HWYR: Spirit of Christ
April 2nd, 2009 by Sean
How Would You Respond? (HWYR)
I received the following email from a fellow biblical unitarian:
Sean,
I Peter 1:11 says, “seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.”
What do you think about this passage? It’s rather a strange text and no other one quite like it that I’ve found.
I had a trinity friend of mine, bring this to my attention… I’ve read it a million times and never thought about it as pre-existence until she thought she had a proof text for me!
How can the Spirit of Christ be in the prophets if Christ was not yet alive? What do you think?
hi, how could the spirit of christ within them, be so, the spirit of christ could not be in them, until it was possible to be within , the lord jesus christ made it possible threw his life, death, resurrection,ascension, the day of pentecost, christ in you the hope of glory, no one could be bornagain until it was available. are we thinking that the passage is talking about old testament prophets,verse, 1 peter 1 verse10 ,11,12,
The “spirit of Christ” is as much a ‘qualitative’ meaning, as it is a ‘functional’ meaning now. It is a functional meaning now because Christ is using the spirit to work. But the spirit has always been. The qualitative meaning is comparative (e.g. “the spirit of Satan” vs. “the spirit of God” or “the spirit of Christ”). The focus is on the faithfulness of the prophets, their own right-standing in the future way of the Messiah. It has nothing to do with pre-existence.
Hi Sean,
I would ask, what is “the spirit of Christ” ? how is this genitive “of Christ” to be understood? to what does “spirit” refer (some kind of living spirit being? spiritual power? something else?
It seems that the trinitarian friend mentioned in the note who wants to use this text as “proof text” for a “pre-existence” of Christ, also has never asked herself these questions, and most likely would not be able to answer them either, thus documenting that she does not understand what the verse is talking about and therefore should refrain from trying to use it as a proof text in the first place
Comparing OT records about prophets and about the spirit within (or on) them, I would think that it is clear that Peter is not saying that “the person Christ was living inside the prophets” … rather, it was spirit (as God’s power) which God had given to the prophets os as to be able to communicate with them and reveal information to them.
Now, if one would read just “the spirit … which was in them” and leave out the words “of Christ” for the moment, the verse seems perfectly clear and teach us that the prophets of old already had testimony by means of the spirit in them concerning the sufferings and glory of the promised Messiah. The words “of Christ” which are added to “the spirit” are the words which somehow are difficult to understand. It seems to me that the expression could actually involve an ellipsis and mean perhaps something like “the spirit [which prophesied] of Christ which was in them …”
Anyone else perhaps have some additional thoughts and considerations an helpful suggestions?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolgang,
I think you have a point say that it was a more prophetic meaning that the Spirit of Christ was in them because the Messiah is what we humans look forward as the one who will liberate mankind.
I think it is also important to remember that is says “the Spirit of Christ” and not, “the Spirit of Jesus” as if the person Jesus was working in them in a pre-existing state.
Too many people think of Christ as if it’s Jesus’ last name, but it’s not, Christ is a title, not a personal name. Rather than saying Christ we can also say Messiah, we then read it as “the Spirit of Messiah” and it becomes more clearer that the promise of the Messiah was with them.
Some manuscripts do not have “of Christ” after Spirit. A couple of the Bibles I have leave it out and just read: “… the Spirit which was in them was pointing out concerning Messiah …”
Regardless, I agree with Joeseph.
In a footnote the Emphatic Diaglott (Greek-Interlinear Bible) at 1 Peter 1:11 notes that the Vatican Manuscript omits “of Christ” at this verse. Certain translations (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures; the New World Translation, the James Duncan Version of 1836) follow this manuscript by omitting the words “of Christ” after Spirit at 1 Peter 1:11. The Geneva Bible of 1602 agrees in meaning by reading, “Searching when or what time the Spirit which teftified (testified) before of Chrift (Christ) which was in them, fhould (should) declare the fufferings (sufferings) that fhould (should) come vnto (unto) Chrift (Christ), and the glory that fhould (should) follow.” Even though the second “which” is misplaced, the meaning of the Geneva translation seems to be this: it was not the Messiah which was in the prophets. It was rather the Spirit of God which was in the prophets.
