"Chasing After the Wind"
Looking for the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
Introduction
Is the Spirit in the Old Testament?
This question has…inspired (pun intended) not a little discussion.
This question itself already depends on answers to other questions. What do you mean by “Spirit”? The third Person of the Trinity? What do you mean by “in”? As if the original authors were aware of the concept of the Trinity?
The original question prompts multiple responses. If by “Spirit” I mean the third Person of the Trinity, then one response would be: Absolutely not!
Another response might say that, yes, the Spirit is in the Old Testament, but the process of identifying the Spirit is limited and descriptive. That is, we might find nascent explorations of what would culminate in more explicit reflection on the Spirit. The task might then be to identify key words, such as רוח, as guides. But still here, the Spirit’s presence is vague and limited. W might find the Spirit, but it is with caution and even apology.
In this post, I want to answer in the affirmative: yes, the Spirit is in the Old Testament. But I want to suggest that those approaches that usually answer in the affirmative are limited. For those of us who belong to the church, we need not only think of the theological resources at our disposal as merely add-ons at the end of the process, the “application” we tag on once the “real” work of investigation has been completed. Instead, we can bring these theological resources with us to the process of reading and investigating the text itself. The goal would be to see how those resources might shed light on the text.
In terms of my topic today, I want to consider the following: in light of the theological judgments that we Christians make about the Trinitarian God, overall, but the Spirit, in particular, how might we read the Old Testament with an openness to “finding” the Spirit, even in places where we might not typically have looked? Can we see the Spirit in the Old Testament?
I’ve entitled this post “Chasing after the Wind” as a double entendre. Some readers might frown on what I’m doing here: my pursuit is truly a chasing after the wind, a waste of time.
But I argue positively that we can chase after, so to speak, the wind of God, the Spirit of God, beyond even those texts where specific Spirit-vocabulary occurs. We can find the Spirit by looking for where the activities we associate with the Spirit are present.
Clark Pinnock aptly sets up my approach: “The gospel story helps us discern movements of the Spirit. From this narrative we learn the pattern of God’s ways. So wherever we see traces of Jesus in the world and people opening up to his ideals, we know we are in the presence of Spirit.”
My starting assumption is this: what is true of God now has always been and will always be true of God. Therefore, if Christians make Trinitarian claims about God, those claims are eternally true. My approach, then, does not depend on what was in the minds of the original human authors. Rather, it rests on the eternality of God.
I will examine 1 Samuel 1–2 as a test case. In light of what the broader Christian tradition has to say about the activity of the Spirit, I will argue that the words and actions of Hannah evince the presence and power of the Spirit.
In a sense, I see my work as flowing out of and complementing the work of Brent Strawn in his essay entitled “And These Three Are One: A Trinitarian Critique of Christological Approaches to the Old Testament,” found in the volume, The Incomparable God.
Drawing on the notions of perichoresis and inseparable operation of the members of the Trinity, Strawn offers a couple conclusions. First, informed by these concepts, Trinitarian Christians have every right to adopt a Christological approach to the Old Testament. But for him, this is not about finding Jesus in the “gaps” of the Old Testament (angel of the LORD? Person wrestling Jacob?). It is, rather, a claim that every text that speaks of the Lord God of Israel, whom the New Testament connects to the Father of Jesus Christ, also and simultaneously speaks of the other two members of the Trinity.
Second, though, with these Christological readings that Strawn envisions, attempts at Christocentric/-telic/-scopic reading of the Old Testament are “simply unnecessary.” “The subject matter of the Old Testament can simply be God,” he asserts.
He concludes the essay as follows:
“[W]e must also say on the basis of that same Trinitarian belief that neither is it all just mesmerism or imagination that sees the God revealed [in the Old Testament] to be connected to the God known in Jesus Christ. Instead, we have to do, in both instances, with the Triune God. A God who is actually three, and yet these three are one. Scripture has much to teach us about both.”
