Pre-publication conference paper. Circulated for the conference Further Thoughts on Deification and forthcoming in the conference volume. © Songzan Xu, Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge. Posted as revised for the conference volume; please cite the published version when it appears.
Deification and the “Pneumatic Christ”:
Witness Lee’s Reciprocal Christological-Pneumatological Approach to Trinitarian Theosis
Songzan Xu
PhD candidate in Theology and World Christianity
Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge
Abstract
This paper explores a reciprocal Christological-pneumatological approach to deification, based on Witness Lee’s writings, within a trinitarian framework. It first questions whether the vocabularies of theosis, Christosis, or pneumasis risk a one-sided account of deification by highlighting or neglecting any one person of the Trinity. It then proposes a new framework for understanding trinitarian deification, drawing on Lee’s discourse on the “pneumatic Christ” in dialogue with the scholarship of Spirit Christology—particularly that of Hendrikus Berkhof and Yves Congar—and with Lucy Peppiatt’s Christomorphic pneumatology. Specifically, the paper examines two aspects of Lee’s “pneumatic Christ”: “Christ becoming the Spirit,” grounded in 1 Cor. 15:45 and 2 Cor. 3:17, which illustrates a pneumatological Christology as the precondition for deification; and the “consummated and compound Spirit,” grounded in John 7:39 and John 20, which articulates a Christological pneumatology for the realization of deification. The paper further discusses the point of juncture, the “mingled spirit,” through which the compound Spirit dispenses the Christic life into the whole human being, for the experience of deification across eight stages. Lee’s mutual articulation of Christology and pneumatology offers valuable insight for constructing a reciprocal Christological-pneumatological approach to trinitarian theosis, and merits greater scholarly attention.
Keywords: Trinitarian theosis/deification; Witness Lee; pneumatic Christ; pneumatological Christology; Christological pneumatology
Introduction
Scholarship on deification (theosis) has grown considerably in recent decades, yet many discussions remain confined to sacramental, contemplative, or ontological frameworks.1 Moreover, the epistemological foundations and methods underlying these discussions are diverse, and each method tends to inform a distinct understanding of how deification may be conceived. According to the general pattern and vocabulary of deification, believers in Christ experience the Holy Spirit for union with God, in which they undergo justification, sanctification, and glorification, and ultimately become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). Synonymous with this formula, some theologians speak of believers experiencing “Christification,” while others propose terms such as “pneumafication” or “pneumasis” to supplement the inadequate language of theosis or Christosis, emphasizing the Spirit’s role in deification.2
This range of vocabulary is, in part, motivated by a concern that human language risks lapsing into a reductionist account of deification—one that isolates the work of a particular person of the Trinity. According to the principle of coinherence, or perichoresis, of the Father, Son, and the Spirit, the work and action of the three persons are inseparable in the salvation, both ontologically and economically. As both Thomas G. Weinandy and Myk Habets argue, the three persons act simultaneously, and each person subsistently defines, and is defined by, the others.3 This means that the mutual indwelling of Christ and the Spirit in the work of deification should never be treated in isolation from one another. A proper understanding of Christology and pneumatology should, therefore, help clarify deification within a trinitarian framework.
Yet the diverse types of Christology and pneumatology may further complicate the articulation of deification. Myk Habets demonstrates, for example, that Logos Christology and Spirit Christology represent two distinct approaches, and that whether scholars propose to replace or complement Logos Christology with Spirit Christology will, in turn, shape their interpretations of the doctrines connected to it.4 Particularly since the 1960s, theological scholarship has increasingly emphasized a Spirit-oriented Christology that highlights the identification of the risen Christ with the Spirit in the Pauline epistles, such that the two are, functionally, one and the same.5 This reciprocity of Christ and the Spirit within Paul’s proto-trinitarian thought further requires an integrated framework of Christology and pneumatology for understanding deification.
On this point, the arguments of David Coffey and Yves Congar may serve as a starting point, since both have claimed that Christology and pneumatology are not independent of one another but should be integrated.6 We should, however, ask further: although Christ and the Spirit are the eternal One, and on the basis of this oneness give divine life to believers, our understanding of which Christ and which Spirit—along with the dynamic relation between Christology and pneumatology—may further shape our assessment of Christian deification. My research question is thus situated here: how might a Spirit-oriented Christology and a Christ-oriented pneumatology illuminate our understanding of trinitarian deification?
