Holy Spirit (Part 1)
April 19th, 2010 by Mark C.
There has been much misunderstanding about the holy spirit. The King James and some other versions of the Bible most often use the phrase “Holy Ghost” but the word “ghost” carries different connotations today, and most Christians generally prefer “Holy Spirit.” Most of mainstream Christendom believes that the holy spirit is a person, specifically the third person of the Trinity. I deal with the Trinity in relation to Who is Messiah in a Closer Look article. Historically the belief in the holy spirit as the third person was even later that the belief that Jesus was God. The deity of Christ became official doctrine in 325, while the holy spirit was not established as the third person of the Trinity until 381.
Most Christians think of the holy spirit as a person, partly because it is used with personal pronouns, such as “He,” “Him” and “Who” in most English Bibles. The words “he” and “him” are used because the Greek pronouns are masculine in gender. Greek, like many other languages, assigns gender to many inanimate objects, so the use of a masculine pronoun does not automatically make the noun a person. Since we don’t assign gender to inanimate objects in English, the masculine pronouns would be translated as “it” unless it was assumed that a person is referred to. Even in the King James Version, Romans 8:16 refers to “the spirit itself.” And the word translated “who” can also be translated “which,” as it is in a number of verses referring to “the spirit.”
Grammar aside, the Bible nowhere presents the holy spirit as a person. For one thing, it is never given a proper name. God’s proper name is given as Yahweh, and His Son’s name is Jesus. But the holy spirit is simply called the holy spirit. The epistles frequently include greetings from the Father and the Son. However, never do they give greetings “from the Holy Spirit.” Why would this be so if the holy spirit were a co-equal, co-eternal person?
Jesus instructed his disciples to pray to the Father, and to do it in his name. He told them to ask God to send His holy spirit. Never are we told to pray to the holy spirit, and “ask him to come into our hearts” as many do today. The spirit is poured forth by Jesus (Acts 2:33), and we are baptized in it (Acts 1:5). One cannot pour forth a person, or be baptized in a person. The spirit is described as the spirit of God or the spirit of Christ. Furthermore, Matthew 11:27 says that no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son. If the Holy Spirit were a third co-equal, co-eternal person, he would know the Father and the Son the same way they know each other. That would make this statement false. Matthew 24:36 says that no man knows the hour of Christ’s return, not even the Son, but only the Father. Paul wrote, “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ…” (II Timothy 4:1). John wrote in his first epistle that a person is antichrist if he denies the Father and the Son (I John 2:22-23). In his second epistle he wrote, “He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son” (II John 9). If the holy spirit is a third co-equal person, why is there no mention of him in verses like these?
The words “holy spirit” are generally capitalized in most writing, since they are understood to mean a person. The ministry with which I was involved believed that the holy spirit was not the third person of the Trinity, but they had an equally erroneous definition. They taught that The Holy Spirit (with capital letters and the definite article) is simply another name for God, while holy spirit (with lower case letters and no “the”) was God’s gift that He gave on Pentecost. Like the Trinitarian definition, this view of the holy spirit is read into Scriptures rather than being derived from them. Capitalizing “holy” and “spirit” or “ghost” in the English is a relatively recent device, which was not used in the earliest English translations. There was no capitalization in the Greek or Hebrew texts, so basing a difference in meaning on whether it is capitalized or not is forcing an interpretation on the Scriptures which has no foundation.
In actuality it doesn’t make much difference whether the phrase is capitalized, and even other Biblical Unitarians (those who believe God is one person and not a trinity) vary as to whether they capitalize it or not. Personally, I used to most often choose not to capitalize “holy spirit” to emphasize that it is not a person. But more recently I’ve leaned toward capitalizing phrases like “His Holy Spirit” the same way I would capitalize “His Word.” But this is a matter of choice, not of doctrine.
In addition, the article “the” is used sometimes and not others, and does not define a distinction as I was taught. One can introduce the subject as “holy spirit” and then refer back to it as the holy spirit. In grammar this is called anaphoric use of the article. In the same way I could say an angel appears, and then refer to him as the angel. There are a number of verses where the definite article is used, but clearly referring to the gift and not to God, while Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:35 state that Jesus Christ was conceived by “holy spirit” (no article in the Greek). The idea that “The Holy Spirit” means God and “holy spirit” means His gift has no Biblical foundation.
There are some other cases where the article appears in English but not in Greek, such as Matthew 3:11, as well as all the other verses in which John’s baptism is contrasted with baptism “with [the] Holy Ghost.” John the baptist being “filled with [the] Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb” is another example, as well as several references to being filled with [the] holy spirit in Acts. In these cases it is true that the Greek reads “filled with holy spirit” (no article) and the word “the” is added in English. However there are a number of instances where the article does appear in the Greek, but it is plainly referring to the gift of holy spirit, not to God Himself. For example, when Jesus was baptized, it says that “the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him” (Luke 3:22). The Greek uses definite articles before both words, i.e., “the holy the spirit.” This form was supposed to indicate God the Giver according to my former belief system, but it is clearly not God Himself Who descended in bodily shape like a dove. Likewise, John 14:26 specifically refers to God’s gift, but uses the double article: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy the Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” Use of the definite article when it is referring to God’s gift can also be seen in Acts 10:44, 47; 11:15; 15:8; 19:6 as well as Ephesians 1:13 (literally, “sealed with the holy the spirit of promise”) and I Thessalonians 4:8 (literally, “…God, who hath also given unto us his the holy the Spirit.” Notice the double use of “the” along with the pronoun “his”).
