By Andrew David Naselli and Philip R. Gons1
Originally published in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 16 (2011): 65–89. Read the published version (PDF).
An expanded version with the full quotations from each adherent is also available.
Sometimes well-intentioned people argue for the right thing the wrong way. Their position may be right even though at least one of their arguments is not.2 This seems to be the case with a popular exegetical and theological argument for the personality of the Holy Spirit. The right position is that the Holy Spirit is a person, and the fallacious argument is that the masculine demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13–14 proves it. Trinitarian theologians through church history have rightly defended the personality of the Spirit, and an astonishing number of defenders appeals to this argument for support.
1. The Argument
The argument goes like this: John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13–143 prove (or at least suggest) that the Holy Spirit is a person because the antecedent of the masculine ἐκεῖνος is the neuter πνεῦμα. (Table 1 highlights those words.) The masculine ἐκεῖνος is significant because we would expect the neuter ἐκεῖνο instead since that would agree grammatically with the neuter πνεῦμα, but these three passages (or at least one of them) break a grammatical rule to emphasize that the Holy Spirit is a person and not a thing.
Table 1. Πνεῦμα and ʼΕκεῖνος in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13–14
| NA27 | ESV | |
|---|---|---|
| John 14:26 | ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν [ἐγω]. | But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. |
| John 15:26 | Ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ· | But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. |
| John 16:13–14 | ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ· οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει καὶ τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. 14 ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. | When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. |
Most of the adherents of this view (see §2) simply assert the argument but do not provide reasons for it. The most common reason that πνεῦμα is the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος—assumed if not explicitly stated—is proximity. That is, ἐκεῖνος occurs closer to πνεῦμα than it does to any other possible antecedents. Some adherents boldly state that their argument is unambiguous, obvious, and the only possibility.
2. Adherents of the Argument
An impressive number of Greek grammarians, exegetes, commentators, and theologians have made this argument from at least the 1500s to the present.4 They span all the main branches and denominations of the church (e.g., Reformed, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic), many languages (e.g., English, French, German, Dutch), and several continents (e.g., North America, Europe, Australia). Here is a chronological sampling of about 110 notable adherents—some more nuanced than others:5
ca. 1591—Martin Chemnitz (1522–86):
John 15:26, when Christ speaks of the Holy Spirit in the neuter gender, “The Spirit (to pneuma) of truth which proceeds from the Father,” He then changes the gender and adds “He (ekeinos) will bear witness of Me,” signifying that He is not speaking of some created emotion which occurs in the believers, but of a person. For it is frequent and common in the sacred writings that when there is mention of persons, a term may vary in respect to the related and antecedent words by the change of the genders, for example, in Matt. 28:19, “Teach all nations (ta ethnē—neuter), baptizing them (autous—masc.).6
1610—John Gerhard (1582–1637):
“This fact can be brought out by consulting a parallel passage, John 14:26: ‘The Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit whom the Father sends in My name, He will teach you all things.’ In this verse . . . the neuter τὸ πνεῦμα is later rendered by the masculine ἐκεῖνος, and this change of gender used in reference to personal actions always indicates a person (cf. Gen. 3:15; Eph. 1:14; Col 2:19). . . . [This is brought out also in] John 15:26: ‘When the Comforter comes whom I will send you from the Father, namely the Spirit of truth, He (ἐκεῖνος) will witness concerning Me.’
“In this passage . . . there is a change of gender . . . .”7
1676—Leonard van Rijssen (ca. 1636–ca. 1700)8
1679—Francis Turretin (1623–87):
. . . the exchange of gender teaches this, joining to pneumati (which is of the neuter gender) the masculine pronoun better adapted to denote a person: hotan elthē ekeinos to pneuma tēs alētheias (Jn. 16:13). In Eph. 1:13, 14, we are said to be sealed with “the Holy Spirit of promise” (tō pneumati hagiō hos estin arrabōn). For no reason can be given why such a change should be made in Scripture except that thus the person of the Holy Spirit may be more clearly designated.9
1693—John Owen (1616–83):
. . . the Scripture, speaking of the Holy Ghost, though Πνεῦμα be of the neuter gender, yet having respect unto the thing,—that is, the person of the Spirit,—it subjoins the pronoun of the masculine gender unto it, as John 14:26.10
1782—John Brown of Haddington (1722–87)11
1814—Ethan Smith12
1816—Reginald Heber13
1863–1865—Frédéric Louis Godet (1812–1900)14
1867—Daniel Gans15
1870—R. L. Dabney (1820–98)16
1871—A. R. Fausset17
1871—Phillip Schaff (1819–93)18
1882—William Hamilton19
1882—George Smeaton (1814–89):
Nor ought we to omit a noteworthy peculiarity in the three passages which refer to the Comforter. A change of gender in the use of the masculine demonstrative pronoun (ἐκεῖνος) forestalls the possibility of putting any other sense than a personal reference upon the words. Thus it is said: “The Comforter, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He (ἐκεῖνος) shall teach you all things” (John xiv. 26); “When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceedeth from the Father, He (ἐκεῖνος) shall testify of me;” “Howbeit when He (ἐκεῖνος), the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of [better: from] Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak, and He will show you things to come. He (ἐκεῖνος) shall glorify me” (xvi. 13, 14).20
1882—B. F. Westcott (1825–1901)21
1886—Augustus Hopkins Strong (1836–1921):