To address this question, I draw on the discourse of Spirit Christology and Christomorphic pneumatology as a unified method for rethinking deification within a trinitarian framework. I also draw on the writings of Witness Lee, whose biblical exposition and pastoral teaching stand at the intersection of these two approaches and have begun to attract scholarly attention, yet still require further examination. First of all, Lee’s metaphors for deification highlight the balanced roles of the Father, Son, and the Spirit in relation to divine salvation, and their bearing on deification within the trinitarian framework.7 As a Chinese-American church leader, Lee publicly articulated deification in his ministry in 1994: “God’s intention is to make Himself one with man, to make Himself man, so that man may become Him.”8 Even earlier, in 1984, he had already noted similar ideas of the early church fathers.9 What is more striking, however, is that prior to this explicit articulation of deification, Lee had already developed a rich discourse on the “pneumatic Christ,” in which he articulates Christology from a pneumatological perspective, and vice versa. Since the 1950s and 1960s, Lee developed his mentor Watchman Nee’s pneumatological Christology,10 exploring two aspects of the Trinity in action: “Christ becoming the Spirit” and “the all-inclusive Spirit as the consummation of the Divine Trinity,” together with their significance for both the Christian life and the building up of the church. This foreshadows Lee’s mature theology of deification and establishes its Christological-pneumatological foundation. It should be noted that Lee’s two aforementioned concepts underlie his pneumatological Christology and Christological pneumatology, on the basis of which he identifies the risen Christ with the post-Pentecostal Spirit, treating this identification as an economic and functional synonym. Otherwise, his statements risk being mistranslated as historical Modalism, or Modalistic Monarchianism, as some anti-cult discourse has done—and has since retracted.11
“Christ Becoming the Spirit”: A Pneumatological Christology as the Precondition of Deification
First, Lee regards the resurrected Christ as the “pneumatic Christ,” or the “pneumatized Christ,” who now acts as the life-giving Spirit in the Christian life; without this, no one would be able to live in, and partake of, the Triune God.12 It is clear that, in Lee’s understanding, this “pneumatic Christ” serves as a precondition, or even one of the most significant preconditions, and as a practical pathway directing believers toward deification:
The believers must consider highly the entry into this realm, realizing that without Christ becoming the life-giving Spirit, without Christ being the pneumatic Christ, without Christ being the Lord Spirit, and without Christ being the Christ in resurrection and not only in the flesh, there is absolutely no way for the believers to participate in, experience, and enjoy the organic section of God’s complete salvation in Christ.13
This passage highlights that it is the “pneumatic Christ” who opens the way for believers’ participation in God’s life and nature. This does not mean, however, that the significance of the incarnate and crucified Christ is diminished; rather, that significance remains relevant and consistent with the person and work of the risen Christ, for the incarnate and crucified Christ is the pneumatic Christ Himself. But with respect to Christian experience and the consummation of salvation, the “pneumatic Christ” should be emphasized equally, if not more so—as Lee argues, an emphasis frequently neglected in church history and Christian theology.14
Furthermore, Lee explains that the “pneumatic Christ” is neither “spiritual Christ”—since the risen Christ retains his spiritual body and humanity—nor “Christ in the Spirit,” which separates Christ and the Spirit, but simply Christ as the Spirit: the “actual” or “practical” Christ who can bring us into the Triune God.15 More precisely, one might speak of the “Pneuma-Christ,” or “Christ-Pneuma,” a term that captures their mutual indwelling and unification within the divine economy.
It is necessary to trace back how Lee develops this discourse in historical and scriptural context. Since the 1950s, Lee has regarded “Christ becoming the Spirit” as the greatest “recovery” of divine revelation among the local churches in the twentieth century, and this conviction has served as the focal point of his global ministry.16 On this basis, Lee believes that this new light, long veiled in church history and traditional theology, will guide Christians into a new age of the “pneumatic Christ.” This can be found in Lee’s interpretation of 1 Cor. 15:45, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit,” and 2 Cor. 3:17, “Now the Lord is the Spirit.”17 Lee states that Jesus Christ had two periods during his time on earth: the first, from incarnation to his death; and the second, beginning with his resurrection, at which point he became the life-giving Spirit, in other words, he “became pneumatic” and “will be pneumatic for eternity.”18 In 2 Cor. 3:17, Paul identifies Jesus Christ, the Lord (Kyrios), as the Spirit (Pneuma), and the following verse illuminates the action of the “Spirit of the Lord.” This is consistent with Rom. 8:2, 9–11, where Paul uses, interchangeably, the Spirit of life, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, Christ, and the indwelling Spirit. As Lee argues, “These are not five different persons but are all the pneumatic Christ.”19 Therefore, the pneumatic Christ and the Spirit of Christ move together, as a whole, in their omnipresent activity, and give freedom to believers.
In his later ministry, Lee further summarizes Christ’s history on earth into three stages, or sections: incarnation, inclusion, and intensification. This is corresponding to first, first, Christ in the flesh; second, Christ as the life-giving Spirit, or the pneumatic Christ; and third, Christ as the sevenfold intensified Spirit.20 This periodization suggests a distinctive feature of Lee’s account relative to other discourses of Spirit Christology—namely, its treatment of the pneumatic Christ in an eschatological dimension. In this discourse, Lee draws on the book of Revelation to articulate the pneumatic Christ in the eschaton.