Matthew Janzen
Good points John and Matthew. It is amazing what one word can do to a passage and how it can mutate the truth. Fortunately in the NT we have overall context to back us up against the Trinity Doctrine. The Bible is repetitious, if there is a out of place verse then it needs to be scrutinized.
Without the words “of Christ” this passage is a strong testament that God’s spirit has always been working in his chosen, not just a revealed third party entity of the NT.
There is another time in Acts, (I can’t find the verse at this moment) when the phrase “spirit of Christ” is used. I wasn’t aware of the above example until just now. I would agree with Matthew that the words “of Christ” omitted in other translations has been inserted by translators attempting to confirm their trinitarian beliefs.
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Romans 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
If anyone has a question about who Peter thought Jesus was then this should clear it up. Not only does He explain the Spirit comes from God but it is offered to us the same as it is offered to Jesus.
We can become children of God just like Jesus.
So if Jesus is God then we would also be gods which we know we cant be.
God is God
Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Act 16:7 When they had come opposite Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them;
Sean,
So the question would be, if we take this passage as authentic, is the Spirit of Jesus able to intercede with the creation after his resurrection? Would this contradict scripture?
Joseph
If I may jump in on your question - I think the scriptures indicate that Jesus Christ is very much involved with His church today through the spirit.
There are a lot of scriptures which seem to indicate this to me.
Hebrews 7:25 ” Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. ‘
Rev 3:20′”Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. ”
Christ talks about coming to his disciples after his death and resurrection a lot in John 14. For example verse 23 “Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.”
Of course Romans 8:34 “who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.”
Since Jesus Christ is the head of the church today, it makes sense to me that he would be endeavoring to interact with the members of His church. I think that He does this through the holy spirit.
Rich
I think Christ was most indeed alive from eternity, being with God
from everlasting. That is why the sufferings of Christ which was being revealed through their prophesies is referred to as coming
through the spirit of Christ. The spirit of Christ was in the old testament prophets who prophesied of him and his sufferings, though they did not know him in the flesh as he had not yet come
through the womb of any woman in Israel at that time. Yet they looked to that time and wondered about when it would be.
hi, Ray,how could the spirit of christ be in the old testament prophets, when christ had not yet come, and threw his life, death ,resurrection, ascension, pentecost, made it available to be born again, with christ in you the hope of glory.
It is hard to understand that the promise of Salvation existed long before the means of Salvation.
This confuses people into thinking the power God gave unto his Son is that of the Son.
The promise of Salvation has always been offered by God to all that would walk with Him.
To walk with God means Not to question a single Word He has spoken and to please Him !
This is the Testimony of Jesus and also His way of life.
Some people also think that Jesus was not burdened by free will. It was the belief in His Father that enabled him to do the will of God.
By his example is how we can be in the flesh and do the will of our God through belief
I am not sure this is the right format for my question, but as I was reading in John this morning, I came across a verse which to now had eluded me. Let me preface my questions with a concern I have after reading our Sunday School lesson for Jan 3, 2010, published by David C. Cook and edited by Dr. John Roller and his staff. On page 36 it reads as follows:
“When John baptized Jesus, the Lord’s identity and ministry were validated from heaven with the FIRST EXPLICIT MANIFESTATION OF THE THE DIVINE TRINITY. (emphasis mine). Well, while preparing my response that will surely come this Sunday, I came across the following verses, John 1:17-18, (NIV) For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus christ. No one has seen God, but GOD THE ONE AND ONLY, (emphasis mine) who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”
Can someone with a lot more knowledge of scripture, (which would be many) please when you have time, elaborate on that particular verse as to its meaning and how that would relate to the pre-existence of Christ.
