God's Own Uncreated Life

Have you read Journeying Towards the Spiritual yet? It is the condensed version of The Spiritual Man. You may find it helpful as well, especially as something to give out to others who may not feel they are able to read such a large book as The Spiritual Man.

The "uncreated life of God" is the same as the "eternal life." It is called "eternal life" because it has existed from eternity past and through eternity future. It is the only life in the universe that has been eternal. It is the very life of God. This is also the Holy Spirit. When we are born again from above we receive the Holy Spirit (eternal life or the uncreated life) into our human spirit.

When brother Nee says on page 24 (volume 1 chapter 1) "We must recognize, though, that this spirit is not God's Own life, for 'the breath of the Almighty gives me life' (Job 33.4). It is not the entrance of the uncreated life of God into man, neither is it that life of God which we receive at regeneration. What we receive at new birth is God's Own life as typified by the tree of life. But our human spirit, though permanently existing, is void of 'eternal life.'" - the "neither is it" does not mean that they are separate things, only that they are different ways of saying the same thing. Hence the "uncreated life of God" and the "life of God which we receive at regeneration" are the same thing.

The meaning behind the words "Holy Spirit" and "eternal life" and "Christ in you" and "Christ lives in me" are different. There is a different aspect being shown each time. Basically though as far as our experience goes we can simplify them all in knowing that the very life of the eternal God is dwelling inside of the believer. I hope this is helpful in some way.

Peace to you,

Geoffrey Pittman - CFP

I find no fault with what Nee wrote, preserved at Christian Fellowship Publishers, but the interpretation of men seems to be problematic, even at CFP.

Having the eternal life of God in us is not the same thing as the Holy Spirit indwelling in us. The Holy Spirit is the 3rd Person of the Godhead, whereas eternal life is life eternal which God has. If "neither is it" does not mean they are separate things, then they are either the Holy Spirit or eternal life, but not both since they are "the same thing" according to Geoffrey.

God's life is eternal. Yes, the Holy Spirit is the life of the Father and the Son and is eternal, though technically speaking, eternal life is not the Holy Spirit. The 3rd Person is not some impersonal concept such as eternal life, but He is one who holds council in the Trinity of the Godhead, just as the Father is one member and the Son is other member of the Triune God.

When we are born again, yes, we receive the Holy Spirit because we have been given a new life, eternal uncreated life, which the Holy Spirit can indwell in our spirit. Therefore it is wrong to say "When we are born again from above we receive the Holy Spirit (eternal life or the uncreated life) into our human spirit" since the Spirit has eternal life, but He is not eternal life.

God's life is eternal life because the Holy Spirit, which is God's life, has eternal life! We can not say "God's life is eternal life because the Holy Spirit is eternal life." God is not a thing such as eternal life. And for those who have eternal life, God's [Own] life, our being does not include God the Holy Spirit, God's Own life. Do you see there are precisely two different usages of the term, God's life?

People say God is love, eternally existing, spirit, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, truth, in Christ, and many other things. All these things describe God. Each make up a component of God's characteristics. But to say God the Spirit is eternal life is wrong. Can you sense that in your spirit? We can say God is eternal and we can say God is life as the source of life to describe God. Yet we can not say God is eternal life. We can only say God has eternal life.

The reason why these terms "Holy Spirit" and "eternal life" and "Christ in you" and "Christ lives in me" are different are not because they are a "different aspect" being shown each time of the same thing, but they are literally different things altogether. Christ is in me and lives in me by the Holy Spirit. He works in me in my new life which is eternal by indwelling my spirit with His Spirit.

I found this portion very important to understand so that a distinction can be clearly identified between the 3rd Person of the Godhead and eternal life. Though brothers and sisters we have eternal life, obviously we are not the 3rd Person of the Trinity. In this context, is "the uncreated life of God into man" specifically referring here to eternal life (new life and "new spirit" Ez. 36.26) or the Holy Spirit indwelling or is it the "breath of life, which became man's spirit" (p. 23 still part of the same paragraph)? The "uncreated life of God into man" on page 24 makes no mention of regeneration, but the "life of God" we do receive at regeneration. Though we should not assume what was meant the "uncreated life of God into man" was not also referring to regeneration.