Revelation 5:6 speaks of Christ as the Lamb having seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God. We cannot say that the Spirit is separate from Christ, because we cannot separate a person’s eyes from the person. This also indicates that Christ is pneumatic.21
In particular, in the second stage, that of the pneumatic Christ, God’s people are not only regenerated through his resurrection but also receive him as the Pneuma—which is the turning point of deification.22 On the basis of his scriptural interpretation, Lee therefore summarizes: “The Lord Spirit is the pneumatic Christ. All the items of organic salvation, beginning with regeneration, are accomplished not by Christ in the flesh but by the pneumatic Christ.”23 This pneumatic dimension of the resurrected Christ, as Lee frequently argues, has been overlooked by mainstream Christianity.24
Parallel to Lee’s discourse, Spirit Christology, in its prevailing form, highlights a two-fold role of the Spirit in the person, work, earthly life, and experience of Jesus of Nazareth. Hendrikus Berkhof, a Reformed theologian who has likewise proposed, since the 1960s, a reconstruction of Christology from a pneumatological perspective, has made comparable claims. Berkhof criticizes that the twofold relation between Christ and the Spirit has often been distorted by one-sided emphasis: specifically, an emphasis on Christ as the bearer of the Spirit, common in the Synoptic Gospels, at the expense of the risen Christ as the sender of the Spirit, more prominent in the Johannine literature and the Pauline epistles.25 The former emphasis suggests, first, the priority of the Holy Spirit over the earthly Jesus, with the Spirit treated as, in effect, Jesus’s private possession; the latter, by contrast, highlights Jesus as possessor of the Spirit and as the source of life for believers. This clearly shows the inseparable work and coinherence of Christ and the Spirit throughout Christ’s preexistence, incarnation, earthly human life, crucifixion, and resurrection. Such an emphasis calls for a refinement of traditional formulations of Logos Christology, which highlight the preexistence of Jesus while overlooking the dynamic relation between the earthly Jesus and the Spirit, and more importantly, the pneumatic dimension of the risen Jesus.
In brief, according to this Spirit-oriented Christology, the one who grows in the Spirit and is baptized and filled by the Spirit is the one who sends the Spirit. The one who possesses the Spirit is the one who comes in, through, and as the Spirit. This also means that, in his resurrection, not only are Christ’s body and humanity glorified, but he is unified with the Spirit and becomes the source of life for believers.26 Therefore, the “content” of the Spirit’s work is to “make present the work of the incarnate Word here and now.”27 In this sense, we can conclude that the exalted Lord Jesus acts as the Spirit in a functional way for believers’ Christification or deification, and for the fulfillment of God’s economy (oikonomia; Eph. 1:10, 3:9).
The “Consummated and Compound Spirit”: A Christological Pneumatology for the Realization of Deification
In both the Greek and Latin church traditions, theologians hold that speaking of the Spirit of Christ is bound up with divine salvation, since it is by the Spirit that Christ works in believers for their Christification.28 Therefore, how we understand the nature, characteristics, and work of this Spirit, in other words, a pneumatology approached from a Christological perspective, must shape how we understand the Christification effected by the Spirit.
Apart from the resurrected Christ as the life-giving Spirit, Lee’s discourse on the “pneumatic Christ” can also be articulated in a further, parallel aspect: the life-giving Spirit as the Spirit of Christ. More importantly, this Spirit, as Lee portrays it, includes all that Christ possesses and has experienced: divinity, glorified humanity, death, and resurrection.29 This Spirit is, therefore, “the consummation of the processed Triune God.”30 This formulation presents a distinct understanding of the Trinity, setting it apart from both Tritheism and Modalism—an understanding Lee sought to popularize both within and beyond the local churches he led.
Lee’s discourse originates from his interpretation of several key biblical passages, for example, John 7:39: “But this He said concerning the Spirit, whom those who believed into Him were about to receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.” Lee raises the question posed by the phrase “the Spirit was not yet,” and answers:
The Spirit of God was there from the beginning, in creation; the Spirit of Jehovah had come again and again to help the people of Israel in their troubles; and the Holy Spirit had been active in the incarnation. How could John say that the Spirit was “not yet”? Yes, the Spirit was there as the Spirit of God in Genesis, as the Spirit of Jehovah in Judges, and as the Holy Spirit in Matthew and Luke, but the Spirit—the Spirit as the compounded and consummated Spirit—was “not yet” in John 7:39, because at that time Jesus had not yet been glorified. The man Jesus was glorified in resurrection (Luke 24:26). Thus, the Spirit was “not yet” until Christ’s resurrection. In resurrection Christ, the last Adam in the flesh, became the life-giving Spirit, the Spirit who gives life (1 Cor. 15:45b).31
When Christ was in the flesh, the Spirit was “not yet”; but once he was glorified, the resurrected Christ appeared again to his disciples and breathed the Spirit into them, as recorded in John 20. At this point, the Spirit is not merely the Spirit of God but the Spirit of the resurrected Christ, the God-man who has experienced death and resurrection. In other words, the Spirit has been economically shaped by Christ’s work, person, and experience. Therefore, all that Christ has, the Spirit has, and all that Christ aims to do, the Spirit aims to do. This prevents us from saying that the work of each person of the Trinity is conducted separately and independently.