Beginning from a Trinitarian perspective, one that sees that at every point at which the Lord God of Israel is active then one encounters the fullness of the Trinity, I want to engage 1 Sam 1–2.
Playing off that last quotation from Strawn—“A God who is actually three, and yet these three are one”—I would say that whereas his own essay has focused on “and yet these three are one,” mine will focus on “A God who is actually three.” That is, I want to explore how the distinct Person of the Spirit is present and revealed in 1 Sam 1–2.
The Spirit in First Samuel
Turning now to 1 Sam 1–2, I consider details in Hannah’s narrative in light of the church’s tradition of reflecting on the work of the Spirit. I begin at the point at which Hannah, in her distress over her barrenness, has gone before the LORD at Shiloh.
Out of her grief, Hannah decides to go before the LORD, to pray, and to make a vow (1:9–12). All these actions demonstrate her keen sense of who the LORD is as well as who she is. Her actions demonstrate that she knows that the LORD is able to do something on her behalf and that the LORD is willing—the LORD is great, but the LORD is also good.
Within the narrative, her perception of the LORD’s character and ways is not explained. Further, other characters, most notably Eli, demonstrate a lack of perception, an ignorance of the LORD’s character and ways. Her insight into the LORD’s character is not something that can be taken for granted within this narrative. This perception comes only from the LORD.
Regularly on display in the narrative of Samuel is this contrast between those who perceive and those who do not. The most tangible example is found in the contrast between David and Saul. David “gets it”; Saul does not. Implied is that seeing the LORD requires the opening of eyes, and the opening of eyes in this narrative comes to those who are humble.
Within the Christian tradition it is the Spirit that enables intimacy with God. Gregory of Nyssa, In Against Eunomius, indicates that it is through the Spirit that we become partakers of divine nature. Michael Welker, in God the Spirit, says, “The Holy Spirit brings about intimacy with God. Indeed the Spirit of God is this intimacy. . . . The Spirit brings about an intimate, trusting relation to the person of God, who is the epitome of kindness and affection and of love that has the power to carry out its purposes.” He especially notes how it is among the distressed and oppressed that the Spirit is active: “The Spirit enables human beings to experience their intimacy with God in the tension between their recognition of their lostness and their vocation to have a part of God’s glory.”
Gordon Fee says, “Prayer is an activity inspired by God himself, through His Holy Spirit. It is God siding with his people and, by his own empowering presence, the Spirit of God himself, bringing forth prayer that is in keeping with his will and his ways.”
Hannah knows the LORD by way of the Spirit. As one who is distressed, she’s better positioned to be open to the promptings of the Spirit. Therefore she goes before the LORD, prays, and makes a vow.
Likewise, Hannah demonstrates keen insight into the ways of the LORD in her response to Eli (1:15–16). What stands out in particular is her deep self-awareness. She pours out her life, she speaks out of her great grief. She is not drunk, as Eli presumes she is. She is not filling herself with strong drink, but rather she is pouring herself out. This self-awareness ushers in her humility before the LORD.
According to Basil, in De Spiritu Sancto, “The revelation of mysteries is indeed the peculiar function of the Spirit, as it is written, ‘God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit.’” Gregory Nazianzen, in Oration 41, explicitly identifies the presence of the Spirit with the patriarchs and prophets as their source of foreknowledge. Welker elaborates on this role of the Spirit in providing knowledge. He says that the Spirit mediates valid knowledge and definition of reality: “[T]he Spirit enables reality to be perceived from the perspective of God’s presence.”
Hannah’s understanding of the ways of the LORD comes from the Spirit. The Spirit enables her to see reality from God’s perspective.
After having spoken with Eli, Hannah becomes joyful. This is shown in two ways. First, whereas she initially was not eating and drinking (v. 7), she now eats and drinks (v. 18). These actions convey her trust that the LORD has heard her and will act on her behalf. Second, her joy is also captured in her prayer in chapter 2. The prayer begins, “My heart exults in the LORD” (v. 1). The whole prayer is laced with expressions of joy.
