June 17: 1 Thessalonians 1:5-6; 4:8, etc

1 Thessalonians 1:5-6; 4:8, etc

By all accounts, 1 and 2 Thessalonians are the earliest of Paul’s surviving letters (though some commentators would question his authorship of 2 Thessalonians), probably written sometime around 49-50 A.D. It is thus appropriate to begin an examination of Paul’s references to the Spirit in his letters at this point. For those interested in a comparative study with the Pauline speeches and statements in the book of Acts, it is to be noted that references to the Spirit are extremely rare in those contexts. The Spirit is more frequent as a subject in the speeches in the first half of the book, whereas the references in the second half (dominated by narratives of Paul’s mission journeys) tend to focus on the Spirit’s role in guiding the missionaries. Indeed, there are just three passages in Acts where Paul speaks of the (Holy) Spirit. In the last of these, at the close of the book (28:25), Paul is simply affirming the traditional view of the inspiration of the (Prophetic) Scriptures, though, by implication, a parallel would be drawn between the Prophets of old and Christian missionaries (apostles) as Spirit-inspired spokespersons for God.

The two remaining references in Acts are more substantial:

    • 19:2-7—The encounter with some believers who had only experienced water-baptism by John the Baptist; Paul makes clear to them that true baptism, in the Christian sense, also involves being “baptized” by the Spirit (i.e. receiving the Spirit). For more on the close association between baptism and the Spirit in the book of Acts, cf. the prior note.
    • In his “farewell” speech to the elders of the Ephesian congregation(s) (chap. 20), Paul reaffirms the guiding role of the Spirit (vv. 22-23, cf. above) in his missionary travels. However, in passing, he also states that it was the Holy Spirit who “set” those elders as overseers of the congregation(s) (v. 28). Most likely this means that the selection and installation of persons in these roles was made through Spirit-inspired (i.e. prophetic) guidance among the believers as a whole. Occasionally, we find similar indications of this dynamic at work in the life of the early congregations (13:2; 15:28; 21:4).

When we turn to the Thessalonian letters, these aspects of the Spirit’s role, evident in the book of Acts, can also be found. In the introduction (exordium) and thanksgiving of 1 Thessalonians, Paul expresses, together, two sides of the Spirit’s presence and activity in the early Christian mission (cf. Acts 1:7-8, etc):

    • The proclamation by the Spirit-inspired minister (i.e. prophet):
      “…our good message did not come unto in a (spoken) account only, but in power and in (the) holy Spirit [e)n pneu/mati a(gi/w|]…” (v. 5)
    • The reception by the (new) believers, who also receive the Spirit:
      “and you came to be imitators of us, and of the Lord, having received the account, in much distress, (but also) with delight of (the) holy Spirit…” (v. 6)

The remaining references in 1 and 2 Thessalonians have a rather different emphasis, and one that is not so much to be found in the book of Acts, though it clearly relates to the earliest Christian understanding of the Holy Spirit. Paul’s emphasis is on what we would call sanctification—that is, of believers being made holy (a%gio$). This draws upon the Old Testament line of tradition that associates God’s (holy) Spirit with the cleansing of His people.

The use of water-imagery to express the idea of cleansing obviously relates to the practice of baptism, going back to John’s ministry. Early Christians largely followed the same water-ritual, both in terms of form and essential symbolism, but giving unique emphasis to the role of the Spirit. The Qumran Community, in its own way, did the same thing, using the symbolism of a water-ritual (for entrants into the Community, along with subsequent ablutions) to express the idea of a special holiness, established and maintained by God’s own holy Spirit (cf. my earlier article on the subject). Through the work of God’s Spirit, the individual’s spirit is made completely pure and holy, allowing him to join as part of the “Community of holiness”.

Paul expresses much the same idea in 1 Thess 4:1-8, in which he exhorts believers to live in a holy and upright manner that reflects the holy Spirit of God, given to them at baptism. Though baptism is not specifically mentioned here, there is every reason to think that the sort of ethical instruction Paul gives here reflects, at least in part, the instruction given to believers at the time of their baptism (a point to be discussed further in upcoming notes). The wording in verses 7-8 is clear enough:

“For God did not call us upon uncleanness, but in holiness [a(giasmo/$]. For this (reason) then, the (one) setting (it) aside, does not set aside (the will of a) man, but God, the (One) giving His holy Spirit unto us.”

To act in an immoral manner essentially means to “set aside” (vb a)qete/w) the holiness given to believers by God, through His own Holy Spirit. Since this holiness comes through the presence of the Spirit in and among believers, to set aside the holiness is to set aside God’s own Spirit, which means setting aside God Himself. The same message of holiness and sanctification is given at the close of the letter (5:23-24), only this time in terms of an eschatological promise:

“And may the God of peace keep you complete(ly) holy to the end, and whole (in every) part—spirit and soul and body—(and) without fault may he keep you, in our Lord’s (com)ing to be alongside [parousi/a] (us). Trust(worthy is) the (One) calling you, the (One) who also will do (this).”

The Greek syntax is a bit difficult to translate, with the main verbs (in v. 23) being in the optative mood, expressing a wish or desire. The principal phrase is a(gia/sai u(ma/$ o(lotelei=$—three concise words, which cannot be translated so simply. The optative form of the verb a(gia/zw (“make holy”), which would normally mean “may He make (you) holy”, is better understood in this context as “keep holy”. The adjective o(lotelh/$ has the basic meaning “completely whole”; a relatively simple translation of the phrase might then be “may He keep you holy (and) completely whole”. However, the eschatological context suggests that there is an allusion to te/lo$ as the “completion” of the Age. In other words, Paul’s wish is that God would keep the believers completely holy to the end—that is, until the return of Jesus (cf. 4:13-5:11), expected to occur very soon.

The earlier reference to the Spirit in verse 19—the exhortation “you must not extinguish the Spirit” (to\ pneu=ma mh\ sbe/nnute)—presumably reflects the same sort of general ethical-religious instruction found in 4:1-8 (cf. above). Probably there is the added dimension of preserving the inspired character of the Community, involving all aspects of the work and activity of the Spirit. This would explain the command that immediately follows in verse 20: “you must not make prophecies out as nothing”. The implication is that the Spirit-inspired teaching and instruction within the Community (i.e. “prophecy”) should not be ignored or devalued. By contrast, all things in the Community (including “prophecy”) must be given a thorough and fair consideration (vb dokima/zw), holding firm to those things which pass the test (v. 21).

Finally, we should mention Paul’s words in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which, in some ways, summarize all of the earlier references to the Spirit we have looked at here. It parallels most closely the prayer in 1 Thess 5:23, and the corresponding eschatological context of 2 Thessalonians is clear enough and hardly requires comment. Here the eschatological promise blends together with a fervent exhortation to believers, in a manner that is typical of early Christian writing:

“But we owe (it) to give (thanks) to God (for His) good favor, always about you, (as) brothers having been loved under [i.e. by] the Lord, (in) that God took you (for) himself, (as fruit) from the beginning (of the harvest), unto salvation, in holiness of (the) Spirit and trust of [i.e. in] (the) truth”

The expression e)n a(giasmw| pneu/mato$ could also mean “in holiness of spirit”, which would be just as valid in context; however, the adjoining expression “trust of (the) truth” suggests a parallel Truth of God / Spirit of God.

In these Thessalonian passages we are offered a glimpse of the way that the early Christian understanding of the Spirit was being further developed through Paul’s unique (and specially inspired) manner of expression. In his subsequent letters, as we shall see, the role of the Spirit was given a profound new theological (and Christological) dimension as well. This will be discussed over the next few daily notes.

 

June 16: Acts 2:4, 17-18ff (continued)

Acts 2:4, 17-18ff, continued

The central aspect of the Spirit’s role in the book of Acts is expressed by the citation of Joel 2:28-32 [Hebrew 3:1-5] in the Pentecost speech by Peter (Acts 2:14-40). This sermon-speech, discussed at length in an earlier two-part article, follows the Pentecost narrative of vv. 1-13 (on which, cf. my earlier set of notes). This use of the Joel oracle demonstrates how the coming of the Spirit upon the Jerusalem believers is seen as a fulfillment of the Prophetic tradition regarding the role of the Spirit in the restoration of Israel. I have discussed the association of the Spirit with this restoration-theme in earlier notes (see esp. the note on Joel 2:28-32); it is a theme which is prominent in the early chapters of Acts, as I have also discussed in previous notes.

While the Greek citation of Joel 2:28-32 differs somewhat from both the Hebrew and LXX versions (for the details, cf. my earlier article), it preserves the fundamental message. This message entails a promise that, in the New Age of Israel’s restoration, the Spirit will no longer come only upon specific chosen/gifted individuals, but instead will be “poured out” upon all the people. This point is driven home emphatically by the inclusive references to male and female (“sons and daughters”), young and old, slave/servant and free person alike. It is essentially a fulfillment of the ideal expressed in the episode of Numbers 11:10-30 (see esp. Moses’ words in v. 29)—that is to say, all the people would function as prophets (<ya!yb!n+).

As I have previously discussed, the ayb!n` is best understood as a spokesperson for God—one who communicates the word and will of God to the people. In the ancient Israelite (and Near Eastern) tradition, this meant a divinely-inspired position of leadership and prominence in society, reserved only for select chosen or gifted individuals. Moses was the supreme ayb!n` in the early period, but eventually, as the tradition in Num 11:16-30 suggests, the role came to be filled by many others over time. It was based on the principle of charismatic leadership—of the Spirit’s presence manifest by unusual (and ecstatic) phenomena. The early Israelite kings (Saul and David) shared in this form of Spirit-inspired leadership (cf. my earlier notes on 1 Sam 16:13-15, etc). Eventually, however, this aspect of the Prophetic experience waned, and was given less emphasis, as indicated by the disappearance of the use of the denominative verb ab^n` (in the passive-reflexive stem) to denote this charismatic/ecstatic form of prophecy.