John 7:39 uses both “the spirit” and “holy ghost” (no article) referring to the same thing. “But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for … Holy Ghost [KJV has "the Holy Ghost," but there is no article in the Greek] was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.” And you can see the same gift referred to, both with and without the article, in Acts 8:17-19, “Then laid they their hands on them, and they received … Holy Ghost [no "the"]. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy the Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive … Holy Ghost” [no "the"]. So you can see that “holy spirit” and “the holy spirit” are interchangeable; there is no difference in meaning between the two phrases.
According to the doctrine I used to hold to, the gift of holy spirit was the “incorruptible seed” which gave me eternal life. It also included the God-given ability to walk in power. It was given by God, but once He gave it to me it was part of me, and I could do with it as I chose. Thus the emphasis was on “me” and “my” spirit, instead of on “God” and “His” spirit. There were said to be a number of different “usages” of the word pneuma, the Greek word for spirit. Interestingly, hardly anyone in that organization ever looked at how the Hebrew word for spirit, ruach, was used in the Old Testament. If they had, perhaps a simpler, more straightforward understanding of the Spirit of God would have been seen.
The words for “spirit” in both Greek and Hebrew do have a number of different meanings, but all relate to the basic idea of an invisible force or influence. In the Closer Look article about the State of the Dead, we looked at the difference between soul and spirit, and the Hebrew words used for each. There we saw that the breath (or spirit) of life is the unseen force that makes man a living soul. The word can also be used to refer to literal breath, as well as literal wind, or it can mean the “spirit of man” (Ecclesiastes 3:21; Zechariah 12:1) which is used interchangeably with “soul” and basically means one’s self. For example, When Job says “I will speak in the anguish of my spirit; I will complain in the bitterness of my soul” (Job 7:11), they are both ways of referring to the anguish in the inner depths of his being. It is also parallel to the word “heart.” For example, Psalm 77:6 – “I call to remembrance my song in the night: I commune with mine own heart: and my spirit made diligent search.” Also Psalm 143:4, “Therefore is my spirit overwhelmed within me; my heart within me is desolate.” (See also Exodus 35:21; Deuteronomy 2:30; Psalm 34:18; 51:10,17 and others).
Just as the spirit of man refers to the man’s inner self, or his heart, in a similar manner God’s inner self or heart is called the spirit of God, or the spirit of the Lord. For example, in Genesis 6:3 God says, “My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh.” Isaiah 63:10 refers to rebellion “grieving God’s spirit.” To say “my spirit shall not always strive” is equivalent to saying “I will not always strive.” To say rebellion grieves God’s spirit is another way of saying that it grieves God. The spirit of God, being an extension of God’s heart and mind, has the same qualities of God. But this does not make it a separate person. Paul’s explanation in I Corinthians 2 clarifies this, by comparing the spirit of God with the spirit of man.
I Corinthians 2:
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so no man knoweth the things of God, but the Spirit of God.
So the spirit of God is not a separate person from God, any more than my spirit is a separate person from me.
God’s spirit also refers to His presence. Psalm 51:10 (referenced above) refers to man’s spirit, and in the next verse, David linked God’s spirit with His presence: “Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me” (Psalm 51:11). Psalm 139:7 also connects God’s spirit with his presence. “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” The very first occurance of spirit, in fact, illustrates that God was present in His creation. Genesis 1:2 reads, “…the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
The spirit of God has been called an “impersonal force” by some, mainly as a response to the Trinitarian belief that it is a person. However, this may not be the best word to use. It is more than an abstract power, since it is the operational presence and power of God. It is His heart and personality as communicated to His creation. Alan Richardson, in his Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1958, p. 120), desribes the holy spirit like this:
To ask whether in the New Testament the spirit is a person in the modern sense of the word would be like asking whether the spirit of Elijah is a person. The Spirit of God is of course personal; it is God’s dunamis [power] in action. But the Holy Spirit is not a person, existing independently of God; it is a way of speaking about God’s personally acting in history, or of the Risen Christ’s personally acting in the life and witness of the Church. The New Testament (and indeed patristic thought generally) nowhere represents the Spirit, any more than the wisdom of God, as having independent personality.
