The Holy Spirit
Copyright © 2011 by Anthony Coore
Introduction
In the part one of this study on who and what God is, we saw that there is an apparent dilemma in reconciling certain biblical statements which declare explicitly that there is one God with other statements that reveal at least two persons who are God. Four views which cover almost all Christian groups were reviewed, and all were shown to be problematic. In the second part of this study, we looked at what the Bible actually teaches, which explained how it is true that there is one God, yet it is also true that both Jesus and the Father who are two individuals, are each God. To complete our study, we will now turn our attention to the matter of the Holy Spirit.
The issue of the Holy Spirit has been for the most part left out of the prior discussions. This is because, whereas it is clear that Jesus and the Father are persons, there is some controversy as to whether the Holy Spirit should be regarded similarly. The majority view which is held by Trinitarians, is that the Holy Spirit is a third distinct person who is God just as Jesus and the Father are. But there is an opposing view held by Jehovah Witnesses and generally by those who do not subscribe to the deity of Jesus, that teaches that the Spirit is not a person like the Father and Son, but is simply the power (or active force) of God. These are clearly two very different perspectives, yet both sides appeal to the Bible to establish their conclusions. Let us take a look at scriptures used by each side to support their understandings.
Third Person vs. Power of God
Reasons that would suggest a third Person is in view include:
The Spirit can be grieved (Eph. 4:30)
The Spirit can be lied to (Acts 5:3-4)
The Spirit speaks (Acts 13:2)
The Spirit has a mind, and makes intercession (Rom 8:26-27)
The Spirit is grouped with Father and Son (2 Cor 13:14, Matt 28:19)
The Spirit is referred to as He, portrayed as a person (John 14 -16)
It does appear that there is biblical support for the view that the Spirit is a third person, just like the Father and Jesus. But then there are scriptures that may suggest otherwise.
Reasons that would suggest a third person is not in view, but rather it is the power of God include:
The Spirit is spoken of as a gift (Acts 10:45)
The Spirit can be given in measure (John 3:34, Num. 11:17)
The Spirit can be quenched (1 Thess. 5:19)
The Spirit can be poured out (Acts 2:16-19)
The Spirit fills people (Luke 1:15 and many others)
This is not the way one normally speaks of a person.
Scriptures such as Zech. 4:6, Luke 1:35,Luke 4:14, Acts 1:8 and Rom 15:19 show a close association of the Spirit with power. Furthermore, the Spirit is represented by wind, fire (Acts 2:2,3), water (John 4:14), oil (Ps. 45:7, Acts 10:38), a dove (Matt. 3:16), and never do we see a manifestation as a person.
With these Scriptures and points in mind, it is not difficult to see why one may be inclined to believe that the Spirit is simply the power of God. So which view is correct, if any? If the Spirit is a third person, then the Scriptures which appear to indicate otherwise, must be explained. Likewise, if the Spirit is an impersonal power, then the Scriptures which speak of it in personal terms need clarification.
Those who see the Spirit as another person often explain the other texts which might suggest an impersonal power, by appealing to the literary device of metaphor. In other words, it is just a poetic way that the various writers have chosen under inspiration to express some quality of a person, and such statements should not necessarily be taken literally. So the fact that the Spirit is said to fill people, or is poured out, or is described as rivers of living waters, does not necessitate concluding the Spirit is an impersonal force or power. Those who take this approach, can cite illustrations to demonstrate their point. For example:
Paul speaks of himself as being poured out (2 Tim. 4:6).
Both God and Jesus are spoken of as filling all things (Eph. 1:23. 4:10).
God is spoken of as a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29).
So the fact that the Spirit is spoken of in similar terms would not necessarily imply that a person cannot be in view.
Those on the other side of the divide who hold the Spirit to be an impersonal power also appeal to the poetic use of language to explain why sometimes the Spirit is spoken of in personal terms. In this case the literary device cited is personification, where personal characteristics are attributed to things.
Therefore such texts should not be taken literally as though the Spirit really is another person. For example:
The scriptures oftentimes speak of wisdom as a woman, particularly in the book of Proverbs.
In Gen 4:10, Abel’s blood is said to cry out.
We know wisdom is not literally a woman, and neither does blood literally cry out. So the fact that the Spirit is sometimes portrayed as a person is not conclusive that it is.
It is also pointed out that the use of the pronoun “He” in reference to the Spirit, does not prove that a person is in view, as it is at the discretion of the translators as to whether “he” or “it” should be used. A noun of masculine gender in the Greek language (which the NT was written in) can in fact refer to an inanimate object. Similarly, a word of neuter gender can refer to a person. The Greek word for spirit actually is of neuter gender, so the pronoun “it” is a technically correct translation. However, if the one who is translating has reason to believe that a person is in view, then one may choose to use the personal pronoun (“he” or “she”) instead of “it”. You can compare a KJV bible with an NIV looking at texts such as Rom 8:16, Rom 8:26 which show that one set of translators chose to use “itself” while the other used “himself” to refer to the Holy Spirit. It will therefore require more than a mere examination of the pronouns used for the Spirit to determine whether a person is in view.