Randy
here is one view on the subject
http://servetustheevangelical.com/doc/Is_Jesus_God_in_John_1.18.pdf
Randy,
There are two manuscript traditions here. One says “only begotten Son” and the other “only begotten God.” Scholars debate which is correct, with many of the textual critics agreeing that since the earliest manuscripts contain “only begotten God,” and it is more likely that a scribe would change this difficult phrase to the more natural “only begotten Son” than the other way around, the original was “only begotten God.” If this is true, then this would be another instance where Jesus is called God because he represents God as the word made flesh.
Nevertheless, others are unconvinced that this local tradition is correct because the manuscripts containing “only begotten God” are only found in the Alexandrian (Egypt) area, while the others reading “only begotten Son” are found in the Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine traditions. Furthermore, the phrase “only begotten God” is foreign to the language of the Gospel of John and directly contradicts John 17.3 which indicates that the only true God is the Father. It is possible that the “only begotten God” reading, though primitive, is not actually what John wrote, but instead an early corruption used to bolster the prologue of John to teach that Jesus was actually God (not just the word made flesh). Versions that use “only begotten Son” include NJB, NKJV, KJV, YLT whereas nearly every modern translation has “God” instead of “Son” because the manuscript evidence for “God” is earlier.
You guys are fast and very helpful. I am constantly amazed at the level of education, thinking, and understanding many writers have on this site. Thanks for helping me understand, well I should say, giving me the material to help me understand.
Randy
Even Trinitarians have a problem explaining the older reading of “monogenes theos” [begotten god] simply because it doesn’t make any sense. Hence, the variant reading of “the only Son” [which appears later in the majority of ancient manuscripts].
It is doubtful that the author would have written “monogenes theos” which may be a primitive, transcriptional error in the Alexandrian tradition.
If Jesus is “the only God”, who is the Father whom Jesus in turn calls “the only true God” in John 17.3?
Randy,
also check out this too.
Keven, why is it you think that Jesus had to come in the flesh, live a sinless life, die on the cross, be raised from the dead, and ascend into heaven before his spirit could be in men? I don’t see such teaching anywhere in scripture, unless you mean that though his spirit were available to men, only a very few ever received it and connected well with it, and therefore Jesus came from heaven
to be born and live among men, and do all that he could and needed to do in order for more men to enter into the kingdom.
The question “How could the spirit of Christ be in the prophets of the Old Testament, if he was not yet alive, or in existence?” is a good one to think about.
When the holy spirit of God was given by Jesus on the day of Pentecost, did it come upon them or was it in them?
True or False?
The prophets of the Old Testament (some of them at least) had the spirit of Christ in them, but in the New Testament, when the spirit of God was given, it came Upon them.
I’m finding a present interest in looking at the phraze “the spirit of man” in the Old Testament.
Here’s one:
Proverbs 17:27
He that hath knowledge spareth his words: and a man of understanding is of an excellent spirit.
God weighs the spirits of men. (see Proverbs 16:2)
The spirits of men are not always right. David the king of Israel talked about God renewing a right spirit within him, as well as God
creating a clean heart within him also.
If a man has an excellent spirit, (as we have seen David have) could that be the spirit of Christ? It seems to me to be so with David as he wrote the psalms which told us things about Christ.
I’m thinking of a verse but haven’t found it yet. It’s about how no man knoweth anything but the spirit of man that is in him. That spirit must be of God if it knows the things about a man more than the man himself knows, if it is an excellent spirit.
Now I think of Joseph, didn’t he have an excellent spirit?
I see Daniel had an excellent spirit.
Daniel 5:12
Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, …
If it’s so that the spirit of man knows the things about the man, doesn’t he spirit of Christ know about Christ? So then the spirit of Christ that is in a man can reveal to the man things about Christ.
False. Many Old Testament prophets said “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.” See Judges 6:34, I Sam. 11:6, II Chron. 24:20, Ezek. 11:5, to name but a few. And also many believers in the New Testament were said to have the Holy Spirit in them. See John 14:17, Rom. 8:9-11, I Cor. 3:16. The first outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the Church era was described as, “they were all FILLED WITH the Holy Spirit…” in Acts 2:4.
