Unlike the claim that Jesus is God, there is no question that there are plenty of scriptures that seem to apply personhood to the holy spirit and there is no doubt that it is a part of God. The question is whether it is a distinct personage separate from the Father, Jehovah. If holy spirit were proved to be a personage separate from Jehovah, then it would at least prove that God is a Binity. Below, we will consider what Trinitarians and Binitarians miss in the proofs they provide. They tend to focus only on the personification of the holy spirit in the Scriptures, and not on how its personification is used, the role the holy spirit serves in the cited scripture or other language used regarding it.
Look at where Jesus mentioned this unforgivable sin in the Bible. He said, "For this reason I say to you, every sort of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven. For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come." (Mt 12:31, 32 [pa|in]; Mr 3:28, 29 [pa|in]; See part 14 (2) to consider DOES MATTHEW 12:31, 32 AND MARK 3:28, 29 PROVE THAT HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSONAGE?)
Why did Jesus say that? Because at Mt 12:24 [pa|in] the Pharisees said, "This fellow does not expel the demons except by means of Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons." This is highlighted at Mr 3:30 [pa|in], where Mark clarified, "He said this because they were saying: 'He has an unclean spirit.'" Were they making a claim about what holy spirit is? No.
But it does not stop there. Jesus explained his meaning at Mt 12:35 [pa|in] when he said, "The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things, whereas the wicked man out of his wicked treasure sends out wicked things." Thus, it is what is in the heart of the person that determines what they say and their guilt. Thus blasphemy against the spirit is associated with 1) claiming it comes from demons, 2) denying that God's holy spirit was operating through Jesus Christ and 3) what is in the speaker's heart.
But is it the Christ they are blaspheming when they do that? No. For Jesus said, "whoever says a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him." (Mt 12:32 [pa|in]) Thus, it is because of misattributing the power of the holy spirit (God's power to act) that was working through Jesus to the work of demons that they were in danger of becoming blasphemers against the holy spirit. Thus, they would be denying and vilifying the very power of God.
However, was Jesus condemning the Pharisees then and there? No. He was issuing a warning to them. Thus, even though they had technically blasphemed, there was something missing: their awareness that they are blaspheming, because they would be doing so with the understanding that they are blaspheming God's holy spirit. Therefore, no one can unwittingly blaspheme the holy spirit, or blaspheme it without actual knowledge of what it is. Thus, simply being wrong about one's understanding of the holy spirit does not make them a blasphemer against the spirit. It simply makes them misguided. There must be both knowledge that what one is saying is false and have the intent to mislead. So, if someone tries to attribute bad things to Jehovah's holy spirit, doing so with accurate knowledge about the spirit, that what they say about it is untrue with the intent to lie against the spirit, then they are blaspheming the holy spirit.
The words "holy spirit" are English translations of the Hebrew words "ruach qodesh". However, the Christian Bible writers, rather than retaining a transliteration of the original language words, as is done in respect to a person's name, (like "JeHoVaH" is the English variant of the Hebrew "YHWH") chose to translate the exact meanings into the Greek expression "hagios pneuma". As you can see, the two words are quite different from the Hebrew words, just as they are from the English words "holy spirit". Thus, it is not a name, but a description, as one might say "black chair" or "soft pillow", just as "God" is not a name, as there are many "gods" and many "spirits". They have different words in different languages to describe the same objects and their descriptive adjectives.
The Scriptures say, "A name is to be chosen rather than abundant riches" and "A name is better than good oil." (Pr 2:21 [pa|in]; Ecc 7:1 [pa|in]) Now, of course, those Scriptures refer to one's reputation, (2Sa 8:13 [pa|in]; Jer 32:20 [pa|in]) but they still require that someone have a specific name to begin with in order to attach the reputation to it. A "grand table" has a reputation as a large dining table, and if you are referring to a "grand table" that belongs to a specific person, then it has the reputation of being a specific table belonging to a specific person, but it is still just a table.
However, it is true that Mt 28:19 [pa|in] refers to holy spirit as being part of a "name". But that text is not only not likely in the original document, (As explained in DOES MATTHEW 28:19 PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD? in Part 10,) but it refers to the 3 in an abstract sense as with "the name of the Law", which is not actually a name, nor is it speaking of a reputation, but of a principle.