Since the second part of the second sentence takes a new turn with "neither is it...," we may conclude "...that life of God which we receive at regeneration" is different from the "entrance of the uncreated life of God into man" and not merely a different aspect of the same thing. Elsewhere in TSM, Nee does say "God’s uncreated life typified by the tree of life," (volume 1, page 66); "the Holy Spirit imparts is God’s uncreated life" (volume 1, page 142); and "impart to man God’s uncreated life or give him the Holy Spirit to indwell his regenerated spirit" (volume 3, page 197). And why did the pdf TSM (CFP) change "uncreated life" to "untreated life" on page 24? Perhaps it is because there was some confusion here that was attempted to be addressed.

If the Holy Spirit imparts God's uncreated life, would it not stand to reason that the 3rd Person of the Trinity is different though not separate from eternal life, God's uncreated life? If the tree of life typifies eternal life of God's uncreated life, then why not say that in the third sentence, instead of saying "God's Own Life as typified by the tree of life"?

Not only is the "uncreated life of God into [all] men [and women]," the creation of men and women by directly making the spirit which was merged with the body from dust to create the soul life-thus, three indivisible elements to man's being-, it also refers, where in context in other parts of TSM, to what anyone who is born-again receives which is eternal life, God's uncreated life.

No other place in TSM do we find the usage of "into man" with reference to the "entrance of the uncreated life of God into man". This is where the confusion comes in. We know the uncreated life of God is God's eternal life, but the sentences preceding in this paragraph are talking about the creation of or into man with God's breath of life by His Holy Spirit when breathed "into" the body from dust becomes man's spirit because God created man directly. On the other hand, nowhere do we find the "uncreated life of God" referring to creation of man-it is always referring to regeneration which is eternal life. Could there be a 3rd option?

The "life of God which we receive at regeneration" is "God's Own Life" which is to say His Holy Spirit and eternal life-both! On page 10, volume 2, Nee says "God's life (which can equally be called His Spirit)" and "In the Bible God's life is often labeled 'eternal life'." Therefore, we should accept the fact, in agreeing with the Word, that God's life is two things: (1) eternal life and the (2) Holy Spirit; since obviously, God's Holy Spirit possesses eternal life, believers receive the Holy Spirit indwelling and when a person is saved they receive a quickened old spirit and a new spirit (volume 2, pages 9-10) of eternal life. Wow! These are just the right words I have looking for!

The new spirit refers to eternal life which has "God's life in view" (volume 2, page 10). Eternal life is not "mere future blessing to be enjoyed by believers; it is equally a kind of spiritual ability. Without it no one can know God nor the Lord Jesus. Such an intuitive knowledge of the Lord comes solely upon receiving God's life [eternal life]" (page 10). The Holy Spirit indwells the believer's spirit by coming through the window of his conscience to reside in the seat of his intuition to achieve communion for "worshipping God" (volume 1, page 32). Eternal life is not necessarily the Holy Spirit.

When referring to God's life be careful to distinguish when referring to the Holy Spirit or eternal life specifically; please do so by the discerning organ of your conscience through intuition in communion and prayer with God. The Holy Spirit in man's regenerated spirit is the 3rd Person of the Holy Trinity. The new life in the spirit which is eternal life is also God's life, but not the Holy Spirit.

The first instance of "God's Own Life" in the first sentence in the paragraph (volume 1, page 24) is the Holy Spirit (not specifically eternal life), since it is the Holy Spirit that breathes the breath of life into man, not "eternal life" that does the breathing. The second instance in the second half of the second sentence gives us the "life of God" which would include both eternal life and the indwelling Holy Spirit, not distinguishing between the two. The third instance of "God's Own Life" in the 3rd sentence is definitely addressing eternal life (not the Holy Spirit per se) because it is placed in direct contrast with the tree of life which is clearly typifying eternal life which agrees with Nee's view quoted on other pages in TSM. In the Old Testament period there were those who had eternal life (new life), but they did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling because the veil was not yet rent. The "tree of life" in the 3rd sentence typifies God's Own Life, which in this instance is speaking of eternal life, not the indwelling Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, Christians have both eternal life and the Holy Spirit indwelling.

