Pictures of the Spirit

PICTURING THE SPIRIT

God loves visual aids! Although I have used them extensively in my preaching for very many years, especially, but not exclusively, to young people, I have only recently come to realise that the idea was not mine, not even just human, but is God’s. When Jesus came to this world and tried to communicate spiritual truth, he frequently used things to illustrate what would otherwise be quite difficult to understand. He did not speak, at least to the crowds, in the direct way that he did to his disciples, but spoke only in parables (Mk 4:34). Taking things that were familiar to his hearers, he drew out spiritual truth in such a way that it was then highly memorable, so much so that many of his illustrations are still an integral part of modern Western culture. Who is unaware of the idea of a Good Samaritan, or of a grain of mustard seed? In a sense he was even himself a visual aid, showing us what God is like.

It was Marshall McLuhan who popularised the idea that the medium is the message. He was making the point that there is far more to communication than simply using words. Obviously words are supremely important and indispensable, particularly in Christianity, which understands the main revelation of God as the Word incarnate (Jn 1:1). Christianity has then always majored on words, whether in sermons, hymns or in the Bible to tell the good news. Yet Jesus Himself told his message visually, in His own life and practice, and when He did speak, frequently used illustrations. He knew the power of the visual to augment and bring home the verbal. It is his example that has often been a source of encouragement to pursue this method of communicating the Gospel.

Analogies

It is significant that we always tend to describe something or somebody by means of comparisons. We describe a person by comparison with another, or a thing by reference to something else. It therefore comes naturally to do the same thing when talking of spiritual things or persons. In particular, referring to the Persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is useful as a way of identifying God in distinction to other ideas, as Jenson (1982:3) observes, but surely these are more than just names, but points of description about the Persons. In particular, there is then a need to provide more identifiers or points of comparison with the third Person, as spirit includes the other Persons as spiritual, and refers to other beings as well.

With the growth of Pentecostal, Charismatic, and most recently, third wave groups, the understanding of the nature of the Holy Spirit has become of enormous significance for Christianity. It is no longer possible to speak of the neglected Person of the Trinity, and to concentrate attention on the other Persons, particularly the Son, and to ignore who the Spirit is and what he does. Even if for Christians, there must be a concentration on the teachings and actions of Jesus, the work of the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential if these are to be appreciated and applied to Christian life and work. Stendahl (1990:cover) points out that the Spirit is right at the very start and at the end of the Bible. He must then be at the heart of Christian understanding.

However, the very nature of the Spirit has been to direct attention away from himself and onto Christ. Not only this, but his nature is particularly difficult to understand by human beings. The second Person of the Trinity became incarnate as a human being, and so at least to some extent, his nature and work naturally makes sense to us. The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, did not become incarnate, and usually acts in an impersonal manner. Indeed, one significant modern writer on the Spirit has suggested that just as the second Person limited the exercise of his deity (Phil 2:7), so the third has limited his personality (Congar 1993:5). This makes it particularly hard for human personalities to understand the Spirit, especially as material beings find it difficult to comprehend the immaterial.

People have then battled to express the inexpressible in human words, and therefore, of course, in concepts understandable by human beings. As soon as language is used, and certainly as soon as ideas are put forward, analogies to the Trinity are suggested. Indeed every expression of the Trinity must inevitably use analogy to some extent, or nothing at all can be said. The only way of describing anything is in the context of what is already known. McGrath (1991:27) puts it like this:

Throughout Scripture, we find analogies which point to God’s ability to reveal himself in ways which we can understand. The scriptural images of God (for example, as Shepherd, King and Father) are deceptively simple. They are easy to visualize and remember, yet on further reflection, they convey important and profound truths concerning God. The doctrine of the incarnation points to God’s willingness and ability to come down to our level. God reveals himself in ways appropriate to our level and our abilities as human beings, using illustrations which we can handle.

Analogies are memorable. They are powerful visual images, which stimulate our imagination. They get us thinking about God. Talking about God in abstract terms can get very boring and unimaginative. We all know that a picture is worth a thousand words. It is certainly correct to talk about God as one who cares for us, guides us, and accompanies us throughout life. But it is much more memorable to talk about God as a shepherd—an analogy which makes all those points! People can remember the idea of God as a shepherd, linking it with key scriptural passages (like Psalm 23). And as they think about those images, they can begin to unpack the various ideas which they convey.