Such Spirit-inspired activity, in the ancient mode, was manifest by unusual behavior and strange speech—an indication that the person was under the powerful influence of a divine spirit. The narratives in the book of Acts show that the reappearance  of this basic phenomenon marks the “pouring out” of the Spirit in the New Age. The disciples of Jesus, who represent and symbolize the restored Israel (cf. my note on Acts 1:15-26), are the firstfruits of this harvest of blessing from the Spirit. The men and women in Jerusalem, who are believers in Christ, mark the first instance of the Spirit being poured out on “all flesh”. This coming of the Spirit will be repeated for others, as the Gospel is proclaimed and more people come to trust in Jesus. As Jesus’ words in 1:7-8 make clear, this dual dynamic of (a) the presence/work of the Spirit, and (b) the proclamation of the Gospel, is the essential means by which God’s Kingdom will be established in the New Age. The narratives in the book of Acts document this process in the earliest stages. The Spirit-filled believers serve as prophets/spokespersons for God (and Christ) and the proclamation of the Gospel, the message of Christ, is their “prophecy”.

This brings us to the phenomenon of “speaking in tongues”, which I regard as part of the same religious phenomenon as the ancient mode of ecstatic prophetic utterance (cf. above). What is thoroughly unique about this phenomenon among the early believers in Acts is the way that it is so closely tied to the specific (prophetic) mission of proclaiming the Gospel of Christ to all the surrounding nations. As these nations speak many different languages (“tongues”), it would be necessary for the Christian missionaries to preach the message in these languages as well. This is the essence of what is described initially in 2:4:

“and they were all filled (with the) holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, even as the Spirit gave (it) to them to sound forth.”

These “other tongues” (e(te/rai glw/ssai) here unquestionably refer to ordinary foreign languages, as what follows in vv. 5-13 makes clear. As the disciples begin to speak out publicly, under this prophetic inspiration, the various Jews, who had come to Jerusalem (for the festival) from the surrounding nations, could understand the message in their own language (vv. 5-6). The experience was unusual and dramatic enough to cause surprise that local Galileans would be speaking in these other languages (vv. 7-8). Moreover, the claim that the believers were intoxicated (v. 13) suggests that there was an ecstatic quality to their speech and behavior, which, according to the ancient principle of inspiration (cf. above), was a striking sign of being in a prophetic state under the influence of a divine spirit. Some of the people mistake this for drunkenness (i.e. the influence of wine)—a misunderstanding that Peter addresses in the speech that follows. There is a bit of thematic wordplay here, as the claim that the believers are filled (“soaked full”, vb mesto/w) with sweet wine serves as an ironic contrast to the reality that they have been filled (vb plh/qw) with the Spirit.

In the next daily note, I will be turning from the Gospels and Acts to the remainder of the New Testament, focusing on how the traditions regarding God’s Spirit were developed by Paul in his letters.

June 15: Acts 2:4, 17-18ff

June 15: Acts 2:4, 17-18ff

These June daily notes have focused on the development of the Old Testament and Jewish traditions regarding the Spirit of God, among early Christians, as documented in the New Testament Writings. The previous few notes have examined the special emphasis given to the role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts, both in terms of the author’s adaptation of the wider Gospel tradition, and the unique treatment of the subject in the book of Acts.

There are dozens of specific references to the Spirit in the narratives, sermon-speeches, and summary notices of the book of Acts—and even more if one were to include the variant readings of the Western ‘recension’ (cf. my earlier note for key instances). I have discussed the matter in prior notes and articles, including a set of three notes in the series “The Holy Spirit in the Gospel Tradition”. There I outlined the three main ways that the Spirit interacts with believers in Luke-Acts, with all relevant examples detailed in the notes:

    1. The Spirit comes upon people, including (and especially) the primary association with baptism [Note 1]
    2. The Spirit fills people, usually in the context of inspired (prophetic) speech [Note 2]
    3. The Spirit leads/guides people, including passages which use the specific phrase “in the Spirit” [Note 3]

Today I wish to focus specifically upon how this role and action of the Spirit reflects a development of the older lines of tradition. We may similarly isolate three aspects for study:

    • The association with baptism
    • The Prophetic tradition regarding the Spirit, in two respects:
      (a) the coming of the Spirit upon God’s people in the New Age, and
      (b) the ancient tradition of prophetic inspiration
    • The phenomenon of “speaking in tongues”, as a (new) form of prophecy

All three of these run throughout the narratives of Acts, but they are also found, combined and in seminal form, in the Pentecost narrative of 2:1-4ff. On the association with Baptism, there is a clear parallel between Jesus and the disciples in this context (Lk 3:16; Acts 1:5); just as the Spirit came upon Jesus at his Baptism, so it does upon the disciples at their new “baptism”:

    • Jesus: “…the Holy Spirit stepping [i.e. coming] down in bodily appearance as a dove upon [e)pi] him”—baptism by John in water (Lk 3:22)
    • Disciples: “…tongues appeared as fire and sat (down) upon [e)pi] each one of them” (and they were all filled by the Holy Spirit)—baptism (by Jesus) in the Holy Spirit and fire (Acts 2:3-4)

This symbolism implies both cleansing (i.e. the use of water-symbolism for the Spirit) and also a fundamental association with anointing (i.e. the Spirit poured out on the chosen one[s] as oil). Luke gives greater emphasis to this than do the other Gospels, especially in the scene at Nazareth set at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Lk 4:14ff), where Jesus specifically identifies himself with the Anointed herald of Isaiah 61:1ff: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon [e)pi] me, for (the sake) of which He anointed [e&xrisen] me…” (Lk 4:18-21ff). This passage is central to the idea of Jesus as the Anointed One [Christ/Messiah] in early Gospel Tradition (cf. Lk 7:19-23; par Matt 11:2-6, note also Matt 12:18 citing a different Isaian passage [Isa 42:1-3]), as I have discussed in detail in prior notes and articles (cf. the recent note in this series). The anointing of Jesus with the Holy Spirit is tied to his Baptism in Acts 10:38.

These two motifs—water (baptism) and oil (anointing)—are also combined in the image of the Spirit being “poured out” on believers in the book of Acts. The primary passage, of course, is the Pentecost speech by Peter in which Joel 2:28-32 is quoted (2:17-18ff), especially the key phrase (doubled in poetic parallel):

I will pour out [e)kxew=] from my Spirit
—upon [e)pi] all flesh…
—(yes,) even upon [e)pi] my (male) slaves and upon [e)pi] my (female) slaves
I will pour out [e)kxew=] from my Spirit in those days…” (Acts 2:17-18 / Joel 2:28-29)

This language is repeated in Acts 2:33; 10:45. The gift of the Holy Spirit coming on believers is usually connected with baptism in some way throughout the narratives in Acts (see the wording in Acts 2:38), though clearly as a distinct event:

    • In Acts 8:12-17, believers receive the Spirit subsequent to being baptized, through the laying on of hands by the Apostles (vv. 15-17)—cf. also Acts 19:2-6.
    • In Acts 10:44-48 (and 11:15-16), the Spirit comes upon believers prior to their being baptized, following the preaching of Peter

In both of these passage the sudden, dramatic experience of receiving the Spirit is described with the verb e)pipi/ptw (“fall [down] upon”)— “as Peter was yet speaking these words, the holy Spirit fell upon [e)pe/pesen e)pi] all the (one)s hearing…” (Acts 10:44, cf. 11:15). As in the case of Mary and Jesus (cf. above), the coming of the Spirit “upon” [e)pi] believers indicates the presence and power of God which has come near, transforming their entire life and being. It should be understood as the first, primary stage—the first of the three motifs listed above. The presence of the Spirit upon a person is necessarily prior to the filling and inspired leading/guiding by the Spirit.

These dual symbols of water (baptism) and oil (anointing) reflect distinct lines of tradition regarding the role of the Spirit, which find fulfillment for believers in Christ in the New Age:

    • The idea of cleansing and purification (through water and/or fire), which, in the later Prophetic tradition, was connected with the idea of Israel’s restoration. With the return of God’s people to their land, they would be given a “new heart” and a new spirit, through the work of God’s own holy Spirit. It would be the beginning of a New Age of peace, prosperity, and righteousness, in which Israel would adhere to the covenant with God in a new way (i.e. a “new covenant”). The message of God’s truth would extend from Israel/Judah to all the surrounding nations.
    • The special anointing of kings (and prophets), marked by the presence of the Spirit coming upon them (1 Sam 16:13-14, etc), is extended to the people as a whole. This represents a “democratization” of the Spirit, which will no longer be limited to select, chosen individuals (cf. the earlier note on Num 11:16-30). To be sure, unique Messianic figures (and figure-types) still played a role in Jewish tradition, but the ultimate prophetic message, regarding the role of the Spirit in the New Age, involved the people (or Community) as a whole.

Both of these lines of tradition have been discussed at length in the recent (pre-Pentecost) series of notes on “The Spirit of God in the Old Testament”.

In the next daily note, we will look more closely at the Prophetic tradition regarding the Spirit, as it is manifest in the book of Acts, with special emphasis on the tradition of prophetic inspiration.

June 11: Acts 2:1-13

Acts 2:1-13

In the previous note, I examined the Prophetic theme of the “restoration of Israel” in the book of Acts, as it is symbolized by the reconstitution of the Twelve apostles (1:15-26). Today, I will look at the theme as it appears in the Pentecost Narrative itself, specifically in relation to the coming of the Spirit as the (eschatological) realization of the Kingdom of God (cf. the prior note on vv. 6-8ff). The discussion here draws upon earlier notes and articles.