This discourse resonates much closer to the contemporary constructions of pneumatology from a Christological perspective. Here I borrow the concept of “Christomorphic pneumatology” from Lucy Peppiatt’s work to join this dialogue. Peppiatt argues that since the Spirit has consistently been identified as the Spirit of Christ, of Jesus, of the Lord, and of the Son,32 this means that the Spirit is shaped by the person and work of Christ—in other words, that the Spirit is Christomorphic, or Christ-shaped.33
Specifically, this Christomorphic pneumatology suggests, first, that the work of the Spirit cannot be separated from all that Christ has experienced and done, including his incarnation, crucifixion, and exaltation. This means that we should engage in pneumatology in light of the all aspects of the incarnate, crucified, and exalted Christ.34 It also means that a Spirit-filled Christian life is predestined toward all aspects of Christ’s experience, including suffering, death, deliverance, resurrection, and deification. The content of the Spirit’s work is Christ’s own experience. Peppiatt goes further, claiming that only such a Christomorphic pneumatology characterized by the unity and distinction of the two persons will prevent us from one-side understanding of God’s work.35 At the same time, however, we should attend equally to the distinctness of Christ and the Spirit, as Peppiatt reminds us:
It is also in the economy that we see a distinction of Son and the Spirit in the second and third person … The Spirit is Lord but not Messiah, the Anointed One, the Savior—though the Spirit’s work in humanity is a saving work. It is not the Spirit who is our pattern for Christian living, nor the prototype of humanity.36
On this point, Berkhof also insists, one cannot simply say that the Spirit is merely “another name” for the exalted Christ, since Scripture also attests to a distinction between the Spirit and Christ, for instance, in John 14:16, 18 and 2 Cor. 13:14.37 In Trinitarian reflection on Christology, we should always emphasize the long-standing neglect of the risen Christ as the Spirit, so as to overcome a prevailing misunderstanding of the Trinity, for example, Tritheism. Yet we should be equally careful about the distinction.
Similar to Peppiatt and Berkhof, Lee’s definition on the “consummated and compound Spirit” does not mean that the Spirit, as a person of the Trinity, changes in essence or is compounded with other, foreign elements.38 Lee reminds us that it is only the economic Trinity that admits of a dynamic mode of being, while the immanent Trinity never changes and therefore involves no “complications”:
We have pointed out that the three of the Divine Trinity are self-existing, ever-existing, and coinhering, and as such, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are a divine and mystical realm. With the Triune God Himself as a mystical realm there are no “complications,” but in the divine and mystical realm of the consummated Spirit and the pneumatic Christ there are a number of “complications,” all of which are blessings to us.39
The “complications” mean that the consummated/compound Spirit can be experienced by believers as a new approach to the Triune God. That is, in the Old Testament, God is simply the Spirit, and God’s people could experience God only in an objective way. For example, the Spirit of the Lord God, or the Spirit of Jehovah, came upon his chosen servants (e.g., Isa. 42:1; 61:1–2). This kind of presence was, at times, quite limited to particular persons, such as the chosen kings and prophets. In New Testament time, however, the believer’s experience of the Spirit enters a new stage: the incarnation marks the beginning of the Spirit’s being poured into human flesh, a promise already made in the Old Testament, followed by the further outpouring of the Spirit after Christ’s ascension and at Pentecost. At this point, believers can experience the Spirit in a more subjective way, distinct from believers in the Old Testament. That is, the Spirit, as the Spirit of Christ, who is fully human and fully God, becomes, in the economic sense, a New Testament Spirit. In other words, the Spirit, processed by and sent out from the risen Christ, can now be called the “consummated Spirit,” marking the consummation of the economy of the Triune God. This distinction, however, must always be read within the economic Trinity; otherwise, it would conflict with the unchangeable essence of the immanent Trinity.
Moreover, there is another layer in Lee’s discourse, distinct from both that of Peppiatt and that of Berkhof. That is, the “compound Spirit” incorporates, and can then apply, the glorified humanity of Jesus Christ. In Lee’s understanding, when the Spirit appeared as the Spirit of God in Old Testament history, the Spirit possessed only divinity; in the New Testament, however, having proceeded through the incarnation and resurrection, the Spirit of Christ has thus compounded Christ’s humanity, together with all that Christ has experienced throughout time, space, and his whole being. In Lee’s words: “The Spirit no longer has just the divine essence, but now has, in addition, Jesus’ humanity with the death of Christ, the effectiveness of His death, the resurrection, and the power of His resurrection.”40 Lee adds: “The issue of this mingling is the compound, consummated Spirit.”41 What, then, is the content of this “compound” Spirit, in other words, what might we experience in the realm of the Spirit? Lee concludes:
If He were merely the Triune God without Christ’s humanity, death, and resurrection, and we could enter into Him, we would find the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, but nothing of humanity, death, and resurrection. However, when we enter into the divine and mystical realm of the consummated Spirit and the pneumatic Christ, we have not only divinity but also the humanity of Christ, the death of Christ with its effectiveness, and the resurrection of Christ with its repelling power. Everything is here in this wonderful realm … If I need crucifixion, I find that in this realm I have been crucified already. If I need resurrection, in this realm I have been resurrected already.42
For Lee, it is not merely that the Holy Spirit indwells and dispenses his eternal life to believers so as to sanctify and deify them; it is the compound Spirit who brings his own divine essence, the glorified humanity of Jesus, the crucifixion, and the resurrection—all together—to believers.43 This “content” of the Spirit further brings to light a new understanding of its soteriological significance: for instance, if believers experience the killing power of the Spirit,44 which puts to death and overcomes negative emotions, worldly desire, and egocentrism, they will thereby, and automatically, also experience the death of Christ. The same holds for the way believers experience the resurrection of Christ as a nourishing element within this compound Spirit. However, if believers are not in the Spirit, the subjective experience of Christ’s death, and the reckoning of sin and its putting to death, cannot take effect. As Lee states, “Christ is Christ, and you are you; and His death is not yours unless you are joined to Him organically by the Spirit.”45 The compound Spirit thus reaches believers as the Christic Spirit, one who has compounded all that Christ is and has experienced, and who can then supply these Christic elements to them.
