The Narrow Path Ministries

Many claim the Holy Spirit to be the impersonal force of God to accomplish what God decides to do. But the words of John 16:13 clearly show the Holy Spirit to be personal:

ὁταν δε ἐλθη ἐκεινος το πνευμα της ἀληθειας ὁδηγησει ὑμας εἰς την ἀληθειαν πασαν

Now when that one comes, the spirit of reality, he will guide you into all reality.

We cannot derive personality from “ὁδηγησει” (he will guide), for it can also be correctly translated “it will guide”.

The clincher is the word “ἐκεινος” (that one). It is in the MASCULINE gender, whereas the word “πνευμα” (spirit) is in the NEUTER gender. If John had considered the spirit to be non-personal, then he would have used the neuter form “ἐκεινο”.

I checked my book of transcripts of all existing New Testament Greek manuscripts before the year 300 A.D. and found that the text occurs in the ancient manuscript papyrus 66, and yes, the demonstrative pronoun was written as “ἐκεινος” (masculine) and not “ἐκεινο” (neuter).

The above does not prove that the Holy Spirit is a THIRD divine person (the Spirit may be the Person of the Father and/or the Son), but it definitely proves the personality of the Spirit.

It is grammatical agreement only - therefore nothing can be proved from it. Daniel Wallace, the trinitarian, wrote an article on this and admitted that this was the case. Paidion may I ask how much Greek you have?

It's not grammatical agreement at all! I'ts just the opposite --- grammatical disagreement. That's what proves the case. The pronoun is masculine and its referent is neuter. If the Holy Spirit were impersonal, a masculine pronoun would not be used to refer to it/him.

Would you please post Daniel Wallace's statement or give me a link?

How much Greek I have is irrelevant, but if you must know I took first year Greek twice, and then second year Greek. I also took first year Greek again during a summer course to brush up on my verb tenses, etc. I have studied on my own for years, and also taught a first year Greek class (I think I learned most from doing that).

Greek expert Augustus Strong, author of Systametic Theology used the same reasoning which I have presented. So if the argument is considered faulty, I'd like to be exposed to the rationale.

Paidion wrote:It's not grammatical agreement at all! I'ts just the opposite --- grammatical disagreement. That's what proves the case. The pronoun is masculine and its referent is neuter. If the Holy Spirit were impersonal, a masculine pronoun would not be used to refer to it/him.

Would you please post Daniel Wallace's statement or give me a link?

Sure -
http://www.ibr-bbr.org/IBRBulletin/BBR_ ... Spirit.htm

He would dispute that the referent is neuter:

The first two passages, John 14:26 and 15:26, can be handled to-
gether. In both of them, pneu=ma is appositional to a masculine noun,
rather than the subject of the verb. The gender of e)kei=noj thus has
nothing to do with the natural gender of pneu=ma. The antecedent of
e)kei=noj, in each case, is para/klhtoj, not pneu=ma.

How much Greek I have is irrelevant, but if you must know I took first year Greek twice, and then second year Greek. I also took first year Greek again during a summer course to brush up on my verb tenses, etc. I have studied on my own for years, and also taught a first year Greek class (I think I learned most from doing that).

You sometimes come across as dogmatic with the Greek, and therefore I think it is helpful if we know your level of expertise.

Greek expert Augustus Strong, author of Systametic Theology used the same reasoning

And a lot of theologians have used that argument. But I think it's helpful to be aware of dissenting voices, even among trinitarians.

Just for the record I actually agree with you that the HS is a personal, not impersonal, Spirit - I just doubt whether this passage in John can be used to support either view.

Greetings Dean,

I just want you to know that I was not as dogmatic as I appeared concerning John 16:13 proving that the Spirit is personal. It was my hope my "dogmatism" would spark enough interest that someone would provide me with some kind of counterexample.

The article at the link you provided takes the position that you stated in your post, namely that the masculine “ἐκεινος” has as its antecedent not the neuter "πνευμα", but the masculine "παρακλητος" (encourager) which occurs in verse 7. I think "παρακλητος" is a bit far removed from the pronoun to qualify as the antecedent, whereas "πνευμα" neighbours the pronoun. Wallace tries to demolish this argument by referencing another passage which shows that Christ is the antecedent of the pronoun "he" at a far greater distance. I don't think that argument works since the "he" pronoun doesn't occur just once, but many times throughout that distance.

