Introduction
Various OT accounts use “Spirit of the Lord”.[1] In the collected state of these traditions, they combine to produce a composite picture of the Spirit of the Lord as an “agent” in the narrative—a kind of hypostatization of the power of God.
History Books
In the history books, the narrative pattern is that the Spirit of the Lord comes upon a deliverer or king (Othniel, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Saul and David) who is then empowered to act on behalf of the Lord. This pattern is reinforced with allusions to the Exodus and an implicit comparison is struck between the deliverer-judge and Moses The people “cry” unto the Lord (Jud 3:9; 6:6; 10:10; Exod 2:23; 3:7), “groan” (Jud 2:18; Exod 2:24), and the Lord “raises up” (Jud 3:9; cf. Deut 18:15) a judge to deliver them (Jud 13:5).
The Spirit of the Lord acts in regular ways: i) coming upon the judge (Jud 3:10; 11:29); ii) clothing[2] Gideon prior to battle (Jud 6:34); iii) initiating the troubling through dreams of a judge to action (Jud 13:25; cf. Gen 41:8; Ps 77:5; Dan 2:1, 2); iv) rushing suddenly upon a judge prior to acts of physical prowess (Jud 14:6, 14:19; 15:14); and v) transporting a prophet (“taking up” and “casting down”, 2 Kgs 2:16).
In traditions about Saul, there is a similar “deliverance” motif and allusions to Exodus traditions are employed. Thus, God “looks” upon the people when he hears their “cry” (1 Sam 9:16; Exod 2:25; 3:7); Saul is selected to perform a “Moses” role; his choice is confirmed with “signs”; and God is “with” him (1 Sam 10:7; Exod 3:12). One of the signs is that the Spirit of the Lord will come suddenly upon Saul and he will prophesy (1 Sam 10:6, 10; 11:6). The Spirit of the Lord subsequently departs from Saul and comes upon David (1 Sam 16:13-14), and speaks by him, and places his word in his tongue (2 Sam 23:2).
The first information the reader is presented with in Judges is that the Spirit of the Lord comes upon a judge and he is thereby empowered to lead the people (Jud 3:10; 6:34; 11:29). No specific actions are specifically attributed to the Spirit in the cases of Othniel, Gideon or Jephthah—there is no instrumental statement to the effect that the Spirit caused Othniel to go out to war, but insofar as Hebrew narrative regularly indicates causation by conjunction, it is the conjunction of a statement that the Spirit of the Lord came upon a judge followed immediately by a statement about what the judge did that secures the causal link. The metaphor here of “coming upon” is that of the “Spirit-as-agent” because the action of the Spirit is what the judge immediately does in the story.
With Samson, the narrator does not initially say that the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, but instead he ascribes an action to the Spirit of the Lord.
And the Spirit of the Lord began[3] to stir him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol. Jud 13:25 (NASB)
Against the backdrop of Othniel, Gideon and Jephthah, this statement is describing the Spirit as it is already in Samson; this kind of phraseology refers to what stirs Samson to action, and the metaphor is one of agency. The LXX translators read the metaphor in this way,
And the Spirit of the Lord began to go out with him in the camp of Dan, and between Saraa and Esthaol. Judg 13:25 (LXX-A)
Targum Jonathan has “a spirit of power from before the Lord began to strengthen him”, but this seems to be motivated by Samson’s subsequent behaviour rather than the sense of “troubling” which is linked to the “trouble” caused by dreams in MT usage and therefore prophetic inspiration. The LXX has sunekporeu,omai—“the Spirit of the Lord began to go out with him” which likewise does not render “troubling” but retains a notion of agency.
In later stories about Samson, the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him mightily so that he performs feats of strength (Jud 14:6; 15:14). This idea of “coming mightily upon Samson” indicates that the Spirit of the Lord is an agent coming mightily upon Samson. The same close connection between the Spirit of the Lord and behaviour is seen in David’s claim that the Spirit spoke by him (2 Sam 23:2). This description is an example of agency: the Spirit is in David but David refers to the Spirit as if it is an agent speaking through him.
