Você está na página 1de 18

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT!!

By Derrick Gillespie IS THE SPIRIT A "IT" OR "HE"?


100 A.D. Ientreat you to use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from

herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy... For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christianssome of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are but the same person
-Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter 6

Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, not unto one [i.e. one divine person, as in Sabellian modalism] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three [persons] possessed of *EQUAL HONOR.
- Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 2

150 A.D. with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity... both Him [the Father], and the Son and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing *them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to everyone who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.
- Justin Martyr- First Apology, Chapter 6

150 A.D. I praise you [the Father] for all things, I bless you, I glorify you, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, with whom, to you AND the Holy Spirit be glory both now, and to all coming ages. Amen!
Polycarp of Smyrna, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Chapter 14

177 A.D. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points
-Athenagoras A Plea for the Christians, Chapter 10, [entitled] *Christians Worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

As early as 100 A.D., as seen in the above quotes, Christian writers and apologists or defenders of the faith accepted the distinct person-hood of the Spirit, and considered him (or it) to be one of three persons of three

holiest beings of heaven (to borrow the phrases used by a modern writer). This was no fourth century invention that came some three centuries after Christianity started (as some often argue, despite far from true). But, be that as it may, is this view a Biblical one? Many people believe that the Bible strongly suggests that the Spirit has a name, the same name that the Father and His Son bears (Matthew 28:19), that the Spirit is personal (Acts 13:2,3), and though always inseparably linked with, yet is distinct from the Father and Son with whom that Spirit is always associated, and hence is a distinct personality. This writer cannot but agree with this belief in basic tenet. My saying this is easy to do (some may say), but let me hereafter prove that straight from the Bible itself!! Take your Bible in hand and follow closely, and check up on me. The word for "Spirit" is neuter (i.e. it is neither masculine nor feminine in Greek rules of grammar) even when it refers to the Father being a spirit (John 4:24), and should, in strict Greek grammar, be referred to as "It". It is NOT grammatically incorrect (by Greek rules) to refer to the Holy Spirit as it (just like demon/unholy spirits, i.e. personal beings, are called it; Luke 9:38-42; Luke 8:29-31), but *ONLY if one recognizes that this it is Biblically seen (both in the Old and New Testament) as a person! Just like demon spirits, the Spirit has a personality, and is person enough to call Himself I and Me (Acts 13:2-4). Thus Jesus refers repeatedly to "the Spirit of truth" as "HE" for precisely that reason. That is unbeatable!! Some say the he spoken by Jesus means he was either speaking about himself literally in the third person style of language, or equating the Spirit with the literal person of the Father, and or the he references to the Spirit has to do with the grammatical he that must go along with the masculine form of the expression Comforter, and hence is just about the rules of Greek grammar. But both these arguments are absolutely false because, first, even when the masculine expression Comforter (a title for the Spirit) is absent and is not the subject in a sentence (note that the expression "Comforter" was only used a total of four times by Jesus), yet the masculine he is ALSO used along with the word Spirit very many times by Jesus!! A classic example is seen in John 16:12-14. Notice carefully that the subject of the sentences there is Spirit (not Comforter), and yet nine (9) times (!!) Jesus uses the personal pronoun he or him with reference to that Spirit!!! So the argument about the pronoun he being linked to the masculine word Comforter falls flat on its face, since the word Spirit is neuter, and by the rules of Greek grammar should have been rendered it, and yet Jesus did no such thing!! See it in the following:

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the *Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. John 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Jesus had already made plain that no one legitimately witnesses to or glorifies themselves, and hence the Spirit must be distinctly another to do that on behalf of Jesus. But notice carefully, this Spirit distinctly hears from, or receives from another and speaks what he hears in order to glorify Christ. Would the Father in person, the Source of all things, be hearing from another (if it be argued that the Spirit is the Father in actual personage, as some usually incorrectly argue)? No!! Would Jesus glorify himself (if it be argued that the Spirit is Christ himself literally)? No!! Since the Spirit represents (yes, represents) the presence of the Lord (2 Cor. 3:17 and Psalm 139:1, 7-10), can the Spirit ever cease from representing BOTH the Father and Son (Rom. 8:9-11) at the same time? No!! And since the Father and Son are separate beings, to be able to love each other, and for one to be able to send the other, then they both CANNOT be the same being (of the Spirit) at the same time in actual personage! This first reality plainly shows the Spirits distinction from both Father and Son (see the Spirits distinct listing in Eph. 4:4-6 and Matthew 28:19, and many similar Scriptures), despite being intimately associated with and inseparably linked to both Father and Son in a certain understandable imagery of oneness (see 1 Cor. 2:11 for this oneness)!! Secondly, Jesus Himself makes clear distinction that "the Comforter" is ANOTHER, His representative, whom He works through, operating AS if it were Himself and the Father present, but is *NOT Himself, nor is the Spirit literally the Father, since both Jesus and the Father sends the Spirit to us. The words of Jesus words settle the matter! This is easily seen in the following Biblical evidence: "The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,*He will teach you all things (John 14:26). When the Comforter comes, *whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, *HE WILL TESTIFY OF ME"