Thus far, I have discussed Lee’s discourse in two dimensions, the pneumatic Christ and the consummated/compound Spirit. Based on his interpretation, we could discern an equation between the two. As Lee states, “Christ as the Spirit is as available to us as the air. God has given Him to us and has put us into Him, and today this pneumatic Christ is in our spirit.”46 Therefore, he continues: “our walking according to the spirit equaling our living the pneumatic Christ—Rom. 8:4; Phil. 1:19b–21a. To walk by the Spirit (Gal. 5:16, 25) and to walk according to the spirit (Rom. 8:4) being to be a person in Christ’s resurrection.”47 This equation recurs elsewhere in the Bible: Phil. 1:19–21, for example, presents God’s provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ to Paul as that which delivered and encouraged him, so that Christ would be exalted in him and he could live Christ. Thus, the work of one equals the work of the other: the believer’s experience of the consummated/compound Spirit is equivalent to the experience of the pneumatic Christ.
The “Mingling” of the Spirit and Human Spirit: Experiencing Deification in the “Mingled Spirit”
The formulation of the pneumatic Christ and the consummated Spirit signals the perichoresis of the Trinity: all that the Father has is in the Son and embodied by the Son, and all that the Son possesses is in the Spirit and realized by the Spirit.48 Having demonstrated this relation, we may now proceed to the final relation between the Christ-Spirit and believers: namely, how all that the Spirit has compounded is transmitted to believers for the fulfillment of the divine economy.
This junction in Lee’s theology is the “mingled spirit,” where the compound Spirit dispenses all the elements of the pneumatic Christ possesses and has experienced into the believers’ whole being. On the basis of 1 Cor. 6:17, “But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him,” Lee holds that the union of the Lord Spirit and the human spirit constitutes the “mingled spirit.” According to Lee’s tripartite anthropology, the human spirit is where the pneumatic Christ indwells and mingles with the believer at the innermost being.49 In this sense, the deification means the “mingling” of the human spirit and the indwelling, consummated Spirit.50
Lee then identifies eight stages in the experience of the mingling of the Spirit and the human spirit, understood as the organic salvation operated by the Spirit and as the realization of God’s economy.51 The first stage is regeneration, and the second is the feeding on God’s words, which is spirit and life (John 6:63). The third is dispositional sanctification, which proceeds from the innermost spirit outward to the soul and body, so that the fourth stage, the renewing of the whole being, may be realized. This leads to the fifth stage, transformation into the image of Christ.52 Up to this point, this framework largely restates the familiar stages of progressive sanctification. From the sixth to the eighth stages, Lee offers a more distinctive account of the Spirit’s realization in human beings. Specifically, the sixth stage is the building up of the church as the Body of Christ, and the seventh is the maturity of believers, which brings about the conformation of Christ in human life. The final stage is glorification, in which all believers are brought into God’s glory.53
Compared to the usual view of deification in which glorification is regarded as the final stage, Lee offers a supplementary dimension of the Spirit: a distinct eschatological discourse on the pneumatic Christ (the Lamb with seven Spirits as his eyes, Rev. 5:6). The sevenfold intensified Spirit in the Revelation appears as a further movement restoring the degenerated churches before the end of the age, producing overcomers for the partial rapture, and building up the New Jerusalem. This indicates that the work of the pneumatic Christ is not limited to individual and ecclesial deification but continues in his eschatological ministry, according to the full movement of the Trinity.54 Hence, moving from the pneumatic Christ as the life-giving Spirit mingling with the human spirit, to the sevenfold intensified Spirit in the eschaton, we may now arrive at a fuller trinitarian framework in Lee’s portrayal of deification in the later years of his life:
The life-giving Spirit as the consummation of the processed Triune God comes to regenerate, sanctify, renew, and transform the believers, to conform them to the image of the Son of God, and eventually to glorify them with the eternal glory of God that the Son of God may be the Firstborn among His many brothers, the many sons of God; thus, they become the many God-men to constitute the Body of Christ and consummately be enlarged and built up as the New Jerusalem.55
As echoed in the works of both Hendrikus Berkhof and Geerhardus Vos, the Spirit is the subject of consummation, and the “pneumatizing” of believers and of all creation is the completion and consummation of the pneumatic process.56 More fully, Lee’s discourse maintains a balanced trinitarian framework, highlighting the roles and works of all three persons of the Trinity within one pneumatic realm, through one mingling transition, and for one purpose—deification, both individual and corporate—while the Godhead itself remains of immutable essence and unfathomable mystery.
