, 318n46 8:38 312n7 8:46 315n32 9:1 315n32 9:2 324n75 9:6 323n72 9:17 312 9:18 312n9–10 9:28–29 312n10 9:28–36 384n16 9:35 317n41, 318, 319n51 9:39–40 312n7 9:48 323n73 9:60 324n75 10:2 312n7 10:16 323n73 10:21 309n3, 316n34 11:1 312n10, 327 11:5–8 312 11:9–10 312n12 11:9–13 312n7 11:11–12 327 11:11–13 312n12 11:13 18, 309, 309n3, 314, 327–28 11:20 127n12 11:41 323n69 12:10 309n3 12:11–12 178 12:12 309n3 12:33 323n69 12:39 176 12:49–53 324n75 13:16 324n78 14:8 176

Index of Biblical Citations 14:13 323n69 14:21 323n69 16:16 310n4, 323n72, 324n75 16:20–21 323n69 18:1–8 312 18:9–14 312 18:22 323n69–71 19:8 323n69 19:10 324n75 19:46 312n7 20:1 323n72 20:13 318n48 21:3 323n69, 323n71 21:36 312n7 22:32 312, 312n7 22:29–30 324 22:40 312 22:40–46 312n11 22:41–42 312n10 22:45 312n7 22:69 285 22:70 318 23:34 312n10 23:45 313n16, 319n51 23:46 312n10 24:19 324 24:47 322n68 24:49 315n32, 324 John 1 100 1:3 291n14 1:1–4 99n39 1:10 291n14 1:14 100, 120n60 1:34 319n51 1:51 313n18 3:3 195n32 3:6–9 195n32 3:7 5 3:13–17 195n32 3:21 315 4:1 315 4:14 315 4:18–19 315 4:24 99n39 6:63 4, 99n39, 195 7:39 195

407

Index of Biblical Citations 10:10 227n64 12:28–30 316 14:15–18 368n26 14:25–26 268n26 15:1–4 300 16:8–11 368n26 16:12–15 368n26 16:22 5 20:22 72n32 Acts 1 7n15 1:1 324 1:2 309n3 1:5 309n3 1:8 309n3, 315n32, 324 1:14 309n2, 312n7, 314, 314n25, 328 1:16 309n3 2 3, 7n15, 45, 327–28 2:1–2 314n25 2:1–36 268n28 2:4 309n3, 314 2:17 309n3, 326 2:18 309n3 2:33 309n3 2:38 309n3, 322n68 2:42 309n2, 312n7 2:44–45 326 2:44–47 325–26 3:1 179, 312n7 3:13 320n57 3:26 320n57 4 18 4:8 309n3 4:23 325 4:23–31 314 4:23–36 325, 327 4:23–37 209 4:24–28 325 4:24–30 325, 328 4:25 309n3 4:25–26 317n41 4:27 320n57, 322 4:29 325 4:30 325 4:31 309n3, 312n7, 325, 327–28 4:32 326

4:32–35 326 4:32–36 325 4:32–37 325–26 4:33 315n32, 325 5:3 309n3 5:9 309n3 5:12–16 325, 327 5:16 309n3 5:31 322n68 5:32 309n3 5:42 323n72 6:3 309n3 6:4 309n2, 312n7 6:5 309n3 6:8 315n32 6:10 309n3 7:27 102n61 7:51 196, 309n3 7:55 309n3, 315n28 7:56 313n17 7:57 313n18 8:4 323n72 8:12 323n72, 324n75 8:14–17 314, 328 8:15 309n3 8:17 309n3 8:19 309n3 8:22 312n7 8:24 312n7 8:25 323n72 8:26 57 8:29 57, 309n3 8:34 312n7 8:39 309n3 8:40 323n72 9:11 314 9:17 309n3, 314, 328 9:18 314n27 9:31 309n3 10:2 312n7, 314 10:4 312n7 10:9–22 364 10:11 313n18 10:19 309n3 10:31 312n7 10:36 323n72 10:38 100, 309n3, 315n29, 315n32, 322, 324