(John 15:26), while not speaking of Himself (John 16:13) or by his own authority. In John chapters 14-16 Jesus Christ referred to the Holy Spirit 24 times (!!!!!) with personal pronouns, HE, and HIM, even when the subject of the sentence, Spirit, by Greek rules of grammar, should have been be accompanied by it. He REPEATEDLY addresses the Holy Spirit as a he, a person, and treats Him (i.e. speaks of Him) as a person. In addition He calls Him the Comforter or Paraclete (in Greek), which is a title, which could only be held by a person. EVER KEEP IN MIND THE SIMPLE FACT THAT FOR A PERSON TO SEND ANOTHER (e.g. PSALM 104:30) INDICATES SEPARATENESS OF THE SENT AND THE SENDER AS DISTINCT INDIVIDUALSUNLESS ONE RIDICULOUSLY BELIEVES (LIKE SABELLIANS) THAT SOMEONE (GOD THE FATHER) CAN SEND HIMSELF AS SON AND SPIRIT. But the Spirit, as the Paraclete, is "ANOTHER Counselor" or Comforter (John 14:16), thus similar to Jesus, and one who was SENT by both Father and Son to come and instruct us on their behalf. The Holy Spirits presence is just like saying Christ Himself is here, just like the presence of Jesus was seen as if God the Father was present, operating by his own arm! See 2 Cor. 5:18, 19 and Is. 52:10 and 53:1. As it concerns the Spirit, notice again the distinction, despite he or it (I say it simply by the acceptable rules of Greek grammar) is representing both the Father and Son: "The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things (14:26). THE FATHER CANNOT SEND HIMSELF; NEITHER CAN THE SON SEND HIMSELF IN HIS OWN NAME!! Yet the Spirit is "SENT" in both the Father and Son's name!! This was quite similar to Jesus coming in His Fathers name, but was not actually the Father Himself in personality, despite Jesus is so similar to Him to be called the Everlasting Father! Is. 9:6. "When the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who comes forth from the Father, He will bear witness to me (15:26-27).When the Spirit of truth comes, HE will guide you into all truth, for HE will... glorify ME, for HE will take what is mine and declare it to you (16:13-14). That is so clear where distinction is concerned. The Bible speaks of the Spirit as: the Spirit of God (Romans 8:9; 8:14), and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9). Why? Because both send Him to us, and He REPRESENTS both! If they both send Him, the Spirit must be an

individual or personality separate from them both (in order to be sent by both), but is so akin to each of them in nature that it is as if they are both present. In addition, the Spirit intercedes in prayer (not in human priestly function as Jesus the human Mediator does, BUT ONLY IN INFLUENCING OUR PRAYERS FROM OUR MINDS where he resides on behalf of both Father and Son at the same time; not just on behalf of the Son); Rom. 8:26. Remember, *only personal beings intercede. And the Father cannot intercede to and with Himself, neither can Jesus glorify himself, nor can the Father or Son send them themselves!! Thus the Spirit must be separate. The Spirit is not personally the Father Himself since the Spirit "hears" from "Another" and speaks what he receives from the authority of "Another" (just as Jesus did); *John 16:13. THAT SPIRIT COULD NOT BE LITERALLY THE PERSON OF THE FATHER AS THE HEAD OF DIVINITY, AND WHO HAS NO AUTHORITY ABOVE HIM AMONG THE DIVINE SPECIE *thus this is the greatest evidence of Spirit's distinction!! Compare at the same time the Spirit interceding--the Father cannot intercede to Himself, and compare Jesus sending the SpiritJesus cannot send himself!! What then is the inescapable conclusion? Father, Son and Spirit are three separate persons, but they bear the same name, i.e. the name of the Father, or the Lord!! Thats why disciples (as seen in the book of Acts) were baptized in Jesus name, or the singular name that is common to Jesus, His Father and the Spirit, i.e. the name of the Lord or Lord (or Yahweh). Inescapable too is the logic that the Spirit is called by Jesus "Another Comforter" (i.e. another or "allos" in Greek; not "heteros" in Greek which would have meant Jesus himself in personage, but just in a different mode, i.e. if heteros was the word used)! Thus a personal designation indicating a distinct personal entity is clearly meant, just as Jesus referred to his Father as "another" - John 14:16 with John 5:32. It is hypocrisy to say "another" ("allos") means one thing to prove Jesus is personally distinct or numerically separate from His Father, but the language rules change when the same principle applies to the Holy Spirit listed separately when all three are grouped. The constant listing of the Spirit separately in very many passages, where the Spirit is grouped with Father and Son speaks in loud tones about the personal distinction!! See for proof Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 12:4-6, 11; Eph. 4:4-6, 30; Rom. 15:30; Rom. 8:26, 27; Heb. 9:14; Rev. 1:4,5; 2 Cor. 13:14.