3. The Holy Spirit is a person.
A. Designations proper to personality are given him.
(a) The masculine pronoun ἐκεῖνος, though πνεῦμα is neuter . . . .22
1887—James P. Boyce (1827–88)23
1887—Charles Hodge (1797–1878):
The first argument for the personality of the Holy Spirit is derived from the use of the personal pronouns in relation to Him. . . . Our Lord says (John xv. 26), “When the Comforter (ὁ παράκλητος) is come whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας) which (ὅ) proceedeth from the Father, He (ἐκεῖνος) shall testify of me.” The use of the masculine pronoun He instead of it, shows that the Spirit is a person. It may indeed be said that as παράκλητος is masculine, the pronoun referring to it must of course be in the same gender. But as the explanatory words τὸ πνεῦμα intervene, to which the neuter ὅ refers, the following pronoun would naturally be in the neuter, if the subject spoken of, the πνεῦμα, were not a person. In the following chapter (John xvi. 13, 14) there is no ground for this objection. It is there said, “When He (ἐκεῖνος), 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 show you things to come. He shall glorify me (ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει): for He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.” Here there is no possibility of accounting for the use of the personal pronoun He (ἐκεῖνος) on any other ground than the personality of the Spirit.24
1888–94—William G. T. Shedd (1820–94)25
1889—J. E. Wolfe26
1890—H. C. G. Moule (1841–1920):
Let me ask that the Greek be once more opened, and this divine grammatical anomaly once more studied—the neuter Πνεῦμα associated repeatedly and markedly with the masculine Παράκλητος, the masculines ὅς, ἐκεῖνος, αὐτός [in John 14:16–17; 15:26; 16:7–8]. And let this be read in the light of the wonderful context, in which this blessed Paraclete, this Advocatus, “called in” to the aid of the otherwise “orphaned” Church, is seen to be such, and to act so, as to be indeed the Substitute, the more than substitute, for the unspeakably real personality of the Saviour in His seen presence. . . . It scarcely needs the impressive testimony of the Greek grammar of the sentences to assure us with deep and restful certainty that to the mind of the Saviour that night the Spirit was indeed present as a Person.27
1894—George B. Stevens28
1895–99—Herman Bavinck (1854–1921)29
1898—Ethelbert William Bullinger (1837–1913)30
1898—Henry Barclay Swete31
1898—R. A. Torrey (1856–1928)32
1905—Alfred G. Mortimer (1848–1924)33
1906—Archibald Eugene Thomson34
1912—William Evans (1870–1950)35
1915—Edward Young Mullins (1860–1928)36
1919—A. T. Robertson (1863–1934):
Gender and Number. Little remains to be said about variations in gender and number. Two passages in John call for remark, inasmuch as they bear on the personality of the Holy Spirit. In 14:26, ὁ δὲ παρἀκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει, the relative ὅ follows the grammatical gender of πνεῦμα. Ἐκεῖνος, however, skips over πνεῦμα and reverts to the gender of παράκλητος. In 16:13 a more striking example occurs, ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. Here one has to go back six lines to ἐκεῖνος again and seven to παράκλητος. It is more evident therefore in this passage that John is insisting on the personality of the Holy Spirit, when the grammatical gender so easily called for ἐκεῖνο. Cf. ὅ in Jo. 14:17, 26 and αὐτό in 14:17.37
1923–45—Arthur W. Pink (1886–1952)38
1926—Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952)39
1929—J. H. Bernard (1860–1927)40
1938—Louis Berkhof (1873–1957)41
1940—John F. Walvoord (1910–2002):
It is customary when speaking of persons to use the personal pronouns, I, thou, he, they. While personification of things material and immaterial is common, such uses of the personal pronouns are quite obvious and do not cause confusion. The use of personal pronouns in relation to the Holy Spirit in Scripture is sufficiently frequent to justify a conclusion that He is a person. . . . The Greek of the New Testament is quite explicit in confirming the personality of the Holy Spirit by use of the pronouns. As πνεῦμα is neuter, it would naturally take neuter pronouns to have grammatical agreement. In several instances, however, the masculine pronouns are found (John 15:26; 16:13, 14). The use of the masculine form, ἐκεῖνος, makes the personality of the Holy Spirit clearly the intent of the passage. It is inconceivable that the Scriptures should turn from the normal neuter to the masculine unless a person is in view.42
1947—Geoffrey F. Nuttall (1911–2007)43
1947—Rene Pache (1904–79)44
1949—Walter Thomas Conner (1877–1952):45
1949—Henry C. Thiessen (1883–1947)46
1952–55—David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899–1981):
The personal pronoun is used of Him. Take John 16:7–8 and 13–15 where the masculine pronoun ‘He’ is used twelve times with reference to the Holy Spirit. Now that is a very striking thing. Jesus says, ‘Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth’ (v. 13)—and so on. And this, of course, is of particular importance when we remember that the noun itself is a neuter noun, so the pronoun attached to it should be in the neuter. Now this is not always the case but it is in the vast majority of instances. It is most interesting and it shows how important it is to realise that the inspiration of Scripture goes down even to words like pronouns! So that is the first argument, and those who do not believe in the person of the Spirit will have to explain why almost the whole Scripture uses the masculine pronoun.47
1952—W. H. Rigg48
1953—William Hendriksen (1900–82)49
1955—W. H. Griffith Thomas (1861–1924)50
1963—Anthony A. Hoekema (1913–88)51
1963—J. Dwight Pentecost (1915– )52
1965—Charles C. Ryrie (1925– ):
The Holy Spirit Contradicts the Accidence of Personality
Here accidence refers to the rudiments of grammar. The Greek word for “spirit” is pneuma (from which we derive English words that have to do with air, such as pneumatic and pneumonia) and is a neuter gender word. According to every normal rule of grammar, any pronoun that would be substituted for this neuter noun would itself have to be neuter. However, in several places the biblical writers did not follow this normal rule of grammar, and instead of using a neuter pronoun when referring to the neuter noun pneuma, they deliberately contradicted the grammatical rule and used masculine pronouns. Indeed, they used two different kinds of pronouns, all in the masculine gender. This shows that they considered the Spirit to be a person and not merely a thing.
John 16:13–14. In this passage the masculine demonstrative pronoun is used for pneuma. (Demonstrative pronouns are the words this and that.) The same demonstrative pronoun is found twice in these verses: once in verse 13 (“But when He”) and once in verse 14 (“He will glorify Me”). In these last two instances, instead of the translation “He,” the better translation would be “that one.”
John 15:26. Here the masculine demonstrative pronoun occurs referring to the Spirit. Some explain the gender of the pronoun as referring back to the masculine word Helper. However, this is less likely, since Spirit is the nearer antecedent. . . .
These departures from the normal rules of grammar in connection with the use of several kinds of pronouns are evidences that for John and Paul the Holy Spirit was more than a mere influence—He was a person.53
1967—Hans Urs von Balthasar (1905–88)54
1970—Raymond E. Brown (1928–98)55
1971—Leon Morris (1914–2006)56
1972—C. Haas, M. de Jonge, and J. L. Swellengrebel57
1972—Gilles Quispel (1916–2006)58
1974—George Eldon Ladd (1911–82)59
1975—Gordon H. Clark (1902–85), Stanley N. Gundry, and R. Allan Killen (1941– )60
1975—Michael Green (1930– )61
1975—John Painter62
1977—Michael Ramsey (1904–1988)63
1978—C. K. Barrett (1917– )64
1978–80—Yves Congar (1904–95)65
1980—Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida66
1980—John Williams67
1981—Donald Guthrie (1915–92):
The fact that Jesus spoke of another Paraclete shows that the Paraclete must be as personal as Jesus himself. These considerations completely override the neuter gender of the noun pneuma in Greek. Moreover, they are in full agreement with the striking use of the masculine pronoun (ekeinos) of the Spirit in John 16:13 (placed immediately before pneuma) which underlines the personal characteristic of the Spirit. By no stretch of imagination can the teaching in these Paraclete sayings be made to refer to [an] impersonal force.68
1981—Robert L. Thomas (1928– )69
1983—Guy P. Duffield (1909–2000) and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave (1907–2002)70
1983–85—Millard J. Erickson (1932– ):
The first evidence of the Spirit’s personality is the use of the masculine pronoun in representing him. Since the word πνεῦμα (pneuma) is neuter and since pronouns are to agree with their antecedents in person, number, and gender, we would expect the neuter pronoun to be used to represent the Holy Spirit. Yet in John 16:13–14 we find an unusual phenomenon. As Jesus describes the Holy Spirit’s ministry, he uses a masculine pronoun (ἐκεῖνος—ekeionos [sic]) where we would expect a neuter pronoun. The only possible antecedent in the immediate context is “Spirit of truth” (v. 13). [Footnote: It has been suggested that a possible antecedent is the masculine noun παράκλητος (parakletos) in verse 7. Its distance from the pronoun makes this a rather unlikely possibility, however.] Either John in reporting Jesus’ discourse made a grammatical error at this point (this is unlikely since we do not find any similar error elsewhere in the Gospel), or he deliberately chose to use the masculine to convey to us the fact that Jesus is referring to a person, not a thing.71
1983—Robert Hanna72
1983—Bruce Milne73
1987—David F. Wells (1939– )74
1987—J. I. Packer (1926– )75
1988—J. R. Michaels76
1988–92—J. Rodman Williams (1918–2008)77
1989—Paul Enns (1937– )78
1990—R. C. Sproul (1939– ):
Here [John 15:26] Jesus refers to the Spirit as whom and as He. Some scholars may reply that in this text the Greek word for Helper is not the masculine gender and that, according to the rules of grammar, the pronoun must agree with the noun in gender. However, there is an intervening clause (“the Spirit of truth who . . . “) that uses the neuter gender for Spirit. It is followed immediately by the word He. If the writer meant for the Spirit to be thought of as an impersonal neuter force there would be no reason to use the masculine pronoun He in such close conjunction with a neuter noun.
