Jesus is in Jerusalem during the seven-day Feast of Tabernacles. His attendance at the feast was a surprise -- he had told his brothers he wasn't going to attend, let the Judaeans spend a few days asking, "Where is he?" and then finally made a public appearance on or around the fourth day. Now, on the seventh and last day of the feast, he makes another appearance.
⁂
[37] In the last day, that great day of the feast,
The seventh and last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot) is Hoshana Rabbah, the Great Supplication. On this day (according to Mishnah Sukkah 4:5-6), worshipers would circle the altar seven times, to the accompaniment of trumpet blasts, and recite Psalm 118:25, "Save now, I beseech thee, O Lord: O Lord, I beseech thee, send now prosperity." This was supposed to recall the miraculous fall of the walls of Jericho, and also the seven Hebrew words of Psalm 26:6, "I will wash mine hands in innocency: So will I compass [i.e., circle] thine altar, O Lord." Furthermore, "There was a unique custom on the seventh day. They would bring palm branches to the Temple and place them on the ground at the sides of the altar, and that seventh day of Sukkot was called: The day of the placing of palm branches."
I mention all this by way of background, in case it should turn out to have any symbolic relevance to Jesus' words and actions on this day.
⁂
Jesus stood and cried, saying, "If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. [38] He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."
No passage in the Old Testament says anything about living water flowing from the belly of the believer, so what is Jesus referring to here? Well, the lack of punctuation in the Greek original allows for quite a few different readings.
Reading A: "'If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink,' he that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said. Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."
Reading B: "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. 'He that believeth on me,' as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."
Reading C: "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink, he that believeth on me. As the scripture hath said, 'Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.'"
In Reading A, the "scripture" Jesus is referring to is presumably Isaiah 55:1 -- "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters" -- of which v. 37 is a tolerably close paraphrase.
In Reading B, the scripture reference is simply "he that believeth on me," which could be a paraphrase of any number of Old Testament passages. If Jesus had one in particular in mind, my best guess would be Jeremiah 17:5-8, which says that those who trust in men will be thirsty, but those who trust in the Lord will have plenty of water.
Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited.Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
Readings A and B, as well as the King James reading, say that it is from the believer's belly that the living water will flow. Reading C allows for the possibility that Jesus is quoting a scripture about himself: "The scripture says that 'out of his (the Messiah's) belly shall flow rivers of living water.' Therefore, anyone who is thirsty can come to me (the Messiah) and drink." I can't find any scripture that actually says that, though, and overall I think we should understand the living water to be flowing from the believer himself. This is consistent with John 4:14:
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
As here in John 7, the water first comes from Jesus ("If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink") but thereafter flows from within the believer himself ("He that believeth in me . . . out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."). This idea is also present to a certain extent in the Old Testament, where those who follow the Lord will be "like a spring of water, whose waters fail not" (Isa. 58:11).
⁂
[39] (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
This is the author's interpretation of what Jesus meant, but I think it is a plausible one. As I have said, both Chapter 4 and Chapter 7 portray the living water as something that comes from Jesus first but thereafter flows from within the believer. In the same way, the Holy Ghost comes from God but then dwells in the Christian's heart and becomes an internal source of guidance and inspiration.
This idea that the Holy Ghost could not be given until after Jesus was "glorified" (resurrected and ascended) is based on something Jesus himself says later in the Gospel:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you (John 16:7).
Was the Holy Ghost something new that was given after Jesus "departed" and was "glorified," or was it the return of something old that was paused during Jesus' mortal life? Does the Holy Ghost appear in the Old Testament? There are only two occurrences of "holy spirit" in the OT. The first is Psalm 51:11, quoted below in its poetic context (vv. 10-12).
Create in me a clean heart, O God;and renew a right spirit within me.Cast me not away from thy presence;and take not thy holy spirit from me.Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation;and uphold me with thy free spirit.