408 Act (cont.) 10:44 309n3, 314 10:44–48 328 10:45 309n3 10:46 72n37 10:47 309n3 11:1–3 364 11:1–18 369n35 11:12 309n3 11:15–16 309n3 11:15–17 328 11:20 323n72 11:24 309n3, 327 11:28 309n3 12:5 312n7 12:12 309n2 13:2 309n3 13:4 309n3 13:9 309n3 13:15 67 13:32 323n72 13:33 317n41 13:38 322n68 13:52 309n3 14:7 323n72 14:15 323n72 14:21 323n72 15:1–6 364 15:6–11 369n35 15:8 309n3, 328 15:12–21 369n35 15:28 309n3 15:35 323n72 16:6–7 309n3 16:10 323n72 16:13 312n7 16:16 312n7 17:18 323n72 17:25 72n33 17:25–28 201 17:28 2 19:2 309n3 19:2–6 328 19:6 72n37, 309n3, 314n26 19:21 309n3 20:22–23 309n3 20:28 309n3 21:4 309n3 21:11 309n3

Index of Biblical Citations 21:39 312n7 22:16 314n27 26:3 312n7 26:18 322n68 28:5 309n3 Romans 1:1–5 40 1:1 36 1:2 36, 44n21 1:3 36, 44n21, 48 1:3–4 44, 48–50 1:4 8, 36–50 1:5 36 1:6 36 1:7 36 1:16 49 1:18–20 367n25 1:20 49 2:29 49 3:4 280 4:17 49, 276 4:21 49 4:24–25 49 5–6 273 5:5 49, 289 5:17 273–74 5:21 273 6:1–12 49 6:4–6 163 7:6 49, 220n25 7:14–25 241 8 164 8:1–39 49 8:2 278 8:6 196 8:9–11 49 8:10 126n10 8:11 197 8:12–17 368n26 8:14 315n30 8:15 219n23 8:17 153, 164 8:18–22 196 8:18–23 289 8:18–27 4, 368n27 8:23 220n32, 226n60, 274 8:26 274 8:30 196

409

Index of Biblical Citations 11:23 49 12:2 299n23 12:9–10 304n42 12:11 304n41 12:12–13 304n42 12:18 304n42 13:8–14 299n23 15:13 49 15:19 49 1 Corinthians 1:4–5 179 1:21 179 1:23 210 1:24 180 1:25 179 1:30 180, 182 2:2 385 2:4 180 2:8 179, 181 2:9 180 2:10 98n30, 180 4:16 72n38 6:11 43 8:6 291n14 10:1–11 385 10:16 164 12 59 12:3 219n19 12:4–11 219n21 12:8 180 12:10 217 13:1–3 220n26 14:1 72n41 15:19 274 15:20 226n60 15:28 226n63 15:35–49 226n61 15:43 196 15:45 103n67, 196 2 Corinthians 1:21–22 368n28 1:22 221n33 3:6 4 3:14 67 3:17 5 5:5 368n28 5:17 164

5:18 315n30 6:2 322, 322n67 6:18 285 13:5 126n10 Ephesians 1:4 47 1:10 226n62 1:13–14 368n28 3:18 5 4:17–32 299n23 4:30 196 5 299n23 5:19–21 72n39 Galatians 2:20 163, 274 4:5 219n23 5 196 5:19–21 303n37 5:22 219n20, 299 5:22–23 17, 202, 293n3 5:24 303n36 5:26 303n38 Philippians 2:7 136 2:8 180 2:13 276 Colossians 1:15 291n14 1:18 226n60 1:27 126n10 1:28 182 2:3 182 2:12 163n11 3:12–15 293n4 3:1 45 3:16 72n40 1 Timothy 2:4 201 4:13 67 2 Timothy 1:5 66 1:7 61, 182 3:15 66

410 2 Timothy (cont.) 3:16 65, 67–68, 71n28, 74 3:17 73n43 Titus 3:4 43 Hebrews 1 45 1:2 42, 291n14 1:5 317, 317n43 1:9 100 2:7 284 5:5 317n43 James 2:1 181 3:13–18 181 3:17 181 4:5 14 4:6 181 2 Peter 1:5–11 293n4 1:17 316

Index of Biblical Citations 1:21 73n42, 74n47 3:13 192 1 John 2:20–27 368n26 4:1 5 4:2 219n19 4:2–3 202 4:16 290 Jude 14 71n29 Revelation 1:3 75n51 1:4 54n10 3:1 54n10 4:1 313n18 4:5 54n10 5:6 54n10 5:12 180 10:1 313n18 19:11 313n18 21:5 277 22:16–18 368n28