It is never called "God the holy spirit", a phrase coined by Catholics, but instead is called "the spirit of God", just as it is also called, "the finger of God". (Ex 8:16-19; Luke 11:20) Is God's "finger" an independent personage? Are all his fingers? Are his feet also independent personages?
In the original Hebrew, holy spirit is represented by the female word form "ruach". And a Hebrew rule of grammar is that the verb must always agree with its subject, so that if tbe subject is female in word form, then the verb describing the object's actions must also be female. Thus any time holy spirit is said to act, its verb is always female because the word is female.
But the problem with assigning a specific gender to holy spirit is that all spirits are "ruach" (female) in Hebrew and "pneuma" (neuter) in Greek. So obviously, it has nothing to do with the biological gender of the thing described, but rather with its social identity. Since Hebrew has only male or female identifiers, one must choose either male or female even when describing something that has no gender, such as a cooking pot. (Male; Jg 6:19 [pa|in])
However, the Greek gender of holy spirit being neuter has much greater significance. It suggests an object with neither male nor female qualities, and can indicate an object without personality, though it can refer to a male or female person if the gender is uknown, withheld or treated objectively, and can indicate someone of little consequence. Though certainly the Scriptures bring out that the holy spirit is of great consequence. (2Pe 1:21 [pa|in]) Thus the question of whether it is referencing its non-personhood, or if a personage with an unknown or mixed gender identity remains in the use of neuter.
In Koine Greek, objects can be of any gender. A "sword" ("machaira") is feminine, but the word for "shield" ("thureos") is masculine. This in no way declares the object to be a personage of that gender. In fact, in Koine Greek the male gender is the default gender when the gender is unknown or both genders are included. However, when a personage(s) is identified as female, it is always in fact female. For example, a male plural word could be used to describe both men and women, but a female plural word will only describe women. Thus, at Joh 14:26 [pa|in], 16:7-8 [pa|in] and 13-14 [pa|in], the male pronoun appears to apply, not to "hagios pneuma", but to "paraklete", which is in the masculine form.
In fact, because the object described is not always the same gender as the words used to reference it, there is a special word coined for when the gender of the object matches the word referring to it, called "cisgender". I point this out to highlight that gender in Biblical texts is more complex than some try to make it out to be. My ultimate point is that word gender in no way establishes that holy spirit is or is not a personage, unless it refers to an object with a female aspect in Koine Greek.
Also, at times in Hebrew, when "the spirit of Jehovah" speaks, a masculine word form is used, not because the spirit is speaking, but because Jehovah is speaking. Thus, when the paraklete gives certain ones the words to speak, given that holy spirit is neuter, the male pronoun used there is likely because another personage, male or unknown, is giving them the words to speak, not of the holy spirit's originality. Thus, it is likely Jehovah, who is always associated with masculine pronouns, or an angel, or Jesus who is speaking through the individual by the power of the holy spirit, though not as a specific rule, but as an observation considering that the masculine gender is never applied to it when called "hagios pneuma".
You decide: Does use of a masculine pronoun mean that holy spirit is a personage? Consider: Holy spirit is given female pronouns in Hebrew and non-living things can receive masculine pronouns in Greek.
Consider that blood speaks, witnesses and agrees, (Ge 4:10 [pa|in]; Heb 11:4 [pa|in]; 1Jo 5:7, 8 [pa|in]) a person can be "present" in spirit by one keeping the other in mind, (1Co 5:3 [pa|in]) and a message passed from another person can also contain the word "I" because Jehovah God is the one sending the message just as when one king passes a message to another. (2Ki 19:18 [pa|in], 25 [pa|in])
We even receive the same kind of comfort, or help, through God's word. (Ro 15:4 [pa|in]) In fact, Paul said that God's word, the Bible, is "alive", "exerts power" and is "able to discern". But did he mean that literally? Or was he simply highlighting that we are able to do these things because of his word? Moses, at De 30:14 [pa|in] explained it this way: "For the word is very near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart, so that you may do it."