While the vast majority of references to the holy spirit can be seen to fit this definition, there are some verses which speak of the holy spirit in terms which could seem to be referring to a person. Jesus refers to speaking against the holy spirit in Matthew 12:31-32. Ephesians 4:30 speaks of grieving the holy spirit, and the spirit is said to speak in Revelation 2:17; 14:13; and 22:17. Throughout Acts, the spirit speaks, moves, and guides the believers as well. It is verses like these that Trinitarians use to prove that the holy spirit is a person. They are also why Bullinger, Wierwille and others thought that one “usage” of the term “holy spirit” must be a name or title for God Himself. But the holy spirit, being the power and presence of God, is an extention of Himself. So all of His characteristics, all of His actions, all of His words and will, are attributed to His spirit. Thus, to speak against the holy spirit is to speak against God, especially with reference to His working in the peoples’ presence (which is the context of the Lord’s warning about blaspheming against the holy spirit). When God speaks through His holy spirit, it is said that the spirit speaks. In the same way you could say that a person’s voice speaks words, and it is understood that you mean that it is the person who is speaking. But nowhere does the Bible speak of “God the Holy Spirit” whether in the Trinitarian sense or in the sense that it is a name or title for God.
To Be Continued…
Great article! I had never noticed before how Acts 2:33 specifies that the holy spirit poured forth from Jesus. “Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the holy spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.” (ESV)
I once read that the early Eastern Church would not accept the doctrine that the holy spirit came from both Jesus and God and that they argued about it for several hundred years almost causing the Western and Eastern Church to split away from one another.
I had always believed that the holy spirit came from both Jesus and God but did not realize that it was so plainly explained in Acts like this. BTW I’m still getting “Content encoding error” whenever I try to click on the links to any of your Closer Look articles.
Thank you Mark
There were quite a few points in you article that I want to go back and read again. My mind is still rather fuzzy after two days in hospital.
fiona
Mark,
I agree with Thomas, great article. I particularly enjoyed your scripture references. It has stirred up my thoughts on the matter. Thank you.
I am looking forward to the rest of it to be continued…
Annie
Thomas,
Apparently the links in the article on my website (which I copied and pasted here) didn’t have “www” in them, which would only be a problem in certain browsers. I’ve added it to the above links; see if they work for you now.
Mark C.
Your article “Difference between soul and spirit” worked where it wasn’t working before but the other article “Who is Messiah” is still not working (message encoding error again).
It seems to me that the soul of Jesus is a life giving spirit, that the
life that Jesus gives is of God and also included some of that which he left behind (back in heaven) but later received of at his baptism.
It seems to me that he gave up a lot to come into this world, but God gave it all back to him.
The soul of Jesus is eternal. Those that are of God by him have received of him and his life which he gave to us. Thereby we can become partakers of the divine nature and find an entrance into the glorious kingdom.
The spirit of Christ is the life of God that God has given to the world, to as many as believe on him by Jesus.
1. The Holy Spirit is God for He is omniscient (1 Corinthians 2:10).
a. Danker: Of the Spirit panta fathoms everything 1 Cor 2:10 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, eraunaw, page 389).
b. TDNT: In the NT it is used of this figurative depth only in relation to God or the world. Thus in R. 11:32 God’s depth of riches, wisdom and knowledge is distinguished first by His unsearchability to human judgment and then by His character as the God who meets us in hidden ways and judgments. Similarly in 1 C. 2:10 the depth of the activity of God is concealed from the world in principle; it is accessible only to the pneuma tou theou (1:517, bathos – Schlier).
c. TDNT: Two further references occur in Ac. 5:9 and 15:10, both on the lips of Peter. In the former he is speaking to Sapphira, who with her husband has tempted the Spirit of the Lord by reporting falsely on the proceeds of the sale. What is meant is that the couple, by their conduct, have challenged the Spirit of the Lord, who searches all things (1 C. 2:10), whether he would observe the deceptions. In 15:10 Peter warns the assembly against imposing the Law on Gentile Christians. As he sees it, to do this would be to challenge God, who by the revelation in the house of Cornelius, which was known in Jerusalem, had shown the freedom of Gentile Christians from the Law to be in accordance with His will (6:32, peira – 2. Man Tempts God – Seesemann).
2. The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 21:11)
a. NIDNTT: In Acts 21:11 Agabus (like the prophets of the OT; cf. Isa. 20:2; Jer. 13:1 ff.) carried out a symbolic action with Paul’s girdle (a long cloth worn about the waist), to indicate the coming arrest of Paul. “The accompanying word of interpretation ‘Thus says the Holy Spirit!’ corresponds to the OT ‘Thus says Yahweh!’” (E. Haenchen, The Acrts of the Apostles, 1971, 602) (3:121, Ready – F. Selter).
b. John Gill: and said, thus saith the Holy Ghost;
who was in Agabus, and spoke by him, and foretold some things to come to pass; and which did come to pass, and is a proof of the foreknowledge, and so of the deity of the blessed Spirit:
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=021&verse=011
Marc
So we finally agree on something, “The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 21:11)”. And not some 3rd Person of a triune God.
He is both.
MT
He is both what? God and a 3rd Person of the Trinity?
Yes
MT
Can you tell me which scripture defines/describes God is Father, Son & Holy Spirit?
And where is the throne of the Holy Spirit in Revelation?
Don’t have to.
I already showed that the Holy Spirit is God.
I don’t know if a person can be quenced, (I Thess 5:19) yet the holy Spirit is referred to by Jesus as “he”. (John 14:16)
I’ve been finding myself writing of the holy Spirit, by capitalizing the word Spirit, though typing the word “holy” with a small letter “h”.