Conclusion
This paper began with the question of how a mutual understanding of Christology and pneumatology might offer a new approach to trinitarian theosis. In response to that inquiry, I drew on Witness Lee’s treatment of deification from the perspective of pneumatological Christology and Christological pneumatology. Specifically, drawing on his mid- and late theology—from the “pneumatic Christ” since the 1950s, and “the consummated/compound Spirit” since the 1960s, to his later discourse on deification in the 1990s, we find that Lee treats the formula of deification not merely within a trinitarian framework, but on a more decisive Christological-pneumatological ground, one that accounts for deification in both its ontological and economic dimensions. This opens a new avenue for reflection on the grounding of trinitarian theosis. In addition, I brought into dialogue a range of discourses in Spirit Christology, for example, that of Hendrikus Berkhof and Yves Congar, together with Lucy Peppiatt’s Christomorphic pneumatology. On this basis, the paper has explored ways in which pneumatological Christology and Christological pneumatology might be integrated within, and contribute to, trinitarian deification. Three findings and one inspiration may be drawn from this exploration.
First, this paper highlights a more precise account of the role, relation, and “content” of the risen Christ and the Spirit in Christian deification. That is, it is the pneumatic Christ—rather than merely the Logos-Christ, or the incarnate or crucified Christ—who now works as the Spirit in believers. Likewise, it is not merely the Old Testament Spirit (the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Jehovah) but the New Testament Spirit—the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Lord Spirit, and even the consummated Spirit—who, as the Christomorphic Spirit, dispenses himself and all Christ has experienced into believers, conforming them to the image of Christ. It is in this Christic Spirit that believers can experience the risen Christ in a practical way. This signals the significance of the mutuality and functional synonym of Christ and the Spirit for understanding Christian deification within the economic operation of the Trinity.
Second, it has become evident that the integration of pneumatological Christology and Christological pneumatology articulates the mutual and central role of both Christ and the Spirit in each other’s work for the believer’s deification. On the one hand, pneumatological Christology assigns the Spirit a significant role in understanding Christ throughout his incarnation, human life, crucifixion, and resurrection; more importantly, Christ becomes the life-giving Spirit for the practical purpose of believers’ pneumatification. On the other hand, Christological pneumatology emphasizes the role and place of Christ in the person and ministry of the Spirit. Thus the Christic, or Christ-shaped, Spirit can offer believers all that Christ possesses and has experienced, for their Christification. The Christification-pneumatification of believers can thus be understood as a full deification/theosis, operated by the Christ-Spirit.
Third, the discussion above may prompt further reflection on traditional theology. Compared with the discourse on the pneumatic Christ as the life-giving Spirit, the Reformed tradition generally regards the sent Spirit as subject to the risen Christ and as the agent who applies salvation to believers.57 John Calvin describes the Holy Spirit as the “bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself,”58 and Karl Barth characterizes the Spirit as the “subjective reality of Revelation” and as “the power of Jesus Christ” through which human beings “can and must find and see that He is theirs and they are His.”59 These discourses might be considered insufficient,60 since Hendrikus Berkhof and Witness Lee further regard risen Christ as the Spirit, who can thus supply the Christic content to believers.
Furthermore, the integration of pneumatological Christology and Christological pneumatology bears significantly on Christian everyday life—the ethics of deification. As Victor Pfitzner argues, “a Christic understanding of the Spirit prevents pneumatology ‘degenerating into vague spiritualism’ and second, prevents Christians from ‘the absoluzation of individual experience’ and the tendency of divorcing individual charism from commual good.”61 It perhaps is an urgent reminder for our present age, in which Christians face the rising challenge of animism and the growing popularity of non-Christic spiritualism.
In conclusion, Lee’s mutual construction of both Christology and pneumatology coheres within his theosis-soteriology: the experience of organic salvation through the pneumatic Christ as the Spirit, as the consummation of the economic Trinity, so that man may share in the life and nature of God—that is, be deified. The Christ-Spirit, as both the pneumatic Christ and the Christic Spirit, transforms believers into the image of Christ through the operation of the Spirit, unto deification as the fulfillment of divine salvation and of the economic Trinity in human history. In this light, the scholarly discourse of Christology and pneumatology should be integrated in order to articulate a fuller account of trinitarian deification.
Bibliography
Arblaster, John, and Rob Faesen, eds. Theosis/Deification: Christian Doctrines of Divinization, East and West. Leuven: Peeters, 2018.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. IV/1, The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956.
Byers, Andrew J. Ecclesiology and Theosis in the Gospel of John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023.
Berkhof, Hendrikus. The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. London: The Epworth Press, 1965.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1960.
Coffey, David. “The Theandric Nature of Christ,” Theological Studies 60 (1999): 405–431.
Congar, Yves. 1986. The Word and the Spirit. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Copan, Paul, and Michael M. C. Reardon, eds. Transformed into the Same Image: Constructive Investigations into the Doctrine of Deification. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024.