*Who could ever effectively defend the view that the Spirit is God the Father Himself in person literally and yet that Spirit, when sent (like Jesus was sent to speak on earth), has no authority to speak on His own (?), or who could adequately defend the view that the Father and Son send themselves? That argumentation falls flat on its face rather quickly. Thus *the Spirit is not the Father and, or Jesus in person, or in actual personality, but is another!!! Jesus cannot send Himself, neither can the Father. Even a child understands that basic logic!!! IS THE SPIRIT DISTINCT AS A PERSON, OR JUST A VEILED EXTENSION OF THE FATHER'S PERSON In Proverbs 8:1, 22-31 and 1 Cor. 1:24 the Son of God is SYMBOLICALLY made eternally inseparable from the Father as His eternal Wisdom (also called God's "Logos" or "Reason" and "Expressed "Word" in John 1), in just the same way a mans mind and reason is inseparable from him, and co-exists ALWAYS with him. Can you imagine God ever existing without wisdom or reason? And yet Jesus (the Fathers Wisdom/Reason in symbol) is literally separate from the Father as a person, depicted as one brought forth from everlasting miyemey olam, From the days of all time (or from all eternity). That is why Jesus is truly co-eternal with His Father, since Micah 5:2 makes it plain that he, like the Father, exists "from everlasting" [i.e. from all eternity] past. This is not just seemingly everlasting, as the everlasting mountains, but the word from qualifies the meaning of everlasting to be something greater in meaning (see Habakkuk 3:6, where a totally different Hebrew word is used for the seemingly everlasting mountains, as opposed to the expression for from everlasting in Micah 5:2). And to argue that from everlasting means the Father is eternal (Psalm 90:2), but the same expression applied to the Son means something else is to handle the Word deceitfully, and denies that Jesus, as the Word of God is also called that eternal life in 1 John 1:1-3. Irrefutable! Yes, wisdom came from or was brought forth the being of God, yet never was wisdom not in existence with God, and it never came after God the Father (otherwise God would at one time be without wisdom, and wisdom was formed after the all wise God---Impossible). This is the same principle with Jesus brought forth (like wisdom) from Gods being, yet from everlasting! And, as Is. 43:10, says no God was formed after God the Father, and yet Jesus is plainly called God by that same Father in Heb. 1:8. That is why they have always existed along with each other, despite wisdom

and Jesus did come from the very being of the Father; but from everlasting. This means that from as long as the Father himself was in existence, i.e. from everlasting, Jesus was always there with and initially from him as his begotten Son!! This is an inseparable oneness, despite they are separate beings and TRUE Father and Son on the divine level!! Why am I explaining all this about wisdom or reason, and its oneness with God the Father, yet used to depict a separate person brought forth from Him and always one with Him? Here is why. In the same way (just like wisdom or reason) in 1Cor. 2:11, 12 the eternal Spirit (Heb 9:14) is made inseparable from the Father and Son (thus is coeternal with God), as a mans spirit in him is inseparable from him. But notice VERY CAREFULLY that the Spirit is always said to be OF God (verse 12), never said to be in God, because God is spirit; not a material body and a spirit within Him. That is why the Spirit could be separately before His Throne (Rev. 1:4), as the "sevenfold Spirit" (IN SYMBOL of course), equally sending greetings, and equally being the source of grace and blessings (which no angel can supply, contrary to the argumentation of some), or why the Spirit could be sent (yes "sent"), not just to represent, but also to create on behalf of the Father and Son (Psalm 104:30), i.e. while Jesus separately and (symbolically) sits on the one throne in Heaven with His Father, while communing with and counseling with Him (see Rev. 3:21; Gen. 1:26; Proverbs 30:4; Zech. 6:13). The Spirit is always depicted as being ready to be sent out, or as being already sent out on behalf of Father and Son as a personal representative; not sitting on a throne and ruling in heaven, but ruling in our hearts on their behalf (away from their enthroned presence), or omnipresent and filling the far reaches of the universe as their personal representative everywhere. This probably explains why the Spirit is not always depicted as sending greetings to the Church (as the Father and Son does often), or explain why he is not seen in Rev. 21:22 fellowshipping with the saints in the New Jerusalem, i.e. after residing in us here and now and drawing us to the Father and Son, since his role is to be always elsewhere (i.e. all over the universe) REPRESENTING Father and Son, and to be always sent out, or being elsewhere as their invisible but personal emissary to do their bidding. And that is why the Spirit could assume human form in Ezekiel 8:1-5, and using a "hand" bring Ezekiel (IN VISION) into the presence of God on His throne in another location. That is personal distinction plain and simple. That is why this same Spirit (sometimes called the finger of God---Ex. 18:19; Lk. 11:20; Mt. 12:28-- not just the hand of the Lord) was described by the prophet