The care with which the Pentecost narrative (2:1-13) has been constructed can be illustrated by a pair of chiastic outlines, emphasizing the theme of the restoration of Israel in terms of both (a) the unity of believers, and (b) the mission to the surrounding nations:

    • The unity of the disciples (together in one place and/or for one purpose—e)pi\ to\ au)to/), verse 1.
      • The house/place of gathering is filled (e)plh/rwsen) with the Spirit, verse 2.
        • Appearance of tongues (glwssai) of fire upon each individual disciple (~120), verse 3
        • The disciples (each) begin to speak in other tongues (glwssai), verse 4
      • The disciples are all filled (e)plh/sqhsan) with the Holy Spirit, verse 4
    • The unity of the crowd—devout Jews (from all nations) in Jerusalem come together in one place, verse 5ff

This second chiastic outline builds upon the first:

    • The disciples have returned (turned back) to Jerusalem
      • The Twelve have been reconstituted and are gathered together (in Jerusalem) in one place
        • Jews from all nations (the Dispersion) also are gathered together in Jerusalem
      • They again hear the voice (word of God) in the languages of the nations, spoken by the Twelve and other disciples (echo of the Sinai theophany)
    • The disciples go out from Jerusalem into the nations (even to the Gentiles)

This emphasizes more clearly the theme of the “restoration of Israel”, according to the eschatological imagery of the later Old Testament prophets and Judaism, which involves two related themes:

    1. The return of Israelites (Jews) from exile among the nations—this return is to the Promised Land, and, in particular, to Judah and Jerusalem.
    2. The Nations (Gentiles) come to Judah and Jerusalem, bringing tribute and/or worshiping the true God there.

The first is an important and popular theme especially in the later Prophets (from the exilic/post-exilic periods), and, in particular, a number of key deutero- (and trito-)Isaian passages: Isa 43:5ff; 44:21-28; 48:12-21; 49:5ff; 51:11; 52:2, 7-12; 54:2-8; 55:12-13; 56:1-8; and throughout chapters 60-66, esp. 66:18-24. The imagery and sentiment of these passages largely concurs with that found in exilic/post-exilic prophets such as Ezekiel (esp. chapters 34, 37 and 47-48) and Zechariah 9-14. The motif of restoration/return appears frequently, of course, in subsequent Jewish writings—e.g., Tobit 14:5; 2 Maccabees 2:7; Jubilees 1:15-17ff; Testament of Benjamin 9:2, etc. I have discussed the Old Testament restoration-passages which involve the coming of God’s Spirit in recent notes.

The coming of the Spirit informs both of the aspects illustrated by the (chiastic) outlines above—the unity of believers and the early Christian mission. As indicated by Jesus’ words in 1:7-8, it is the presence and work of the Spirit, inspiring and guiding the proclamation of the Gospel, which represents the establishment of the Kingdom for God’s people in the New Age. This is the central theme of the book of Acts, woven throughout the narratives. It may also be demonstrated from the standpoint of the structure of the Pentecost narrative itself:

    1. Introductory statement (unity of the Disciples), verse 1.
    2. Manifestation of the Spirit, verses 2-4.
    3. Reaction of Jews in Jerusalem (united voice of the crowds), verses 5-13.

Let us briefly consider each of these parts.

1. Introductory statement (unity of the Disciples), Acts 2:1

It is helpful to break out the specific words of this short verse:

    • kai\ (“and”)
    • e)n tw=| sumplhrou=sqai (“in the being filled up” [su/n as intensive prefix, i.e. “filled completely”]—but here as a temporal clause = “when it was completely filled”)
    • th\n h(me/ran th=$ pentekosth=$ (“the Fiftieth day”)
    • h@san (“they [i.e. the Disciples] were”)
    • pa/nte$ (“all”—all of them, together)
    • o(mou= (“as one” or “at one”, i.e., together, the same; see the similar o(moqumado\n [“of one impulse”] in 1:14)
    • e)pi\ to\ au)to/ (“upon the [same] thing”—this phrase occurs repeatedly in the early chapters of Acts, though somewhat obscured by conventional translations; it is indicative of the unity of the believers)

Here is the verse in literal translation:

“And in the Fiftieth day’s being filled completely, they were all at one upon the (same) thing [or, place]”

And in a more conventional translation:

“And when the Fiftieth day had been fufilled, they were all together in the same place.”
[As C. C. Torrey and other scholars have noted, the Greek may reflect an Aramaic expression “when the Weeks had been fulfilled” (e.g., aY`u^Wbv* <l^v=m!b=W), which is more intelligible]

The “Fiftieth” day (usually transliterated as “Pentecost”), is the festival of Weeks (toub%v*) in Israelite and Jewish tradition (cf. Lev. 23:9-22; Deut. 16:9-12). Fifty days (seven weeks) are counted from the offering of the firstfruit sheaf of grain at the time of Passover. Traditionally, it was also the time associated with the Sinai theophany and giving of the Law (Ex. 19:1ff). In the Exodus narrative, the entire camp of Israel was gathered together beneath the mountain “to meet God” (Ex. 19:17). Here, the disciples, too are gathered together in the same place and will “meet God”. Elements of the Sinai theophany also have their parallel in the manifestation of the Spirit, as we shall see.

2. Manifestation of the Spirit, Acts 2:2-4

Here the manifestation of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of God) is recorded in dramatic fashion, in the language and imagery of Theophany. Since the manifestation of God at Sinai (occurring at Pentecost, by tradition) was mentioned above, it is worth looking at elements of that theophany:

    • Thunders (lit. “voices”) and lightnings (19:16)
    • A thick cloud
    • Fire went down upon the mountain; smoke (as of a furnace) went up from it (19:18), perhaps parallel to the cloud in v. 16.
    • The mountain “trembled” (or “quaked”); in v. 16 it is said the people trembled (same verb, drj)
    • The sound (lit. “voice”) of a horn (rp*ov, shofar) (19:19, also mentioned in v. 16), which sounded long and grew louder

Consider also the theophany to Elijah (1 Kings 19:11-12):

    • A great and strong wind (or “breath”, “spirit” j^Wr = pneu=ma) which swept through and tore at the mountain
    • An earthquake (“quaking”, “shaking” vu^r^)
    • Fire (va@)

all of which occur as God (hwhy) is “passing over” (or “passing by” rb@u)), but God Himself is not in (b) the wind, quaking or fire. Then comes a quiet, thin voice.

Here is the manifestation of the Spirit as recorded in Acts (note the theophanic details in italics, with specific parallels in bold):

    1. “And suddenly there came to be out of the heaven a sound as of a violent wind [pnoh/] being carried (along) and it filled the whole house (in) which they were sitting” (2:2)
    2. “And there was seen [i.e. appeared] unto them tongues as if of fire divided through(out), and it sat upon each one of them” (2:3)
    3. “And they all were filled of/by (the) holy Spirit [pneu=ma] and began to speak in other tongues even as the Spirit gave (to) them to utter forth” (2:4)

Clearly, there is wordplay with “tongues (as if) of fire” [glw=ssai w(sei\ puro/$] anticipating “with other tongues” [e(te/rai$ glw/ssai$] in v. 4. There is at least one other occurrence of the phrase “tongues of fire” from roughly the same period in a Qumran text (represented by fragments of 1Q29 and 4Q376: these with 4Q375 and 1Q22 may all be part of the same work). 1Q29 fragment 1 can be restored on the basis of 4Q376 (ellipses indicate gaps [lacunae] in the text):

“…the stone, like… they will provide you with light and he will go out with it with tongues of fire [va twnwvlb]; the stone which is at its left side will shine to the eyes of all the assembly until the priest finishes speaking. And after it [the cloud?] has been removed… and you shall keep and do all that he tells you. And the prophet … … who speaks apostasy … … YHWH, God of …”

Another tiny fragment reads: “… the right stone when the priest leaves … … three tongues of fire … … And after he shall go up and remove his shoes ….” (translations taken from García Martínez & Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, Brill/Eerdmans 1997/2000, vol. 1 pp. 108-9). The words (possibly spoken by Moses) refer to an anointed Priest; the stones on the right and left (urim and thummim?) are associated both with light and the voice of the Priest as he addresses the assembly. It is possible the “three tongues” are also “divided out”, one over each stone, and one directly over the Priest in the middle.

There is some uncertainty whether the “other tongues” refer to an ecstatic ‘heavenly’ language or ‘earthly’ foreign languages. Other New Testament references (Acts 10:46; 19:6, and those in 1 Cor. 12-14) suggest the former, while the context here (cf. Acts 2:11) indicates the latter. Perhaps the ambiguity is intentional, in order to reflect both: (a) heavenly origin, and (b) the languages of the nations. Returning to the Sinai theophany, there is an old Jewish tradition that as the Torah (each word of God) went forth it was split into the seventy languages of the nations (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbath 88b); that is, each nation could hear the voice of God (the “thunderings”) in its own language (cf. Exodus Rabbah V.9). A tradition along these lines seems to be at least as old as Philo of Alexandria (On the Decalogue §46), and so nearly contemporary with the book of Acts.

3. Reaction of Jews in Jerusalem (united voice of the Crowd), Acts 2:5-13

The following outline indicates the main elements of this section:

    • Jews “come together” in Jerusalem (v. 5, 6a)
    • Response of the crowd (vv. 6b-11) in two aspects:
      1) Each person hears in his/her own language
      2) Nations respond in a (symbolic) united voice
    • Confusion (v. 12, see also in vv. 6-7)—”What does this wish to be?”