Likewise Taylor (1972:72):

This is the reason for the explosive force of symbols and metaphors compared with plain statement. ‘No man is an island’ has fifty times the voltage of ‘No one is self-sufficient’. Presumably this is why Jesus chose to teach in parables.

Likewise Packer (1995:115):

And good mental pictures—models,—to use the modern word—by involving that half of our mind which we call imagination, will take our understanding further than rational analysis on its own can ever go.

The necessity of metaphor

Thus when Jesus spoke of the Spirit, it was in metaphor; Taylor (1972:88) thinks that the parable of the fig tree (Mk 13:28), the wine in new wine-skins, the fire kindled on the earth, and the lightning spreading from east to west, and many parables of the Kingdom, are all ways of referring to the activity of the Spirit. Thus when we speak of the Spirit, it too must be a metaphor. Indeed, even the pictures of Father and Son must be analogies (Taylor 1972:7), and so do not provide an accurate reflection of the nature of the first and second Persons of God. It was because he took the very valid Biblical pictures too literally that Arius fell into such heresy. He wanted to apply every aspect of the figure to Jesus, and so naturally thought of him as having a temporal origin, and despite Biblical indications to the contrary, such as John 5:18, believed that the second Person of the Trinity must be essentially less than the Father. All that really can be said is that in many ways the first Person is like a human father, and that this is even the closest approximation to what he is like (cf McGrath 1991:27). Similarly, to cite an early example, the second Person was also pictured as the word, the logos of God, a picture, like that of the Son, with Biblical endorsement (Jn 1). This preserves aspects, such as expression, that Son does not. Other pictures are also possible, such as wisdom, a picture common in the Fathers, such as Tertullian (Fortman 1962:110). Even the very idea of the Trinity is in fact itself a picture, a logical attempt to describe in words, really to illustrate, the actual revelation.

What the possibility of the use of symbols does bring home to us, as Watson (1973:22) perceptibly observes of wind and fire, is that the pictures are earthy. Because of the modern world-view there is a tendency to treat spirit as ghostly, and unable to affect the material world (Pinnock 1996:119). It is here that concrete analogies are valuable. They speak of God’s concern with this world, and with physical things, not only of the heavenly and spiritual. Of course the very incarnation speaks of God’s involvement, so it is hardly surprising that the third Person, although not in any sense incarnate, could also be appreciated in earthly things.

Similarly, the prophets commonly used pictures (Thorogood 1971:37); these are then claimed to be from God himself (Hos 12:10). An example of this is Amos 8:1f, the vision of the basket of summer fruit. This is particularly significant in view of the rabbinic idea that the Spirit was particularly the Spirit of prophecy (Schweizer 1960:44). This was an idea which carried over into Christianity (Turner 1996:7, 43, 69 etc), although this implies more than just inspired speech, including God’s other gifts, such as wisdom and guidance (Turner 1996:8).

Then again, pictures are commonly also used to illustrate the nature of the Church, such as an army, or a body. This is less questioned than the use in respect of divinity, as the Church is a human organisation.

Then again, if God commonly reaches out to us by symbols, it is natural that our response to him is also often symbolic. The richness of meaning in baptism and the Lord’s supper comes quickly to mind, but the list can be extended; some traditions are extremely rich in this regard. Indeed, it is hardly going too far to say that worship must always involve symbols (Underhill 1962:45). In this case, the symbolic nature of God’s revelation becomes more understandable; it is natural to our religious senses.

No adequate analogy

Different analogies are possible and reflect different aspects of God. No one analogy can be seen as complete or perfect, only ever giving aspects of the total picture, which will never be known to us. Images like dove, water and fire (for example) are evocative but do not reveal the face of a Person: the Spirit remains somewhat anonymous (Pinnock 1996:36). Sproul (1990:155) says that it is unfortunate that, on the visual level, there are no really appropriate symbols for the Spirit. His words however show acceptance of the basic principle.

Likewise, never to be forgotten, is that every picture will contain aspects that do not reflect God; details must not be pressed excessively. To state an obvious example, nobody really suggests that the first Person exhibits the sexuality of a human father. God is not male, even if it is the best approximation, and Biblical (!), to use masculine pronouns of him. Again, even if an illustration is suggested, it does not mean that it is necessarily appropriate; it may contain such inaccuracy that it must be rejected as it would lead people astray. All metaphors must be weighed in the light of a clear authority, which is found in the Biblical revelation.

