For more context read my previous interactions with this book which can be found here.
The third chapter of John R. Levison’s Filled with the Spirit is titled “Spirit and New Creation in the Shadow of Death”. In many ways it is commentary on the Pneumatology of Ezekiel. He deals with the interface between Ezekiel’s call for Israel to recreate their own spirit in repentance in chapter eighteen and how that fails to occur to the point where the vision of the dry bones in the valley in chapter thirty-seven show that only the spirit of God can renew dead (exiled) Israel.
What is interesting about this transition in the Book of Ezekiel is that according to Levison it appears Ezekiel’s vision ends up much closer to Jeremiah’s (31.27-34) argument that only God can write Torah on Israel’s heart. For Ezekiel it becomes evident that exile has happened and this is a form of death that only God can overcome by his spirit (see pp. 88-94).
What is most evident is that life is not possible without spirit. Furthermore, life is not possible without God’s spirit. It seems that Levison sees Ez. 37 as functioning as more than just a prophecy about political Israel. I agree. It seems to be the ground upon which our modern doctrine of resurrection is built.
As I read through this chapter two things came to mind that I hope to see Levison address at some point: (1) Is Ezekiel’s valley of dry bones the Scriptural foundation for later thought on the resurrection of dead? and (2) As concerns Pneumatology does this signify a transition away from any idea that humans can renew their spirit without the Spirit of God? In other words, in Ezekiel have we seen this transition take place to the point where by the time Pneumatology reaches the Apostle Paul it is a work of God’s Spirit and God alone that can revive dead flesh.
the archives near Emmaus 
>>>…What is most evident is that life is not possible without spirit….
When God made Adam, he did not include a “spirit.” He molded clay into a statue of himself (Adam looked like God looks) and then breathed into his nostrils his own breath. That was all it took, and Adam “became a living person.”
The idea of a “spirit” is extra-scriptural. The English texts have a word coined from the Latin word for “breath” (spiritus) or the Saxon word for “breath” (ghost), but correctly translated, in every case, the correct translation for both RUACH and PNEUMA is “breath.”
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Hence, these scriptures are not introducing a novel idea, but alluding to Genesis:
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit [“breath”] is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
John 6:63 It is the spirit [“breath”] that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit [“breath”], and they are life.
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit [“breath”] of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Revelation 11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit [“breath”] of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
And so on.
There is no “Holy Spirit” – only God’s holy breath. And hence, there is no “Blessed Trinity” – just “one God – the father.”
You stand alone in this argument against hundreds of experts in Hebrew and Greek. Yes, ruach and pneuma can mean breath or wind but spirit as well. This here is a good example of a “word study fallacy” except you limit the lexical options.
>>>You stand alone in this argument against hundreds of experts in Hebrew and Greek.
Not alone. Robert Alter is of the same opinion, or at least close to it.
>>>Yes, ruach and pneuma can mean breath or wind but spirit as well. This here is a good example of a “word study fallacy” except you limit the lexical options.
So when in the Genesis account did man receive a “spirit?” What do the scriptures say a “spirit” is? Do animals have a “spirit?” Are they “life?”
I may be mistaken but Alter is an OT scholar only. Even then he is very much in the minority if this is indeed his opinion.
That is the interesting thing about Levison’s investigation. He suggest that the line between God’s “spirit” (he doesn’t capitalize the “s”) and the life sustaining “breath” of humans and animals is not to be made totally distinct.
There is some NT Pneumatology that agrees. In Rom. 8 & 1 Cor 15, amongst other passages, Paul sees the Spirit of God indwelling us as the promise that we cannot remain dead but we will be raised to life as Christ was raised to life. Many would argue something similar from the Johannine Pneumatology of the Fourth Gospel as well.
John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost [“breath”]:
In 1611, the word “ghost” just meant “breath.” It was not a reference to a “Casper” kind of being.
There is no situation in the scriptures that is not better understood as “breath” rather than the dualistic “spirit.”
But, you seem to have demonstrated some open mindness about this, so I won’t harp.
Shalom.
I am curious how breath would fit better in Rom 8 and/or 1 Cor 15? Even Jesus’ breathing seems odd if the symbolic value is merely, well, breath.
>>>I am curious how breath would fit better in Rom 8 and/or 1 Cor 15?
KJV:
Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
What is the principle of the spirit of life? There is no such scriptural principle. There is however a principle of “the breath of life”:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
In comes God’s breath and suddenly there is life.
As to 1 Cor 15, note the obvious appeal to Genesis:
KJV:
1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
The contrast is between “living soul” versus – you guessed it – a “life giving breath.” The point is that as God’s breath entered into the inanimate body of Adam and he came to life, so Jesus will be a life giving breath, causing the dead to live.
>>>Even Jesus’ breathing seems odd if the symbolic value is merely, well, breath.
The key is that the ancients were strict materialists. That is, they considered all intelligent function to reside in the body. They did not understand the function of the brain and instead believed these to be resident in various organs:
* sin dwelled in the muscles
* man thought and believed with his heart
* his motives were hid in his kidneys
* his self awareness and consciousness were in his breath
While I agree that the Hebrew mindset was more than willing to explain holistically that which we perceive to be dualistic this does not explain a lot. For instance, if we reexamine the whole of Rom. 8 in v. 5 we would have Paul speaking of the “things of the breath” instead of the “things of the Spirit”; v. 6 we’d have “the mind of breath”; v. 9 “you are not in the flesh, but in breath”; v. 13 “but if by the breath you put to death the deeds of the body” and so forth. The oddest would be the breath interceding for us in prayer in v. 26.
