(3) With the Messiah would come also the Holy Spirit, which had left prophetic men since Malachi (Weber, p. 78). But how it was related to God and His Christ was not evident. It is identified with Divine wisdom (Wis 7? 91”), with the Angel (Ps-Sol 10), and with the Memra (Wis 775). The Spirit is felt to be distinct from J”; the Targums (on Mic 2’, Zee 4° ete.; ef. Schlottmann, p. 82) often distinguish the Spirit from God, and that with the same formula 077 j2=’ »3259 (e.g. Gn 1?, Jg 3, 1S 10°16") where no such distinction is in the Heb, text. Philo gave to the Néyos the desig- nations 6 devrepos Geds and 6 mpecBiraros vids, also ‘an image of God’ (de Som. ii. 6); and the Spirit he calls an ‘impress’ of this Aéyos image of God. This Spirit of the Néyos of God is the principle of all life. Both ‘Word’ and Spirit inhere in God: the Spirit is personal (Weber, p. 185), Divine, God’s voice in man, the Eternal Wisdom. Again, we hear it called a creature, and made on the first day. Further than this Judaism could not go. We have here, perhaps for the first time, the absolute designation ‘the Holy Spirit’ (Ps-Sol 17%, 4 Ezr 14%, Wis 9!”); and He comes with ‘ Christ the Lord’ (Ps-Sol 188), who appears ‘in wisdom. of the Spirit and righteousness and power’ (cf. Lk 244, Ac 15),
(4) This Jewish teaching was comprehensive but confused. It had elements of the Trinity in it, but did not know what to do with them. It be- lieved in God transcendent and ‘God with us,’ but could not correlate them. Its Christology found three things in OT—(1) the Son of God, heavenly, Divine, eternal, and the Son of Man, also in heaven (Dn 7!°, Enoch 62°); (2) the human Messiah, who would be a glorious king of all the earth ; and (3) the suffering Servant of J”. How to combine these was beyond the power of Judaism (cf. Enoch 5. 10. 25. 90. 98). The heavenly and the earthly elements would not meet. ‘Two Messiahs were sometimes taught; and most Jews looked for a Messianic kingdom such as actually appeared in Mohammedanism. The Holy Spirit was also be- yond Rabbinical grasp. Perhaps the ‘still in the land,’ from whom NT Christians chiefly came, ‘full of the Holy Ghost,’ knew more than did the theologians, Philo speaks of ‘the Divine Spirit’ (de Gig. 5); others preached a created spirit, a mninistering spirit, like the angels (Weber, 184). The Spirit was needful for holy living ; but it was
TRINITY
now withdrawn and hidden, to come again with the Messiah. The Bath Kol took the place of the Spirit, the scribe took the place of the prophet. The fulness of OT teachings lies here, but con- fused, waiting for the NT doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
B, IN THE New _ TEsTAMENT.—i. Advent and Incarnation.—(1) With the close of the OT the spirit of Prophecy left Israel. Judaism, in spite of particular workings of the Spirit, did not have the Holy Ghost (Jn 7). It was said to have left the nation with Malachi, and was little looked for by Rabbis and scribes (cf. Gunkel, Wirkungen d. heit. Geistes, 55). But as the Advent of Christ drew nigh, His great forerunner, the Spirit of God, suddenly reappeared, and a group of saints in Israel, filled with the Holy Ghost, prepared His way. The last OT prophet foretold the first NT prophet ; and both, led by the Spirit, proclaimed Messiah the Lord (Mal 4° 3'*, Mk 1"). Jesus and the Evangelists regard gospel history as beginning especially with John the Baptist (Lk 16") and his inspired testimony to the Son of God. He announced the coming of Jesus as the coming of J” (Is 403, Mk 13, Lk 1%). He showed the return of the prophetic Spirit as the Spirit of Christ (Mk 18, Lk 1°), which alone knew the deep things of the Law and the Prophets, and led to Christ as the fulfilment of both. Now for the first time we hear a prophet clearly preaching salvation as repentance towards God the Father (Mt 37), faith in a coming King, the Son of God (Mk 1, Jn 1) who takes away the sin of the world, and a baptism of the Holy Ghost, given by the Son of God (Mt 34, Mk 18, Lk 316, Jn 1°).
(2) The work of Jesus was inseparable from His Person. What He did rested on what He was, for His preaching included Himself. None born of woman was greater than John the Baptist; but he was less than the least in Christ’s kingdom, and beyond measure less than the King Himself (Mt 30) Mk 17, Jn 1%), John was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb (Lk 115), through the Holy Spirit Christ became man. To the one He imparted character, to the other He gave being. The Gospel to the Hebrews (ed. Hilgenteld, 17') calls the Holy Ghost the spiritual Mother of Jesus, as Mary was His bodily mother. Angels now appear again as messengers of God, and their chief mission (Lk 15-5) ig to proclaim the entrance of the Spirit into humanity, and to set forth the mystery of the Incarnation by the Holy Ghost. To the inquiry of Mary how she could become mother of the Son of the Highest (Lk 1*), Gabriel replied that it would take place through the co-operation of the Holy Ghost and the power of the Most High (v.*) upon her. The Most High means here God the Father (Lk 6°): both Father and Spirit caused the Incarnation (ef. Is 48"). The Father, by His power, appeared as an overshadowing cloud above the Virgin, as later over Jesus when He called Him ‘my beloved Son’ (Mt 17°). The Spirit is said to “come upon’ (éredevcerat) Mary, as the power of the Father ‘shadowed upon’ her (éze- cxidcer) ; So that the conception is more specifically described as of the Holy Ghost (Mt 1”): yet Jesus is called the Son of the Father. It is evident that the Holy Spirit is here more than a Divine influence ; otherwise, the addition ‘the power of the Highest’ would be meaningless. It seems also clear that, while the Spirit acts as a Person, the parentage is ascribed to the Father. The God with whom Mary found favour appears In per- sonal distinctions of Father and Spirit in the con- ception of Jesus, as was perhaps foreshadowed in the creation of Adam (Gn 2’). The result of this supernatural conception was twofold : first, Jesus was ‘holy, corresponding with His relation to the