Power or Person?

E.W.Bullinger has written "Word Studies on the Holy Spirit."

Therein he says that unless the Greek for 'Holy Spirit' has an article or unless the context requires it, the phrase does not refer to the Person of the Spirit but instead to His power.

So, eg, Bullinger thinks Acts 1:2 and 2:38 and 7:55 and 8:17 and 11:16, and so forth, are not references to the Person of the Spirit, but to His power.

He also thinks that even sometimes when articulated the meaning still is Power not Person (eg his opinion on 1 Cor 6:19).

Is such a distinction correct? Or does it even matter?

Bill

 

yes. Understanding, Bullinger is not saying the HS is not a Person.

 

Corry

Yes, you are right. He is not denying the Person of the HS. He is saying that on many occasions where the English reads "the Spirit" or "the HS' the noun is not definite (as Person) but is indefinite (as Power).

His basic rule , with exceptions, is that when in the Greek the noun is articulated (has article) , then it is definite, but when anarthrous (lacks article) it is indefinite.

In this book Bullinger, who also wrote both his large work on figures of speech in the Bible and a Greek lexicon, goes through in his book on the HS and opines on every reference to the HS in the NT as to whether in each text the Person or the power is the subject.

Might have interesting applications!

 

===

I think I can conceive that the Person of the HS is not the equivalent of what He does or even that the qualities of the HS, as power, are not the precise equivalent of His Person. God, eg, is said to be everywhere. But while I do think the Person of the HS is in all places, I do not think that omnipresence=the Person of the HS.

Even were this distinction acceptable , that does not mean that Bullinger's basic method ( the presence or absence of the article) of determining which is meant in a text (Power or Person) must be usable . That would requiring the testing of his hypothesis Greek text by Greek text.