Ezekiel in Ezekiel 3:22-24 as entering him and speaking to him as a spirit person would. Some try to argue that Gods Spirit and a mans spirit are the same in principle, and so they cannot be separate. But I say this applies only in some senses (e.g. intimate association of the two). A mans spirit in him could never exist separately like Gods Holy Spirit, or be sent (away from the sender) to arrive in another location by visible and audible as in Acts 2:1-5. There is a big difference and that is why God asks to whom will you compare me?, and who by searching can find out God? Isaiah 46:5 and Job 11:7-9. The Bible truth is plain and simple! Gods nature is not fully comparable to ours, despite certain parallels, since Man was made in his image (Gen. 1:26-28), both at the individual and generic or family senses. By the way, never forget that the nature of Man and that of a true family of Man (like Gods own divine nature; Rom. 1:19, 20) is always a threefold union bearing one name (i.e. body, soul and spirit in indivisible union at the personal level, with one personal name--see 1 Thess.5:23---, as well a complete family has two parents and the seed of their union at the generic level, all bearing one name; that of the head of the family). No wonder Jesus makes plain that his followers were to be baptized in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (their representative Seed of life) ----Matt. 28:19 ---a threefold union bearing one name, the Lord!! This parallelism is kind of hard to ignore!! They are distinct yet one in a threefold union. Consider this final argument too. Many fail to appreciate the role of the Holy Spirit being the Representative INVISIBLE presence of the Father and Son away from their enthroned location (just as Jesus was the representative VISIBLE presence of the Father on earth). Notice very carefully that when in the book of Revelation the Spirit's personal distinction needed to be shown SEPARATELY from the Father and Christ the Lamb (with Christ being depicted as the "seven-horned" Lamb in symbol) the Spirit was so depicted in Rev. 1:4, 5 as the "sevenfold Spirit" in symbol sending greetings before God's throne; not sitting on it, or inside the Father's Person! We know it must have been the Spirit being the equal source of grace and blessings, and equally sending greetings, but separately, to the Church in Rev. 1:4, since heavenly greetings and grace and blessings to the Church in the New Testament have consistently only come from members of divinity (always Father and Son); never created beings in heaven such as angelic spirits. This many biblical scholars agree on, such as Uriah Smith in Daniel and the Revelation (1897), such as the reputable Albert Barnes, Jameison

Fausset and Brown, and Matthew Henry Commentaries on the Bible (among others); all of which concur on who the seven Spirits before His [God's] throne" designated. The Spirit appeared *IN FRONT of God's throne as the "sevenfold Spirit" in SYMBOL; NOT on the throne inside God, the Father's person- Rev. 1:4, 5!! See again Ez. 8:1-5. Think seriously about this for a moment!! If the Holy Spirit was just a veiled "extension" of the literal Personage of the Father, this so-called extension would only be logically necessary *AWAY FROM HIS DIRECT ENTHRONED PRESENCE IN HEAVEN, and so Isaiah 48:16, having the Spirit designated separately *IN Heaven itself and Him separately sending the Redeemer/Messiah is unexplainable and redundant if He was just an extension of the Father. This would be redundant language too of the Spirit, who is distinctly seen as being separate in God's very throne room, as the "sevenfold Spirit" "BEFORE His throne", and sending greetings to the Church both equally and separately. Rev. 1:4, 5. It would be unexplainable redundancy if the Spirit was literally the Fathers person sending greetings twice along with Jesus greetings. The passage makes plain sense to see three personal greetings in Rev. 1:4, 5 as coming from separate personages. Remember, only someone of divinity has consistently sent heavenly greetings to the Church along with the Father, and only someone of divinity is the source of grace and blessings; never created beings, such as angels!! Thus Rev. 1:4, 5 is easily understood to refer to the Spirit as sevenfold Spirit in symbol, separately designated as a divine being, and sending greetings as Jesus oftentimes did--- alongside the Father. And when one considers that even the uninspired Jews of old saw the Spirit as one but manifold (even before the inspired New Testament revelations) then this takes on more potent meaning. The same Spirit is depicted in traditional and uninspired extra-biblical Jewish literature as an intelligent Holy Spirit, one only, yet manifold- Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 7:22). Thats instructive to people who take the time to research the facts!! Now, if, as some argue, the Holy Spirit was just a veiled "extention" of the Father's literal Person, then the Spirit would come with the Father's full and head authority *AT ALL TIMES, since the Father Himself has no "Head", or Leader to hear from as Jesus did, and so John 16:13, 14 would also be unexplainable if the Spirit was just the Father's Person extended, since the Holy Spirit comes in the authority of another, and hears from another; not in his own authority!! Would the Father be hearing from Himself (like a mad man, with a split personality) or be led by another in