I don’t think of Satan as a person. I think of him as a Devil, an evil spirit, but not as a person.
I suppose someone might argue that we know he is a person because he has feelings like people do.
People express a lot of feelings and characteristics by evil spirits, at times do they not?
(Jealousy, envy, hate, anger, pride, selfishness, etc.)
I think of the the Devil as an evil spiritual being.
I know that the Spirit of God is, but I tend to think of him more as a Spirit, a holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, than as a being.
I understand that among those things that men call God, there are three that have been before all things and they are the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit. I know that those three agree.
I know they are in agreement. I do not believe that they are in any disagreement. The Father is holy. Jesus is holy. The Spirit of God is holy.
I don’t consider myself a Trinitarian necessarily. I consider myself a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ.
I think of the holy Spirit as the Spirit that has all of the qualities of God, the divine being. Perhaps that’s why I refer to him as “he” at times.
I suppose if people can be salt, the holy Spirit can be a person.
I suppose he can even be God. That’s not robbery is it?
Has the holy Spirit ever fallen short? Has the holy Spirit ever sinned?
No.
The fruit of the Spirit of God is good, as good as God is. What a wonderful gift God has given us by Jesus Christ.
If I’m going to capitalize the word Spirit, I should also capitalize Divine Being, shouldn’t I?
Here’s something of interest from the 1599 Geneva.
John 1:1-5
In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.
This same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.
In it was life, and that life was the light of men.
I find it interesting that some people speak of the Spirit of God as “it” while others speak of the Spirit of God as “he”, and that here in John 1, we have the Word being referred to as “it”.
I believe the “Same” here is referring to Jesus, the Word of God.
Q. Is it saying that the Word (that Word) was the Spirit of God and that the same Word was Jesus?
Ray,
the word (Logos in Greek, Davar in Hebrew, Memra in Aramaic) is God’s expression/word. The ‘word’ in John 1 has nothing to do with a entity or other being.
The word ‘became’ flesh. As in, the word was given to Messiah to reconcile the expression/message of God unto the World. Again, having nothing to do with another god, or person of a Trinity.
Just good ol’ God and Messiah as Paul laid out for us in 1 Tim 2:5.
MT
If you believe God is “Father, Son & Holy Spirit” you have to have clear evidence for that. And nowhere in the book of Revelation do we see this triune God.
Apart from the fact that no one is praying or worshipping the HS as some 3rd Person of this Trinity.
You are avoiding the passages that I first cited. This is a game that those who deny the Trinity so often do.
MT
Ones that teach where the HS is prayed or worshipped to? Where/when?
Still waiting to see the throne of the HS as well.
The “soul” or the “spirit” of man is often personified like the spirit of God is. “Why art thou cast down, O my soul?” (Ps. 42:5). “I will say to my soul, ‘Soul, thou hast much goods laid up…’” (Luke 12:19). “The spirit indeed is willing…” (Matt. 26:41). “The spirit of Titus was refreshed…” (2 Cor. 7:13). Yet no one would argue that the “spirit of man” is a separate person from the man himself. The figure of speech Personification is universally and readily recognized, and in the case of “the Comforter” ought to be recognized as well.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=57
Xavier,
Thank you for the great link. It was the best explanation of the holy spirit that I have ever read. I especially liked point #17;
17. “If the spirit is a sentient (able to sense, be self-aware), separate and distinct being with personality, then Jesus either did not know this or was very inconsistent in giving “Him” proper due. In Matthew 11:27, Jesus asserts that “no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son….” If “the Holy Spirit” is a person distinct from the Father, and is also omniscient and almighty “God,” then would He not also have to know the Father and the Son? Jesus’ statement, then, would not have been true, and in fact would be a lie.”
I would like to hear any Trinitarian try to discredit the logic in this point and many of the other points mentioned in the link…
Xavier,
Still dodging the passages I cited.
MT
Whatever you say.
Still avoiding the passages cited. Those who advocate heresy have no other choice.
No wonder a formal one on one debate would never happen.
Your heresy would be exposed.
Later
Marc,
I don’t think your cause is helped by throwing the H bomb around.
Titus 3:9-11
Peace and love to you
Now as I look at the 1599 Geneva rendering of John 1:1-5, it looks to me like the Spirit of God is that Word, and that Jesus is the light that was in that Word.
So Jesus was in the Word before the world was made. That makes you and I real newcomers. He was in the Word long before us, that’s for sure.
There seems to be so many ways to read the first few verses of John and all of them are good. The Word is so amazing.
Let’s remember that the holy Spirit is not a man. (Post #17,21)
Ray,
I agree that holy spirit is not a man but I think you are forgetting that the verse also clearly says; – ““no man knoweth the Son, but the Father.” – God is not a man either, even though it clearly says man here. So Y’shua must be implying that “no-one” (person or man) knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth “no-one” (person or man) the Father, save the Son.
So why doesn’t the holy spirit not know the Father or the Son???