Several scriptures are quoted in the article which actually seem to support my position:


1. Colossians 2:19
(RSV) and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
(WH) και οὐ κρατων την κεφαλην ἐξ οὑ παν το σωμα δια των ἀφων και συνδεσμων ἐπιχορηγουμενον και σθμβιβαζομενον αὐξησιν του θεου

την κεφαλην feminine --- οὑ masculine

In the context, κεφαλην refers to Christ, a male person, thus the masculine pronoun. One could claim that the antecedent is from verse 17. But contextually, it seems to be κεφαλην. For just as a human body is nourished by the head (when a person eats), so Christ’s body is nourished by its Head (Christ)

2. Galatians 4:19
(RSV) My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!
τεκνια μου οὑς παλιν ὠδινω μεχρις οὐ μορφωθη χριστος ἐν ὑμιν

τεκνια neuter ---- οὑς masculine

[color =blue]The pronoun is masculine since the children are people. What could the antecedent be, other than τεκνια. I searched, but was unable to find any masculine plural possibility.[/color]

3. philemon 10
(PT) I entreat you concerning my child whom I have begotten in my imprisonment, Onesimus.
(WH) παρακαλω σε περι του ἐμου τεκνου ὁν ἐγεννησα ἐν τοις δεσμοις ὀνησιμον

τεκνου neuter --- ὁν masculine

The pronoun is masculine since Paul’s “child” is Onesimus who is male. It seems almost impossible that “Onesimus” itself would be the antecedent since it comes at the end of the sentence.

However, if all else fails, Wallace has another comeback. The common people in speech, and thus the NT writers also, didn't necessarily follow the grammatical rule that a demonstrative pronoun agree with it antecedent. But even if that were the case, there was a reason that they did not follow it. I suggest that the reason was just what you see in the examples above. They made the pronoun agree with the "natural" gender of the person or persons which the antecedent represents.

Ok, ok, but are you a trinitarian yet?

I was one until I was 26 or 27, and then I learned the truth from early Christian writings.

I doubt that I will revert to late 4th century thought.

Paidion wrote:Greetings Dean,

I just want you to know that I was not as dogmatic as I appeared concerning John 16:13 proving that the Spirit is personal. It was my hope my "dogmatism" would spark enough interest that someone would provide me with some kind of counterexample.

Hi Paidion, great, I 'll try to keep that in mind next time!

The article at the link you provided takes the position that you stated in your post, namely that the masculine “ἐκεινος” has as its antecedent not the neuter "πνευμα", but the masculine "παρακλητος" (encourager) which occurs in verse 7. I think "παρακλητος" is a bit far removed from the pronoun to qualify as the antecedent, whereas "πνευμα" neighbours the pronoun. Wallace tries to demolish this argument by referencing another passage which shows that Christ is the antecedent of the pronoun "he" at a far greater distance. I don't think that argument works since the "he" pronoun doesn't occur just once, but many times throughout that distance.

I think you are right on this, but in John, the antecedent follows as soon as the clause resumes:

[MT] ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ῞Αγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν.
[DT] but the comforter [new clause] the Holy Spirit, which the Father will send in my name [end clause], that one will teach you all things, and will remind you of all things, whatever I have said to you.

Several scriptures are quoted in the article which actually seem to support my position:


1. Colossians 2:19
(RSV) and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
(WH) και οὐ κρατων την κεφαλην ἐξ οὑ παν το σωμα δια των ἀφων και συνδεσμων ἐπιχορηγουμενον και σθμβιβαζομενον αὐξησιν του θεου

I think this would support you, if it was used in John. Take this for example:

[MT] Joh 14:17 τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει αὐτὸ· ὑμεῖς γινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρ᾿ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται.

Notice ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει αὐτὸ. Now if a masculine pronoun was inserted here, then I would agree with you.

Though I believe the HS is personal, I wouldn't expect a masculine pronoun for this, anymore than I would for when our spirits are spoken of (which are also personal):

1Co 2:11 τίς γὰρ οἶδεν ἀνθρώπων τὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰ μὴ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ; οὕτω καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐδεὶς εἶδεν εἰ μὴ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ.

That's my take on it. I don't actually even disagree with your concept of the Spirit (you in fact helped to break down my resistance to the idea, on the previous board - I'm not sure if you remember, but your forthright words came at the end of a long time of searching and doubting the trinitarian view of the HS), but just on the grammar here.

Paidion wrote:I was one until I was 26 or 27, and then I learned the truth from early Christian writings.

I doubt that I will revert to late 4th century thought.

The early writers don't seem that clear to me. What did you find out from them?