higher authority? Certainly not!! And it cannot be argued that the Spirit would only be representing Christ in that regard (or at that juncture) as one hearing from another, since at no time could we say the Spirit ceases to be the Fathers own representative AT THE SAME TIME while being the representative of the Son!! Never!! It is true the Holy Spirit is equal with the Father in nature, just as Jesus is, but only the Father is "Head" of divinity, and thus that is precisely why we know the Spirit is a separate personality, since he is led by another, he hears from another, he is sent by both Father and Son, as he comes to glorify Jesus who sends Him. And remember, Jesus cannot "send" Himself, and does not glorify himself, but always allows another to do that, and thus could not be the Holy Spirit in actual personage. Both Jesus and the Spirit are led by another; the Father Himself. That is exactly how the unity of operation of the Godhead is patterned in human families of separate beings all equal in nature, and are one as a family, but answering to one head of the family, that is, the father! That is why God made Man (generic) in His image as a family or group from the very beginning. Genesis 1:26, 27. Clear pattern. Never forget that an "extension" of God's person would not be needed in God's very enthroned presence, but this separateness of the "sevenfold Spirit" before His throne is easily explainable if we accept that the Spirit is a separate being. This is unbeatable, and any reasonable unbiased thinker would see the clear logic in this!! This many reputable scholars agree on, such as the reputable Albert Barnes, Jameison Fausset and Brown,and Matthew Henry Commentaries on the Bible (among others); all of which concur on who the "seven Spirits before His [God's] throne" is designated to be. And I must add that their interpretation makes perfect sense, since sound rules of hermeneutics and exegesis were followed in Rev. 1:4, 5. It is only a biased mind which rejects the sound method of interpretation presented there on this passage.

SUMMARY:
THE HOLY SPIRIT COULD *NOT BE THE FATHER AND SONS LITERAL PERSONAGE AT THE SAME TIME, OR EVEN BE AN "EXTENSION" OF THE FATHER'S AND THE SON'S PERSONAGE AT THE SAME TIME! IF THAT WERE THE CASE IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE FATHER AND SON WOULD NOT BE SEPARATE BEINGS, OR THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE LIKE CONJOINED SIAMESE TWINS IN ORDER FOR BOTH TO OWN THE SAME *EXTENDED ESSENCE *AT THE SAME TIME!! WHY? REMEMBER ESSENCE MEANS WHAT SOMETHING OR SOMEONE LITERALLY IS, AND SOMEONE CANNOT SEND HIMSELF OR HIS ESSENCE EXCEPT BY

WAY OF A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE BEARING IN HIMSELF THAT ESSENCE ON BEHALF OF THE SENDER. IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE AN ABSURDITY TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE! SINCE THERE IS JUST ONE (1) HOLY SPIRIT THAT IS LISTED SEPARATELY FROM FATHER AND SON IN VERY MNAY SCRIPTURES (EPH. 4:4-6; MATTHEW 28:19) THEN THE SPIRIT COULD NOT BE BOTH THE PERSON OF THE FATHER AND SON AT THE SAME TIME. YET THIS IS THE ABSURDITY SOME BLINDLY HOLD ONTO SINCE THEY REJECT THE TRUTH THAT THE SPIRIT MUST BE ACCEPTED AS A SEPARATE OR THIRD DIVINE INDIVIDUAL WHO *BEARS IN HIMSELF THE FULL AND SIMILAR ESSENCE OF THE OTHER TWO IN ORDER TO BE SENT BY AND REPRESENT THEM FULLY!!