Emblems of the Spirit

It is especially when speaking of the third Person of the Trinity that metaphor and visual aid becomes valuable. He is the Holy Spirit, but what on earth, or even off it, do we understand by Spirit? We are frequently driven to the use of negatives to try to say what we mean, just as medieval theology, such as in Thomas Aquinas, tried to describe the essential being of God in negative terms such as incomprehensible, infinite, and so on. In the same way, we understand spirit as something that is essentially immaterial, and then struggle to understand what we mean by that, simply because all our experience is at least closely linked to the material. Even something as immaterial as thought can hardly be separated from the material of the brain.

So particularly in the case of the Holy Spirit, we find that the Bible uses a multiplicity of metaphors to help us to understand what, or rather who, the Holy Spirit is. Again there is great value in the number of illustrations; none alone is adequate. He is visualised by the dove who alighted on Jesus at his baptism. He is the paraclete, not that we are really helped that much by the use of the term! He is seen in wind and fire, created things, pressed into service to communicate to us the nature of the Spirit; they are messengers or angels, servants or ministers in this regard (Heb 1:7, quoting Ps 104:4). What must be stressed is that they are analogies; the Spirit is not either fire or wind, but is like them (Witherington 1998:132). The tongues were like fire, but were not in fact fire (Dunn 1996:25).

It is thus essential to follow the Biblical pattern and to make use of analogy in an attempt to understand the Spirit more clearly. The Bible gives many examples in this regard; Thomas (1913:283) refers to the obvious ones of oil, seal, dove, wind, fire and water. Marsh (1923), followed by James (1969), refers to the emblems of the Spirit; he even adds such as the atmosphere, dew, rivers and the rain to ones more acceptable such as fire and the dove. Surely more can be suggested. Everything needed for wellbeing could well be used to illustrate the Word and the Spirit (Dillistone 1946:109). Hildegard of Bingen utilises a profusion of images. He is as the life of creatures, as a burning fire that sparks, ignites inflames and kindles our hearts; as guide in the fog, a balm for wounds, a shining serenity and an overflowing fountain that spreads to all sides. Spirit is life, movement, color, radiance… (Pinnock 1995:187).

Moltmann (1992:268f) mentions four groups of metaphors: personal (Lord, mother, judge), formative (energy, space), movement (wind, fire, love) and mystical (source of light, water, fertility). Obviously some are better analogies than others, but none is perfect. Many present aspects not present in others, such as light and water, both with the idea of flooding or filling, which is not implied by a dove. All have aspects which are not appropriate.

A variety of metaphors

It is for that reason that some of the examples used for the Spirit in the past are not included here. Many of the traditional vestigia (see supplementary note), although they help in illustrating the relationships in the Trinity, fall far short of illustrating the nature of individual Persons; again there is a need for variety to give a good overall picture. Then air is not really a parallel to the Spirit in itself, although its nature may seem to make it attractive; despite it being a gas, it is still material. Rather it is when it is in motion, as breath or as wind, that it parallels the Spirit, and as such has Biblical approval. The Spirit generally acts in a powerful, dynamic way, although this is not always true; water, and even the silent dew, can picture him. Wisdom has also frequently been suggested, such as by some of the Fathers, or by Gelpi (1984:125); certainly this has much to commend it, but although wisdom has been used to picture the Spirit, in fact wisdom is probably a better illustration for the second Person, an identification indeed also made in the ancient world. A comparison with life is also often made. This however results in the idea that the Spirit is immanent in all living creatures, and then in some understandings of the nature of the world and universe as also in a sense alive, immanent in all. Such implies a form of pantheism, and goes against a Biblical understanding of the Spirit as active specifically in the Church (Jn 14:17). Rather life is the interaction of components of living beings, while the Spirit is more like the motivation, or spirit that each living being also must have. It is for this reason that the Bible identifies life with the blood, which is the means by which the various organs interact (cf Taylor 1972:7). The Spirit only caused life at the beginning, so is not identified with the life process itself. It is remarkable how seldom in fact spirit is related to life (Johnston 1970:26). It must however be pointed out here that the situation is different for the new life in the Christian, which depends on the constant bond with Christ as the source of life. Then as Paul indicates, as in Galatians, it is the evident presence of the Spirit that gives evidence of this new life (Taylor 1972:110).