It can only be because “it” is not a person or a man. At least that’s the way I see it, anywaze…
Ray,
Correction to my above message. It should have said;
“So why doesn’t the holy spirit know the Father or the Son???”
I really should check these messages over better before I hit “Submit Comment”…
Marc Taylor,
I know I said that I wouldn’t send you any more messages, but I just have to respond to your outrageous statement in msg. #24 (above). You said, “Still avoiding the passages cited. Those who advocate heresy have no other choice.”
How quickly you forget that I asked you at least a half dozen times to tell us how you can explain away Luke 2:52;
“And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.”
How can God (the second person of the Trinity) increase in stature and in favor with God???
It is of course completely “impossible”. God cannot grow in stature and in favor with God!!! Which I suppose is the reason you have repeatedly refused to tell us how you can explain away this passage. Yet you have the nerve to say that we are avoiding passages that you have cited. I really don’t see how you can say that with a straight face.
You have not only repeatedly ignored questions that I have asked, and passages that I have cited. You have also ignored question that many other people have asked. Which, I think, is why no-one else but Xavier is even interested in having a conversation with you. You “DEMAND” that every one of your points be addressed to your satisfaction, but you don’t show any respect whatsoever towards us, or our points, or our questions.
Like King David said in Psalm 26:4;
“I do not sit with men of falsehood, nor do I consort with hypocrites.”
And like our Lord and Savior said in Matthew 15:7-9;
“You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: (8) ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; (9) in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men’.”
I actually have nothing against Trinitarians. All of my closest friends are Trinitarians. But, I do have a problem with people that like to loudly sound their trumpet, announcing how they are such great Christians, when in reality their behavior is the exact opposite of what Christian behavior should be. We Christians are not only suppose to love each other, but we are also suppose to “love our enemies”.
And like Peter said in 1st. Peter 3:15;
“but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”
Your behavior on this site discredits all the other Trinitarians who really do try to behave as Christ-like as they possibly can, even when talking to people who have different opinions than theirs. I don’t mean you any harm, nor do I wish any evil on you. I’m just hoping you can understand how outrageous your behavior has been, so that you can repent and change your ways.
I really do wish you well in all your future studies and endeavors. I might not agree with you, but I respect your right to have your own opinions and interpretations on various things.
May the peace and love of God (‘OUR’ Father) be with you and with us all…
Antioch,
See Acts 13:10.
DT,
a. NIDNTT: God’s name of Lord also becomes his name (Phil. 2:9f.; Rev. 19:16). Above and beyond this, he can bear a name which he alone knows (Rev. 19:12) (2:654, Name – H. Bietenhard).
b. Each Person of the Trinity has the ability to relegate any part of His omniscience to the other. God in His being always remains omniscient. Speaking of Christ Revelation 19:12 reads that no one knows His name “except Himself”.
Marc,
I take it you are still refusing to answer the very simple question that I have asked you more than half a dozen times now. How can you possibly explain away Luke 2:52???
How can God (the second person of the Trinity) increase in stature and in favor with God???
It’s a very simple question and I’m most curious to see how a Trinitarian can explain it away…
Thomas, I suspect that the reason Jesus said that no man knoweth the Son, but the Father… (Matt 11:27) is because, though the Father is not a man, yet the Father does know the Son. Likewise I suspect the holy Spirit of God also knows Jesus, even as Jesus knows the Spirit of God, don’t you?
DT,
I just answered it in post #32. Read again:
Each Person of the Trinity has the ability to relegate any part of His omniscience to the other. God in His being always remains omniscient. Speaking of Christ Revelation 19:12 reads that no one knows His name “except Himself”.
Ray,
I was actually just having this conversation with Robert yesterday. I’ve been trying to understand Y’shua’a teaching in Matthew 11:27. The following is my ESV translation;
“All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and ‘no one’ knows the Son except the Father, and ‘no one’ knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Notice how in this translation instead of saying, “no MAN knoweth the Son, but the Father”, it says, “NO ONE knows the Son except the Father.” This would seem to support what I was saying above in msg. #28. Robert had said that the angels especially the ones that were His messengers would certainly have known God. To which I responded by saying;
“I’m not trying to be argumentative (but I’m sure you know that). I’m just trying to make sense out of what Y’shua meant when he said, “no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son….” It seems to me that Y’shua is implying a special intimate knowledge that the Father and Son share that no-one else shares. Of course all the Angels and hosts of heaven know God, but do they share the same intimate knowledge of one another like the Father shares with his son???”
In Matthew 11:27 Y’shua is talking about the fact that God had just handed over all things to him. I think that he is talking about what he later says in Matthew 28:18, and that is; “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” God had never given “any” of his angels, or anyone else, all authority in heaven and on earth.
It logically follows that God and his Son Y’shua/Jesus must have had a special intimate relationship that God had never had with anyone else before this time. If the holy spirit was indeed the third person of the Trinity and also God but in a different person, it seems to me that he would have been mentioned here in this verse as being the third person who also shares this same special intimate relationship with God.