Pinnock identifies the effects of an intimate experience of Spirit: “Spirit is the joy giver who fills our hearts with singing. The Spirit’s inspiration makes us to want to dance and celebrate.” Basil, in speaking of those in whom the Spirit dwells, includes the following in a list of effects of the Spirit: “a place in the chorus of angels, joy without end, abiding in God, the being made like to God, and, highest of all, the being made God.”
The Spirit is the source of Hannah’s joy.
Finally, in the content of her prayer she demonstrates prophetic perception. Readers ancient and modern have called attention to Hannah’s prophetic role. She’s listed as one of the forty-eight prophets in the Babylonian Talmud. Adele Berlin calls her song a prophetic hymn. Susan Ackerman describes Hannah’s prayer as prophetic proclamation of social reversal.
Hannah speaks of the ways of the LORD not only in her particular life but on behalf of the people of Israel now and into the future. She speaks of the LORD bringing down the powerful and lifting up the lowly. She indicates that the LORD does not overcome by might. She even refers to the king. All of these items occur later in the narrative, beyond Hannah’s own time within it.
Basil speaks of the role of the Spirit more generally in providing illumination in the context of prophecy: “I indeed maintain that even Gabriel in no other way foretells events to come than by the foreknowledge of the Spirit, by reason of the fact that one of the boons distributed by the Spirit is prophecy . . . The revelation of mysteries is indeed the peculiar function of the Spirit, as it is written, ‘God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit’” (XVI).
The Spirit inspires Hannah’s prophetic speech.
Summary: in these particular narrative details of 1 Sam 1–2, readers witness activities that, in Christian tradition, have come to be associated with the Spirit. Therefore, for Trinitarian Christian readers, even though the narrative of Samuel itself does not mention the Spirit, we can say that we see the Spirit present.
Hannah According to Luke
Next, I want to look at two approaches to the narrative of Samuel in general and Hannah in particular that, I will argue, implicitly display the sort of hermeneutical assumptions I’m identifying.
First, I want to consider Luke’s Gospel in the New Testament. As has often been noted and explored, Luke’s narrative relies heavily on the book of Samuel. Luke presents the characters of Mary and Jesus with textures drawn from Hannah and Samuel, respectively.
Of note, then, is the way in which Luke drenches the opening chapters in the Holy Spirit. The angel informs Zechariah that his soon-to-be-born son, John, will be immersed in the Holy Spirit even before his birth (1:15). It is the Spirit who causes Mary to conceive (1:35). Upon encountering Mary, Elizabeth’s child, filled with the Spirit, leaps with joy inside her, and she is said to be filled with the Holy Spirit, which prompts her benediction of Mary (1:41–42).
Explicitly, the Spirit is mentioned multiple times in the opening chapter. Implicitly, the whole chapter presumes the work of the Spirit in all that is taking place. Mary’s Magnificat (1:46–55) is presented as being inspired by the filling of the Spirit. After the Magnificat, Zechariah’s prophecy follows from his own experience of being filled with the Spirit (1:67).
From this opening chapter alone, readers have been guided by the narrator to see the Spirit as active explicitly and implicitly. The Spirit enables Mary (and Elizabeth) to become pregnant, moves John to leap for joy, inspires Elizabeth’s benediction, prompts Mary to praise, and moves Zechariah to prophesy. The Spirit is being characterized as the one who provides knowledge and insight into God’s perspective on events taking place. The Spirit is the one who enables unexpected pregnancies and empowers people to prophesy.
We could extend our discussion to talk about the role of the Spirit throughout Luke–Acts. One notable example, especially in light of what we see in 1 Sam 1–2, would be the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit falls, empowering those gathered to speak in other languages. Bystanders mistakenly assume that the congregation is drunk (just as Eli had done with Hannah), but Peter, himself empowered by the Spirit, boldly proclaims that they are not drunk, but that they have been empowered in the long-anticipated experience to which Joel had pointed.