If the matter is unclear in John 15, it is crystal clear in John 16:13 . . . . Here there is no grammatical reason whatsoever to use the masculine pronoun He unless Jesus intends in this didactic passage to declare that the Holy Spirit is a person.79
1991—D. A. Carson (1946– ):
It is no accident that in 15:26, when Jesus goes on to say ‘he will testify about me’, John uses the masculine pronoun ekeinos, even though it breaks concord with the (formally) neuter status of the preceding relative pronoun: i.e. ‘the Spirit is thought of in personal terms’ (Barrett, p. 482).80
1992—Jerome H. Smith:81
1993—Gordon H. Clark (1902–85)82
1993—Donald D. Hook and Alvin F. Kimel Jr. (1952– )83
1994—Wayne Grudem (1948– )84
1994—Richard A. Young (1944– )85
1996—Sinclair B. Ferguson (1948– )86
1996—Robert A. Morey (1946– )87
1996—Peter Toon (1939– )88
1996—Thomas F. Torrance (1913–2007)89
1996—W. E. Vine (1873–1949)90
1997—S. Lewis Johnson (1915–2004)91
1998—James R. White (1962– )92
1999—David Coffey93
2000—Donald G. Bloesch (1928–2010)94
2000—Gary M. Burge (1952– )95
2000—Raoul Dederen96
2001—Harold F. Carl97
2001—Don Garlington98
2002—Gerald L. Borchert99
2002—Jack Cottrell100
2002—Larry Dixon101
2002—John M. Frame (1939– ):
Pneuma (“spirit”) is a neuter word in Greek (although the corresponding Hebrew term, ruah, is feminine). However, the biblical writers sometimes use masculine pronouns with it, emphasizing the personality of the Spirit. In John 14:17, Jesus speaks of “the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.” (Cf. John 14:26; 16:14; 1 Cor. 12:11.)102
2002—John F. MacArthur (1939– )103
2002—Woodrow Whidden (1944– ), Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve104
2003—Norman L. Geisler (1932– )105
2003—Colin G. Kruse106
2004—M. Eugene Boring and Fred B. Craddock107
2004—Mary Ann Fatula108
2005—Andrew T. Lincoln109
2007—Chad Owen Brand110
2007—Grant R. Osborne111
2009—John Piper (1946– )112
2009—Rolland D. McCune (1934– )113
3. A Counterargument
An impressive number of exegetes and theologians have advanced the argument we are challenging, so we present this simple counterargument respectfully and corrigibly. We reached this conclusion independently of others, and we were pleased to discover later that a few others have likewise challenged the argument (see §4). So we are encouraged that we are not alone in our dissent.
Our counterargument is simple: The common argument is invalid because the antecedent of the masculine ἐκεῖνος is not the neuter πνεῦμα but the masculine παράκλητος. (See the propositional displays in tables 2–4, which highlight the masculine pronouns that agree with παράκλητος and underline the two neuter pronouns that agree with πνεῦμα.) Of course, we agree that the Holy Spirit is a person, and the three passages in John 14–16 are good places to advance that argument. But the basis of that argument is not a grammatical-theological connection between ἐκεῖνος and πνεῦμα. Rather, its basis is contextual, including the nature of a παράκλητος and how Jesus speaks about the personal function of the πνεῦμα.
Table 2. The Antecedent of ʼΕκεῖνος in John 14:26
| NA27 | ESV |
|---|---|
| ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, | But the Helper, |
| τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, | the Holy Spirit, |
| ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, | whom the Father will send in my name, |
| ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα | he will teach you all things |
| καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα | and bring to your remembrance all |
| ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν [ἐγω]. | that I have said to you. |
Table 2 displays ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα as the main clause with either ὁ παράκλητος functioning as the pendent nominative or ἐκεῖνος functioning as a pleonastic pronoun—the difference is inconsequential.114 Here is how Wallace describes the pendent nominative and pleonastic pronoun:
This nominative substantive is the logical rather than syntactical subject at the beginning of a sentence, followed by a sentence in which this subject is now replaced by a pronoun in the case required by the syntax. . . .
The pendent nominative carries one of two semantic forces: emotion or emphasis. The second usage, which is far more common, could be labeled nominative of reference. (In fact, a helpful key to testing whether a certain nom. is pendent is the question, Can I translate the nom. at the beginning of the clause, “With reference to . . .”?) . . .
Occasionally a demonstrative is used when no ambiguity would result if it had been deleted. This especially occurs in the nominative case: The demonstrative repeats a subject just mentioned (usually a substantival participle), even though the verb is not introduced until after the pronoun. In effect, the pronoun resumes the subject that is now separated from the verb by the participial construction. The pronoun is called pleonastic, redundant, or resumptive. In such cases, the pronoun is usually best left untranslated. However, at times, it has great rhetorical power and the English should reflect this.115
Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον is appositional to ὁ παράκλητος, and the antecedent of ὅ is τὸ πνεῦμα. “The appositional clause here can therefore be regarded as parenthetical: ‘The Counselor (the Holy Spirit whom [ὅ] the Father will send in my name) will teach you all things. . . .’”116 Taking the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος as ὁ παράκλητος thus is most plausible from a grammatical standpoint.
Table 3. The Antecedent of ʼΕκεῖνος in John 15:26
| NA27 | ESV |
|---|---|
| Ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος | But when the Helper comes, |
| ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, | whom I will send to you from the Father, |
| τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας | the Spirit of truth, |
| ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, | who proceeds from the Father, |
| ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ· | he will bear witness about me. |
Table 3 displays ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ, and the next subordinate clause is the opening words: Ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος. Again, “the appositional clause headed by τὸ πνεῦμα is parenthetical: ‘Whenever the Counselor comes (the Spirit of truth who is coming from the Father), he will testify concerning me.’”117 So taking the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος as ὁ παράκλητος is most plausible grammatically.