Since the holy spirit is not mentioned, I think, it logically follows that the holy spirit is therefore not a person like the Trinity doctrine states. The holy spirit must be an “it” a force/spirit that God uses to communicate with his creation and to ensure that His will is being done. Jesus was given the holy spirit without measure. Which is why he was able to do the great things that he was able to do.
How can you give a person to another person???
How can a person indwell in another person???
How could Y’shua/Jesus receive another person without measure???
It really only makes any sense if the holy spirit is an “it” and not a “he”…
Marc,
I take it you are saying that as God (the first person of the Trinity) relegates more of His omniscience to Y’shua (the second person of the Trinity, but also fully God) then Y’shua (who is fully 100% God and the second person of the Trinity) would then increase in stature and in favor with God (the first person of the Trinity who is also fully and 100% God).
Is that what you are trying to say???
I tend to think that between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the holy Spirit, as being the Word, that was in the beginning before all else, that there has always been a full sharing situation in that….whatever we want to call it….Godhead?….Threefold Word?
By full sharing, I mean that each one knows each of the others in a holy communion kind of way, being open, honest, authentic, and fully sharing as to whatever that might mean concerning what’s right, good, honest, pure, lovely, of a good report, etc. (holy) in the fruit of the Spirit.
When Jesus said that no one knows the Father but the Son, he certainly could have been speaking of men and angels, but not concerning the holy Spirit. He may even have been only including men.
That would seem to make the most sense to me and I think it would not be dishonest concerning the handling of the Word.
I do not think Jesus would be saying that the holy Spirit doesn’t know him, nor can I imagine that he would be saying that the Spirit of God doesn’t know God.
Could he be saying that he knows the Father better than the holy Spirit of God knows him? I don’t think I should receive that as being what he was communicating.
So I go with the full sharing, holy communion type of situation concerning the Word that was in the beginning, and by that I do include the Spirit of God as being in the Word and a part of it.
DT,
I am not sure precisley how it was done but from what Scripture declares no one knew the end of the world but that Father alone (Matthew 24:26) and only the Son knew His unique name (Revelation 19:12).
Also we are told from Scripture how the Son is indeed omnisicent (Acts 1:24; Colossians 2:3; 1 Peter 2:25; Revelation 5:6).
Ray,
You said, “I tend to think that between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the holy Spirit, as being the Word, that was in the beginning before all else…”
You are of course free to believe whatever you want, but from what I understand all the earliest manuscripts refer to the “Word” as an “it” and not a “he”. Apparently it was deliberately changed to “he” in the later translations/manuscripts. I really don’t see how Matthew 11:27 can make any sense unless the holy spirit is an “it”.
And like I said, “How can you give a person to another person???”
And, “How can a person indwell in another person???”
And, “How could Y’shua/Jesus receive another person without measure???”
And come to think of it, How could a person divide himself into tongues of fire and rest on each one of the disciples???
Acts 2:3 (ESV);
“And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.”
Like I have said in my other messages, “I’m not trying to force you to believe exactly what it is that I believe. I’m just trying to let you understand why I disagree with some of your beliefs, and why it is I believe what I believe.”
God has given us each the right to believe what we want to. You even have the right to believe that God does not exist if you want to. I’m not trying to take away your right to believe whatever it is that seems to make the most sense to you. I’m just trying to explain to you what I think seems to make the most sense to me. I don’t pretend to have all the answers.
I hope you have a great weekend and God Bless…
Marc,
You said, “I am not sure precisley how it was done…”
I have a lot of respect for people that are honest. I also readily admit that there are a lot of things that I don’t know as well. Your explanation of Luke 2:52 doesn’t really make any sense (at least to me anywaze). I just don’t see how someone who is fully 100% God could increase in favor and in stature with someone else who is also fully 100% God.
Besides that make 200% which equals 200/100 which equals 2/1 which equals 2!!!
The math behind what you are claiming just doesn’t add up to me, but like I said above, you do have the right to believe whatever it is that you think makes the most sense to you. Just like I have the right to believe what makes the most sense to me.
Grace & Peace…
Thomas, I think the answer to the question at hand is that the holy Spirit at times may be referred to as a person. It seems permissible to do so.
When some Bibles use “it” speaking of the Word that was in the beginning, maybe the translators had the Godhead in mind. (or whatever we want to call it.)
I think the holy Spirit is more of a real person than the people I’ve met in this world.
DT,
The please explain Revelation 19:12. Why is it that only the Son knows His name?
Ray,
You said, “I think the answer to the question at hand is that the holy Spirit at times may be referred to as a person.”
You of course could be right Ray. Like I said, I do not claim to have all the answers…
Marc,
You asked, “…please explain Revelation 19:12.”
The reason I do not study the book of Revelation is that I am not convinced that it was actually written by the apostle John. It appears the current Pope (Benedict) agrees with me. He recently wrote a thesis, or a book, or something, that stated that Revelation was not written by the Apostle John, but by John the less, or John the lessor, or something like that. I don’t know much about this John the less, but I have read the name before in some history books that I have read.