Logical reasoning suggests compellingly that, BASED ON SCRIPTURE: a] If the Holy Spirit is owned by both the Father and the Son *at the same time, and Scripture is replete with the Holy Spirit being depicted as personal, and is listed separately from Father and Son in very many Scriptures, and b] If both Jesus and the Father equally sends the Spirit to us, and c] If a "sent" and a "sender" must logically be personally separate (it would be absurd otherwise, *unless one is a "Jesus only" or "Sabellian" believer), and d] If both Father and Son could not send themselves (that too would be absurd), and e] If the Father is *never sent by Jesus, since the Father is *not subject to or led ("Headed") by Jesus, but both Jesus and the Spirit are owned by the Father, and both speak/act in response to the Father who leads them both, and sends them both, and f] If the Holy Spirit intercedes to the Father for us in our praying (not in human priestly function as the Jesus the Lamb, or the one Mediator does, but the Spirit influences our prayers from his place of residence in our minds, and God, reading the mind of the Spirit in us, knows what is meant when we pray), and g] If the Father could not intercede to himself (that would be equally absurd), then
*THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION WHICH SATISFIES *ALL THE RULES OF LOGIC *AT THE SAME TIME IS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A "REPRESENTATIVE" OWNED BY BOTH FATHER AND SON, AS A THIRD AND SEPARATE PERSON! IN THAT ROLE HE CAN BE SENT BY BOTH AS THEIR OMNI-PRESENT 'EMISSARY', AND NONE BE SEEN AS RIDUCLOUSLY SENDING THEMSELVES (AS SABELLIANS OR 'JESUS ONLY' PRPOPONENTS BELIEVE)!! AND THUS WE CAN SEE WHY BOTH FATHER AND SON WHO SAID, "WE WILL COME TO YOU AND MAKE OUR ABODE WITH YOU", "COMES" *REPRESENTATIONALLY THROUGH THE AGENCY OF THE SPIRIT! THE SPIRIT CAN ALSO INTERCEDE TO THE FATHER FOR US, BUT *ONLY IN OUR PRAYING, AS HE RESIDES IN OUR HEARTS/MINDS, AND IT WOULD MAKE PERFECT SENSE ALL AROUND, SINCE THE FATHER WOULD NOT BE RIDICULOUSLY SEEN AS INTERCEDING

TO HIMSELF. THESE CRUCIAL FACTS IRREFUTABLY PROVE THE *NECESSITY OF THE DISTINCTLY LISTED HOLY SPIRIT BEING A "THIRD" OR SEPARATE PERSONAL BEING IN THE GODHEAD; A GODHEAD OF FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT-- ALL WORKING IN UNISON AS IF THEY ARE ONE BODY OR PERSON, AS 1 COR. 12:4-6, 11 CLEARLY SHOWS, BUT WHO ARE IN FACT DISTINCT PERSONS, AND THUS INDICATING WHY MATTHEW 28:19 LISTS THEM SEPARATELY IN JESUS' OWN WORDS!! WHO KNOWS THE TRUTH BETTER THAN JESUS HIMSELF, WHO WAS HIMSELF SENT TO REVEAL IT TO US, AND LATER HIMSELF SENDING THE SPIRIT AS HIS REPRESENTATIVE TO BRING BACK THAT TRUTH TO OUR MINDS?

Appendix:

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEAVENLY GREETINGS IN REV. 1:4, 5


* (Taken From a Bible Commentry and Compiled by Derrick Gillespie)

Choice quote: It would be unnatural and improper, in such an invocation, to unite angels with God as imparting blessings, or as participating with God and with Christ in communicating blessings to man in entire accordance with the usage in Scripture it is not in accordance with such usage to invoke such blessings from angels It cannot be denied that an invocation of grace from him who is, and was, and is to come, is of the nature of worship. The address to him is as God, and the attitude of the mind in such an address is that of one who is engaged in an act of devotion. The effect of uniting any other being with him in such a case, would be to lead to the worship of one thus associated with him. Albert Barnes Commentary

*Rev. 1:4 And [greetings] from the seven Spirits which are before his throne
The principal opinions which have been held in regard to it are the following: I. That it refers to God, as such. This opinion is held by Eichhorn, and is favored by Ewald. No arguments derived from any parallel passages are urged for this opinion, nor can any such be found, where God is himself spoken of under the representation of a sevenfold Spirit. But the objections to this view are so obvious as to be insuperable: If it refers to God as such, then it would be mere tautology [redundancy], for the writer had just referred to him in the phrase from him who was, etc How could it be said of God himself that he