Holy spirit is also given a totem as a dove. In fact, just as holy spirit is represented by a dove at Mt 3:16 [pa|in], (Also Mark 1:10 [pa|in]; Luke 3:22 [pa|in]; John 1:32 [pa|in]) "expressions" are given representations as frogs at Re 16:13 [pa|in]. Holy spirit is also directly associated with other abstract concepts and non-living things as well when it is grouped with power (Luke 1:35 [pa|in]), truth (John 4:24 [pa|in]), purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, love, truthful speech, power [again] (2 Corinthians 6:4-7 [pa|in]), speech [again], power [again], strong conviction (1 Thessalonians 1:5 [pa|in]), water and fire (Matthew 3:11 [pa|in]), water [again] and blood (1 John 5:7, 8 [pa|in]).
You decide: Does personifying the holy spirit mean that holy spirit is a personage? Consider: Non-living things are personified with precisely the same traits throughout the Bible and even the Bible itself is given such traits.
Return to the beginning of the Salvation vs. the Trinity/Binity series
Go back to: Part 13: What Definitively Proves That Jesus is Not God
Go to: Part 14 (2): Is There Proof That Holy spirit Is a Personage? (Specific Scriptures)
Is It Blasphemy Against the Spirit to Be Wrong About it?
Some claim that it is blasphemy against the holy spirit to claim that it is not its own personage if it is or that it is its own personage when it is not. However, instead of making assumptions about that issue based on personalfeelings, let us consider what Jesus himself said about blasphemy against the holy spirit.Look at where Jesus mentioned this unforgivable sin in the Bible. He said, "For this reason I say to you, every sort of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven. For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in this system of things nor in that to come." (Mt 12:31, 32 [pa|in]; Mr 3:28, 29 [pa|in]; See part 14 (2) to consider DOES MATTHEW 12:31, 32 AND MARK 3:28, 29 PROVE THAT HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSONAGE?)
Why did Jesus say that? Because at Mt 12:24 [pa|in] the Pharisees said, "This fellow does not expel the demons except by means of Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons." This is highlighted at Mr 3:30 [pa|in], where Mark clarified, "He said this because they were saying: 'He has an unclean spirit.'" Were they making a claim about what holy spirit is? No.
But it does not stop there. Jesus explained his meaning at Mt 12:35 [pa|in] when he said, "The good man out of his good treasure sends out good things, whereas the wicked man out of his wicked treasure sends out wicked things." Thus, it is what is in the heart of the person that determines what they say and their guilt. Thus blasphemy against the spirit is associated with 1) claiming it comes from demons, 2) denying that God's holy spirit was operating through Jesus Christ and 3) what is in the speaker's heart.
But is it the Christ they are blaspheming when they do that? No. For Jesus said, "whoever says a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him." (Mt 12:32 [pa|in]) Thus, it is because of misattributing the power of the holy spirit (God's power to act) that was working through Jesus to the work of demons that they were in danger of becoming blasphemers against the holy spirit. Thus, they would be denying and vilifying the very power of God.
However, was Jesus condemning the Pharisees then and there? No. He was issuing a warning to them. Thus, even though they had technically blasphemed, there was something missing: their awareness that they are blaspheming, because they would be doing so with the understanding that they are blaspheming God's holy spirit. Therefore, no one can unwittingly blaspheme the holy spirit, or blaspheme it without actual knowledge of what it is. Thus, simply being wrong about one's understanding of the holy spirit does not make them a blasphemer against the spirit. It simply makes them misguided. There must be both knowledge that what one is saying is false and have the intent to mislead. So, if someone tries to attribute bad things to Jehovah's holy spirit, doing so with accurate knowledge about the spirit, that what they say about it is untrue with the intent to lie against the spirit, then they are blaspheming the holy spirit.
So relax. If you have had the wrong idea about God's holy spirit, it is okay. Ignorance is indeed an excuse. If your belief is genuine, even if wrong, you can rest assured that you will not be condemned for it. Correcting your understanding is acceptable and necessary.
