[OBW]

Gospelicious

In your discussion concerning 2 Cor 3:17, you refer to the "can of worms" that the capitalization, or lack thereof, would create. But this is the crux of the matter. Greek is not without capitalization. And they typically did capitalize names, which "The Spirit" is. Yet it must be that it was not capitalized here. Yes, certain renditions do insert capitalizations where none actually were on the presumption that it was intended to refer to the name of The Spirit. But since others do not, that leaves me to believe that the originals (to the best we have) do not.

Now if there is no reasonable way to understand "spirit" without it being the Holy Spirit, then I might bite. But since that is not the case, I need more than one reference in a passage talking about the nature of the new covenant (not the nature of the Godhead) to make such a leap. Given the robust understanding of "spirit," it should not be instantly presumed that when the word is used it must be the Holy Spirit, or alternately some spiritual organ of the human being called the "human spirit" (by Lee). There are several places where Paul uses the word and it is clearly to be understood as the nature of how something is undertaken (for lack of a better word). For example, a "spirit of sonship" (or adoption if we want to use the alternative understanding) is not at all about the Holy Spirit or about some human spirit, but about the whole of what being a son (adopted or otherwise) means. When someone makes a reference to a "spirit of camaraderie" this is a similar use of the word.

So back in verse 6, Paul refers to the letter and the spirit of the new covenant/testament. When we simply read words, it is the letter. It is cold and without life. But when we understand it through the Word that became flesh (Jesus Christ) we get what is really entailed in that covenant/testament. So Jesus Christ (the Lord) is the covenant, not in letters, but in spirit. In the fullness of what it really is.

This whole passage is not about a proposition concerning the doctrine of the Godhead, but of the spiritual reality of a new and better covenant being made available to us beyond just the written words we find in what we call "The Bible." Surely we would be unable to ground any alleged understanding of that covenant without solid, unchanging words. But we now have 2,000 years of proof that just relying on the ink on a page tends to provide a basis for crusades, inquisitions, racism, xenophobia, etc., depending on the un-Word-that-is-spirit-infused reading of the letters that we rely on.

The passage is not talking about the Trinity. It is not making a statement on Jesus becoming the Holy Spirit. Just like 1 Cor 15. The passage is talking about the letter of the new covenant v the "spirit" of that covenant. And then it clearly states that the Lord (Christ) is the spirit of the covenant. And since the Lord is the Word, that would seem to be a clear enough statement. It is not saying that the spirit of the new covenant is the Holy Spirit.

If the whole of the NT was infused with less vague statements more directly pointed at the fact that Jesus "became" the Holy Spirit, it could be more readily accepted. But when you have to 1) dig through a narrative that is not about the thing you are looking for 2) insist on an understanding that is not obviously meant (on something not the topic of the narrative) it is hard to sell it as the only "meaningful" evidence of some major departure in theology from the mainstream. Follow that by dragging such ill-conceived conclusion all over the scripture to revise what it is saying that otherwise is too clearly saying something else (think "that can't mean what it seems to say because of 'God's economy'") and you have another Leeism.

And with only a couple of such off-the-topic-of-the-context findings that do not fit within (or rationally relate to) the larger narrative, I cannot arrive at Lee's conclusion.

It may seem uplifting to be able to make the statement "now Christ is The life-giving Spirit," but it is not scripturally supported. Or at least not sufficiently so to be able to state it as some definite fact for a doctrinal point with which to fight others over. I will admit that there is a lot that might be inferred or presumed that is never stated. Those things could be true, but they were evidently not of such importance that they were made clear so we would stand on them as fact. If you want to think it is true, I will not call you a heretic over it. But neither will I consider it as something important to consider for my own belief. I surely would be wary of anyone building a system of theology around it.