was before the throne? He is everywhere represented as sitting on the throne, not as before it It is easy to conceive of angels as standing before the throne; and of the Holy Spirit it is more easy to conceive as being represented thus as ready to go forth and convey a heavenly influence from that throne, but it is impossible to conceive in what sense this could be applied to God as such. II. The opinion held by Grotius, and by John Henry Heinrichs, that it refers to the multiform providence of God, or to God considered as operating in seven or many different ways. In support of this Grotius appeals to Rev_5:12; Rev_7:12. But this opinion is so farfetched, and it is so destitute of support, as to have found, it is believed, no other advocates, and to need no further notice. It cannot be supposed that John meant to personify the attributes of the Deity, and then to unite them with God himself, and with the Lord Jesus Christ, and to represent them as real subsistences [beings] from which important blessings descend to people. It is clear that as by the phrase, who is, and who was, and who is to come, and by Jesus Christ, the faithful and true witness, he refers to real subsistences [beings], so he must here. Besides, if the attributes of God, or the modes of divine operation, are denoted why is the number seven chosen? And why are they represented as standing before the throne? III. A third opinion is, that the reference is to seven attending and ministering presence-angels - angels represented as standing before the throne of God, or in his presence. This opinion was adopted among the ancients by Clemens of Alexandria Andreas of Cesarea, and others; among the moderns by Beza, Drusius, Hammond, Wetstein, Rosenmuller, Clarke, Prof. Stuart, and others. This opinion, however, has been held in somewhat different forms; some maintaining that the seven angels are referred to because it was a received opinion among the Hebrews that there were seven angels standing in the presence of God as seven princes stood in the Persian court before the king; others, that the angels of the seven churches are particularly referred to, represented now as standing in the presence of God; others, that seven angels, represented as the principal angels employed in the government of the world, are referred to; and others, that seven archangels are particularly designated. Compare Poole, Synoptists in loco. The arguments which are relied on by those who suppose that seven angels are here referred to are briefly these: (1) The nature of the expression used here. The expression, it is said, is such as would naturally denote beings who were before his throne - beings who were different from him who was on the throne -

and beings more than one in number. That it could not refer to one on the throne, but must mean those distinct and separate from one on the throne, is argued from the use of the phrases before the throne, and before God, in Rev_4:5; Rev_7:9, Rev_7:15; Rev_8:2; Rev_11:4, Rev_11:16; Rev_12:10; Rev_14:3; Rev_20:12; in all which places the representation denotes those who were in the presence of God, and standing before him. (2) It is argued from other passages in the Book of Revelation which, it is said (Prof. Stuart), go directly to confirm this opinion. Thus, in Rev_8:2; And I saw the seven angels which stood before God. So Rev_4:5; the seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, are said to be the seven Spirits of God. In these passages, it is alleged that the article the designates the well-known angels; or those which had been before specified, and that this is the first mention of any such angels after the designation in the passage before us. (3) It is said that this is in accordance with what was usual among the Hebrews, who were accustomed to speak of seven presenceangels, or angels standing in the presence of Yahweh. Thus, in the Book of Tobit (12:15), Raphael is introduced as using this language: I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One. The apocryphal Book of Enoch (chapter 20) gives the names of the seven angels who watch; that is, of the watchers (compare the notes on Dan_4:13, Dan_4:17) who stand in the presence of God waiting for the divine commands, or who watch over the affairs of people. So in the Zendavesta of Zoroaster, seven amshaspends, or archangels, are mentioned. See Prof. Stuart, in loco. To these views, however, there are objections of great weight, if they are not in fact quite insuperable. They are such as the following: (1) That the same rank should be given to them as to God, as the source of blessings. According to the view which represents this expression as referring to angels, they are placed on the same level, so far as the matter before us is concerned, with him who was, and is, and is to come, and with the Lord Jesus Christ - a doctrine which does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures, and which we cannot suppose the writer designed to teach. (2) That blessings should be invoked from angels - as if they could impart grace and peace. It is evident that, whoever is referred to here by the phrase the seven Spirits, he is placed on the same level with the others mentioned as the source of grace and peace. But it

cannot be supposed that an inspired writer would invoke that grace and peace from any but a divine being. (3) That as two persons of the Trinity are mentioned here, it is to be presumed that the third would not be omitted; or to put this argument in a stronger form, it cannot be supposed that an inspired writer would mention two of the persons of the Trinity in this connection, and then not only not mention the third, but refer to angels - to creatures - as bestowing what would be appropriately sought from the Holy Spirit. The incongruity would be not merely in omitting all reference to the Spirit - which might indeed occur, as it often does in the Scriptures - but in putting in the place which that Spirit would naturally occupy an allusion to angels as conferring blessings. (4) If this refer to angels, it is impossible to avoid the inference that angel-worship, or invocation of angels, is proper. To all intents and purposes, this is an act of worship; for it is an act of solemn invocation. It is an acknowledgment of the seven Spirits, as the source of grace and peace. It would be impossible to resist this impression on the popular mind; it would not be possible to meet it if urged as an argument in favor of the propriety of angel-invocation, or angel-worship. And yet, if there is anything clear in the Scriptures, it is that God alone is to he worshipped. For these reasons, it seems to me that this interpretation cannot be well founded.

