Andrew Murray’s theology of “the spirit of the glorified Jesus” presents a **distinctive and sophisticated pneumatological vision** that has generated both appreciation and critique within theological circles. His contribution deserves careful evaluation across several dimensions.
## Theological Strengths
Murray’s formulation addresses a genuine theological problem: **how to understand the relationship between Christ’s completed work and the Spirit’s ongoing ministry**. His insight that the post-Pentecost Spirit is qualitatively different from the pre-incarnation Spirit of God provides a coherent framework for understanding why Jesus could say “the Spirit was not yet” while acknowledging the Spirit’s presence throughout Old Testament history.
The concept successfully integrates **Christology and pneumatology** in a way that avoids both subordinating the Spirit to Christ and treating them as merely functional partners. By arguing that the Spirit now contains Christ’s glorified humanity, Murray creates a theological bridge between the historical Jesus and the contemporary Christian experience.
Murray’s emphasis on the **transformative nature of glorification** also addresses important soteriological questions. Rather than viewing salvation as merely forensic justification, his theology presents redemption as fundamental transformation of human nature itself—making believers “partakers of the Divine nature” through participation in Christ’s glorified humanity via the Spirit.
## Potential Theological Concerns
However, Murray’s formulation raises several **theological questions** that merit consideration:
**Trinitarian Implications**: Critics might question whether Murray’s theology adequately preserves the Spirit’s distinct personhood. If the Spirit becomes “the spirit of the glorified Jesus” in such a complete way, does this risk subordinating the Spirit’s identity to Christ’s? The formulation could potentially blur the boundaries between the second and third persons of the Trinity.
**Incarnational Questions**: Murray’s emphasis on the Spirit containing Christ’s glorified humanity raises complex questions about the nature of that humanity. If Christ’s human nature becomes universally accessible through the Spirit, what happens to the particularity of the incarnation? Does this risk a form of **docetic spiritualizing** of Christ’s concrete humanity?
**Biblical-Exegetical Concerns**: While Murray’s interpretation of John 7:39 is linguistically defensible, some scholars question whether this single verse can bear the theological weight he places on it. The broader New Testament witness presents the Spirit as active throughout salvation history, not merely as a post-glorification phenomenon.
## Historical and Contemporary Reception
Murray’s theology resonates particularly with **Pentecostal and charismatic traditions** that emphasize the experiential dimension of the Spirit’s work. His focus on the Spirit making “the glorified Jesus a Present Reality” aligns with movements that stress personal encounter with Christ through the Spirit.
However, **traditional Reformed and Lutheran theologians** have sometimes expressed concern that Murray’s emphasis on transformation through the Spirit might undermine the sufficiency of justification by faith. They worry that his theology could promote a form of mystical perfectionism that minimizes the ongoing reality of sin in believers.
**Eastern Orthodox theologians** like John Zizioulas would likely find Murray’s approach congenial in some respects, particularly his emphasis on the relational and transformative dimensions of salvation. However, they might question whether Murray adequately accounts for the Spirit’s **co-instituting role** with Christ rather than simply being Christ’s “spirit.”
## Methodological Observations
Murray’s theological method reflects **19th-century evangelical piety** with its emphasis on personal experience and transformative spirituality. While this creates accessible and devotionally rich theology, it sometimes lacks the systematic rigor that contemporary academic theology demands.
His approach is more **experientially grounded** than many systematic theologies, which can be both a strength (making theology relevant to Christian living) and a potential weakness (possibly allowing experience to shape doctrine rather than vice versa).
## Contemporary Relevance
Murray’s insights remain relevant for several contemporary theological discussions:
**Pneumatological Christology**: His work anticipates current scholarly interest in understanding how the Spirit constitutes Christ’s identity, resonating with theologians who emphasize the pneumatological dimensions of incarnation.
**Theosis and Participation**: His emphasis on believers becoming “partakers of the Divine nature” connects with growing scholarly interest in **deification themes** within Protestant theology, bridging traditional gaps between Eastern and Western soteriological emphases.
**Spiritual Formation**: Murray’s focus on the Spirit’s transformative work provides theological grounding for contemporary interests in spiritual formation and Christian discipleship.
## Overall Assessment
Andrew Murray’s theology of “the spirit of the glorified Jesus” represents a **creative and devotionally powerful contribution** to pneumatological theology. While it raises some systematic questions that require careful consideration, his central insight—that Christ’s glorification fundamentally transforms the nature of the Spirit’s ministry—addresses genuine theological problems and offers resources for understanding the integration of Christology and pneumatology.
His work is perhaps best understood as **devotional theology** that makes significant theological points rather than systematic theology that resolves all theoretical questions. The experiential richness of his approach provides valuable balance to purely academic treatments of these themes, while his theological insights continue to influence contemporary discussions about the relationship between Christ’s work and the Spirit’s ministry in Christian experience.
Sources