I think it is tolerably clear in context that "thy holy spirit" is parallel with "a right spirit" and "thy free spirit," and that none of these refers to the Holy Ghost in anything like the Christian conception. The penitent (for this is one of the Penitential Psalms) is asking the Lord to make him a good person, to put a good spirit in him -- "thy" spirit because it comes from God, but still the Psalmist's own spirit, not the literal indwelling Spirit of God himself. This was apparently the understanding of the King James translators as well, as they left "holy spirit" uncapitalized.
The second reference is in Isaiah 63:10-12, which is also poetry.
But they rebelled,and vexed his holy Spirit:therefore he was turned to be their enemy,and he fought against them.Then he remembered the days of old,Moses, and his people, saying,Where is he that brought them up out of the seawith the shepherd of his flock?where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?That led them by the right hand of Moseswith his glorious arm,dividing the water before them,to make himself an everlasting name?
In the first reference, "his holy Spirit" pretty clearly refers to God. The pronouns in the second reference are a bit ambiguous, but the most likely reading is "he (God) that put his (God's) holy Spirit within him (either Moses or Israel)."
If we include references that don't use the word "holy," we can find references to the "spirit of God" or "spirit of the Lord" entering or "coming upon" Joseph (Gen. 41:38), Bezaleel (Ex. 31:3; 35:31), Balaam (Num. 24:2), Othniel (Judg. 3:10), Gideon (Judg. 6:34), Jephthah (Judg. 11:29), Samson (Judg. 14:6, 19; 15:14), Saul (1 Sam. 10:6, 10; 11:6; 19:23), David (1 Sam. 16:13), Saul's messengers (1 Sam. 19:20), Azariah (2 Chron. 15:1), Jahaziel (2 Chron. 20:14), Zechariah (2 Chron. 24:20), and probably several others. (I have excluded ambiguous references, such as those in Job and Isaiah.)
In the Gospel of Luke, the Holy Ghost "falls upon" or "fills" John the Baptist (1:15), Mary (1:35), Elisabeth (1:41), Zacharias (1:67), Simeon (2:25-26) -- all technically before the birth of Jesus, and so consistent with the idea that the activity of the Holy Ghost was suspended during his mortal life. John the Baptist is almost certainly an exception, though. An angel tells John's father that John "shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb." This would be a strange thing to say if the Holy Ghost were going to leave John as soon as Jesus was born -- especially given that John was only about six months older than Jesus!
And of course the most obvious exception to "no Holy Ghost during Christ's mortality" is Christ himself. Luke says this most explicitly: At Jesus' baptism, "the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him . . . and Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness" (Luke 3:22, 4:1). In the other Gospels, what fell on Jesus at his baptism is called the "Spirit of God" (Matt. 3:16) or just "the Spirit" (Mark 1:10, John 1:32-33).
Only the Fourth Gospel explicitly says that the Holy Ghost could not be given until after Jesus' death and glorification, but the other three Gospels are more or less consistent with this. Acts (a continuation of Luke) relates how the disciples received the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, shortly after the Ascension -- and it is implied, if not stated directly, that this was something new, which they had not received during Jesus' mortal ministry.
Nowhere is it said that anyone other than Jesus himself received the Holy Ghost during Jesus' mortal life -- but John, having received it in the womb, before Jesus was born, presumably retained it even while Jesus was alive. Can it be a coincidence, then, that Jesus received the Holy Ghost when he was baptized by John? Was John, prior to baptizing Jesus, "full of the Holy Ghost" in some unique and unprecedented way? ("A prophet?" Jesus had said of him. "Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet." What did that "much more" mean?) And at Jesus' baptism, did this unique gift pass from John into Jesus? ("He must increase, but I must decrease.") Jesus said that John was in some sense Elijah, and one of the things Elijah is famous for is passing on "a double portion of his spirit" to his successor, Elisha (see 2 Kgs. 2) -- and this even took place at the River Jordan, the very place where Jesus was baptized! The names Elisha and Jesus have the same meaning, except that a different name of God is used. (Elisha means "My God is salvation"; Jesus means "Yahweh is salvation." Elijah, very neatly, means "My God is Yahweh.")