Five times the same point is made in the same paragraph... "As soon as the breath of life, which became man’s spirit, came into contact with man’s body, the soul was produced" and "The breath of life became man’s spirit" (p.23)-The breath of the Holy Spirit, when God breathed into man, created man's spirit. On page 24, "When the inbreathing of God entered man’s body it became the spirit of man" and "We must recognize... [our] spirit is not God’s Own life, for 'the breath of the Almighty gives me life' (Job 33.4)." The fifth instance, "the entrance of the uncreated life of God into man,..." is the breath of God's Spirit which became man's spirit. Five times the creation of man is spoken of, so to introduce a new direction in this sentence, we read, "...neither is it". At this point you probably have come to realize that "uncreated life" can also mean "eternal life" as well as God's Holy Spirit, but in this instance it is referring not to eternal life in this analysis, but the breath of God's Spirit making contact with or into the body in describing the creation of man, that is, not salvation.

Naysayer's might bring up a contention: in the second sentence, the "entrance of the uncreated life of God into man" and the "life of God which we receive at regeneration" are just different aspects of the same life of God - If "life of God which we receive at regeneration" represents one aspect of God's life, namely His Spirit (though without distinction the Spirit of God and eternal life), and "entrance of the uncreated life of God into man" (eternal life) is another aspect of God's life, then why would we have the contradiction that you would think should not follow?: "What we receive at new birth is God’s Own life as typified by the tree of life. But our human spirit, though permanently existing, is void of 'eternal life'." The tree of life typifies eternal life not the Holy Spirit per se. If God's Own life (as noted in the first sentence) or the life of God is the Holy Spirit (second part of the second sentence), then eternal life (by the tree of life) should be represented as the "uncreated life of God into man," (eternal life-an aspect of God's life) not as "God's Own life as typified by the tree of life" (third sentence) so as to remain consisting in the wording. Therefore, the fact remains, the "entrance of the uncreated life of God into man" (first part of the second sentence) is God's Spirit breathing into man's body from dust to create the soul life, and God's life can be used interchangeably to refer to either the 3rd Person of the Trinity or eternal life. I have eternal life, but I am not the 3rd Person of the Trinity.

I have prayed on this discernment by the Holy Spirit Whom testifies with my spirit in agreement with the Word and brothers and sisters in Christ, and I am sure that it is true. Very important distinctions that have an impact on our lives experientially! It is this new life in me that communes (worshipping God the Father) with God's Spirit which is possible because I was first created then regenerated. Though this is an acceptable interpretation given the language that was used and would be consistent with the rest of Nee's writings, it yet may be not what Nee originally intended for this specific paragraph. We need to explore even further to be sure!

Option 2 - "into man" refers to eternal life at new birth and the Holy Spirit

Geoffrey,

Have you ever wrote something that was a good argument (option 1), but deep down inside didn't feel right? That's how I feel in my spirit. Let me explain. The first several times I read TSM (CFP), my initial instincts were to read "uncreated life of God into man" as being eternal life, which seemed very reasonable, because it agreed with the usage of uncreated life in other parts of TSM. But the last couple of times I thought it meant God's Spirit breathing the breath of life in creating man. My head is telling me the latter is correct, but my inner man is telling me the former is correct. This sensing is undeniable. Isn't that amazing? The leeist version reads, "It is not the entrance of the uncreated life of God into man. The spirit that was received in the beginning." The leeists seem to try to explain the first portion by saying "The spirit that was received in the beginning," thus, the leeist is agreeing with my head, but not my spirit.