Had the evangelist wanted to show the Spirit’s personality, he would in fact have written something like Ὅταν ἔλθῃ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁ παράκλητος, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ. The fact that πνεῦμα and not παράκλητος is the appositive renders the philological argument in these two texts void.118
Table 4. The Antecedent of ʼΕκεῖνος in John 16:7–14
| NA27 | ESV |
|---|---|
| ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω ὑμῖν, | Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: |
| συμφέρει ὑμῖν ἵνα ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω. | it is to your advantage that I go away, |
| ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ ἀπέλθω, | for if I do not go away, |
| ὁ παράκλητος οὐκ ἐλεύσεται πρὸς ὑμᾶς· | the Helper will not come to you. |
| ἐὰν δὲ πορευθῶ, | But if I go, |
| πέμψω αὐτὸν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. | I will send him to you. |
| καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐκεῖνος | And when he comes, |
| ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον | he will convict the world |
| περὶ ἁμαρτίας | concerning sin |
| καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης | and righteousness |
| καὶ περὶ κρίσεως· | and judgment: |
| περὶ ἁμαρτίας μέν, | concerning sin, |
| ὅτι οὐ πιστεύουσιν εἰς ἐμέ· | because they do not believe in me; |
| περὶ δικαιοσύνης δέ, | concerning righteousness, |
| ὅτι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὑπάγω | because I go to the Father, |
| καὶ οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ με· | and you will see me no longer; |
| περὶ δὲ κρίσεως, | concerning judgment, |
| ὅτι ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου κέκριται. | because the ruler of this world is judged. |
| Ἔτι πολλὰ ἔχω ὑμῖν λέγειν, | I still have many things to say to you, |
| ἀλλ᾽ οὐ δύνασθε βαστάζειν ἄρτι· | but you cannot bear them now. |
| ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, | When [he,] |
| τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, | the Spirit of truth comes, |
| ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ· | he will guide you into all the truth, |
| οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, | for he will not speak on his own authority, |
| ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει | but whatever he hears he will speak, |
| καὶ τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. | and he will declare to you the things that are to come. |
| ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει, | He will glorify me, |
| ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται | for he will take what is mine |
| καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. | and declare it to you. |
Table 4 is larger than tables 2–3 because the larger context is more important in this passage. Looking only at John 16:13–14 leads many to accept the argument that the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος is τὸ πνεῦμα. But once again, taking the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος as ὁ παράκλητος is the only grammatical possibility, and it is not a stretch at all given the structure of the sentence. There are more words in between the latter two occurrences of ἐκεῖνος and ὁ παράκλητος, but the proximity is not sufficiently insurmountable to discard normal grammatical rules that the author himself has already employed twice previously in chapters 14 and 15.
4. Adherents of the Counterargument
While many have used the prevailing argument over at least the last 500 years, some have challenged it and offered a much more plausible reading. The earliest dissenter we have found is Leonard Woods.119 Several others have followed, but few seem to be aware of their position.
1851— Leonard Woods (1774–1854):
Some Trinitarian writers have argued from the use of the pronoun ἐκείνος here applied to the Spirit. But the argument is plainly inconclusive. This word, which is of the masculine gender, relates to the masculine noun παράκλητος. If the Spirit is called παράκλητος, it is a matter of course that the masculine pronoun should be used in reference to him. It does indeed appear rather favorable to the doctrine of the personality of the Holy Spirit, that he is called ὁ παράκλητος, the Comforter, or Advocate; because this, in its common use, is a personal appellation. But here the argument stops. There is no reason to think that the masculine pronoun would have been used in reference to πνεῦμα, the Spirit, had not a masculine noun been first introduced, with which the pronoun could agree in gender. Considering the genius of the Greek language, which applies words of different genders so indiscriminately, we must look upon any argument derived merely from the gender of the noun, or pronoun, as unsatisfactory. Indeed if the use of the masculine gender is here made an argument for the personality of the Holy Spirit; the use of the neuter gender in the word πνεῦμα, and in the pronouns and adjectives agreeing with it, may with equal reason be made an argument against it.120
1942—Kenneth Wuest (1893–1962):
Nouns in Greek are in either one of three genders. They are either masculine, feminine, or neuter. They have certain endings which indicate to what gender they belong. The word “spirit” happens to be in the neuter gender. But that does not mean that the Greeks considered that which is designated by the word “spirit” as being an inanimate object and therefore impersonal. . . .
Because the Greek word for “spirit” is neuter, Greek grammar requires that the pronoun used when referring to that which is designated by this Greek word, must be neuter. . . .
The same procedure applies in the case where the word “which” is used. In John 14:17, 26, the pronoun is in the neuter gender, and yet the translators use the word “whom.” Why did they not follow the same procedure in the cases where they used “which?” In all these instances the pronoun is neuter in the Greek text. They also offer “Him” as the translation of the neuter pronoun of the third person (John 14:17). In every instance the pronoun should be “whom” not “which.”
But again, in John 14:26, the word “he” is from a masculine pronoun in Greek. But the pronoun here is masculine because its antecedent “Comforter” is masculine. The masculine gender of this pronoun does not teach the personality of the Spirit any more than the pronoun in the neuter gender speaks of the Spirit as an impersonal force. The genders of the pronouns in the Greek text which refer to the Holy Spirit are determined by the genders of their antecedents. . . . Thus, the masculine gender of the Greek text does not teach the personality of the Spirit, nor can one therefore erroneously infer that the Spirit is not a Person but only an impersonal force just because the word “spirit” is neuter and its pronoun is therefore neuter.121
1978—Francis D. Nichol (1897–1966):
16. The Spirit itself. Or, “the Spirit Himself,” as in many versions (see RSV). The grammatical gender of the word for “Spirit,” Gr. pneuma, is neuter. Consequently, the pronoun “itself” must likewise be neuter in the Greek. When the Holy Spirit is referred to by the masculine name paraklētos, “Comforter,” the masculine pronoun is used (see John 15:26; 16:7, 13). It is obvious that the personality of the Holy Spirit cannot be argued by the gender of the pronouns that may be used (cf. AA [Acts of the Apostles, E. G. White, 1911] 53; TM [Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, E. G. White, 1911] 64).122
1980—Curt Steven Mayes argues in his ThM thesis on the subject that the common argument is “indefensible”:123
The general rule—always the starting point—states that a pronoun agrees with its reference in gender and number . . . . What justification can be given for choosing the construction ad sensum over the general rule in this case [John 14:26]? . . . πνεῦμα is preferred to παράκλητος on the basis of proximity. This, in the writer’s mind, is incredible. That a referent which is not in concord, but a few words nearer in the text, should be chosen over a noun which agrees strictly and gives just as good a sense is nearly indefensible. Pronominal referents by no means have to be the nearest noun . . . .