In 1 Cor. 15.46 we would have that which is of God’s breath being not that which is natural. The whole context of this passage makes little sense in your paradigm. Though I will emphasize that Paul does see the Spirit of God as serving in the role of the spirit/breath we read about in many OT passages.
Paul’s Spirit v. flesh juxtaposition in Galatians would be altogether confusing. This would be so with many, many other passages such as the “eternal Spirit” of Heb. 9.14; the Spirit speaking to the churches in the Book of Revelation; the Triune baptism of Mt. 28.19 (i.e. the name of the Father (personal), the name of the Son (personal) and the name (?) of the Holy Breath (impersonal?). In Jn 15.26 the Parakletos (personal) is said to be the Spirit (breath would be very, very odd here). When the Spirit descends like a dove at Jesus’ baptism do we still have the breath of God in an impersonal way?
Even passages referring to unclean “spirits” (ie. demonic beings) would make no sense at all if pneuma is never spirit. You may have thought through this while remaining convinced. I think it is a far, far stretch that shouldn’t be seriously considered.
>>>…For instance, if we reexamine the whole of Rom. 8 in v. 5 we would have Paul speaking of the “things of the breath” instead of the “things of the Spirit”
Yes, the contrast is the muscles, where sin dwells, and the breath, which is an intelligent organ by which the believer receives the mind of God.
>>>v. 6 we’d have “the mind of breath”
Yes. Apart from the breath of God, Adam was just inanimate dirt. “It is the breath that animates” and the breath that causes someone to be a living person. It brings self awareness and God awareness.
Now Paul speaks of another type of air that works in the sons of disobedience:
Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air [of] the spirit [breath] that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
>>>v. 9 “you are not in the flesh, but in breath”
If we take that as instrumental, one operates by the breath, not the muscles.
>>>v. 13 “but if by the breath you put to death the deeds of the body” and so forth. The oddest would be the breath interceding for us in prayer in v. 26.
Not really. Not if the breath is seen as an intelligent organ.
>>>In 1 Cor. 15.46 we would have that which is of God’s breath being not that which is natural. The whole context of this passage makes little sense in your paradigm. Though I will emphasize that Paul does see the Spirit of God as serving in the role of the spirit/breath we read about in many OT passages.
The principle of the breath of life operates all through the scriptures, including the valley of dry bones, and Jesus being raised by the agency of God’s breath, etc, and the “breath gave utterance” on Pentecost, and gives revelation, etc…
>>>Paul’s Spirit v. flesh juxtaposition in Galatians would be altogether confusing.
Why? These are two organs.
>>>This would be so with many, many other passages such as the “eternal Spirit” of Heb. 9.14;
“Everlasting breath.”
>>>the Spirit speaking to the churches in the Book of Revelation;
God’s breath communicates. That’s consistent.
>>>the Triune baptism of Mt. 28.19 (i.e. the name of the Father (personal), the name of the Son (personal) and the name (?) of the Holy Breath (impersonal?).
What are those names (in your opinion)?
>>>In Jn 15.26 the Parakletos (personal) is said to be the Spirit (breath would be very, very odd here).
This is a figure. The breath assists the defendent to prepare his case.
>>>When the Spirit descends like a dove at Jesus’ baptism do we still have the breath of God in an impersonal way?
Intelligent, but not a person.
>>>Even passages referring to unclean “spirits” (ie. demonic beings) would make no sense at all if pneuma is never spirit.
The “filthy little breaths” are sand flies – an almost invisible mosquito that causes the Baghdad Boil (Leishmaniasis). That is why they need water.
>>>You may have thought through this while remaining convinced. I think it is a far, far stretch that shouldn’t be seriously considered.
Well, it is up to you to decide for yourself, of course.
These readings are simply improbable. Yes, we can see in a lexicon that certain words have various meanings but I don’t find any of this even close to probable. Even those where life-force is within view it is obvious that the biblical authors tie this into the personal Spirit of God.
As far as Mt. 28.19 are concerned the name of the Father in this text is Father, Son is Son, Spirit is Spirit. Being named is a personal thing here.
>>>…Even those where life-force is within view it is obvious that the biblical authors tie this into the personal Spirit of God.
The scriptures graphically describe the life force of humans and of beasts as being the breath of life, which God breathed into man’s nostrils, is it not?
>>>As far as Mt. 28.19 are concerned the name of the Father in this text is Father, Son is Son, Spirit is Spirit. Being named is a personal thing here.
“in the name of” is an idiom meaning “in the authority of,” is it not? I think it absurd to consider those personal names.
The authority of the son (who is named Jesus) and the breath of God (which is impersonal and nameless, but is authoritative) rest on the father (who’s title is “father” rather than his “name”).
Yes, it is but I think you are ignoring the unfolding of biblical imagery across the canon. For example, in Gen. 1 we have God’s Spirit/Breath dwelling over the face of the waters and his Word bringing things into existence. By the time we get to the NT these aspects of God had been personified. In Jn. 1 we have the Word being Christ. We see something similar in Colossians. The same happens with the Spirit throughout the OT into the NT.
While you are correct that “name” = “authority” this does not mean that it is depersonalized. It is anything but that. The Spirit is a very personal entity in Scripture.
>>>…this does not mean that it is depersonalized. It is anything but that. The Spirit is a very personal entity in Scripture.
Sort of like “Casper the friendly ghost”?
And God, Jesus, Adam, hamsters and the assembly breath said personage?
Yes, exactly like that…