The author of the Fourth Gospel writes of Jesus that "God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand" (John 3:34-35). Is this a subtle reference to Elisha's "double portion" of prophetic spirit? Elisha received a double portion of the spirit that had been in Elijah, but Jesus received the whole -- an infinitely greater portion -- of the Holy Spirit that had been in the new Elijah, John. And could that somehow be the reason that the Holy Ghost was not available to anyone else while Jesus was alive -- that he had "all of it"? This is a strange thought, as we are not accustomed to thinking of God as being limited in such ways, but it seems like a possibility worth exploring.
We are in the habit of seeing Jesus as a new Moses and a new David. A "new Elisha" is not an idea that comes readily to mind, partly because Elisha, despite supposedly receiving a double portion of Elijah's spirit, didn't really outshine Elijah in anything like the way that Jesus outshone John, and therefore seems like a relatively minor prophet. It makes perfect sense, though, that Jesus would symbolically be Elisha to John's Elijah, and I have already noted that the feeding of the five thousand, particularly as told in the Fourth Gospel, alludes unmistakably to that prophet.
I'm not sure yet where this line of thinking is going to lead. I'm just throwing out ideas and trying to connect some dots.
I was going to do the rest of Chapter 7, but I think this post is long enough as it is.
9 comments:
Your take is very interesting. Here is how I view this.
In many places in the Old Testament (e.g. Samson in Judges 14:6), the Spirit of God descends upon a person and they do great deeds or have some other powerful effect (e.g. The spirit of God upon Mary). But this is always temporary. The Spirit was not present in them before the visitation and it departed soon thereafter. No person could remain permanently pure and undefiled, a requirement for the Spirit's presence.
All this changed with Jesus' death, resurrection, ascension, and ultimately at Pentecost. Now the Holy Spirit comes and stays permanently, due to the permanent cleansing power of Christ.
I don't see any difference between Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, etc. These are just different terms of art referring to the same thing.
@Derek
That mostly makes sense, but John was “full of the Holy Ghost even from the womb,” before Jesus.
John was “full of the Holy Ghost even from the womb,” before Jesus
Perhaps I have not been clear enough. Consider:
"Only the Fourth Gospel explicitly says that the Holy Ghost could not be given"
People had the Holy Ghost before Jesus (e.g. Samson) and during Jesus (e.g. John), but the Spirit could not yet be given. I don't have a dogmatic explanation for the difference, but it seems plain that while a number of people had God's Spirit, including John, it was not given in a broad sense.
Access to God's Spirit was restricted—usually to the prophets—and must have been so in some (undefinable?) way until Pentecost. My own opinion—and it is only that—is that the spiritual gift of prophecy being available to (or at least possible to seek after by) all Christians is the most obvious and visible instantiation of the Spirit being given. Prior to this point, prophets were generally chosen by God and generally set apart.
@Derek
I understood you to be saying that before Christ no individual could receive the Holy Ghost except temporarily, which is why I brought up John as a counterexample. But apparently what you mean is that the Holy Ghost was only available to a few individuals (prophets) before Christ but later became available to all Christians?
This is too specific, too formulaic. I'm saying—in general—that access to the Spirit was generally restricted. One way this could occur was by being temporary ("the word of the Lord came to [insert name here]"). Another way is by limiting who it applied to (e.g. judges; prophets). I also see two classes of individuals: those to whom God specifically chose for a purpose (e.g. Jonah) or those who were especially righteous (Abraham; Elijah; John the Baptist).
John the Baptist was unique in that he was both a prophet and also truly the best of men. God's spirit appears to have remained with him! I believe this is the reason that he (and Elijah) are considered the greatest prophets. As humans they were not perfect, but their righteousness exceeded all others and they communed with the Spirit.
"Was the Holy Ghost something new that was given after Jesus "departed" and was "glorified," or was it the return of something old that was paused during Jesus' mortal life? "
Why were there so many prophets during the 8th to 6th centuries BC but by the last century BC hardly any? I'd argue that it was not paused per se during Jesus' mortal life but merely reflective of the general lack of the Spirit. Was it a problem of righteousness, the people and their religious leaders having abandoned true worship of God? The words of Jesus seem to imply this.