Which do I go with? My initial instincts and impressions intuitively or an intellectual approach emanating from my soul? After all reasoning, it seems my spirit through my conscience is producing a "spontaneous direct judgment" while "reasoning will justify things which our conscience judges." My conscience continues not to "bend to outside opinions" as "conscience judges according to intuition," that intuition which "involves a direct sensing that is independent of any outside influence" (volume 1, page 32). The simplicity of your view Geoffrey seems reasonable, but then why does the lsm version differ? Sadly, I don't think an answer to the original Chinese will be forthcoming because this information is closely held to the bosom of its holder like all those secret books at the bottom of the Vatican, though I pray the answer is yet forthcoming. This requires going back to the source-original Chinese. I don't think the correct interpretation is based on luck. Someone is definitely more spiritual and humble in their interpretation.

The spirit of man is not the actual uncreated life of God into man, but when God breathes the breath of life, this breath of life of God's Holy Spirit which has uncreated life becomes the spirit of man when and enters into the body of the man to create the soul life. This is a direct creation of man. Does this disallow the possibility of God's breathing the "uncreated life of God into man" as eternal life? Maybe it does mean eternal life. Which argument is stronger? Maybe the reason the leeist versions are so much longer is they are adding explanation not in the original with their own explanations. I always love a good mystery!

Have leeists been wrong before about their version of TSM? The leeists say the 3 aspects of emotion are love, hate and being affected. They probably took this idea from reading "Through it [emotion] we are able to express love or hate and to feel joyful, angry, sad or happy. Any shortage of it will render a man insensitive as wood or stone." (TSM, CFP, volume 1, page 36).

There is no mention of the emotion of "desire" on page 36 (TSM, CFP, volume 1), but the various aspects of desire are given in some verses under emotion on the following page (page 37).

It would seem to me the leeists erred, by thinking just because "desire" was not included in that sentence then it should not be included as one of the 3 aspects of emotion, so for them love, hate and being affected is how they categorize emotion. The consequence is they are insensitive as wood or stone. Affection has degrees and types all along the spectrum, not just hate and not just love. Interestingly, the preceding sentence to the one above on page 36 reads, "The instrument for our likes and dislikes is the faculty of emotion." Likes and dislikes are in fact desires, and desire also includes emotions of "aspiring" (page 38).

The emotion of desire is closely linked to desire of the will, but they too are different in all their subtleties. Nee said in volume 1, "Such desire revealed the wavering of her emotion and will" (page 46).

Geoffrey, why do you use completely different verses than the lsm version? on page 37-38. Whose was the original? I find it hard to believe Watchman Nee divided emotion into love and hate instead of including these two emotions within affection; excluding desire and aspirings; and changing "sensing and feeling" to being "affected."

Look at the lsm version: it replaces the sentences on page 36 with "emotion is the organ of love, hatred, and sentiments. We can love and hate...". Twice it focuses on love and hate, without mention of likes and dislikes pertaining to the emotion of desire. Perhaps likes and dislikes are the same thing to them as sentiments, but if so, where is the emotion of desire given in their version to be broken down into three main components? It is non-existent which makes them insensitive to this emotion like wood or stone. Cults will likely try to curtail your individuality of desires and aspirings. Because such aspects of these emotions are excluded in the lsm cult to control its members, but not in the CFP version, we must conclude the CFP version is the original. The Holy Spirit will not budge on this fact!

Isn't that interesting? And Geoffrey, why don't you have this same line in CFP TSM as the lsm version?: "The soul can hate...These few verses teach us that hatred is a function of the soul" in the hate category, for them, one of the three main aspects of emotion? (p.37). It is non-existent in the CFP version. I am glad!

Why are different verses being used by both versions? Either you are sinning, Witness Lee sinned, or you are both sinning? How can we find out what Nee originally wrote? I would be more agreeable with your view, but just the same, what do you have to say about it? Can you honestly say you produced these verses yourself or you copied them from Nee for the translation?

If we accept your view regarding the matter on page 24 (which is really page 4 of the first chapter), as it was along the lines of my original view, abiding in my spirit, then I think we do so by not over-intellectualizing it as I have done in my heady view (option 1). After all, this is Nee's opening chapter to explain these matters, and it may not have been his intent to discern the division of eternal life and the Holy Spirit as yet.