From what I understand of the R.C. church this will undoubtedly become the new doctrine of the church, since it is endorsed by the Pope himself. I personally have only read the book of Revelation once, and I found it totally confusing. From what I understand the guy who wrote this had spent many years living on a prison island. I’m not sure if he wrote it while he was on the island, or if he wrote it after leaving the island. But, it seems to me to be the ramblings of a man who’s sanity is on the very edge, to say the least.
Needless to say I don’t consider this book to be a revelation from God. From what I understand it was one of the most contested books during the first several centuries. Since I have only read it once, and since I don’t consider it to actually be a revelation from God, I think that I am probably not the best person to ask to explain, Why is it that only the Son knows his name?
Besides, if I remember correctly, Xavier answered this question for you a while back now. Although I don’t remember exactly what he had said. Xavier is much more knowledgeable about John’s writings than I am, since I don’t study any of his writings. BTW – Even if Xavier didn’t answer the question to your satisfaction he did at least to answer it as best as he can.
That’s all any of us can do. We are “all” students with one Teacher, our Lord and King…
Oh man……well some have denied what Christ said in Matthew 24:36. But that is simply a cop out just like you with Revelation. Xavier doesn’t help your cause – answering the best he can still doesn’t answer it.
Another reason why (in a long list of reasons) why the Unitarian position is found wanting.
Marc,
You said, “Oh man……well some have denied what Christ said in Matthew 24:36. But that is simply a cop out just like you with Revelation.”
I don’t really understand your reference to Matthew 24:36. This verse clearly demonstrates that Y’shua is not omniscient as the Trinitarians claim, and my response is certainly not a cop out. My Christian friends up here in Canada gave me the nick-name “Doubting Thomas” years before I came on to this site, precisely because of my doubts about the Trinity and my doubts as to whether certain books should have been included in our N.T. cannon.
You also said, “answering the best he can still doesn’t answer it.”
I could say the same thing about you. I asked you; “How do you explain away Luke 2:52???” and you responded with; “I am not sure precisley how it was done…”, but I won’t…
Mark Taylor,
I’ve already delt with this argument. The context is prophecy of a future event that has not yet happened. Let’s take a look at the passage once again…
10And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
11And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
13And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Firstly, vs. 10 tells sets the context for the following verses in accordance to who is God and who is the one on the Horse. The Angel says to worship God in light of the spirit of prophecy that Messiah had confirmed to us during his teachings. Clearly this defines for us that there is God and there is Messiah. Not a Trinity.
Second, v12 says, “that no man knew, but he himself” as in, he is the only MAN that knew. God is not a man, so God knows, as he is the God of Jesus (John 20:17). I believe that the verse is saying that “no man knew his name” as in, man on Earth did not know their Messiah, or refused to believe that God had sent Messiah unto them. As the next verses talk about Messiah coming down with the armies of Heaven and destroying that man that did not know him (his name).
Not in anyway is this verse saying that he is not a man, or that he is God. That would be a FAR stretch in interpretation. And we know by what Paul affirms that through one man came death, and through one man came life (resurrection) in 1 Corinthians 15. Which also is pointed out in 1 Cor 15 that the Messiah in Rev 19 will be subjected to God after he is able to put the enemy under his feet. A great parallel verse that clears up any context in Rev 19.
And lastly, is v13 telling us what his name is?… “the word of God.” So if we, being man, know what the name is, how can “no man know?” You are looking at this verse with the blinders on, and not in context with what the Bible is telling us.
And as I said before, where in the Bible can we find this rule of transfer of omniscience? Point to one verse that says that the Trinity gods can transfer omniscience within each other?
DT, I believe it was me that answered Mark a week or two ago. See my comment above I just posted that defeats his proof text of Rev 19:12. Revelation is very much against any Trinitarian position, and even more so when put into context with the rest of scripture.
Joseph,
Sorry I had thought it was Xavier, but I was pretty sure that someone had answered his question. From what I have seen every one of his questions have been answered by one person or another. I just didn’t feel qualified to answer any questions about Revelation since I know so little about it…
DT,
Right, Xavier could have answered as well and I missed it. I normally don’t like to repeat myself, but I thought it was necessary in this case as Mark T. claimed that his position on Rev 19:12 had not yet been answered, which is clearly false.
Trinitarians feel the need to run in circles and re-hash already debated topics to re insure themselves of their position. In the case of Mark Taylor, they must make up elaborate rules that define how God can be a Triune Being in light of all the context of scripture that contradicts their position. And then, in all the while, claim that God is a mystery and can’t be fully understood. Yet, Mark Taylor seems to be quite comfortable with his formula of how God can transfer omniscience. Where is the mystery of being able to comprehend God? It looks like he has him pegged. Clearly without Mark Taylor or other Trinitarians, then no one would understand God, according to themselves.
Joseph,
You are citing from a version such as the KJV. No one is emphatic – I even cited a lexicon that supports my position.
Acts 1:24; Colossians 2:3; 1 Peter 2:25; Revelation 5:6.
I have already cited these passages in post #39 that prove the omniscience of the Son – that means He is God but the Unitarians will deny all the lexicons and substitute their make believe (fairy tale) definitions.