The fact that John often uses ἐκεῖνος as the equivalent of a personal pronoun (= he or they) may be significant for the Spirit’s personality. But the question is, how is the masculine form in this passage to be explained? Is it meant to teach theology or agree with παράκλητος? Surely the latter is a grammatically sound conclusion.124
1996 and 2003—Daniel B. Wallace briefly refutes the common argument in his grammar and more fully in his journal article cited in §3:
The use of ἐκεῖνος here is frequently regarded by students of the NT to be an affirmation of the personality of the Spirit. Such an approach is based on the assumption that the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος is πνεῦμα: “the masculine pronoun ἐκεῖνος is used in John 14:26 and 16:13–14 to refer to the neuter noun πνεῦμα to emphasize the personality of the Holy Spirit.”
But this is erroneous. In all these Johannine passages, πνεῦμα is appositional to a masculine noun. The gender of ἐκεῖνος thus has nothing to do with the natural gender of πνεῦμα. The antecedent of ἐκεῖνος, in each case, is παράκλητος, not πνεῦμα. John 14:26 reads ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα (“the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father sends in my name, that one will teach you all things”). πνεῦμα not only is appositional to παράκλητος, but the relative pronoun that follows it is neuter! This hardly assists the grammatical argument for the Spirit’s personality. In John 16:13–14 the immediate context is deceptive: ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ• . . . ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει (“whenever that one comes—the Spirit of truth—he will guide you in all truth . . . . he will glorify me”). The ἐκεῖνος reaches back to v 7, where παράκλητος is mentioned. Thus, since παράκλητος is masculine, so is the pronoun. Although one might argue that the Spirit’s personality is in view in these passages, the view must be based on the nature of a παράκλητος and the things said about the Comforter, not on any supposed grammatical subtleties. Indeed, it is difficult to find any text in which πνεῦμα is grammatically referred to with the masculine gender.125
There is no text in the NT that clearly or even probably affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit through the route of Greek grammar. The basis for this doctrine must be on other grounds. . . .
In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that the grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit’s personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of that doctrine by many evangelical writers.126
1999—Rodney A. Whitacre:
The word Spirit in Greek (pneuma) is in the neuter gender, whereas the word Paraclete (paraklētos) is in the masculine. It is often said that in this verse John observes the neuter gender of the word Spirit in his use of pronouns (ho, auto), but in later passages he will use masculine pronouns with the word Spirit (14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13–14), suggesting that this Spirit is not simply an impersonal force or atmosphere. However, in each case the antecedent is the masculine word paraklētos (Paraclete), so no such significance is attached to the masculine pronouns (Wallace 1996:331–32). The personhood of the Spirit is conveyed in these texts by what is said about the Paraclete, not by the grammar.127
2003—Charles R. Swindoll (1934– ) and Roy B. Zuck (1932– ) present a grammatically sound explanation of the passage, though they do not mention the prevailing view.128
2004—Andreas J. Köstenberger (1957– ):
It is often argued that the use of the Greek masculine pronoun ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos, he) for the Spirit in passages such as John 14:26; 15:26; and 16:13–14 affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit (Barrett 1978: 482; Borchert 2002: 159; Morris 1995: 583 n. 73 [citing Westcott]; 606 n. 64; 621 n. 27; and others cited in Wallace 1996: 331 n. 42). However, the most likely reason for John’s use of the masculine pronoun in these passages is that the antecedent is the masculine noun ὁ παράκλητος (ho paraklētos, the helping presence). If so, John’s use of a masculine pronoun to refer to the Spirit is best explained as a function of grammar rather than theology, and arguments for the personality of the Holy Spirit must be made on other grounds (so rightly Wallace 1996: 331–32, who points out that it is difficult to find any text where the neuter noun πνεῦμα [pneuma, spirit/Spirit] is grammatically referred to by the masculine).129
2005—Andrew Malone:
A closer study, however, shows that Jesus isn’t breaking the conventions of Greek grammar. The masculine pronoun is never applied to the neuter pneuma. Rather, in every instance, it refers back to the title Paraclete (paraklētos). As this is a masculine noun, there is nothing at all noteworthy about the pronouns. (The word pneuma just happens to be in the vicinity, as a further description of the Paraclete.)
Not everyone is guilty of the pronominal argument. A number of works, past and present, rightly identify the referent. But {8} this, of course, merely obeys the rules of gender agreement and so attracts no comment. It is only recently that the mistake has been overtly flagged by Daniel Wallace. . . .
As we have seen, the pronominal argument has gained a wide hearing over the past century. Because of its popularity and its impeccable pedigree, scholars and preachers are slow—perhaps even reluctant?—to note Wallace’s corrective. So, for example, the various commentaries and theologies which have been published since 1996 which continue to repeat the fallacy.130
2007—Graham Cole:
[W]e should also note one argument for the personhood of the Spirit—common in evangelical circles—which must not be embraced too facilely. The argument contends that in John’s account of Jesus’ teaching about the Holy Spirit, although “Spirit” (pneuma) is neuter, the masculine pronoun ekeinos (translated “he” e.g., esv) rather than the neuter one ekeino (which would be translated “it”) is used repeatedly (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13–14). . . .
However, David [sic] Wallace argues in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics that the antecedent of the masculine pronoun in the key passages is not the neuter “Spirit” (to pneuma) but the masculine “the Paraclete” (ho paraklētos) and thus the pronominal argument is a fallacious one in this instance. If Wallace is right, then the pronominal argument for the personhood of the Spirit is far less compelling than Packer and many others seem to think.131
5. Objections to the Counterargument
While some of the proponents of the argument seem unaware of other possible interpretations,132 others offer two related objections to the counterargument: (1) the nearest possible antecedent is πνεῦμα and therefore must be the right one, and (2) in the case of John 16:13–14, παράκλητος is too far away from ἐκεῖνος to be its antecedent.133
Does the nearness of ἐκεῖνος to πνεῦμα indicate that it is its antecedent? No. Function rather than proximity is the determiner. In 14:26 the logical subject of the sentence is παράκλητος, and τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον is an appositive followed by a neuter adjectival relative clause: ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου. To resume his flow of thought, Jesus uses the masculine ἐκεῖνος indicating that it is the παράκλητος he is talking about. In 15:26 we find nearly the same syntactical structure. Jesus is discussing the παράκλητος. But this time there is also a masculine adjectival relative clause modifying παράκλητος: ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός. This is significant, because it shows that John knows how to match the gender of his pronouns with their antecedents. The masculine pronoun ὃν agrees in gender with its antecedent, παράκλητος, and the neuter pronoun ὃ agrees in gender with its antecedent, πνεῦμα. It is to be expected, then, that ἐκεῖνος points back to παράκλητος rather than πνεῦμα.
