The Sustainer of Life: The Role of the Spirit of God in Creation
Dr Scott A. Ellington
LecturerEmmanuel College, Franklin Springs, Georgia.
LecturerEmmanuel College, Franklin Springs, Georgia.
The Spirit remains aloof from the initial creation of the cosmos recorded in Genesis, having instead the responsibility for continually sustaining and redeeming life. The unusual participle used to describe the Spirit’s presence in Genesis 1:2c מרחפת (merachefet), best characterises the ongoing and unfinished nature of the Spirit’s creative activity. For the writer of Job, the Spirit of God works constantly to sustain life. In the Psalms the Spirit as creator comes to be identified both with the enduring presence of God and with the maintenance of spiritual and moral life.
The Unassuming Spirit :
The Bible opens with accounts of God’s creation of the cosmos that provide the theological underpinnings for all that follows, most particularly for understanding the scope of God’s sovereignty and the trajectory of his redemptive plan. Already in the second verse of Genesis we encounter God’s רוח (ruach), hovering over the face of the unformed chaos. Given their placement and prominent role in our understanding of the larger biblical narrative, it is surprising that the Old Testament has so little to say about God’s creation and even less about the role of God’s Spirit in that creation. Additionally, Israel’s understanding of the role of the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) or Spirit of God in creation is a late development. Direct references to the Spirit as creator are found only in Gen. 1:2 (a Priestly text), Job 27:3; 33:4; 34:14-15; Pss. 33:6; 51:10-12; and 104:29-301.
Letting the Text Speak :
In considering the person and action of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, two basic decisions need to be made with regard to the nature of biblical revelation and the understanding of the Spirit that we draw from it. The first is whether we should consider the biblical revelation of Spirit to be homogenous or contextual and unfolding. Should we expect each biblical writer to have a similar understanding of the identity and function of the Spirit of God or does that understanding evolve with the addition of new revelation and shift to reflect the unique context and concern of each writer?
A second and closely related decision concerning biblical revelation is whether we should regard it as essentially ontological or epistemological in nature. By this I mean, do biblical statements about the Spirit of God depict the essential nature of the Spirit, regardless of whether or not the biblical writer is aware of all that his or her revelation incorporates and implies, or do such statements reflect the understanding of the writer, so that what we are offered by the biblical writer is always shaped by context and limited by perspective? An ontological reading of the text allows the New Testament reader to look back from a “privileged” perspective and discern a meaning in the text that was denied its author. If, on the other hand, we read the text epistemologically, focusing on what the writer does and does not know, such surplus meanings are limited or excluded all together. Such an approach argues for answering the questions “What does this text say?” and “What does this author know?” before moving on to the question “How does this text fit with the larger biblical witness?”
It is also important to recognise that the matter of the identity of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament is not so much a question of what people thought regarding this member of the Godhead as it is what the intention was of God Himself who inspired the writers.
But this begs the question, how can we distinguish “what God intended” from “what people thought”? All we have to go on is the text and the perspective offered by its authors. To go behind the text and speculate on “what God intended” is, in fact, to read our own concerns into the text. Bolstered by his assumption, Wood draws a theological portrait of the Holy Spirit based on the New Testament and then looks for points of contact between that portrait and references to the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. “What God intended” is, for Wood, nothing more than the overlaying of one understanding of the Spirit onto another, so that the Old Testament’s unique contributions to our understanding of the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) are frequently blurred or passed over altogether.
In the Old Testament literature ruach is only used to express God’s activity as he relates himself to his world, his creation, his people. It was Israel’s way of describing God, not as he is in himself, but as he communicates to the world his power, his life, his anger, his will, his very presence.
Wind or Spirit? :
The Spirit of God appears already in the second verse of Genesis where she is remarkable for the ambiguity and open-endedness of her activity. One of the questions that has dominated the discussion of this first biblical reference to the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) is whether we should see in this phrase a reference to God’s Spirit, to the breath of God, or simply to a mighty wind sent by God. This question centers on the relationship between the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) in verse 2c with the “formless void” and the “covering darkness” that precede it. Both Gerhard von Rad and Claus Westermann understand the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) to be in a parallel relationship with the formless void of the earth and the darkness that covers the sea. Westermann suggests that verse 2 provides a three-part description of the uncreated state of the world in preparation for God’s first word of creation in verse 3, translating רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) as “God’s wind.”8 Westermann’s explanation, though, does not account for the reference being to God’s רוח (ruach), which suggests an adversative relationship to the void and the darkness. Von Rad points out that there is no further mention of the spirit taking an active role in the creation process, so that רוח (ruach) is unlikely to refer here to God’s spirit, and suggests the translation “storm of God.” While von Rad’s observation does not offer sufficient grounds for his understanding רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) to refer to God’s wind rather than his Spirit, it is nevertheless suggestive. There is a decided gap between the hovering רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) and the creative word that follows in verse 3. The hovering Spirit remains in the background as God speaks the word and initiates creation, but never alights to take a more active role.
The suggestion that אלהים (elohim) should be understood as a superlative, thus a “mighty wind,” has even less to commend it. As Hildebrandt points out, such an understanding of רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) would be unique in the Old Testament.
In the OT, the phrase ruah elohim occurs fifteen times in Hebrew and five times in Aramaic. It is never rendered “mighty wind” or “a wind of God” in these occurrences. If the writer intended to convey “mighty wind,” he would have used an adjective to make this clear (cf. Jonah 1:4; Job 1:19).