Mark Taylor,
This isn’t about citing lexicons, it’s about clear and non contradictory interpretation of the context, in which you are in violation of. Furthermore, you differ in interpretation with fellow commentators. Let’s take Matthew Henry’s commentary for example, and let me show you how both you and him are in error and contradicting…
4. His armour; and that is a vesture dipped in blood, either his own blood, by which he purchased this mediatorial power, or the blood of his enemies, over whom he has always prevailed. 5. His name: The Word of God, a name that none fully knows but himself, only this we know, that this Word was God manifest in the flesh; but his perfections are incomprehensible by any creature.
First off, Henry disagrees with you here in that he states that the one on the horse is the only one who “fully” knows his name, not the “only one who knows his name” as you believe. And then he adds his own interpretation upon the text by saying that the name being called the “word of God” somehow supports his assumption that Jesus is God based upon his misunderstanding of John 1 – that the word was a pre-existing entity that became a person. Rather, it was God’s plan and wisdom that became flesh in Messiah Jesus as he came unto the world to recite the word of God unto us as our mediator (Acts 10:36, 1 Tim 2:5).
You both mistakenly don’t tie in the whole chapter in context. Instead you both try to separate vs. 12 and 13 from the rest of the chapter of Rev 19. I clearly pointed this out in my last response to you in comment #47.
Henry also makes the same mistake as you by not taking into account parallel verses to the very allegorical Revelation. Reading Revelation isn’t the same as reading from the Gospels, or from Paul. If he, and you, were to look at 1 Cor 15 in context to Rev 19 you would be able to see how we should define the one on the white horse…
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
And so we see that this parallel to Rev 19 shows us that after the one on the white horse, with the name “word of God” defeats the enemy, he will be subject to God the Father, the God of he who is on the white horse (John 20:17). Paul makes it clear to us in this passage that the one on the white horse is not God at all, but the Messiah that is doing God’s work. Just as scripture says over and over again.
The context here is that they needed another Apostle called into the group, so naturally since Jesus picked them in the beginning they called upon him to choose the replacement. There is nothing here that proves that everyone’s heart is referring to outside the subject matter, those that they needed to choose from. In fact, they ended up casting lots to resolve the decision anyway. It’s says nothing of a supernatural entity somehow influencing how the lots would come up, just that Mattias was picked.
You are taking this passage out of context, see… http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=129
Again, 1 Cor 15. By one man came death, one man came life and the resurrection. Not because Jesus is God, but because God has made this possible through the anointed Messiah, the one he exalted.
Don’t see what you are trying to prove with this verse, it does however go against you. Because, no man but the lamb (man, 1 tim 2:5) was able to open the seal. And the fact that the prior vs.5 also tells us that the lamb is of the lineage of David (human kind, man).
No, you have only proven that you have made up a rule (the Triune God can transfer omniscience) in order to cover up clear contradictions that prove your position to be false.
I’ll ask again, show me one verse that explains to us that the Triune God transfers omniscience between themselves?
Joseph,
Yeah I know. When Unitarians can’t defend their heresy they either:
a. Deny what the biblical words mean. That is I can supply up to 5 lexicons but they reject them all. Their fair tale definitions trump is what they won’t let go of.
b. Deny that an entire book (books?) is part of the Bible. Pathetic.
I cited a dictionary not a commentary. While you simply cited…your opinion. Learn the difference.
Acts 1:24: Lexicons say one thing while your fairy tale definition says another.
Colossians 2:3: See Acts 1:24.
1 Peter 2:25: See Acts 1:24
Revelation 5:6
Revelation 5:6
1. TDNT: But the Lamb overcame death (5:5-6) and is omnipotent (-> keras) and omniscient (5:6) (1:341, arnion – J. Jeremias).
There ya go….omnipotent and omniscient – by the way that means “God”.
Perhaps one day the Unitarians will learn.
bye
Joseph
Something you can use…
Mark Taylor,
First of all, I never denied any book, so please keep your generalizations to yourself.
Second, I deny what you believe the context means, not what a definition means.
I also found it rather amusing that you differ on Rev 19 with a fellow Trinitarian much more knowledgeable than you on the matter, Matthew Henry. I guess each Trinitarian likes to build how they see the Triune God in their own eyes.
Citing definitions does not mean you understand the context correctly, that is my contention, just as I have proven with my 1 Cor 15/Rev 19 parallel, in which you continue to ignore with irrelevant passages that are taken out of context and don’t support your position. 1 Cor 15 plainly states what and how the one on the white horse will be in accordance to position to God. He will be subjected, being put underneath God, not equal.
Xavier,
Thanks for this. Which just solidifies the point that Jesus is ultimately subjected to his God, proving that he is not God, just as Paul points out, the human representative and mediator between us and God.
Mark Taylor,
I find it amazing that you continue to jump around the clear contradictions that I and other have pointed out to you. Still no answer to how God can have a God (John 20:17)? Still no answer to how, if Jesus is God, can he increase in wisdom and stature with God? Still no answer to if Jesus is omniscient, why did he not know the hour? Plus many more passages that clearly 100% contradict anything you have said so far.