The mocking retort in v. 13 serves as a lead-in to Peter’s address in vv. 14-40. Let us look at each element in a little more detail:

Jews “come together” in Jerusalem (v. 5, 6a)

The mention of “Jews” ( )Ioudai=oi) being in Jerusalem may seem unnecessary, but it is significant for at least two reasons: (1) to emphasize the underlying religious and cultural unity of the ‘nations’ present in the city, and (2) it draws attention to the (post-exilic) reality of the current situation. When Israel, and particularly the southern kingdom of Judah (centered at Jerusalem), was taken into exile, the people were dispersed among the nations; and it was in the “dispersion” (diaspora) that a distinctly Jewish identity developed. It is generally assumed that these Jews are sojourning in Jerusalem for the festival of Weeks (Pentecost); the verb katoike/w often implies a more permanent residence, but here may simply mean generally “to dwell”. These Jews are “from every nation under heaven”, and have come together in the city (for the festival). At the coming-to-be of “this voice” (th/ fwnh/), again Jews, symbolized as a specific crowd (plh=qo$), “come together” (sune/rxomai) in confusion (being “stirred together” [sugxe/w]). It is interesting that, just in the tradition regarding the Sinai theophany, the multitudes are hearing different languages but one voice.

Response of the Crowd (v. 6b-11)

6b and 7a reprise the confusion—they “stood out of (their minds)” and “wondered” in amazement as they heard the disciples speaking. It is unnecessary to ask just how, when, or where these people heard the disciples—and altogether beside the point. The author has crafted a marvelous dramatic scene, with events (at the historical level) certainly having been compressed together into a single moment. Similarly, it is rather unlikely that a single person or group of persons in the crowd would have said precisely what the crowd is recorded as saying here. Instead, various reactions and responses are represented by one voice. This is important thematically, and, one might say, theologically as well. Often a creative literary device conveys far more truth than a ‘sober’ record of events. Consider several of the themes inherent in the crowd’s response:

    • The reference to the disciples as “Galileans” (Galilai=oi), while serving to emphasize the wonder of the situation, also creates a subtle shift stressing ethnic (and geographic) identity. Most of the disciples, and certainly the Twelve were Galileans (“men of Galilee”, 1:11). The early Christian mission began in Galilee (cf. 1:1-2), is centered in Jerusalem (by the united community of the Disciples), and will spread from there into all nations (1:8).
    • Two key references to hearing the voices speaking “in our own language” (th=| i)di/a| dialek/tw| h(mw=n, v. 8, cf. also v. 6) and “in our tongues” (tai=$ h(mete/rai$ glw/ssai$, v. 11) bracket the list of nations in vv. 9-11a. The importance of this description should by now be apparent. It may be useful to consider the qualifying phrase accompanying each reference:
      (1) V. 8: “in our own language in which we came to be born” [e)n h! e)gennh/qhmen]
      (2) V. 11: “(hear speaking) in our tongues the great (work)s of God” [ta\ megalei=a tou= qeou=]
      The first phrase clearly indicates ethnic sense; the second echoes Old Testament language whereby news of the great and glorious deeds of God is spread into the surrounding nations (cf. Ex. 15:11ff, and many others)—geographic sense.
    • The list of nations (vv. 9-11) has been a source of some confusion, as indicated by the number of textual variants and proposed emendations. However, much of the difficulty disappears when its literary nature is recognized, rather than simply being a list rattled off by someone in the crowd. The inclusion of “Judea” has seemed strange (since Jews are speaking, and they are already in Judea!) as well as its position, leading to many suggested emendations; however, as a separate geographical list it actually makes sense—moving from East (Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamia) to West (Anatolian/Asian provinces, Egypt, Lybia, Cyrene and Italy) with Judea in the middle. While still a bit uneven (the final two, Cretans and Arabs, don’t fit in order as well) and not without difficulties, its significance as a list of the (known and relevant) surrounding nations is obvious.

Confusion (v. 12, cf. also vv. 6-7)

The confusion of the crowd is re-iterated, stating that they all were beside themselves (again e)ci/sthmi, lit. “stand out of [one’s mind]” v. 7) and “thoroughly at a loss” (diapore/w). Their summary response is: ti/ qe/lei tou=to ei@nai; (literally “what does this wish to be?”), often translated more conventionally as “what does this mean?”—however a more literal rendering preserves better a sense of the strange, dynamic nature of the situation in which the crowd finds itself: events almost seem to have a will of their own! The ironic, mocking retort that closes the crowd’s response (“they are filled with sweet [wine]!”), of course, serves to lead into Peter’s great Pentecost speech (vv. 14-40). The disciples are indeed “filled” (plh/qw) with the Spirit (v. 4), rather than “filled” (mesto/w, a somewhat cruder verb which can indicate “stuffed”, “intoxicated”) with ordinary wine.

In the next few daily notes, we will examine further how the Old Testament and Jewish traditions regarding the Spirit of God are developed within the first half of the book of Acts.

June 10: Acts 1:15-26

Acts 1:15-26

In the previous note, we looked at Jesus’ words in Acts 1:7-8, referring to the coming of the Spirit, in light of the wider theme of the “restoration of Israel”. The author of Luke-Acts clearly portrays the coming of the Spirit and the early Christian mission to the Gentiles as the true realization of Israel’s restoration (as the people of God) at the end-time. The eschatological aspect is clear enough from vv. 6-8, with the allusions to the establishment of a Messianic Kingdom, reflecting the Messianic expectations of many Israelites and Jews at the time (including Jesus’ disciples). We can see this even more clearly by considering vv. 6-8 as part of the Ascension narrative (1:6-11), which one may break down chiastically:

    • Question regarding the Kingdom of God with Jesus’ reply, including a reiteration of the promise of the Holy Spirit (vv. 6-8)
      • The Ascension of Jesus (v. 9)
        —At their seeing/looking
        —      He was raised up(on)
        —      A cloud took him under
        —Away from their eyes
    • Angelic appearance and eschatological announcement about Christ’s return (vv. 10-11)

Thus there is delineated a certain period of time, however brief (or long), during which the Spirit-inspired believers will establish God’s Kingdom through the proclamation of the Gospel. In this regard, the theme of the “restoration of Israel” comes more clearly into view in vv. 12-14 that follow.

    • The disciples “return (or turn back) into Jerusalem”, v. 12. On the surface this is a simple description; however, consider the language in light of the implied motif of the “restoration” of Israel:
      a) The dispersed Israelites will return to the land, and to Jerusalem
      b) The restoration of Israel is often tied to repentance (turning back)
    • The Twelve disciples are gathered together in one place (upper room), v. 13. If the Twelve represent Israel (see below), then here we also have an image of the twelve tribes gathered together again.
    • The initial words of v. 14 contain a number of related, seminal motifs:
      • ou!toi (“these”—the twelve, along with the other disciples)
      • pa/nte$ (“all”—that is, all of them, together)
      • h@san proskarterou=nte$ (“were being strong” [sense of “endurance”, “patience”] “toward” their purpose/goal)
      • o(moqumado\n (“with one impulse”—a key phrase that occurs throughout Acts, cf. 2:46; 4:24, et al. qumo/$ is often translated as “soul”, “mind” [“with one mind”], but also as “passion”, “desire”; the primal sense of the word was something like a “[violent] stirring”)
      • th=| proseuxh=| (“in prayer”)
The Reconstitution of the Twelve

Here it is important to emphasize the key motif of the Twelve in the book of Acts. On purely objective grounds, the Twelve represent one of the earliest Christian traditions (cf. my articles in the series “Jesus and the Gospel Tradition”)—a fixed tradition and symbol, separate, it would seem, from much of the actual historical detail. This appears clearly enough from passages such as 1 Cor. 15:5 and Matthew 19:28, where “the Twelve” are mentioned, even though only eleven disciples could be involved (Judas being dead or disqualified). Also, note the variant lists of the Twelve (Matt. 10:1-14; Mark 3:14-19; and Luke 6:13-16 / Acts 1:13). Most likely the Twelve were chosen (by Jesus) in part to represent the tribes of Israel. This is not stated directly, but note Matthew 19:28 (and the Lukan parallel 22:30) and the sending out of the Twelve in Matthew 10:5f. It is possible too, at least in early Christian tradition, that the twelve baskets in the miraculous feeding came to be thought of as symbolic of Israel re-gathered, as well as an image of Church unity (see Didache 9:4 on the Eucharist). In the book of Revelation 21:12-14, the twelve apostles are also identified in terms of the twelve tribes.

So here, in Acts, the choosing of a twelfth apostle, to take the place of Judas Iscariot, takes on great significance. According to the logic of the narrative, Israel (the Twelve tribes) cannot be restored until the Twelve are reconstituted. This may seem strange to modern thinking, but the symbolism was powerful indeed to early Christians, for whom Israel and “the Church” were closely connected. It may also be worth noting the possible (even likely) symbolism in the parenthetical notice in Acts 1:15, where the number of disciples gathered together in the house is (about) 120—that is, 12 x 10. The symbolic association of these 120 disciples with a unified/restored Israel could perhaps also be inferred by the use in v. 15 of two other items which appear elsewhere at significant points in the narrative: use of the comparative particle w(sei (cf. Acts 2:3), and the expression e)pi\ to\ au)to/ (Acts 2:1, and elsewhere).

A particular point that is emphasized throughout the first half of the book of Acts is the role that the Twelve play in communicating the Spirit to the new believers. While the coming of the Spirit is tied to baptism (1:4-5), it is not dependent on it. Several examples are given where believers are baptized but do not immediately receive the Spirit (8:12-17; 19:2-6), as well as those who receive the Spirit even prior to baptism (10:44-48). It is specifically through the laying on of hands, by an Apostle, that the Spirit comes to fill the person. In the initial Jerusalem Community, this may have been reserved for the circle of the Twelve (8:17ff), but with the geographic expansion of the mission, by necessity, the laying on of hands was performed by others as well (such as Ananias and Paul, 9:17; 19:6). The Twelve represent the entire body of believers, a symbolism far outweighing any special sacredness attached to specific individuals.