Del Colle, Ralph. 1994. Christ and the Spirit: Spirit-Christology in Trinitarian Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dunn, James D. G. 1998. The Christ and the Spirit, vol. 1, Christology. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co..
Fatehi, Mehrdad. 2000. The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Feng, Jacob Chengwei. “Pneumasis/Pneumafication Based on Romans 8:1–17: Highlighting the Spirit’s Role in Deification.” Religions 14, no. 9 (2023):1210.
———. “Deification Seen from Three Biblical Metaphors in Watchman Nee and Witness Lee with a Cognitive-Linguistic Interpretive Approach to Metaphors.” In Transformed into the Same Image: Constructive Investigations into the Doctrine of Deification, edited by Paul Copan and Michael M. C. Reardon, 38–62. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024.
———. Spirit(s) and Chinese Religiosity: Retelling the History of Chinese Christianity from a Pentecost Perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2026.
Habets, Myk. The Anointed Son: A Trinitarian Spirit Christology. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010.
Hanegraaff, Hank. “We Were Wrong! A Reassessment of the ‘Local Church’ Movement of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee.” Christian Research Journal 32, no. 6 (2009).
Lee, Witness. 2021. The Collected Works of Witness Lee. 139 Vols. Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry.
———. 1961–1962. Vol. 3. Fellowshipping with the Lord for the Mingling of God with Man.
———. 1964. Vol. 1. Knowing and Experiencing God as Life.
———. 1964. Vol. 3. Various Fall Meetings in Los Angeles.
———. 1965. Vol. 1. The Experience of Christ in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians.
———. 1965. Vol. 4. The Goal of God’s Economy. .
———. 1968. Vol. 1. Various Messages in Los Angeles.
———. 1968. Vol. 2. Miscellaneous Meetings in Los Angeles.
———. 1969. Vol. 3. The Two Trees in the Christian Life.
———. 1977. Vol. 2. The Spirit and the Body.
———. 1981. Vol. 2. The History and Revelation of the Lord’s Recovery.
———. 1982. Vol. 2. The Fulfillment of the Tabernacle and the Offerings in the Writings of John.
———. 1983. Vol. 3. The Basic Revelation in the Holy Scriptures.
———. 1984. Vol. 3. God’s New Testament Economy.
———. 1985. Vol. 5. Vessels Useful to the Lord.
———. 1988. Vol. 1. Living in and with the Divine Trinity.
———. 1993. Vol. 1. The Move of God in Man.
———. 1994–1997. Vol. 2. The Issue of the Union of the Consummated Spirit of the Triune God and the Regenerated Spirit of the Believers.
———. 1994–1997. Vol. 3. Pre-meeting Fellowship on the God-man Living.
———. 1994–1997. Vol. 4. The Divine and Mystical Realm.
———. 1994–1997. Vol. 4. Incarnation, Inclusion, and Intensification.
Păuleț, Lucian. “Pneumatological Christology and Christological Pneumatology According to Yves Congar’s Latest Theological Vision.” Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Theologia Catholica Latina 63, no. 2 (2018): 59–73.
Peppiatt, Lucy. “The Spirit of the Lord: Reflections on a Christomorphic Pneumatology.” In The Third Person of the Trinity: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics, edited by Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders, 138–160. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020.
Pfitzner, Victor C. “‘The Spirit of the Lord’: The Christological Focus of Pauline Pneumatology.” In Starting with the Spirit, edited by Stephen Pickard and Gordon Preece. Hindmarsh: Australian Theological Forum, 2001.
Russell, Norman. Theosis and Religion: Participation in Divine Life in the Eastern and Western Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024.
Weinandy, Thomas G. Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1995.