Option 3 - "into man" refers to eternal life at new birth, not addressing the Holy Spirit specifically

In one sense I like your interpretation (option 2) because it doesn't repeat the creation of man a 5th time, and I don't like redundancy. Does the burden of the proof fall on you to show with certainty from Chinese to English where it differs with the lsm view, or is it their responsibility to show they did not add anything to your view? Or both?

I think then you would have to show from Chinese to English, simply because the practice of English says the "uncreated life of God into man" makes no mention of regeneration as the new idea begins with "neither...," however, this is also too legalistic and dogmatic a view. If you could make this distinction, as well as identify the difference between eternal life and the Holy Spirit, I would change my commentary accordingly to option 2 from option 3, But as it is worded, option 3 is the only suitable choice, assuming you did correctly translate Nee's writing which I think you did. How is "the life of God which we receive at regeneration" different from "that life of God which we receive at regeneration" if they are the same thing? This is where you stopped short, not explaining either.

As it stands, I believe your view is correct Geoffrey (but it lacks because of its vagaries) and was along my original view, but sometimes we can get heady, which causes us to come up with other ideas. This makes option 1 unappealing and option 2 in the proper direction. However, when two possibilities seem to have problems, perhaps a third option is more suitable.

God's Own life in the first sentence on page 24 is the Holy Spirit without a doubt, yet the Holy Spirit is not specifically mentioned in this first sentence! The "breath of the almighty" (first sentence) emanates from the life of God-the Holy Spirit. Only God can breathe this breath! I like that "uncreated life of God into man" refers to eternal life as though it were uncreated-describing this aspect of eternal life. CFP should not have changed "uncreated" to "untreated" for the pdf version in some cases and some cases not. This inconsistency is not apropos! I like that "life of God which we receive at regeneration" refers to the Holy Spirit indwelling, but, again, since the Spirit is not specifically mentioned, the second half of the sentence is just describing a different aspect of the life of God (eternal life)-that is, it occurs at regeneration! "God's own life as typified by the tree of life [which is eternal life comparing to the 4th sentence]" does refer to eternal life and not the Holy Spirit.

This is my best answer and it was how I had originally read it along the lines of option 2 and option 3. First impressions are usually the right ones in the spiritual realm! We should realize that sometimes God's life refers to the Holy Spirit, sometimes to eternal life, sometimes to both, and sometimes, though the Holy Spirit was mentioned in the paragraph, He was not mentioned in this portion of the paragraph. We should not expect such a division to be determined as of yet so early on in the book in detail. Thus, we do not read this portion legalistically or dogmatically as in option 1, nor do we read it with such vagaries as option 2.

Read it as Watchman Nee intended, "A man's spirit before regeneration is far away from God and is considered dead, for death is dissociation from life and from God Who is the fountain of life" (page 61, volume 1). Dissociation from life is without God's Own eternal life, and dissociation from God's Spirit is also due to the dead spirit unable to communicate with God's life-His Holy Spirit.

"Even in man's spirit, where he receives God's life through the Holy Spirit" (volume 1, page 63). Does man receive God's Holy Spirit through the Holy Spirit or is Nee saying man receives God's eternal life through the Holy Spirit? It seems obvious the former is the correct interpretation. This agrees with "the dead old spirit is quickened into life when the Holy Spirit infuses it with God's uncreated life" (page 63) and "at regeneration man receives God's Own life into his spirit and is born of God. As a consequence, the Holy Spirit now rules man's spirit" (page 63). The Holy Spirit is able to indwell and rule man's spirit because of the new spirit in man of God's Own uncreated life which is life eternal. How clear this is without confusing eternal life with the Holy Spirit.