If there were any doubt regarding the Twelve (reconstituted) functioning as a symbol for the restoration of Israel (i.e. the twelve tribes), one need only consider  the parallel thematic structure of the narrative here in the book of Acts:

    • The disciples, representing the twelve tribes of Israel—the Twelve (reconstituted, Acts 1:15-26) and the wider group of around 120 (12 x 10) disciples—are united, coming together in one place (Acts 2:1)
      • where they experience the manifestation (power and presence) of the Spirit of God (parallel to the Sinai theophany)—esp. the tongues of fire, Acts 2:2-4
    • Jews from the surrounding nations, representing the dispersed twelve tribes of Israel, also come together in one place (Acts 2:5-6), eventually speaking together with a united voice (vv. 7-11)
      • where they too experience the manifestation of the Spirit (the “voice”, v. 6), as at Sinai, with the word (of God) heard being spoken in other tongues (i.e. their own languages), Acts 2:6-7ff

At the heart of this narrative, of course, is the description of the coming of the Spirit upon the disciples as they gather together at the time of Pentecost (2:1-4ff). As a key reference to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament it hardly requires comment, though any number of critical and interpretive questions still surround the passage; for a discussion of these, cf. my earlier articles on “The Sending of the Spirit” and the 4-part series of notes on Acts 2:1-13. These verses will be discussed further in the next daily note.

 

June 9: Acts 1:6-8ff

Acts 1:6-8ff

This passage, with its reference to the coming of the Spirit, is part of the wider narrative of Acts 1-2 where the idea of the “restoration of Israel” is perhaps the most prominent theme. There are three such episodes with expound this theme:

    1. The question of the disciples regarding the Kingdom, with Jesus’ response (Acts 1:6-8)
    2. The reconstitution of the Twelve apostles (Acts 1:15-26)
    3. The Pentecost Narrative (Acts 2:1-13)

The matter has been prepared for, and foreshadowed, in the Lukan Gospel at a number of points—most notably in the way that the Gospel tradition has been adapted to give greater emphasis on the role of the Spirit (cf. the recent notes on 4:1, 14ff; 10:21-22; 11:1-13, etc). There is, of course, the direct allusion to the coming of the Spirit at the close of the Gospel (24:49), when Jesus instructs his disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they receive “power out of the height(s)” from the “e)paggeli/a of the Father”. The noun e)paggeli/a literally refers to something about which God has given a message; in such contexts it is usually understood in terms of something promised, and so translated as “promise”. Here it is clearly a reference to the coming of God’s Spirit, the same wording being used at Acts 1:4-5 and elsewhere in the the early preaching of Acts (2:33, 39; 13:32), as well as by Paul in his letters (e.g., Gal 3:14ff).

Almost certainly this “promise” relates to the eschatological and Messianic expectation, among Israelites and Jews at time, that may be summarized by the label “the restoration of Israel”. It is an idea that goes back to the Exile and post-Exilic period, to the Prophetic writings of the 6th and 5th century—the promise that the people of Israel/Judah would return to their land, and that a New Age of peace, prosperity, and righteousness would be ushered in for them. God’s Spirit would play a central role in the restoration of Israel and the establishment of this New Age; the key passages on this theme in the Prophets have been discussed extensively in prior notes. The Gospel of Luke accurately reflects these expectations, especially in the Infancy narratives, where the devout ones in Israel—i.e., Zechariah and Elizabeth, Mary, Simeon and Anna—are depicted in their hope and belief for the deliverance and restoration of Israel (2:25, 32, 34, 38; cf. 1:54f, 68-79).

The Anointed Ones of God, who will appear at the end-time, will usher in this restoration. In particular, it was expected of the Davidic Messiah that he would subdue/defeat the surrounding nations and establish the Kingdom of God on earth—a kingdom that was expressed socio-politically through Israel as a restored (independent and dominant) nation. Since Jesus was viewed by his disciples as the Messiah—and, indeed, the Davidic ruler figure-type—it was natural for them to expect that he would bring about this restoration for Israel. Since it was not accomplished prior to his death, with his arrival in Jerusalem (cf. the popular expectation, Mk 11:7-10 par; Lk 19:11, etc), surely the moment would occur now, after his resurrection.

Let us briefly examine the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6:

ku/rie, ei) e)n tw=| xronw=| tou/tw| a)pokaqista/nei$ th\n basilei/an tw=|   )Israh/l;
“Lord, (if) in this time will you set down again the kingdom to Israel?”

A more literal rendering of a)pokaqisth/nai would indicate setting the Kingdom down from (a)po/) where it is currently, back to its former condition; conventionally, we could translate “reconstitute” or “restore”.

Jesus’ reply comes in two parts: first—

“It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has set in (his) own e)cousi/a

e)cousi/a (from e&cestin), almost impossible to translate literally, has the sense of “ability” or “authority” to do something. Jesus effectively dispenses with their question, without necessarily denying its validity—however, the brusque response may suggest a misunderstanding on their part. Earlier it is stated that Jesus, during the days following his resurrection, related to his disciples “the things concerning the Kingdom of God” (v. 3). Almost certainly this involved more than the sort of eschatological Messianic kingdom common in popular religious thought (cf. above, and the earlier article in the series “Prophecy and Eschatology in the New Testament”). Yet this is what they ask about here. If the first part of Jesus’ reply does away with their question, the second part, in some sense re-establishes it:

“But you shall receive (the) power of the holy Spirit (which is) coming upon you, and you shall be my witnesses (both) in Jerusalem, and [in] all Judea and Samaria, and unto the end of the earth.”

In other words, the establishment of the Kingdom (and the restoration of Israel), will not be realized in conventional religious and socio-political terms; rather, it will occur through: (a) the presence/power of the holy Spirit, and (b) the proclamation of the Gospel throughout the world. The narratives in the book of Acts faithfully expound both of these aspects. As believers are filled and guided by the Spirit, they embark on a mission into the surrounding nations, proclaiming the Gospel. Thus we have here a uniquely Christian development of the Prophetic tradition regarding the role of God’s Spirit in the New Age of Israel’s restoration.

Before proceeding further, it will be worth examining this development in a bit more detail. It can scarcely be regarded as a Lukan invention, since it is rooted in the authentic Gospel and early Christian historical tradition. However, the author of Luke-Acts does give to the theme a profound creative and literary expression in the early chapters of the book of Acts. I have discussed this in prior notes and articles, including a four-part series on the Pentecost narrative in Acts 2:1-13. I will not reproduce that entirely here, but will highlight the most important and relevant aspects for our current study. In the next daily note, I will address the idea of Israel’s restoration symbolized by the reconstitution of the Twelve apostles (Acts 1:15-26).

June 8: Luke 10:21-22

Luke 10:21-22

In the previous note, we examined the section on prayer in Luke 11:1-13, especially the saying in vv. 11-13 which contains a reference to the Holy Spirit not found in the corresponding Matthean version (7:9-11). It appears to be a clear example of a Lukan development of the Gospel Tradition, in accordance with the greater emphasis on the Spirit in Luke-Acts. There is a similar instance in the tradition at Lk 10:21-22 which needs to be discussed as part of our study.

Before proceeding, it is worth pointing out a peculiarity in the location of these references to the Spirit in the Gospel of Luke. As we have seen, there is a cluster in chapters 3-4 (3:16, 22; 4:1, 14, 19), focused on the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry (in Galilee). After this, there are no references until 10:21, the first of several in chaps. 10-12 (11:2 v.l., 13; 12:10, 12). Then, there are again no further references until the allusion to the Spirit at the close of the Gospel (24:49). The nature of this distribution would seem to have something to do with the structure of the core Synoptic narrative, which divides rather neatly into two parts: (1) the Galilean period, and (2) the journey to Jerusalem and the events (in Jerusalem) leading to Jesus’ Passion. The references to the Spirit are focused in the early section(s) of each part.

The Transfiguration episode marks the end of the first division and the start of the second, a fact confirmed by the obvious parallels between the Baptism and Transfiguration scenes. The Lukan narrative follows this basic outline, with the Transfiguration episode occurring at 9:28-36. The journey to Jerusalem is introduced at 9:51-56, followed by a sayings-tradition regarding discipleship (vv. 57-62), and a second mission outing by Jesus’ disciples (seventy[-two], found only in Luke), which may be divided as follows:

    • Narrative introduction and commission by Jesus (10:1-12, par 9:1-6ff)
    • Woes against the towns of Galilee (10:13-15 [“Q”] par Matt 11:20-24)
    • Saying on how people respond to the disciples, as representatives of Jesus (10:16 [“Q”] par Matt 10:40)
    • Declaration by Jesus at the return of the disciples (10:17-20)

The sayings in 10:21-22 occur immediately after this section, and thus have an important place at the beginning of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem, which spans all of 9:51-18:34 in the Lukan narrative. Like the sayings in vv. 13-16, it is part of the so-called “Q” material (found in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark), the Matthean version (11:25-27) occurring at a comparable location in the narrative. The block of sayings in 10:21-24 is more or less identical to those in Matt 11:25-30. Here is how the saying in Matt 11:25-26 reads:

“In that time Yeshua, giving forth (an answer), said: ‘I give out an account as one to [i.e. I acknowledge] you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, (in) that you hid these (thing)s from (those who are) wise and able to put (thing)s together [i.e. intelligent], and (have) uncovered them (instead) to infants. Yes, Father! (for) so (it is) that (this) good consideration came to be in front of you’.”