If Luke attributes these activities to the Spirit, and if Luke is reading 1 Sam 1–2 for cues and clues in presenting Mary especially, then what might readers assume about Luke’s own reading of 1 Sam 1–2? I want to suggest that Luke implicitly invites readers to consider that the events described in the opening of Samuel are likewise Spirit-inspired events. In other words, if Luke has drawn parallels between Mary’s experience and Hannah’s experience, and if Luke has identified the Spirit’s role in all these events surrounding Mary, then readers might assume that Luke is reading Samuel pneumatologically, that is, with the assumption that the Spirit is at work in the same ways then as the Spirit is now.
Hannah in Jewish Interpretation
Another approach that bears witness to a pneumatological reading of Samuel is found among older Jewish interpretations. I want to call attention to a couple clear statements before then talking about what is being implied by those statements.
The initial statement comes from Rashi. Paraphrasing 1 Sam 1:15, the verse in which Hannah responds to Eli’s accusation of drunkenness, Rashi puts the following on the lips of Hannah: “You [Eli] are not master in this matter. You have revealed that the Holy Spirit is not resting upon you, otherwise you would have known that I am not intoxicated from wine.”
Rashi speaks here of Eli, not of Hannah. However, if Eli’s lack of insight is attributed to his lack of the Holy Spirit, then he presumes that Hannah’s insight depends on the presence of the Holy Spirit. Thus, Rashi identifies the role of the Spirit in this narrative. Further, the specific effect of the Spirit is insight, as has been discussed earlier. It is the Spirit, for Rashi, that enables insight into the ways of God.
The second statement comes from Abarnabel. Speaking of Hannah’s prayer, he says that she received preparation for prophecy by the Holy Spirit shining in her. Further, because all her words were fulfilled, he says that “we know that the Holy Spirit spoke through her and his word was on her tongue.” Picking up, as others have, on the prophetic nature of Hannah’s prayer, Abarnabel connects this to the Spirit. As we saw above, this connection between the Spirit and prophecy is well established. What is unique here is his explicit identification of the role of the Spirit in inspiring Hannah to prophesy.
What are the implications of these two statements? Both demonstrate a hermeneutical approach that takes for granted the role of the Holy Spirit in the Hannah narrative. Both also tie the Spirit to insight and prophecy.
To state the obvious, these two sources would not talk of the Spirit as the third Person of the Trinity. For my purposes, that is not essential. They adopt an approach to the text similar to the one I’m proposing. Having come to know the sorts of activities that are associated with the Holy Spirit, they are reading the narrative of Samuel in light of that and freely making connections that are not explicit in the text itself. They sense freedom to see in the text what is not explicitly stated but only implied.
Implications and Conclusion
To restate my aim: I have explored what a constructive approach to the Old Testament that is shaped by Trinitarian and Pneumatological convictions might look like. Coming to the text with an understanding of the effects attributed to the Holy Spirit in mind, I wondered whether we might see the activity of the Spirit and thereby postulate that the Spirit is present and at work. With 1 Sam 1–2, at least some interpreters from earlier times—Luke, Rashi, and Abarnabel as examples—appear already to be reading in such a way.
I hope to have avoided two pitfalls. One would be underreading the Old Testament. I do think that if, as Strawn says, the subject matter of the Bible is God, and if Christians affirm that God is Trinity, then we ultimately do a disservice not only to fellow Christians but also to a wider set of readers when we put our tradition on the shelf. If we have learned through the gospel story how to discern the movements of the Spirit, as Pinnock put it, then we should expect to find the work across time and space—including in the Old Testament.
The other pitfall I hope to have avoided is any form of supersessionism. I am not here claiming that the Spirit, as the third member of the Trinity, must be found explicitly in the text or that the authors were thinking in Trinitarian terms. Rather, I hope that the reading put forth here can find commonality even with readings that are not Trinitarian.