There are a number of recent studies on theosis or deification; see, for example, John Arblaster and Rob Faesen, eds., Theosis/Deification: Christian Doctrines of Divinization, East and West (Leuven: Peeters, 2018); Andrew J. Byers, Ecclesiology and theosis in the Gospel of John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023); Paul Copan and Michael M. C. Reardon, eds., Transformed into the Same Image: Constructive Investigations into the Doctrine of Deification (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024); Norman Russell, Theosis and Religion: Participation in Divine Life in the Eastern and Western Traditions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2024).↩︎
Jacob Chengwei Feng, “Pneumasis/Pneumafication Based on Romans 8:1–17: Highlighting the Spirit’s Role in Deification,” Religions 14, no. 9 (2023): 1210.↩︎
Myk Habets, The Anointed Son: A Trinitarian Spirit Christology (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2010), 223. For a similar argument, see also Thomas G. Weinandy, Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1995), 15.↩︎
Habets, The Anointed Son: A Trinitarian Spirit Christology, 188–227.↩︎
James D. G. Dunn. The Christ and the Spirit, vol. 1, Christology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 115. More discussions of Spirit Christology can be found in Ralph Del Colle, Christ and the Spirit: Spirit-Christology in Trinitarian Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Mehrdad Fatehi, The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000).↩︎
David Coffey, “The Theandric Nature of Christ,” Theological Studies 60 (1999), 431; Yves Congar, The Word and the Spirit (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1986), 101ff.↩︎
Jacob Chengwei Feng, “Deification Seen from Three Biblical Metaphors in Watchman Nee and Witness Lee with a Cognitive-Linguistic Interpretive Approach to Metaphors,” in Transformed into the Same Image: Constructive Investigations into the Doctrine of Deification, eds., Paul Copan and Michael M. C. Reardon (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024), 38–62.↩︎
Witness Lee, The Collected Works of Witness Lee [hereafter CWWL] (Anaheim, CA: Living Stream Ministry, 2021), 1994–1997, vol. 1, 4.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1984, vol. 3, 499.↩︎
Jacob Feng analyzes Watchman Nee’s “turn” from his previous Christocentric theology to a Pneuma-Christocentric theology during the 1930s, due to the Pentecostal influence. Witness Lee inherited Nee’s theology in the globalization of their Little Flock/local churches movement. For more details, see Jacob Chengwei Feng, Spirit(s) and Chinese Religiosity: Retelling the History of Chinese Christianity from a Pentecost Perspective (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2026), 204–207, 215–216.↩︎
Hank Hanegraaff, “We Were Wrong! A Reassessment of the ‘Local Church’ Movement of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee,” Christian Research Journal 32, no. 6 (2009).↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1988, vol. 1, 345.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 4, 109.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1981, vol. 2, 231–232.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1982, vol. 2, 247–248.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1981, vol. 2, 105–121.↩︎
All biblical quotations in this article are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV).↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 3, 604.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 3, 604.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 4, 196.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 3, 604.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 3, 191.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 3, 604.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1981, vol. 2, 231–232.↩︎
Hendrikus Berkhof, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (London: The Epworth Press, 1965), 18, 19–20.↩︎
Lucian Păuleț, “Pneumatological Christology and Christological Pneumatology According to Yves Congar’s Latest Theological Vision,” Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Theologia Catholica Latina 63, no. 2 (2018): 66.↩︎
Păuleț, “Pneumatological Christology and Christological Pneumatology According to Yves Congar’s Latest Theological Vision,” 67.↩︎
Congar, The Word and the Spirit, 103.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994-1997, vol. 4, 191.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1988, vol. 3, 479.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 4, 111–112.↩︎
There are diverse designations in the New Testament referring to the same One, for example, the Spirit of Jesus (Acts 16:7), the Spirit of the Lord (Kyrios) (2 Cor. 3:17), the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9, 1 Pet 1:11), and the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6).↩︎
Lucy Peppiatt, “The Spirit of the Lord: Reflections on a Christomorphic Pneumatology,” in The Third Person of the Trinity: Explorations in Constructive Dogmatics, eds., Oliver D. Crisp and Fred Sanders (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 138–160. In addition, Berkhof also concludes that “we have to think of the Spirit in strictly christocentric terms.” For further details, see Berkhof, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 24.↩︎
Lucy Peppiatt, “The Spirit of the Lord: Reflections on a Christomorphic Pneumatology,” 159.↩︎
Lucy Peppiatt, “The Spirit of the Lord: Reflections on a Christomorphic Pneumatology,” 140.↩︎
Lucy Peppiatt, “The Spirit of the Lord: Reflections on a Christomorphic Pneumatology,” 143.↩︎
Berkhof, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 28.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 4, 110.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 4, 113.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1983, vol. 3, 406.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997,vol. 4, 112.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997,vol. 4, 114. Earlier than this claim, Lee had already articulated a similar thought in both the 1970s and 1980s, concerning how believers may arrive at a soteriological experience of God’s supply, for example: “The Spirit we Christians have received is the Spirit compounded with divinity, humanity, human living, suffering, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. God is in the Spirit. The uplifted humanity of Jesus and His human living and suffering are also in the Spirit. Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension are all in this one Spirit, so with this Spirit there is the bountiful supply” (Lee, CWWL 1983, vol. 3, 408).↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1977, vol. 2, 337–343.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1983, vol. 3, 407.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1983, vol. 3, 407.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1968, vol. 1, 597.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1993, vol. 1, 457, 462.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 4, 119.↩︎
At least 562 records of the term “mingle” could be found in the online search of the CWWL.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1961–1962, vol. 3, 368, 372; CWWL 1965, vol. 1, 401–404; vol. 4, 253–257.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 4, 123–149.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 4, 123–129.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 4, 137.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 4, 138–140.↩︎
Lee, CWWL 1994–1997, vol. 2, 174.↩︎
Berkhof, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 108.↩︎
This is attested in John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13–14; 1 Cor. 12:3; Rev. 19:10, among others.↩︎
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.i.1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1960), 537–538.↩︎
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/1, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1957), 648.↩︎
However, it would be inaccurate to suggest that the union of Christ and the Spirit is altogether absent from Reformed theology.↩︎
Victor C. Pfitzner. “‘The Spirit of the Lord’: The Christological Focus of Pauline Pneumatology,” in Starting with the Spirit, eds., Stephen Pickard and Gordon Preece (Hindmarsh: Australian Theological Forum, 2001), 116.↩︎