I suspect righteousness, not numbers of people affected, is more relevant. When Joshua, David, or Judas Maccabees—surely individually filled with the Spirit—led his men against greater odds and succeeded, did the Spirit also descend on the whole army to give it success? This is something I think about. I don't have an answer.
I just re-read John 1 and found what I believe to be an inaccuracy:
"but John was “full of the Holy Ghost even from the womb,” before Jesus."
Perhaps Luke uses hyperbole to emphasize John's righteousness. But, if the fourth gospel has primacy, then a different picture arises:
"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. [..] Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
What was different about Jesus? The Spirit came and it remained there. It took up permanent residence. The gospel writer has John saying this in the very context of distinguishing John's ministry from Jesus' ministry. The Holy Spirit remaining and the giving of the Spirit in baptism identifies Jesus.
Just a few verses earlier, the writer of the Gospel said:
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
The Word—the Holy Ghost—came and dwelt among men. It first set up its abode in the flesh of Jesus at his baptism (not his physical birth!). Later the gospel writer says that Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus. This is the indwelling of the Spirit. The writer also says that Christians are to also be in Jesus just as Jesus is in the Father (John 17:20-23). How is this possible? By also receiving the Holy Spirit. This is what is meant by the Spirit being given:
"Only the Fourth Gospel explicitly says that the Holy Ghost could not be given..."
...until after Christ's resurrection. Doesn't Jesus tell his disciples just prior to his ascension that they must baptize in the name of the Spirit, in fulfillment of John the Baptist's words?
Jesus said he would destroy the temple and build another. The temple is where the Spirit resides. Paul records that the Holy Spirit has taken up residence in our bodies—our flesh—because it is a temple.
In summary, before (and during) Jesus' ministry, the Holy Spirit did not take up residence and dwell in anyone. It visited them in power, perhaps for extend periods, but it did not dwell, not even in Elijah or John the Baptist. God the Father could give the Spirit to Jesus at his baptism, but only after Christ's resurrection and ascension could Jesus baptize others: give or send them the Spirit.
Luke clearly echoes the language of Judges 13:7 (“drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death”), so you may be right that it is hyperbole.
An idea I've run across is that the presence of Jesus and the witness of the Holy Ghost would together make it impossible to disbelieve - thus the Holy Ghost was absent during his mortal ministry so as to preserve free agency. If so, one wonders how far his presences extended: to all of Judea and Galilee? The old world? The whole earth?
Alma 7 strongly implies the HG would have vastly increased abilities after the atonement/resurrection, borrowed from Jesus Christ, and that salvation/theosis would not have been possible for most everybody without this level up.
The reason that the Holy Ghost was largely not present in Jesus' day was because there were no prophets, other than John the Baptist. 2 Peter 1:21 confirms this:
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
For Luke to say that John was filled with the Holy Ghost, he is saying that John was the greatest of prophets, for what makes a prophet is how they are moved by the Holy Ghost. But Peter confirms for us that any time a prophet in the OT times acted, he was being moved by the Holy Ghost. This does not contradict the words of the fourth gospel:
"But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified."
It makes no sense for Peter to say that the prophets of old were moved by the Holy Ghost if the Holy Ghost had not ever been "given" (in a general sense). Until Jesus died, resurrected, and ascended, our bodies were not temples where the Spirit could reside. That's all that is meant by the Spirit being given. As you said:
" the Holy Ghost comes from God but then dwells in the Christian's heart and becomes an internal source of guidance and inspiration."
But you also said:
"I think it is tolerably clear in context that "thy holy spirit" is parallel with "a right spirit" and "thy free spirit," and that none of these refers to the Holy Ghost in anything like the Christian conception. [..] The second reference is in Isaiah 63:10-12, which is also poetry."
This confusion is exclusively a Trinitarian one. Neither the Jews nor the earliest Christians had any concept that the Holy Ghost was anything but the anthropomorphized power of the one true God. It is clear that the OT and Peter both viewed the Holy Spirit in a way that is fundamentally different from the common Trinitarian Christian conception. But why would one assume that the latter is correct rather than the former?
In any case, I agree that during Jesus' ministry there were no prophets other than John (who was beheaded).
Post a Comment