It is not surprising that at Pentecost, just as at the baptism of Jesus, the descent of the Spirit was illustrated in a visual way. What is however perhaps initially surprising is that the illustration was not the same. We might well have expected that a dove would have come down and rested on the disciples. Of course this would have to be repeated several times, or possibly several doves might have descended. The illustration might well have been difficult, but would have been possible, but was not used. In this case, surely the fact that the imagery was different simply means that different truths were being communicated. In the case of Jesus’ baptism, the dove would have communicated several aspects of what it meant for Jesus to be filled with the Spirit. It would perhaps have implied peace, as it does to us, but more likely it would have reminded the watchers of the story of Noah, and so of the imminence of salvation. It may well have implied an identification of Jesus with Israel; Knight (1953:71) has suggested that the dove was a common symbol for Israel in the Old Testament (eg S of Songs 2:14). Little of this would have been really appropriate for the disciples on the day of Pentecost, so in that case a different illustration was used.

The point here is that the visualisation of the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost was not arbitrary, but that the choice of the pictures of wind and fire are deeply meaningful. They are not just embellishments invented by a later recounter of the events of the day; Luke did not invent the story (Witherington 1998:130). Neither, at the opposite extreme, could anything else have been used to picture the descent of the Spirit; rather, the exact metaphors are intended to help us understand what happened on that day, and how the disciples were equipped for their later ministry by the Spirit. With Calvin (1965:50), we can observe the analogy of the signs.

Not too much distinction should be made between what the Spirit is, and what he does. Although it will be noticed that Moltmann (1992:270) uses source of light as an analogy for the Spirit, rather than light itself, probably in this case, both are appropriate; Moltmann after all also includes energy, which is itself a light source. Particularly in the case of God, his action, unlike that of hypocritical people, does truly reflect his nature. In fact, the medieval theologians even saw the nature of God as pure activity, acta pura. Certainly Jesus likened himself to light, but this does not mean that the Spirit is also like it, although not in the same way. It was the Spirit who empowered him to be light. In a similar way, the Spirit is the source of love (Gal 5:22), but is also like love itself. Indeed, both the tree and its fruit ultimately do have the same nature! Thus the Spirit can be compared to breath, and to wind, which can be described as the breath of God (Ex 15:10). The Spirit is like fire, but also like the light that fire produces.

The experiences of the golden calf (Ex 32), and later of Elijah (1 Ki 19:9f), indicate that the symbols, no matter how appropriate they seem to be, need not necessarily indicate God. Particularly in the latter case, although in the context of theophany, the point was that God was not in either the earthquake, fire or the wind, no matter how often they were symbols for his presence. He is not in any sense in the material, no matter how powerful. Stott (1990:62) remarks of the language used of the account of Pentecost, with its multiplicity of pictures, is cautious; the Spirit is describes as like wind and fire. And, notably, the glossolalia was like languages!

Another word of caution

The Biblical pictures may even deceive us. Marsh (1923:114) points out that a single metaphor, the lion, is used of both Christ and the devil. Many of the pictures carry a nuance that can be totally different from what is intended when applying them to the Spirit. For example, a breath is something insubstantial, wine makes drunk, a mantle hides. It should therefore not be surprising if some pictures are included because of contrast, such as that of the horse.

A good example of this problem is the picture father, seemingly impossible to question because of its Biblical sanction, even from the lips of Jesus himself. Yet some have rejected the gospel message, just because they had a father who neglected, or even worse, abused them. But the picture need not be discarded just because it may sometimes give the wrong impression. Again, fire is something that we do not come across every day, and usually when we do it is nicely under control in our heaters and ovens. When it is not, we may use it for a braai (barbecue) or perhaps we see a building or a car on fire, or a grass fire by the road. If that is the only contact that we have with it, what do we think about the Spirit? And perhaps more importantly, what are our children going to understand? Will the Spirit be understood as a power that is immediately subject to human control? Of course, there is truth in that, for the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets (1 Cor 14:32), and indeed when fire was used