The Lukan version is very nearly word-for-word identical, making it an especially good example of the “Q” double-tradition. However, Luke does introduce the saying in a very different manner:

“In that hour, he lept (for joy) in the holy Spirit and said…”

Instead of the bland statement that Jesus “gave forth (an answer)”, Luke has a much more dramatic reference to Jesus “leaping” for joy (vb a)gallia/w) while he is “in the holy Spirit”. The definite article and the adjective a%gio$ (“holy”) are absent in a number of manuscripts (Ë45 A W D Y) and versions, which raises the possibility that originally the text here referred to Jesus experiencing delight within his own spirit (cf. Fitzmyer, p. 871). However, this seems rather unlikely, given the importance of the (holy) Spirit in the Lukan Gospel, expressed by a tendency to adapt the Gospel tradition at key points to emphasize the role of the Spirit. We saw this, for example, in the summary descriptions at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (4:1), including a specific reference to his being “in” the Spirit (4:14, cp. 2:27). We also have the clear example of a specific reference to the holy Spirit in a saying (11:13, cf. the previous note) where it is not to be found in the Matthean version. The omission of the adjective “holy” here, in certain witnesses, would seem to be the ‘easier’ reading, and may reflect a harmonization with the Matthean version, much as a number of manuscripts read “a good spirit” instead of “holy Spirit” at 11:13, to harmonize with “good gifts” in Matthew.

All of this would tend to confirm that the reading “in the holy Spirit” is original, and that Luke is depicting Jesus in an inspired state, much as in 4:1ff. The use of the verb a)gallia/w in 1:47 (the only other occurrence in the Gospel) adds to the suggestion that prophetic inspiration is in view, and that Jesus, like Elizabeth (1:41ff, cf. also Zechariah and Simeon, 1:67ff; 2:27ff), is giving out a Spirit-inspired utterance before his disciples. This reflects a further early Christian development of the ancient tradition of prophetic inspiration, discussed at length in recent notes. The main difference in how Luke expresses this is that the unique presence of the Spirit with Jesus extends to the people of God (i.e. believers) as a whole. This is foreshadowed in the Infancy narrative, as well as in the concluding statement in the section on prayer (11:13, discussed in the previous note). It will not be realized truly for believers (i.e. Jesus’ disciples) until the narratives in the book of Acts.

In this regard, it is worth considering the place of the saying in 10:22, combined as it is with that of v. 21 (and the Lukan reference to the Spirit). Again, the Matthean and Lukan versions are virtually identical, the only real difference being Matthew’s use of the verb e)piginw/skw (“know about”) instead of the simple ginw/skw (“know”) in Luke. Here is the saying:

“All (thing)s were given along to me under [i.e. by] the Father, and no one knows who the Son is if not the Father, and who the Father is if not the Son, and to whomever the Son wishes to uncover [i.e. reveal] it.”

This is essentially the only instance in the Synoptic Gospel where Jesus speaks in the manner he does in the Gospel of John. The most notable parallels are in Jn 10:15 and 17:2, but other passages may be noted as well (3:35; 6:65; 7:29; 13:3; 14:7, 9-11; 17:25; cf. Fitzmyer, p. 866). It thus opens a window onto an entire line of tradition that is otherwise absent from the Synoptics and found only in the Gospel of John, where it is expressed in a developed (and highly literary) form in the great Johannine Discourses. Three main aspects of Johannine theology are alluded to in this saying:

    • The Father giving “all things” to the Son
    • The inter-relationship between God the Father and Jesus (the Son)
    • The chain of relation: Father => Son => disciples/believers

Combining these aspects leads to the specific idea of the Father giving to the Son, who, in turn, gives (the same) to his disciples. This theological framework is expressed repeatedly (and clearly) throughout the Gospel of John, but it has to be inferred here. Moreover, based on the reference to the Holy Spirit here (v. 21), we can assume that the Spirit is among the “all things” that the Father gives to the Son—i.e., He gives the Spirit to the Son, who, in turn, gives the Spirit to his disciples. Admittedly, this idea, as such, is nowhere to be found in the Synoptics, but the fundamental associations may be pieced together from parts of the Gospel Tradition. Let us consider several key elements that we have already encountered in these notes:

    • Jesus as the anointed, end-time representative of God, through whom the Spirit will come upon humankind—as a fire of Judgment that both purifies the righteous and consumes the wicked. This idea is rooted in eschatological (and Messianic) traditions involving the coming of God’s Spirit in the New Age, and expressed specifically as part of the Baptist’s preaching and dunking (baptizing) ministry. Cf. the earlier note on Mk 1:7-8 par.
    • Jesus gives to his disciples the same power and authority he possesses—to teach/proclaim and work healing miracles (Mk 3:14-15; 6:7-13 pars, etc). In the case of Jesus, this power clearly is derived from God’s holy Spirit (cf. especially Luke 4:1ff, 14ff; Mark 3:22-29 par; Matt 12:28 par). Though it is nowhere stated explicitly, we may infer that the disciples’ power likewise comes from the “spirit of God” (Matt 12:28). An ancient Old Testament parallel may be found in Numbers 11:16-30 (discussed in an earlier note), in which seventy elders (cp. Luke 10:1ff) come to have a share in the same divine Spirit that is upon Moses.
    • In the saying(s) of Mark 13:11 par, apparently referring to a time after Jesus’ departure, the continuation of his ministry by his disciples will specifically involve speaking/preaching under the inspired guidance/influence of the Holy Spirit.

Again, it is in the Gospel of John that this dynamic is clarified and expressed more precisely. Certainly the theological statement in 3:34-35 indicates that God the Father gives the Spirit to Jesus the Son, who then will give it to believers. Much the same is implied elsewhere in the discourses—cf. 4:10-15 + 23-24; 6:63; 7:37-39. The situation is a bit more complicated in the Last Discourse, where we have specific references to the coming of the Spirit—but the Spirit is variously said to be sent

    1. by the Father (at Jesus’ request or in his name)—14:16, 26
    2. by Jesus (but also from the Father)—15:26
    3. by Jesus (directly?)—16:7

This reflects the inter-relationship of Father and Son (cf. above) that is central to the Johannine theology, but it is also part of a unique Christological development in the idea of the Spirit of God among early Christians (to be discussed in upcoming notes), whereby the Spirit of God is also understood as the Spirit of Christ. In any case, Jesus clearly gives the Spirit to his disciples in the post-resurrection scene of 20:19-23 (v. 22), described in language that seems to echo the role of God’s spirit (breath) in the creation of humankind (cf. the earlier note on Gen 2:7; Job 33:4). To be sure, the Johannine narrative of the coming of the Spirit differs markedly from that in the book of Acts; for readers interested in the critical questions surrounding the two accounts, I have discussed them in an earlier set of articles. In the next daily note, we will turn our attention to the historical traditions (regarding the Spirit) in the book of Acts.

References above marked “Fitzmyer” are to Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 28A (1985).

 

June 7: Luke 11:2, 9-13

Luke 11:2, 9-13

In our study of how the traditions regarding the Spirit of God developed in the New Testament, among early Christians, we have been considering the evidence from the historical traditions preserved in the Synoptic Gospels. As we move from the core Synoptic Tradition to its (later) developments in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, we find an increasing number of references to the Spirit—most notably in the Lukan Gospel. This has already been discussed in a previous note (on Lk 4:1, 14ff)—the way that the references to the Spirit at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry have been developed and adapted, with an eye toward the role of the Spirit in the larger narrative of Luke-Acts.

A similar sort of example can be found in chapter 11 (vv. 1-13), where the author has brought together several different traditions—sayings and parables—on the subject of prayer. This is typical of the thematic and “catchword” bonding by which Gospel traditions often came to be combined together. In the Lukan Gospel, the journey to Jerusalem provides the literary framework within which a large amount of material has been included, as though it were simply a record of all that Jesus taught along the way. The fact that much of this material is found in different narrative locations in the other Gospels makes clear that the Lukan arrangement is literary, rather than historical and chronological. In 11:1-13, the unifying theme is prayer; at least three different tradition-units make up this pericope:

    • A version of the “Lord’s Prayer” (vv. 2-4), following the narrative introduction in verse 1
    • The Parable of the man who calls on his friend in the middle of the night (vv. 5-8), and
    • A short block of sayings—at least two distinct traditions (vv. 9-10, 11-13)—part of the so-called “Q” material, also found in Matthew (7:7-11)

The emphasis in vv. 5-13 is on the assurance that God, as the “heavenly Father”, will answer the prayers of His children, and that they should not be afraid to petition God in their time of need. In particular, let us examine the sayings in vv. 9-13—the first of which is virtually identical with the Matthean version:

And I say to you: you must ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened up to you; for every (one) asking receives, the (one) seeking finds, and to the (one) knocking it is [or, it will be] opened up.” (vv. 9-10)

Luke has apparently made no change to the “Q” tradition, other than perhaps the inclusion of the introductory phrase (in italics). The situation is different with regard to the tradition in vv. 11-13; it is instructive to compare the Lukan and the Matthean (7:9-11) versions phrase by phrase:

    • “Or, what man is (there) out of [i.e. among] you” (Matt)
      “And for what father out of [i.e. among] you” (Lk)
      It is possible that Luke has glossed “man” as “father” to make the immediate context of the illustration more clear, but it would also be appropriate to the overall context of vv. 1-13, which is framed by references to God as the heavenly Father (vv. 2, 13). It also establishes a precise contrast between an earthly father and God the Father, which is very much to the point of the illustration. The Lukan syntax would seem to confirm its character as a gloss—i.e., “what (man) among you, as a father…”.
    • “whom, (when) his son will ask (for) bread, he will (surely) not give over to him a stone(, will he)?” (Matt)
      “the son will ask (for) a fish and, in exchange (for) a fish, will he give over to him a snake (instead)?” (Lk)
      The Lukan syntax is simpler, emphasizing that the harmful item (snake) is given in place of (a)nti/) the beneficial thing requested by the son (a fish). The initial pairing in Matthew is bread/stone, rather than fish/snake, but it similarly establishes the pattern for the illustration.
    • “or even will ask (for) a fish, he will not give over to him a snake(, will he)?” (Matt)
      “or even will ask (for) an egg, will he give over to him a stinging (creature) [i.e. scorpion] (instead)?” (Lk)
      Matthew’s second pairing is the first in the Lukan illustration; in place of it, the Lukan version juxtaposes egg/scorpion, which makes for a more extreme (and ridiculous) contrast.
    • “So (then), if you, being evil, have seen [i.e. known] (enough) to give good gifts to your offspring” (Matt)
      “So (then), if you, beginning (now) as evil, have seen [i.e. known] (enough) to give good gifts to your offspring” (Lk)
      The two versions are nearly identical here; the use of the verb u(pa/rxw (lit. “begin under”), instead of the simple verb of being (ei)mi), would seem to be an indication of Lukan style. Of the 46 occurrences of the verb u(pa/rxw, 31 are found in Luke-Acts, and it is not used in any of the other Gospels.
    • “how much more will your Father, the (One) in the heavens, give good (thing)s to the (one)s asking Him?” (Matt)
      “how much more will your Father out of heaven give (the) holy Spirit to the (one)s asking Him?” (Lk)
      Again the two versions are quite close here, the most notable difference being that Luke reads “holy Spirit” in place of “good (thing)s”. Assuming that we are dealing with a common saying, which certainly seems to be the case, the two versions here cannot both be an accurate representation of the original. Almost certainly, Matthew preserves the original saying (or close to it), which Luke has adapted in light of the special emphasis on the role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts (cf. above). Several manuscripts (Ë45 L, etc) read “(a) good spirit” instead of “holy Spirit”, most likely in an attempt to harmonize the two versions.

The Lukan reference to the holy Spirit as the “good thing(s)” that God will give to His offspring effectively centers the saying within an early Christian context, anticipating the “gift” of the Spirit that will come upon Jesus’ disciples in Acts 2:1-4ff. It serves as the climax to Jesus’ teaching on prayer in this passage, implying that it is the Holy Spirit that will truly be the answer to his disciples’ prayer. In this regard, it is interesting to note a fascinating variant reading within the Lukan version of the Lord’s Prayer, found in a small number of witnesses. The majority text of the second petition (in v. 2) reads “may your Kingdom come” (e)lqe/tw h( basilei/a sou), just as in the Matthean version, though Codex Bezae (D) adds e)f’ h(ma=$ (“upon us”). However, in two minuscule manuscripts (162, 700) and in the writings of at least two Church Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus Confessor), we find a very different petition which substantially reads:

“may your holy Spirit come upon us and cleanse us”
e)lqe/tw to\ pneu=ma sou to\ a%gion e)f’ h(ma=$ kai\ kaqarisa/tw h(ma=$

Some commentators have suggested that this is a gloss interpreting the coming of God’s “Kingdom” as a reference to the coming of the Spirit, and that it may have originated as a liturgical adaption of the Prayer in a baptismal setting. Interestingly, an identification of God’s Kingdom with the Spirit, within the narrative of Luke-Acts, may be justified on the basis of Jesus’ answer to the question posed by his disciples in Acts 1:6-8. A more precise Christian identification is made by Paul in Romans 14:17. If we go back to the sayings and words of Jesus, a similar association, between Kingdom and Spirit, can be found in the Matthean version of the saying at Matt 12:28 / Lk 11:20 (cf. the prior note); the Lukan version of this saying, which uses “finger of God” instead of “Spirit of God” occurs just shortly after the section on prayer in chap. 11. We may also note the association made by Jesus in the Johannine discourse of chap. 3 (v. 5).

Though this variant reading in the Lord’s Prayer is certainly secondary (and not original), it provides an intriguing enhancement to a genuine Lukan theme in this passage. It offers a parallel, at the beginning of the section (v. 2), to the reference to the Spirit at the conclusion (v. 13), thus framing the entire pericope, and emphasizing all the more the point that the coming of the Spirit represents the ultimate goal and answer to the prayer of believers. There is a similar connection between prayer and the Spirit running through the Johannine Last Discourse—cf. 14:13-17, 25-26; 15:7ff, 26; 16:7ff, 23-24.

The variant reading itself represents a distinctly Christian adaptation of an established Old Testament/Jewish tradition regarding the role of God’s Spirit in the New Age. Drawing upon the natural association between God’s (holy) Spirit and cleansing, the sixth century Prophets, as part of their overall message regarding the restoration of Israel (and return from exile), emphasize the role of the Spirit that God will “pour out” upon His people, cleansing them and giving to them a “new heart” and a new spirit which will allow them to remain obedient to the Covenant. The Qumran Community further developed this idea, applying it to their own religious identity as the faithful ones of the end-time. The Qumran Community viewed itself as a “community of holiness”, made up completely of “men of holiness”, led by a “council of holiness”, and established by God’s own “spirit of holiness” (1QS 8:20-9:3). The water-ritual for entrants into the Community symbolized the cleansing of the person’s spirit by the “spirit of [God’s] holiness”, so that the individual’s own spirit was made entirely holy (1QS 3:5-9), allowing him to become part of the holy Community. The parallel with early Christian baptism is clear enough, and the variant reading of Luke 11:2, if it indeed stems from a baptismal setting, would indicate that early Christians used similar traditional language, regarding the cleansing role of the Spirit in the Community.

Before proceeding further to consider how this Lukan emphasis on the Spirit reflects the historical traditions surrounding the earliest believers (in Luke-Acts), it will be worth examining one additional Gospel tradition where the Lukan version, apparently, makes reference to the Holy Spirit. In the next daily note, we will look briefly at the saying in Lk 10:21-22 (par Matt 11:25-27).

 

June 5: Mark 13:11 par

Mark 13:11; Matt 10:19-20; Luke 12:11-12

One of the clearest indications of a development of the Old Testament and Jewish traditions regarding the Spirit of God, within the earliest layers of the Gospel tradition, is the idea that the coming of the Spirit in the New Age of Israel’s restoration will occur through Jesus, as God’s Anointed representative. As a Spirit-inspired Prophet, uniquely empowered by the holy Spirit of God, Jesus will communicate that same Spirit to others. This is reflected in the saying of the Baptist (Mark 1:7-8 par), discussed in a prior note, and it is also implied in the way that the relationship between Jesus and his disciples is depicted in the Gospels.

The references to the Spirit in the Synoptic account of the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (esp. in the Lukan version, cf. the prior note on Lk 4:1, 14ff) make clear that his teaching/preaching and his ability to work healing miracles are the result of his being ‘anointed’ by the Spirit (see esp. the use of Isa 61:1ff in Luke 4:17-19ff, also 7:18-23 par). Having gathered around him a group of close disciples, to share in his ministry (Mk 3:13-19 par), Jesus gives to them a share of the same power to preach and work miracles (Mk 6:7-13 par). His disciples thus function as anointed prophets in a manner similar to Jesus himself. We must assume that this activity is likewise Spirit-inspired, even though there is no specific reference to the Spirit in these passages. The situation is comparable to the episode in Numbers 11:16-30 (discussed in an earlier note), where God allows a group of seventy Israelite elders to share in the same divine Spirit that is “upon” Moses. The Spirit comes upon them, and they each function as a ayb!n` (inspired spokesperson/representative for God, i.e. “prophet”), in a manner similar to Moses. The emphasis in that narrative is on leadership, but it is also clear that the activity of the inspired men includes proclamation and certain kinds of ministry performed throughout the camp (vv. 17, 26ff).

Though no direct mention is made of the Spirit in the Gospel passages dealing with the disciples’ activity during Jesus’ ministry, it is fair to assume that their preaching and miracles, like those of Jesus, were done with the “Spirit/finger of God” (Matt 12:28; Lk 11:20). The only instance where this ministry activity of the disciples is explicitly said to be inspired by the Spirit is the saying in Mark 13:11, for which there is a corresponding version in Matt 10:19-20 / Lk 12:11-12.

The Markan saying is part of the Eschatological Discourse (chap. 13 = Matthew 24 / Luke 21:5-36), the literary setting of which, in the Synoptic narrative, is in Jerusalem, not long before Jesus’ death. The Discourse thus foretells things that will occur after Jesus’ own death and departure. There will be a time of great distress (qli/yi$) for humankind (especially those in Jerusalem and Judea), and this will mean suffering and persecution for Jesus’ disciples as well (vv. 9-13). Jesus announces that his disciples will arrested and interrogated before government tribunals (both Jewish and non-Jewish), but his exhortation to them is that, when this occurs, they should not be anxious about how they are to respond or what they are to say; instead, he assures them:

“…whatever should be given to you in that hour (to say), so you must speak; for you are not the (one)s speaking, rather (it is) the holy Spirit.” (v. 11)

The corresponding saying in Matthew/Luke occurs at a different location in the narrative, but the context would seem to be the same—it relates to things that will take place in the near future, following Jesus’ departure. This fact is obscured by Matthew’s location of it in the setting of the mission of the Twelve (10:5-15). In one sense that location is anachronistic, but it reflects a different organizing principle for the traditional (sayings) material—as with the Eschatological Discourse, it is a literary, rather than a historical/chronological, arrangement. In any case, the Matthean version reads as follows:

“And when they give you along [i.e. over to the authorities], you must not be concerned (about) how or what you should speak; for it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak—for you are not the (one)s speaking, but (rather) the Spirit of your Father is the (one) speaking in you.” (10:19-20)

Luke has this saying in yet a different location, at 12:11-12, joined by way of “catchword-bonding” with the saying on the Spirit in 12:10 (discussed in the previous note). The Lukan wording is clearer and cast in a form that would better relate to early Christians in the author’s own time; the relevant portion reads:

“…you must not be concerned (about) how or what you should give forth as an account (of yourself), or what you should say; for the holy Spirit will teach you in that hour the (thing)s it is necessary (for you) to say.”