Does the distance of ἐκεῖνος to παράκλητος in John 16:7–14 make it impossible or even unlikely that they stand in a pronoun–antecedent relationship to one another? On first glance, it might seem so. But upon closer investigation, it is clear that there is no other option. First, the distance (6 verses or 69 words) is not as far as it may seem. Though παράκλητος occurs in v. 7 and ἐκεῖνος in v. 13, there is only one sentence (vv. 8–11) between the two. And that sentence, whose subject is the παράκλητος, is an aside that interrupts the flow of thought. Verse 7 flows seamlessly right into vv. 12–14.
7Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. . . . 12I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
7ἀλλʼ ἐγὼ τὴν ἀλήθειαν λέγω ὑμῖν, συμφέρει ὑμῖν ἵνα ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω. ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ ἀπέλθω, ὁ παράκλητος οὐκ ἐλεύσεται πρὸς ὑμᾶς· ἐὰν δὲ πορευθῶ, πέμψω αὐτὸν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. . . . 12Ἔτι πολλὰ ἔχω ὑμῖν λέγειν, ἀλλʼ οὐ δύνασθε βαστάζειν ἄρτι· 13ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ· οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλʼ ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει καὶ τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. 14ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν.
Second, John uses masculine pronouns between παράκλητος in v. 7 and ἐκεῖνος in v. 13 to point back to παράκλητος, demonstrating that the Helper is the subject all the way through. At the end of v. 7 he uses αὐτὸν and at the beginning of v. 8 he uses ἐκεῖνος. Third, he uses the masculine again after its occurrence at the beginning of v. 13. Verse 14 continues the flow of thought by beginning with ἐκεῖνος.134 From the beginning to the end, the one under discussion is the παράκλητος, which perfectly accounts for the repeated use of masculine pronouns.
6. Conclusion
The consistent testimony of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit is a person, but John’s use of ἐκεῖνος in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13–14 has absolutely no bearing on the subject. A careful analysis of the texts in their contexts with sound principles of grammatical gender firmly in place demonstrates unequivocally that the antecedent of ἐκεῖνος is the masculine παράκλητος. The gender of the nouns and pronouns in these chapters neither supports nor challenges the doctrine of the Spirit’s personality. It’s time to put this erroneous argument to rest once and for all.
Notes
1. Andy Naselli (PhD, Bob Jones University; PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is Research Manager for D. A. Carson, Administrator of Themelios, and an adjunct faculty member at several seminaries. Phil Gons (PhD [ABD], Bob Jones University) is Marketing Manager at Logos Bible Software in Bellingham, Washington. This article updates a paper Naselli presented on November 17, 2010 at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta. ↩
2. Cf. Anthony Weston, A Rulebook for Arguments (4th ed.; Indianapolis: Hackett, 2008); D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996). ↩
3. Some Trinitarian theologians include a fourth text, John 14:17, but we do not consider that here because it has weak textual support. ↩
4. We found many of these adherents using Logos Bible Software 4 and variations of the search query (<Bible = John 14:26>,<Bible = John 15:26>,<Bible = John 16:13>,<Bible = John 16:14>) + (Spirit, pneuma, πνεῦμα) + (person, personality, personhood, personal) + (gender, masculine, neuter, ekeinos, ἐκεῖνος). ↩
5. We have abridged this essay by including only a sampling of direct quotations. If a work has multiple editions, we try to quote the most updated edition while ordering the quotation chronologically based on when the first edition was published. ↩
6. Martin Chemnitz, Loci Theologici (trans. Jacob A. O. Preus; St. Louis: Concordia, 1989), 138. ↩
7. Robert D. Preus, The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism (St. Louis: Concordia, 1999), 2:131. Preus is quoting John Gerhard, Loci Theologici, III, 280 (1610–25). Gerhard was Chemnitz’s successor and probably inherited the argument from him. They were both Lutheran. ↩
8. Leonardo Rijssenio, Summa Τheolοgiae Elencticae (Bernae, 1676), 118. IV.xii, cont. I, arg. 2. Richard Muller cites Rijssen as saying, “The name ‘Paraclete’ or ‘Comforter,’ moreover, is an indication of a personal work (officium personale), and the word pneuma, a negative noun, is joined with a masculine pronoun in John 16:13.” The Triunity of God, vol. 4 of Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 351. ↩
9. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (ed. James T. Dennison Jr.; trans. George Musgrave Giger; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1992), 1:304. III, Q. XXX, VI. Charles Hodge (below) likely learned this argument from Turretin. ↩
10. John Owen, “A Discourse on the Holy Spirit as Comforter,” The Works of John Owen (ed. William H. Goold; Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1852), 4:408. ↩
11. John Brown, The Systematic Theology of John Brown of Haddington (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2002), 140. First published in 1782 as A Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion. ↩
12. Ethan Smith, A Treatise on the Character of Jesus Christ, and on the Trinity in Unity of the Godhead; with Quotations from the Primitive Fathers (Boston: R. P. & C. Williams, 1814), 173. ↩
13. Reginald Heber, The Personality and Office of the Christian Comforter Asserted and Explained, in a Course of Sermons on John xvi. 7. Preached before the University of Oxford, in the Year MDCCCXV, at the Lecture Founded by the Late Rev. John Bampton, M. A. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1816), 58–59. ↩
14. L. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of John (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1893), 2:287. ↩
15. Daniel Gans, “The Personality and Divinity of the Holy Ghost,” The Mercerburg Review 14 (1867): 466–67. Cited by Robert A. Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Iowa Falls, IA: World, 1996), 411. ↩
16. R. L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology Taught in Union Theological Seminary, Virginia (2nd ed.; St. Louis: Presbyterian, 1878), 195. ↩
17. A. R. Faussett, “The Book of Proverbs,” in Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Whole Bible (n.p.: n.p., 1871), n.p. ↩
18. Editorial note in John Peter Lange, Commentary on the Holy Scriptures—Critical, Doctrinal and Homiletical: John (1871; trans. Philip Schaff; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1950), 469. ↩
19. William Hamilton, A Compend of Baptism (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1882), 153. ↩
20. George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882), 102. ↩
21. B. F. Westcott, The Gospel according to St. John: The Authorised Version with Introduction and Notes (London: Murray, 1882), 209. ↩
22. Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology: A Compendium and Commonplace Book Designed for the Use of Theological Students (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1907), 1:323. Strong goes on to say, “But in John 14:16–18, παράκλητος is followed by the neuters ὁ and αὐτό, because πνεῦμα had intervened. Grammatical and not theological considerations controlled the writer.” ↩
23. James Petigru Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1887), 132. ↩
24. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (1887; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 1:524. ↩
25. William Greenough Thayer Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (ed. Alan W. Gomes; 3rd ed.; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2003), 268. ↩
26. J. E. Wolfe, Gold from Ophir: A New Book of Bible Readings, Original and Selected (New York: Jewett, 1889), 165. ↩
27. H. C. G. Moule, Veni Creator: Thoughts on the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit of Promise (New York: Whittaker, 1890), 7–8. ↩
28. George B. Stevens, The Johannine Theology: A Study of the Doctrinal Contents of the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John (New York: Scribner’s, 1894), 195–96. ↩
29. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 2: God and Creation (1895–99; ed. John Bolt; trans. John Vriend; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 277–78 ↩