I’ve also heard the exact opposite suggested - that Holy Spirit was only UPON in the OT but IN believers in the NT. This also is not born out by the Scriptures. Joseph was called “a man in whom the spirit of God is” in Genesis 41:38, and Joshua was called that in Numbers 27:18. God’s ministers were said to be filled with God’s spirit in Exodus 28:3; 31:3; and 35:31. Isaiah 63:11 reads, “Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?” On the other hand, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts was compared to, and was a foretaste of, God’s promise to “pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh” (Acts 2:17). And Peter specifically states in I Peter 4:14 that, “the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you.”
So any distinction between “spirit in” and “spirit upon” has no Biblical basis - they are used interchangeably.
I believe you’re thinking of I Cor. 2:11 - “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” This isn’t saying that there is a “spirit” or “being” in a man that knows more about the man than the man himself. The spirit of a man refers to the deepest inner heart of the man, and Paul is comparing that with the deepest inner heart of God which is the spirit of God.
I recommend you look up the word “spirit” in a good Bible dictionary. It isn’t used in the Bible exactly the same way we use it today in our Greek-influenced culture. The word “soul” would be a good one to look up too.
The statement I put forth is true.
The holy spirit was in Old Testament prophets, for the scripture says “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ
which was in them…” (See I Peter 1:11)
As to whether or not the spirit of God which Jesus gave came Upon
them who received, see Acts 1:8 and Acts 2:4, but men like their
doctrines.
In the Old Testament we can see the spirit of God in and upon. We also see this in the New Testament. T or F? (Keep in mind that things in the New Testament shed light upon what we have seen in the Old.)
Thank you Mark for the verse I was thinking of. I had thought it to be from the Old Testament. I Cor 2:11 is the one.
This is the verse I heard Creflo Dollar preach on a little bit just before I pondered where the verse was and posted that question.
He was talking about how the spirit God gave us knows about us, and also that the spirit of Christ knows about Christ. It seems to me that’s seen in how David, Isaiah ,and others prophesied about Jesus before he came in the flesh.
I gave you specific Scripture references to show that “spirit in” and “spirit upon” are used interchangeably in both the Old and New Testaments. There is no difference between the two expressions.
Mark, you gave me specific scriptures to show that the spirit was within and upon in both the new and old testament. Yes, the scripture tells us the statement (in post #23 ) is true.
The statement does not say that the spirit of Christ is not in the new testament believer, nor does it say that the spirit of God was not Upon the old testament prophets.
Sorry. When you use the word “but” it sets in contrast, which implies that the holy spirit is “in” believers in the OT, BUT “upon” them in the NT. This was the original wording:
“The prophets of the Old Testament (some of them at least) had the spirit of Christ in them, but in the New Testament, when the spirit of God was given, it came Upon them. “
So if that’s not what you meant, I guess I missed your whole point. What was it you meant to prove with that statement?
Mark, there are some Christians who teach that the spirit of God was Upon people in the old testament, but now Christ is In us, which is true, but they use it as a doctrine that says that the spirit of Christ could not be in anyone in the old testament, and that people in the new testament don’t have the spirit of God Upon them. They teach that Christ in them (the hope of glory) replaced
the holy spirit Upon people. The scriptures you shared have broken this myth.
I don’t use my statement as a doctrine as they have used theirs.
You seem to have believed I was using my statement they same way as some others have used theirs.
Their statement is true, but they made a doctrine out of it, teaching some error. My statement was made to point out their error without suggesting some things that you assumed that it said.
Ray,
Thanks for clearing that up. I agree with you.
Here’s something I’ve wondered about:
Did king Saul have the spirit of Christ in him? ( He was known to have the spirit of God upon him people considered or wondered if he was numbered among the prophets - see I Samuel 10:11)
I consider king David as one that had the spirit of Christ in him due to the content of the Psalms which often speak of Christ and his sufferings, something David also took part in.
So I wonder if there is a difference between a man having the spirit of God upon him and having the spirit of Christ within him.
I suppose it could be that king Saul had the same as David, but I’m not so sure. I wonder if king Saul had what David had concerning Christ. Perhaps in some measure? I just don’t know.