However, other actions related to the Spirit of the Lord imply the Spirit is a spirit-being because the action is external to the individual (it relates to the body of a person):
- Lifting up Elijah and carrying him off (1 Kgs 18:12)
- Taking Elijah up to a mountain and casting him down (2 Kgs 2:16)
These actions indicate transport by a being and are thereby marked out as different. The transport of Elijah is described in vigorous terms as a “casting down” upon a mountain. This detail is sufficient to indicate the Spirit of the Lord here is a spirit-being from the Lord.[4]
The final case in the history books is the example of Micaiah’s prophecy (1 Kgs 22:24; 2 Chron 18:23). Here a spirit goes from the throne of God in heaven to be a lying spirit in the mouth of Ahab’s prophets. It is this spirit about whom Zedekiah asks: “Which way went the Spirit of the Lord from me to speak to thee”? This is another example in which the Spirit is described as a spirit-being.
These last two examples do not indicate metaphorical presentation of the Spirit as an agent; it is not the spirit in Elijah that carries him off and casts him down, and the cosmology of Micaiah’s vision also clearly indicates spirit-beings.
Discussion
The data so far presents a varied picture and it blocks certain interpretations. Standard literary treatments of the notion of “character” or “agent” offer a basis for distinguishing these terms. Formalist and Structuralist theory works with more austere definitions of “character”.[5] Theorists emphasize plot and make characters into products of the plot.[6] They have a functional status, and their actions are their defining quality. Aristotle[7] gave primacy to the notions of an “agent” and “action” in a story, and regarded “character” as a superimposition. This allows theorists to reserve the term “agent” for a case where there is no development of character.
The textual data we have so far considered does not support the interpretation that the Spirit of the Lord is presented with a metaphor of a mimetic character.[8] Psychological and mimetic aspects of characterization are not mirrored in Spirit of the Lord traditions. Thus, there are no grounds for asserting a full-blown personification. Using J. Paxson’s terms, the metaphor lacks “voice and face”; only David’s claim to inspiration adds voice.[9]
In terms of plot and story-form, the Spirit of the Lord is a “helper” or a “donor”,[10] and there is a sense of empowering individuals. Furthermore, there are uses of the expression as a term of reference for a spirit-being.
Conclusion
Our conclusion is that the narrative historical traditions of the OT are describing extraordinary human behaviour and referring to the Spirit of the Lord as the cause of this behaviour. In order to secure an informative reference to the Spirit, the narrator uses an ontological metaphor of agency—the Spirit-as-agent. The austerity of the predicates associated with the expression “Spirit of the Lord” gives no basis for anything more substantial, such as a Trinitarian conception.
[1] We will present this evidence in terms of the MT rather than the LXX, noting only those instances where the LXX offers significant differences of detail in the episodes.
[2] J. R. Levison cites Assyro-Babylonian texts to support his interpretation that “clothing” is indicative of possession by a spirit-being—“The Angelic Spirit in Early Judaism” The Society of Biblical Literature 1995 Seminar Papers, 34 (1995): 464-493, (469).
[3] The auxiliary Hiphil of llx is regularly used with Qal or Hiphil infinitives to denote the beginning of an action by a character.
[4] Later Jewish writings include the transport of individuals by angels.
[5] S. Chatman, Story and Discourse (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978), 111-113.
[6] This standard distinction and this terminology derive from E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (London: Penguin, 1962), 75.
[7] This can be seen throughout his Poetics, but it is particularly clear in ch. 6 and the discussion of tragedy.
[8] For one treatment of mimetic characterization see, R. Scholes and R. Kellogg, The Nature of Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966), ch. 5.
[9] J. L. Paxson, The Poetics of Personification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 42.
[10] These terms derive from the folktale analysis of V. Propp, but we use them here as an inference from the story traditions that involve the Spirit of the Lord rather than as a model applied to these traditions; on this see, J. Culler, Structuralist Poetics (London: RKP, 1975), 230-238.
The Solution