30. E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1898), 701. ↩
31. Henry Barclay Swete, The Gospel according to St. Mark. The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Indices (London; New York: MacMillan, 1898), 198. ↩
32. R. A. Torrey, What the Bible Teaches: A Thorough and Comprehensive Study of What the Bible Has to Say Concerning the Great Doctrines of Which It Treats (New York: Revell, 1898), 226. ↩
33. Alfred G. Mortimer, The Last Discourses of Our Lord: Arranged as Readings for the Forty Days of Lent (New York: Whittaker, 1905), 226. ↩
34. Archibald Eugene Thomson, “The Authority of the Holy Spirit,” BSac 63 (1906): 431–32. ↩
35. William Evans, The Great Doctrines of the Bible (ed. S. Maxwell Coder; 4th ed.; Chicago: Moody, 1998), 109. ↩
36. E. Y. Mullins, “Holy Spirit,” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. James Orr; Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915), 3:1413. ↩
37. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (3rd ed.; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1919), 708–9. Cf. John 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13 in Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1932), 5:252–53, 255, 263, 268. ↩
38. Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of John (Swengel, PA: Bible Truth Depot, 1923–45), 793. ↩
39. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes: 52 Vital Doctrines of the Scriptures Simplified and Explained (1926; ed. John F. Walvoord; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 89. ↩
40. J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (ed. A. H. McNeile; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1929), 2:500. ↩
41. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (4th ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938), 96. ↩
42. John F. Walvoord, “The Person of the Holy Spirit, Part 1: The Person of the Holy Spirit,” BSac 97 (1940): 169. Cf. idem, The Holy Spirit: A Comprehensive Study of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit (3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), 6–7. ↩
43. Geoffrey F. Nuttall, The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience (2nd ed.; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947), 3. ↩
44. Rene Pache, The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit (trans. J. D. Emerson; Chicago: Moody, 1954), 13. French edition: La personne et l’œuvre du Saint-Esprit (Vevey: Suisse, 1947). ↩
45. Walter Thomas Conner, The Work of the Holy Spirit: A Treatment of the Biblical Doctrine of the Divine Spirit (Nashville: Broadman, 1949), 177. ↩
46. Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (ed. Vernon D. Doerksen; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 96. ↩
47. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Great Doctrines of the Bible, Volume 2: God the Holy Spirit (Wheaton: Crossways, 1997), 10. Lloyd-Jones preached these sermons from 1952 to 1955. ↩
48. W. H. Rigg, The Fourth Gospel and Its Message for To-Day (London: Lutterworth, 1952), 148. ↩
49. William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (New Testament Commentary 1–2; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 2:286n171. ↩
50. W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Holy Spirit of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 64. ↩
51. Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults: Christian Science, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 241. ↩
52. J. Dwight Pentecost, The Divine Comforter: The Person and Work of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1963), 13. ↩
53. Charles C. Ryrie, The Holy Spirit (2nd ed.; Chicago: Moody, 1997), 17. See also idem, Ryrie Study Bible: New International Version (2nd ed.; Chicago: Moody, 1994), 1996; idem, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (2nd ed.; Chicago: Moody, 1999), 396–97; idem, First and Second Thessalonians (Everyman’s Bible Commentary; Chicago: Moody Press, 2001), 115; idem, Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Dubuque, IA: ECS Ministries, 2005), 301. ↩
54. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Creator Spirit, vol. 3 of Explorations in Theology (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1993), 128. Originally published in German in 1967 under the title Spiritus Creator. ↩
55. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (XIII–XXI): Introduction, translation, and notes (Anchor Yale Bible; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), 639; cf. 650, 689. ↩
56. Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (2nd ed.; NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 583n73, 606n64, 621n27; ibid., Spirit of the Living God (London: IVP, 1960), 35–36. ↩
57. C. Haas, M. De Jonge, and J. L. Swellengrebel, 1 John: A Translator’s Handbook on the Letters of John (UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1972), 139. ↩
58. Gilles Quispel, “Qumran, John and Jewish Christianity,” in John and Qumran (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972), 147. ↩
59. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (ed. Donald A. Hagner; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 331. ↩
60. Gordon H. Clark, Stanley N. Gundry, and R. Allan Killen, “Trinity,” in The Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia (ed. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard Frederic Vos, and John Rea; Chicago: Moody, 1975). ↩
61. Michael Green, I Believe in The Holy Spirit (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 52. ↩
62. John Painter, Reading John’s Gospel Today (3rd ed.; Mitcham: Beacon Hill, 1986), 67. ↩
63. Michael Ramsey, Holy Spirit: A Biblical Study (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 102. ↩
64. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (2nd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1978), 482. ↩
65. Yves Congar, I Believe in the Holy Spirit (trans. David Smith; Milestones in Catholic Theology; New York: Crossroad, 1997), 1:56, 61n20. ↩
66. Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, John: A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John (UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1980), 497. ↩
67. John Williams, The Holy Spirit, Lord and Life-Giver: A Biblical Introduction to the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1980), 25. ↩
68. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Downers Grove: IVP, 1981), 531. Cf. idem, “John,” in New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition (ed. D. A. Carson et al.; 4th ed.; Downers Grove: IVP, 1994), 1058; idem, “Johannine theology,” The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (ed. Moisés Silva; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 3:716. ↩
69. Rober L. Thomas, “2 Thessalonians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 11: Ephesians Through Philemon, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 324. ↩
70. Guy P. Duffield and Nathaniel M. Van Cleave, Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (Los Angeles, Calif.: L.I.F.E. Bible College, 1983), 107–08. ↩
71. Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 876. Cf. idem, Introducing Christian Doctrine (ed. L. Arnold Hustad; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 273. ↩
72. Robert Hanna, A Grammatical Aid to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 178. ↩
73. Bruce Milne, Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief (2nd ed.; Leicester: IVP, 1998), 222. ↩
74. David F. Wells, God the Evangelist: How the Holy Spirit Works to Bring Men and Women to Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 4. ↩
75. J. I. Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit: Finding Fullness in Our Walk with God (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 54; ibid, “The Holy Spirit and His Work,” in Applying the Scriptures (ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 60. ↩
76. J. R. Michaels, “Paraclete,” in ISBE 3:660. ↩
77. J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology (3 vols.; Grand Rapids: Academie, 1988–92), 2:150–51. ↩
78. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody, 1989), 248–49. ↩
79. R. C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1990), 17–18. ↩
80. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 529. Cf. also idem, For the Love of God: A Daily Companion for Discovering the Riches of God’s Word (vol. 1; Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), entry for March 24: “In Greek, every noun is grammatically designated masculine, feminine, or neuter. The word for ‘spirit’ is neuter. When a pronoun referring to “spirit” is used, it too should be neuter. In this chapter, however, the pronoun is sometimes masculine, breaking grammatical form, a way of gently affirming that the Holy Spirit is personal.” ↩
81. Jerome H. Smith, ed., The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge: The Most Complete Listing of Cross References Available Anywhere—Every Verse, Every Theme, Every Important Word (Nashville: Nelson, 1992), 1219. ↩
82. Gordon H. Clark, The Holy Spirit (Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1993), 16. ↩
83. Donald D. Hook and Alvin F. Kimel Jr., “The Pronouns of Deity,” SJT 46 (1993): 301; repr. in This is My Name Forever: The Trinity and Gender Language for God (ed. A. F. Kimel Jr.; Downers Grove: IVP, 2001), 66. ↩
84. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 232. ↩
85. Richard A. Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 78. ↩
86. Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Contours of Christian Theology; Downers Grove: IVP, 1996), 31. ↩
87. Robert A. Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues (Iowa Falls, IA: World, 1996), 411, 423. ↩
88. Peter Toon, Our Triune God: A Biblical Portrayal of the Trinity (Wheaton: BridgePoint, 1996), 182. Other than adding the words “from 15:26 onward,” Toon reproduces the words (without quotation marks or citation) exactly as they appear in Ramsey, Holy Spirit, 102. ↩
89. Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 63. ↩
90. W. E. Vine, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (ed. Merrill F. Unger and William White; Nashville: Nelson, 1996), 2:594. ↩
91. S. Lewis Johnson, “The Spirit and Believers: His Teaching Ministry; An Exposition of John 16:12–15,” Emmaus Journal 6 (1997): 99. ↩
92. James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998), 216n3. ↩
93. David Coffey, Deus Trinitas: The Doctrine of the Triune God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 11. ↩
94. Donald G. Bloesch, The Holy Spirit: Works and Gifts (Downers Grove: IVP, 2000), 67. ↩
95. Gary M. Burge, John (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 398n19. ↩
96. Raoul Dederen, Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000), 12:134. ↩
97. Harold F. Carl, “Relational Language in John 14–16: Implications for the Doctrine of the Trinity,” Global Journal 2 (2001): n.p. ↩
98. Don Garlington, “Biblical Reflections on the Doctrine of the Trinity,” Reformation and Revival 10, no. 3 (2001): 25. Garlington reproduces the words (without quotation marks or citation) exactly as they appear in Grudem, Systematic Theology, 232. ↩
99. Gerald L. Borchert, John 12–21 (NAC 25B; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002), 159. ↩
100. Jack Cottrell, The Faith Once for All: Bible Doctrine for Today (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2002), 286. ↩
101. Larry Dixon, “The ‘Shy’ Member of the Trinity: The Holy Spirit,” Emmaus Journal 11 (2002): 292. ↩
102. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2002), 691. John 14:17, however, is a poor example because all of its pronominal references are neuter: τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει• ὑμεῖς γινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρʼ ὑμῖν μένει καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσται. See also idem, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2006), 161; idem, The Collected Shorter Theological Writings (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2007). ↩
103. John MacArthur, 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Chicago: Moody Press, 2002), 278–79. ↩
104. Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve, The Trinity: Understanding God’s Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2002), 72. ↩
105. Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2003), 2:676. ↩
106. Colin G. Kruse, John: An Introduction and Commentary (TNTC 4; Downers Grove: IVP, 2003), 322, 327. ↩
107. M. Eugene Boring and Fred B. Craddock, The People’s New Testament Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 342. ↩
108. Mary Ann Fatula, “Holy Spirit,” The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia (ed. Michael Glazier and Monika K. Hellwig; 2nd ed.; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2004), 394. ↩
109. Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John (BNTC; London: Continuum, 2005), 411–12. ↩
110. Chad Owen Brand, “Is God a Male?” in The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (ed. Ted Cabal; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2007), 1209. ↩
111. Grant R. Osborne, “The Gospel of John,” in The Gospel of John and 1–3 John (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 13; Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2007), 222. Osborne was present when Naselli presented this paper at ETS in November 2010, and after the presentation, Osborne humbly remarked that the view we are advocating is more persuasive. Jim Hamilton recounts the story on his blog (http://jimhamilton.info/2010/12/15/congrats-to-grant-osborne-on-his-zecnt-matthew/). ↩
112. John Piper, “The Free Will of the Wind,” in Sermons from John Piper (2000–2009) (Minneapolis: Desiring God, 2009). ↩
113. Rolland McCune, A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity, Volume 2: The Doctrines of Man, Sin, Christ, and the Holy Spirit (Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 248–49. ↩
114. Daniel B. Wallace, “Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” BBR 13 (2003): 105–6n23. ↩
115. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 51–52. ↩
116. Wallace, “Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” 107. ↩
117. Ibid. ↩
118. Ibid., 108. ↩
119. Thanks to Roque Albuquerque for pointing us to this source. ↩
120. Leonard Woods, “Divinity and Personality of the Holy Spirit,” lecture 31 in The Works of Leonard Wood, D. D. (2nd ed.; Andover: n.p., 1850), 1:415. ↩
121. Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 2:118–20. ↩
122. Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (n.p.: Review and Herald, 1978), 6:568. ↩
123. Curt Steven Mayes, “Pronominal Referents and the Personality of the Holy Spirit” (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980), 26. ↩
124. Ibid., 27, 33. ↩
125. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 331–32. ↩
126. Wallace, “Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” 122, 125. ↩
127. Rodney A. Whitacre, John (IVP New Testament Commentary 4; Downers Grove: IVP, 1999), 359. ↩
128. Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck, Understanding Christian Theology (Nashville: Nelson, 2003), 396. ↩
129. Andreas J. Köstenberger, John (BECNT 4; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 442n91. ↩
130. Andrew Malone, “Essential Theology: The Personhood of the Holy Spirit and Masculine Pronouns in John’s Gospel,” Essentials (Autumn 2005): 7–8. ↩
131. Graham A. Cole, He Who Gives Life: The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Foundations of Evangelical Theology; Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 67–68. ↩
132. Francis Turretin: “For no reason can be given why such a change should be made in Scripture except that thus the person of the Holy Spirit may be more clearly designated.” Charles Hodge: “Here there is no possibility of accounting for the use of the personal pronoun He (ἐκεῖνος) on any other ground than the personality of the Spirit.” R. C. Sproul: “Here there is no grammatical reason whatsoever to use the masculine pronoun He unless Jesus intends in this didactic passage to declare that the Holy Spirit is a person.”rancis Turretin, “ropnents of the argument seem unaware of other possible interpretations, others ↩
133. A. T. Robertson exemplifies this objection: “In 16:13 a more striking example occurs, ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας. Here one has to go back six lines to ἐκεῖνος again and seven to παράκλητος. It is more evident therefore in this passage that John is insisting on the personality of the Holy Spirit, when the grammatical gender so easily called for ἐκεῖνο.” ↩
134. In v. 13 he uses ἑαυτοῦ, which, though it could be neuter, everyone rightly parses as masculine. ↩