"Holy Spirit" is Not a Personal Name
The first and foremost issue in attempting to establish the holy spirit as a separate personage in a Trinity or Binity is that "holy spirit" is not actually a name the way "Jehovah" and "Jesus" are names.The words "holy spirit" are English translations of the Hebrew words "ruach qodesh". However, the Christian Bible writers, rather than retaining a transliteration of the original language words, as is done in respect to a person's name, (like "JeHoVaH" is the English variant of the Hebrew "YHWH") chose to translate the exact meanings into the Greek expression "hagios pneuma". As you can see, the two words are quite different from the Hebrew words, just as they are from the English words "holy spirit". Thus, it is not a name, but a description, as one might say "black chair" or "soft pillow", just as "God" is not a name, as there are many "gods" and many "spirits". They have different words in different languages to describe the same objects and their descriptive adjectives.
The Scriptures say, "A name is to be chosen rather than abundant riches" and "A name is better than good oil." (Pr 2:21 [pa|in]; Ecc 7:1 [pa|in]) Now, of course, those Scriptures refer to one's reputation, (2Sa 8:13 [pa|in]; Jer 32:20 [pa|in]) but they still require that someone have a specific name to begin with in order to attach the reputation to it. A "grand table" has a reputation as a large dining table, and if you are referring to a "grand table" that belongs to a specific person, then it has the reputation of being a specific table belonging to a specific person, but it is still just a table.
However, it is true that Mt 28:19 [pa|in] refers to holy spirit as being part of a "name". But that text is not only not likely in the original document, (As explained in DOES MATTHEW 28:19 PROVE A UNITY OF MULTIPLE PARTS OF GOD? in Part 10,) but it refers to the 3 in an abstract sense as with "the name of the Law", which is not actually a name, nor is it speaking of a reputation, but of a principle.
It is never called "God the holy spirit", a phrase coined by Catholics, but instead is called "the spirit of God", just as it is also called, "the finger of God". (Ex 8:16-19; Luke 11:20) Is God's "finger" an independent personage? Are all his fingers? Are his feet also independent personages?
General Questions
DO MASCULINE PRONOUNS PROVE THAT HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSONAGE?
Trinitarians/Binitarians try to claim that there is significance in the use of masculine pronouns in regard to holy spirit. (Such as at Joh 14:26 [pa|in] and 15:26 [pa|in]) However, they ignore the fact that masculine and feminine in both Greek and Hebrew did not carry the same meaning in those languages as they do in English. In fact, the holy spirit in the Bible has been associated with all three genders in Greek, and in Hebrew, words are either male or female or both. (Which applies to plural words.)In the original Hebrew, holy spirit is represented by the female word form "ruach". And a Hebrew rule of grammar is that the verb must always agree with its subject, so that if tbe subject is female in word form, then the verb describing the object's actions must also be female. Thus any time holy spirit is said to act, its verb is always female because the word is female.
But the problem with assigning a specific gender to holy spirit is that all spirits are "ruach" (female) in Hebrew and "pneuma" (neuter) in Greek. So obviously, it has nothing to do with the biological gender of the thing described, but rather with its social identity. Since Hebrew has only male or female identifiers, one must choose either male or female even when describing something that has no gender, such as a cooking pot. (Male; Jg 6:19 [pa|in])
However, the Greek gender of holy spirit being neuter has much greater significance. It suggests an object with neither male nor female qualities, and can indicate an object without personality, though it can refer to a male or female person if the gender is uknown, withheld or treated objectively, and can indicate someone of little consequence. Though certainly the Scriptures bring out that the holy spirit is of great consequence. (2Pe 1:21 [pa|in]) Thus the question of whether it is referencing its non-personhood, or if a personage with an unknown or mixed gender identity remains in the use of neuter.
In Koine Greek, objects can be of any gender. A "sword" ("machaira") is feminine, but the word for "shield" ("thureos") is masculine. This in no way declares the object to be a personage of that gender. In fact, in Koine Greek the male gender is the default gender when the gender is unknown or both genders are included. However, when a personage(s) is identified as female, it is always in fact female. For example, a male plural word could be used to describe both men and women, but a female plural word will only describe women. Thus, at Joh 14:26 [pa|in], 16:7-8 [pa|in] and 13-14 [pa|in], the male pronoun appears to apply, not to "hagios pneuma", but to "paraklete", which is in the masculine form.