The distinctly Lukan elements (glosses) are given in italics—these include the use of the verb a)pologe/omai (“give forth an account”), the emphasis on teaching (vb dida/skw), and the verb form dei= (“it is necessary…”). This must be understood as a Christianized form of the saying, made to apply more directly to the life situation and experience of early Christians. Jesus’ prediction, of course, was admirably fulfilled during the period prior to 70 A.D., as documented by the experience of the apostles and other missionaries in the book of Acts. At several points in the Acts narratives, it is specifically stated that the early Christians respond as inspired spokespersons (i.e. prophets), being moved or “filled” with the Spirit—4:8, 31; 6:3, 5ff; 7:55; 13:9, etc. It goes without saying that this represents a distinctly Christian development of the Old Testament tradition(s) regarding prophetic inspiration. The juxtaposition of the Spirit-inspired prophecy of David (in the Psalms, 4:25, cp. Mk 12:36), with that of the early Christians (4:8, 31), demonstrates that they are parallel concepts of inspiration.

What is especially noteworthy about these references in the book of Acts is how they are specifically tied to the early Christian mission and the proclamation of the Gospel. The “good message”, which had already been proclaimed during the period of Jesus’ ministry (Mk 1:14-15; 6:12; 13:10 par, etc), is now framed in terms of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The primary purpose for the holy Spirit coming upon the early Christians in Jerusalem was their mission to the surrounding nations and the proclamation of the Gospel (1:8; 2:1-4ff), a point that will be discussed further in the upcoming notes. As this proclamation is centered on a basic narration of the events of Jesus’ life (and death), it may be seen as providing a seminal basis for the idea of the inspiration of the Gospels, and even of the New Testament as a whole.

June 4: Mark 3:28-29; Matt 12:31-32; Luke 12:10

Mark 3:28-29; Matt 12:31-32; Luke 12:10

These June notes continue those of the earlier series on the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, examining how the Old Testament concepts and traditions were developed by early Christians in the New Testament. When we turn to consider what Jesus said about the Spirit during his ministry, the evidence is surprisingly slight, especially within the Synoptic tradition. Indeed, there are just three instances in the Gospel of Mark:

    • The saying on the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (3:28-29)
    • A notice within the Messianic question/debate of 12:35-37 (v. 36)
    • A saying on the coming persecution of his disciples during the time of distress, part of the Eschatological Discourse of chap. 13—13:9-13 (v. 11)

The second of these simply affirms the Spirit-inspired character of the Prophetic Scriptures (which includes the Psalms, and David as a prophet). In the post-exilic period, there came to be an increasing emphasis on the role of God’s Spirit in both the composition of the Scriptures and their interpretation—cf. the earlier note on Neh 9:20, 30, etc, and the article on the Holy Spirit in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This emphasis is less prominent among early Christians than it was, for example, in the Qumran Community, but it is still present in the New Testament—a point to be discussed in the upcoming notes.

The references to the Spirit in Mk 3:29 and 13:11 are more substantial and distinctly Christian in character. The situation, however, is complicated by the fact that, for each of these sayings, there appear to be two distinct forms—one Markan (i.e. occurring in Mark), and the other part of the so-called “Q” material (found in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark). Let us begin with the saying in Mark 3:28-29, which has both Markan and “Q” forms. In such instances, there is a question of whether we are dealing with two distinct historical traditions, or variant forms a single historical tradition. Traditional-conservative commentators tend to opt for the former, while critical commentators typically assume the latter. The situation is further complicated by additional differences between versions of the Markan and “Q” sayings, the possibility of variation as a result of translation from an Aramaic original, and other factors.

Matthew contains both the Markan and “Q” forms, joined together at 12:31-32, while Luke has only the “Q” saying (12:10). Let us compare the Markan saying as it is found in Mk 3:28-29 and Matt 12:31, respectively:

“Amen, I relate to you that all (thing)s will be released [i.e. forgiven] for the sons of men—the sins and the insults, as many (thing)s as they may give insult—but whoever would give insult unto the holy Spirit, he does not hold release [i.e. forgiveness] into the Age, but is holding on (himself) a sin of the Age(s) [i.e. eternal sin].” (Mk 3:28-29)
“Through this I relate to you (that) all (kind)s of sin and insult will be released [i.e. forgiven] for men, but an insult of [i.e. against] the Spirit will not be released.” (Matt 12:31)

Matthew clearly has a simpler version, but this may be a result of the combination with the second (“Q”) form/saying in 12:32. The point of the contrast is that all sins and insults will be forgiven, except for an insult directed against the Spirit of God (Mk uses the expression “holy Spirit”). The term “insult” (blasfhmi/a, vb blasfhme/w) is often used in a religious sense—i.e., something which is an insult or offense to God (thus our English word “blasphemy”). Jesus is speaking of a person insulting God’s Spirit directly. The Markan context for this saying (with the explanation in verse 30) is likely original. Certain religious leaders were attributing Jesus’ power over the evil spirits (or daimons, “demons”) to a certain kind of special demonic power (holding [i.e. possessing] Baal-zebul, the “prince of daimons”). Since Jesus’ ministry, including his healing miracles, was actually empowered and specially inspired by the Spirit of God (cf. the previous note), to claim that it was the result of demonic power was a direct insult to God’s own Spirit.

The Spirit-inspired character of Jesus’ healing miracles is implied throughout the Gospel narratives, but it is given specific expression in at least one saying, found in Matthew and Luke (i.e. “Q” material), with a slight but significant variation. In Matthew, it is part of the same narrative block as 12:31-32, dealing with the same dispute over the origins of Jesus’ miracle-working power. In verse 28, he states most dramatically:

“But if (it is) in [i.e. with] the Spirit of God (that) I cast out the daimons, then the kingdom of God (has already) arrived upon you!”

In Luke 11:20, this saying reads:

“But if (it is) in [i.e. with] the finger of God (that) I cast out the daimons, then the kingdom of God (has already) arrived upon you!”

Almost certainly, Luke has the more original form, using the expression “finger of God” instead of “Spirit of God”. However, the point is the same: it refers to the Divine source of Jesus’ power to work miracles over the spirits of disease, etc (cf. Exod 8:19). The Matthean form is likely a gloss to make this point clear. The connection of this manifestation of God’s Spirit with the coming of His Kingdom suggests a continuation of the Prophetic tradition regarding the role of the Spirit in the restoration of Israel and the New Age for God’s people (cf. the recent notes on the key passages from Joel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and [Deutero-]Isaiah).

What of the “Q” form of the ‘blasphemy against the Spirit’ saying? Here are the Matthean and Lukan versions:

“And whoever would speak a word against the Son of Man, it will be released [i.e. forgiven] for him; but whoever would speak against the holy Spirit, it will not be released for him—not in this Age, and not in the coming Age.” (Matt 12:32)
“And every (one) who shall utter a word unto [i.e. against] the Son of Man, it will be released [i.e. forgiven] for him; but for the (one) giving insult unto the holy Spirit, it will not be released.” (Luke 12:10)

Luke’s version occurs in an entirely different context, a clear indication that the saying was preserved separately, and it was the Matthean Gospel writer who included it as part of the ‘Beelzebul Controversy’ pericope, alongside the parallel (Markan) saying of 12:31. The fact that the Markan saying has the expression “sons of men”, and the “Q” saying “Son of Man”, can hardly be coincidental. It raises the possibility that an original (Aramaic) saying of Jesus came to be understood two different ways, as it was preserved and translated (into Greek), where the meaning of the underlying Semitic idiom “son of man” would have been lost, in favor of its familiar use as a title by Jesus (for more, cf. my earlier note on this saying).

In any event, in the “Q” saying, “Son of Man” clearly is a self-reference by Jesus. Such use by Jesus in the Gospels is complex and requires a separate detailed study (cf. my earlier series on the “Son of Man Sayings of Jesus”). It occurs extensively throughout the Synoptic tradition, with several different categories of “Son of Man” sayings. Most frequently, it is a self-reference, whereby Jesus especially identifies himself with the suffering of the human condition. Remember that Matt 12:32 occurs in the context of Jesus’ public ministry, in which he worked to heal people of their suffering and affliction from illness and disease, which, according to the ancient understanding, were caused by evil/harmful spirits. This was an important part of his work as “Son of Man”, especially during the Galilean period of his ministry (in the Synoptic narrative).

The point Jesus is making in the “Q” saying is: to slander his miracle-working power is to insult (directly) the Spirit of God. It is one thing to speak against him personally, as he ministers among the people, but quite another to insult the source of his miracle working power, which is God’s own holy Spirit.

There is yet another version of this saying, preserved in the “Gospel of Thomas” (saying §44), which clearly represents a still later development (and a more Christianized version). It appears to be a superficial expansion of the “Q” saying, given in a trinitarian form:

“Whoever blasphemes against the Father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the Son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven.”

This version grossly distorts the sense and thrust of the original saying, as though a direct insult against God the Father (or against Jesus as the Son of God) will be forgiven. Neither the Markan nor “Q” sayings suggest anything of the sort; in any case, taken thus out of context, the saying is far removed from the point Jesus himself was making at the time. As a miracle working Anointed Prophet—God’s own representative (ayb!n`), who was also His Son—Jesus was specially empowered by the holy Spirit of God. To slander or insult that power is to insult God Himself. This reflects a development of the Prophetic tradition(s) regarding the Spirit, focused uniquely on the inspired person of Jesus himself, as Messiah, Prophet, and Son of God.