IV. There remains a fourth opinion, that it refers to the Holy Spirit, and in favor of that opinion it may be urged:

THE TRUTH ABOUT HOLY SPIRIT AS THE SEVENFOLD SPIRIT IN SYMBOL


(1) That it is most natural to suppose that the Holy Spirit would be invoked on such an occasion, in connection with him who was, and is, and is to come, and with Jesus Christ. If two of the persons of the Trinity were addressed on such an occasion, it would be properly supposed that the Holy Spirit would not be omitted, as one of the persons from whom the blessing was to descend. Compare 2Co_13:14; The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.

(2) It would be unnatural and improper, in such an invocation, to unite angels with God as imparting blessings, or as participating with God and with Christ in communicating blessings to man. An invocation to God to send his angels, or to impart grace and favor through angelic help, would be in entire accordance with the usage in Scripture, but it is not in accordance with such usage to invoke such blessings from angels. (3) It cannot be denied that an invocation of grace from him who is, and was, and is to come, is of the nature of worship. The address to him is as God, and the attitude of the mind in such an address is that of one who is engaged in an act of devotion. The effect of uniting any other being with him in such a case, would be to lead to the worship of one thus associated with him. In regard to the Lord Jesus, the faithful and true witness, it is from such expressions as these that we are led to the belief that he is divine, and that it is proper to worship him as such. The same effect must be produced in reference to what is here called the seven Spirits before the throne. We cannot well resist the impression that someone with divine attributes is intended; or, if it refer to angels, we cannot easily show that it is not proper to render divine worship to them. If they were thus invoked by an apostle, can it be improper to worship them now? (4) The word used here is not angels, but spirits; and though it is true that angels are spirits, and that the word spirit is applied to them Heb_1:7, yet it is also true that that is not a word which would be understood to refer to them without designating that angels were meant. If angels had been intended here, that word would naturally have been used, as is the case elsewhere in this book. (5) In Rev_4:5, where there is a reference to the seven lamps before the throne, it is said of them that they are, that is, they represent the seven Spirits of God. This passage may be understood as referring to the same thing as that before us, but it cannot he well understood of angels; because: (a) If it did, it would have been natural to use that language for the reason above mentioned; (b) The angels are nowhere called the spirits of God, nor would such language be proper. The phrase, Spirit of God naturally implies divinity, and could not be applied to a creature. For these reasons it seems to me that the interpretation which applies the phrase to the Holy Spirit is to be preferred; and though that interpretation is not free from difficulties, yet there are fewer difficulties in that than in either of the others

proposed. Though it may not be possible wholly to remove the difficulties involved in that interpretation, yet perhaps something may be done to diminish their force: (1) First, as to the reason why the number seven should be applied to the Holy Spirit: (a) There would be as much propriety certainly in applying it to the Holy Spirit as to God as such. And yet Grotius, Eichhorn, Ewald, and others saw no difficulty in such an application considered as representing a sevenfold mode of operation of God, or a manifold divine agency. (b) The word seven often denotes a full or complete number, and may be used to denote what is full, complete, or manifold; and might thus be used in reference to an all-perfect Spirit, or to a spirit which was manifold in its operations. (c) The number seven is evidently a favorite number in the Book of Revelation, and it might be used by the author in places, and in a sense, such as it would not be likely to be used by another writer. Thus, there are seven epistles to the seven churches; there are seven seals, seven trumpets, seven vials of the wrath of God, seven last plagues; there are seven lamps, and seven Spirits of God; the Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes. In Rev_1:16, seven stars are mentioned; in Rev_5:12, seven attributes of God; Rev_12:3, the dragon has seven heads; Rev_13:1, the beast has seven heads. (d) The number seven, therefore, may have been given to the Holy Spirit with reference to the diversity or the fulness of his operations on the souls of people, and to his manifold agency on the affairs of the world, as further developed in this book. (2) As to his being represented as before the throne, this may be intended to designate the fact that the Divine Spirit was, as it were, prepared to go forth, or to be sent forth, in accordance with a common representation in the Scriptures, to accomplish important purposes on human affairs. The posture does not necessarily imply inferiority of nature, anymore than the language does respecting the Son of God, when he is represented as being sent into the world to execute an important commission from the Father.

[*ALL TAKEN FROM ALBERT BARNES COMMENTARY]

*See also Robertsons Word Pictures, Matthew Henrys Commentary, Jamieson, Fausset & Browns Commentary, Geneva Bible Translation Notes, John Wesleys Explanatory Notes, etc, on Rev. 1:4,5.

In the multitude of counsel there is safety!!

Interesses relacionados