From page 12-13, volume 2, we read again there is this new spirit with eternal life (God's life in view) and God's Spirit that indwells that new life. We also know the importance shown here of why this eternal life is so important, otherwise the Holy Spirit can not indwell in our spirit if it doesn't have God's Own uncreated eternal life:

Besides bestowing life to believers at new birth, the Holy Spirit executes a further work of abiding in them. How regrettable for us if we forget this! “A new heart I will give you and a new spirit I will put within you ... and I will put my Spirit within you” (Ezek. 36.26-27). Note that immediately after the clause “a new spirit I will put within you” there follows this one of “I will put my Spirit within you.” The first statement signifies that believers shall receive a new spirit through the renewal of their deadened spirit by the incoming of life [God's life in view]. The second has reference to the indwelling or the abiding of the Holy Spirit in that renewed spirit of theirs. Believers at new birth obtain not only a new spirit but also the Holy Spirit dwelling within. Is it not sad that many fail to understand the newness of their spirit and the abiding of the Holy Spirit in their new spirit? Christians need not delay many years following regeneration and then suddenly wake up and seek the Holy Spirit; they have His entire personality abiding in them—not just visiting them—at the moment they are saved. The Apostle exhorts us on this wise: “Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” (Eph. 4.30). The use of the word “grieve” here and not “anger” reveals the Holy Spirit’s love. “Grieve” it says and not “cause to depart,” for “he dwells with you and will be in you” (John 14.17). While every born-again believer does have the Holy Spirit permanently residing in him, nevertheless the plight of the indwelling Spirit may not be the same in all saints—He may be either grieved or gladdened.

We should understand the relationship between regeneration and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Unless a new spirit is available to Him the Holy Spirit cannot find a place to abide. The holy dove found no place whereon to set her foot in the judged world; she could take up her abode only in the new creation (see Gen. 8). How positively essential regeneration is! Without it the Holy Spirit cannot at all dwell in man. God’s children receive within them the permanent abiding of God’s Spirit. Just as this new spirit emerges through a life-producing relationship with God and is therefore inseparable from Him, so the abiding of the Holy Spirit is eternally unchangeable. Few are those who know they have been born anew and thus possess new life; but fewer still are those who know that from the moment they believed in the Lord Jesus they have the Holy Spirit indwelling them to be their energy, their guide, their Lord. It is for this very reason that many young Christians are slow in spiritual progress and never seem to grow. This sad state reflects either the foolishness of their leaders or their personal faithlessness. Until God’s servants dissolve their prejudice which holds that “the indwelling Holy Spirit is but for the spiritual,” they can hardly lead people on to any degree of spirituality.

Since the portion first mentioned at the top is only talking about life eternal we might assume, God's Own uncreated eternal life, which is given to us who are saved, and not specifically mentioning the Holy Spirit indwelling at this point, option 3 might be the best in these introductory pages of The Spiritual Man.

Just because Nee has all this talent and gifting, don't forget what Nee said about himself:

Option 4 - "into man" refers to eternal life at new birth, and "life of God" refers to the Holy Spirit

The simplicity of option 4 fits the best! "Our spirit is not God’s Own life [Holy Spirit], for 'the breath of the Almighty [Holy Spirit] gives me life [my spirit]' (Job 33.4). It is not the entrance of the uncreated life of God into man [eternal life], neither is it that life of God [Holy Spirit] which we receive at regeneration. What we receive at new birth is God’s Own life [same eternal life of the Holy Spirit] as typified by the tree of life. But our human spirit, though permanently existing, is void of 'eternal life.'"

- saying life of God sounds like the Holy Spirit because the life of the Father and the Son is the Spirit;
- breath of the Almighty is obviously, His Holy Spirit.
- to reconcile Option 4 with "the life of God [eternal life] and the Holy Spirit [God's Own life] dwell in our spirits (ibid., Chapter 2, page 34), context is what matters. Sometimes when you say "life of God" you could be referring to eternal life; other times you might mean His Holy Spirit;
- likewise, "God's Own life" could refer to the Holy Spirit or eternal life, depending on the context and how it flows.

Option 4 seems to make the most sense to address both eternal life and the Holy Spirit distinctly. The Holy Spirit possesses uncreated eternal life and gives eternal life (the new life in a new spirit) to those who are saved to indwell.