In fact, because the object described is not always the same gender as the words used to reference it, there is a special word coined for when the gender of the object matches the word referring to it, called "cisgender". I point this out to highlight that gender in Biblical texts is more complex than some try to make it out to be. My ultimate point is that word gender in no way establishes that holy spirit is or is not a personage, unless it refers to an object with a female aspect in Koine Greek.
Also, at times in Hebrew, when "the spirit of Jehovah" speaks, a masculine word form is used, not because the spirit is speaking, but because Jehovah is speaking. Thus, when the paraklete gives certain ones the words to speak, given that holy spirit is neuter, the male pronoun used there is likely because another personage, male or unknown, is giving them the words to speak, not of the holy spirit's originality. Thus, it is likely Jehovah, who is always associated with masculine pronouns, or an angel, or Jesus who is speaking through the individual by the power of the holy spirit, though not as a specific rule, but as an observation considering that the masculine gender is never applied to it when called "hagios pneuma".
You decide: Does use of a masculine pronoun mean that holy spirit is a personage? Consider: Holy spirit is given female pronouns in Hebrew and non-living things can receive masculine pronouns in Greek.
DOES PERSONIFYING THE HOLY SPIRIT PROVE THAT IT IS A PERSONAGE?
It is true that according to the Scriptures, holy spirit "speaks" (Ac 8:29 [pa|in]; 10:19 [pa|in]; 13:2 [pa|in]; 21:11 [pa|in]; Re 2:7 [pa|in], 11 [pa|in], 17 [pa|in], 29 [pa|in]; 3:6 [pa|in], 13 [pa|in], 22 [pa|in]), is a "helper", "counselor" or "comforter", (Joh 14:16, 17 [pa|in]) "teaches" (Lu 12:12 [pa|in]; Joh 14:26 [pa|in]; 1Jo 2:26, 27 [pa|in]), and says "I" (Ac 10:20 [pa|in]). But does this prove that the holy spirit is a separate personage from the Father?Consider that blood speaks, witnesses and agrees, (Ge 4:10 [pa|in]; Heb 11:4 [pa|in]; 1Jo 5:7, 8 [pa|in]) a person can be "present" in spirit by one keeping the other in mind, (1Co 5:3 [pa|in]) and a message passed from another person can also contain the word "I" because Jehovah God is the one sending the message just as when one king passes a message to another. (2Ki 19:18 [pa|in], 25 [pa|in])
We even receive the same kind of comfort, or help, through God's word. (Ro 15:4 [pa|in]) In fact, Paul said that God's word, the Bible, is "alive", "exerts power" and is "able to discern". But did he mean that literally? Or was he simply highlighting that we are able to do these things because of his word? Moses, at De 30:14 [pa|in] explained it this way: "For the word is very near you, in your own mouth and in your own heart, so that you may do it."
Holy spirit is also given a totem as a dove. In fact, just as holy spirit is represented by a dove at Mt 3:16 [pa|in], (Also Mark 1:10 [pa|in]; Luke 3:22 [pa|in]; John 1:32 [pa|in]) "expressions" are given representations as frogs at Re 16:13 [pa|in]. Holy spirit is also directly associated with other abstract concepts and non-living things as well when it is grouped with power (Luke 1:35 [pa|in]), truth (John 4:24 [pa|in]), purity, knowledge, patience, kindness, love, truthful speech, power [again] (2 Corinthians 6:4-7 [pa|in]), speech [again], power [again], strong conviction (1 Thessalonians 1:5 [pa|in]), water and fire (Matthew 3:11 [pa|in]), water [again] and blood (1 John 5:7, 8 [pa|in]).
You decide: Does personifying the holy spirit mean that holy spirit is a personage? Consider: Non-living things are personified with precisely the same traits throughout the Bible and even the Bible itself is given such traits.
Return to the beginning of the Salvation vs. the Trinity/Binity series
Go back to: Part 13: What Definitively Proves That Jesus is Not God
Go to: Part 14 (2): Is There Proof That Holy spirit Is a Personage? (Specific Scriptures)
Comments