The Spirit in Paul and John : A Comparative Analysis

Abstract: This study compares occurrences of the Spirit of God in Pauline and Johannine texts on a lexical, grammatical, and conceptual level. The following questions are asked: What are the common traits associated with the Spirit? What is the unique profile of each corpus? Can one corpus help us better understand the other? This objective is pursued by first considering similarities and differences at the lexical and grammatical levels and then by identifying important ideas connected with the Spirit. It is clear that both Paul and John connect the Spirit with God, Jesus, and believers in a salvation-historical framework.The analysis of the conceptual level is divided into two major themes. The first theme is Christ and the coming of the Spirit. In both corpora the Spirit’s coming is shown to be the result of Christ’s redemptive work, his death and resurrection. The second theme revolves around different ways in which the Spirit impacts the life of believers. One example examined is the Spirit’s role in believers becoming children of God. Paul uses the idea of “adoption” while John uses the idea of being “begotten.” While being two different models, they still both refer to believers as becoming children of God through the work of the Spirit. Likewise, how the Spirit enables good moral conduct and how the Spirit communicates knowledge of God are ideas clearly found in both corpora, even if different models are used to develop these ideas.The comparative approach has proven helpful for our understanding of both Paul and John. Placing these texts side by side has brought out certain things in common, but has also sharpened the unique profile of each corpus. Similarities and common traits are significant and at times may even help us to better understand individual texts in each corpus. At the same time, differences between the texts are also important, and they testify to the unique contribution of each corpus to early Christian thinking about the Spirit. We may conclude that both similarities and differences between Paul and John have proven relevant for interpreting the one corpus in light of the other.