Hildebrandt’s assertion that the ו (waw) that precedes רוח (ruach) should be understood as an adversative provides the most probable reading11. Based on this adversative relationship of the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) to the pre-formed creation and the observation that the phrase is uniformly translated “Spirit of God” in each of its other appearances, Hildebrandt opts correctly for a translation of God’s Spirit, rather than a wind from God12. But what role, if any, does the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) play in the creation that is initiated by God’s word in verse 3?
http://webjournals.alphacrucis.edu.au/journals/aps/issue-12/sustainer-life-role-spirit-god-creation/
The Bible opens with accounts of God’s creation of the cosmos that provide the theological underpinnings for all that follows, most particularly for understanding the scope of God’s sovereignty and the trajectory of his redemptive plan. Already in the second verse of Genesis we encounter God’s רוח (ruach), hovering over the face of the unformed chaos. Given their placement and prominent role in our understanding of the larger biblical narrative, it is surprising that the Old Testament has so little to say about God’s creation and even less about the role of God’s Spirit in that creation. Additionally, Israel’s understanding of the role of the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) or Spirit of God in creation is a late development. Direct references to the Spirit as creator are found only in Gen. 1:2 (a Priestly text), Job 27:3; 33:4; 34:14-15; Pss. 33:6; 51:10-12; and 104:29-301.
Letting the Text Speak :
In considering the person and action of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, two basic decisions need to be made with regard to the nature of biblical revelation and the understanding of the Spirit that we draw from it. The first is whether we should consider the biblical revelation of Spirit to be homogenous or contextual and unfolding. Should we expect each biblical writer to have a similar understanding of the identity and function of the Spirit of God or does that understanding evolve with the addition of new revelation and shift to reflect the unique context and concern of each writer?
A second and closely related decision concerning biblical revelation is whether we should regard it as essentially ontological or epistemological in nature. By this I mean, do biblical statements about the Spirit of God depict the essential nature of the Spirit, regardless of whether or not the biblical writer is aware of all that his or her revelation incorporates and implies, or do such statements reflect the understanding of the writer, so that what we are offered by the biblical writer is always shaped by context and limited by perspective? An ontological reading of the text allows the New Testament reader to look back from a “privileged” perspective and discern a meaning in the text that was denied its author. If, on the other hand, we read the text epistemologically, focusing on what the writer does and does not know, such surplus meanings are limited or excluded all together. Such an approach argues for answering the questions “What does this text say?” and “What does this author know?” before moving on to the question “How does this text fit with the larger biblical witness?”
It is also important to recognise that the matter of the identity of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament is not so much a question of what people thought regarding this member of the Godhead as it is what the intention was of God Himself who inspired the writers.
But this begs the question, how can we distinguish “what God intended” from “what people thought”? All we have to go on is the text and the perspective offered by its authors. To go behind the text and speculate on “what God intended” is, in fact, to read our own concerns into the text. Bolstered by his assumption, Wood draws a theological portrait of the Holy Spirit based on the New Testament and then looks for points of contact between that portrait and references to the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. “What God intended” is, for Wood, nothing more than the overlaying of one understanding of the Spirit onto another, so that the Old Testament’s unique contributions to our understanding of the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) are frequently blurred or passed over altogether.
In the Old Testament literature ruach is only used to express God’s activity as he relates himself to his world, his creation, his people. It was Israel’s way of describing God, not as he is in himself, but as he communicates to the world his power, his life, his anger, his will, his very presence.
Wind or Spirit? :
The Spirit of God appears already in the second verse of Genesis where she is remarkable for the ambiguity and open-endedness of her activity. One of the questions that has dominated the discussion of this first biblical reference to the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) is whether we should see in this phrase a reference to God’s Spirit, to the breath of God, or simply to a mighty wind sent by God. This question centers on the relationship between the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) in verse 2c with the “formless void” and the “covering darkness” that precede it. Both Gerhard von Rad and Claus Westermann understand the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) to be in a parallel relationship with the formless void of the earth and the darkness that covers the sea. Westermann suggests that verse 2 provides a three-part description of the uncreated state of the world in preparation for God’s first word of creation in verse 3, translating רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) as “God’s wind.”8 Westermann’s explanation, though, does not account for the reference being to God’s רוח (ruach), which suggests an adversative relationship to the void and the darkness. Von Rad points out that there is no further mention of the spirit taking an active role in the creation process, so that רוח (ruach) is unlikely to refer here to God’s spirit, and suggests the translation “storm of God.” While von Rad’s observation does not offer sufficient grounds for his understanding רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) to refer to God’s wind rather than his Spirit, it is nevertheless suggestive. There is a decided gap between the hovering רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) and the creative word that follows in verse 3. The hovering Spirit remains in the background as God speaks the word and initiates creation, but never alights to take a more active role.
The suggestion that אלהים (elohim) should be understood as a superlative, thus a “mighty wind,” has even less to commend it. As Hildebrandt points out, such an understanding of רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) would be unique in the Old Testament.
In the OT, the phrase ruah elohim occurs fifteen times in Hebrew and five times in Aramaic. It is never rendered “mighty wind” or “a wind of God” in these occurrences. If the writer intended to convey “mighty wind,” he would have used an adjective to make this clear (cf. Jonah 1:4; Job 1:19).
Hildebrandt’s assertion that the ו (waw) that precedes רוח (ruach) should be understood as an adversative provides the most probable reading11. Based on this adversative relationship of the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) to the pre-formed creation and the observation that the phrase is uniformly translated “Spirit of God” in each of its other appearances, Hildebrandt opts correctly for a translation of God’s Spirit, rather than a wind from God12. But what role, if any, does the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) play in the creation that is initiated by God’s word in verse 3?
http://webjournals.alphacrucis.edu.au/journals/aps/issue-12/sustainer-life-role-spirit-god-creation/