Considering the case that can be made for both sides, it is still premature to make a determination as to which if either is correct. However, it does seem at this stage that those who argue for the Spirit as a third person have a somewhat stronger case. For while the opposing stance can explain a number of the passages by arguing for personification, there does seem to be a few cases where that comes across as a strained reading. For eg. Rom 8:26-27 which speaks of the mind of the Spirit,and the Spirit making intercession. Also John 14, where the Spirit is called another comforter (like Jesus).
Challenges to the Third Person View
It is hard not to concede that there does seem to be some serious problems with the understanding that the Spirit is merely the power of God. But this does not mean the third person view is correct. There are some challenging questions and observations that need to be addressed:
First of all, why is it that almost all the epistles of the New Testament, begin with greetings from the Father and the Son, but none from the Spirit? One may be tempted to suggest that this is to be expected since the Father and Son are in heaven, but the Spirit is sent to be with us. However, this would only make sense from a Tritheistic perspective, and not a trinitarian one. For the classical Trinity doctrine does not allow for the presence of one Person of the Godhead without the others. Furthermore, the scriptures show that Jesus lives in His people. So if the writers still thought it appropriate to send greetings from Jesus, then why neglect the Spirit?
If indeed the Spirit is to be understood as a third person, then what would be His relationship to the Father and Son? We understand the relationship of a father to a son and vice versa. But how should we understand the Father’s relationship to the Spirit, the Spirit’s to the Father, the Son’s to the Spirit, and the Spirit’s to the Son? Is the Spirit perhaps a brother of Jesus? After all, the Spirit is said to cry, “Abba, Father” (Gal 4:6) But such a relationship between Jesus and the Spirit is never portrayed in scripture. It is rather odd that this third person’s relationship to either the Father or Son is never described.
Furthermore, what is the relationship between us and the Spirit? Perhaps one could argue that the interpersonal relationships of the Persons within the Godhead are beyond our comprehension or does not concern us. But surely the Spirit’s relationship to us should be within reach. We understand clearly that Jesus is our brother (Rom 8:29). God (the Father) is our father (John 20:17). But what is the Spirit to us?
Another puzzling fact is that there is never any reference to the Father and/or Son loving the Spirit and vice versa. Yet the love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father is made very clear (eg. John 15:9, John 14:31).
Consider too that we read of the Spirit of the Father, and the spirit of the Son. If the Spirit is a third person like the Father and the Son, then should we expect that the Spirit has a Spirit? Of course, there is no hint of that in Scripture. But if we were to assume the Spirit has a spirit, then would that spirit in turn be another person? Yet if it is not proper to speak of the Spirit of the Spirit, then why is it that the Spirit is different from the other two persons in this respect? After all, both the Father and Jesus are spirit, and yet they are said to have a spirit.
What is very striking, is that there is never any prayer, praise, or address specifically to the Spirit found in the pages of Scripture. But there is no difficulty finding such texts for the Father or Jesus.
With these questions and observations in mind, together with the points made earlier against the view that the Spirit is a third person, it does seem that there are also serious problems with the Trinitarian understanding. So if both teachings on the Spirit fail to provide a satisfactory explanation to the matter, then is there a better option? What is the truth?
The Biblical Resolution
As we seek to ascertain the scriptural position, we need to consider that God is Spirit, and is holy. Is it possible that when the scripture speaks of the Spirit, it is simply referring to the essence of God, through which His presence, His mind, and His power are manifested? Is it possible that when the Spirit is depicted as a person, that it is not referring to a third person, but rather, to the person of either Jesus or the Father who are both God by nature or essence? If this is so, then the dilemmas of the two opposing views we looked at would be resolved. However, the merit of such an understanding must be determined by the scriptures. So what do they reveal?
Consider 1 Cor. 2:10-11
“But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. “
Verse 10 is sometimes cited by Trinitarians as a prooftext to establish that the Spirit is another person. But such a reading is problematic to the Trinitarian view. For the comparison is made between our spirit and God’s Spirit. A man’s spirit is not another person distinct from himself. So by the analogy Paul uses, the implication is that the Spirit of God is not another person distinct from God.
We can see this understanding borne out in the following text:
“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17 NIV)
In this case, the identity of the Spirit is stated explicitly to be the Lord. It would appear that Paul never considered the Spirit to be a third person.
“Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”” (Gal. 4:6)
Paul is not indicating here that the Spirit is another son of God like Jesus. It is Jesus dwelling in the believer who cries out, “Abba, Father”. We see this corroborated in texts like Gal. 2:20 and Col. 1:27 which show that Christ lives in us.
“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20)
“To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27)
Answering Trinitarian Arguments
Romans 8:26,27
Earlier one of the texts cited to justify the trinitarian view that the Spirit is a third person, was Rom. 8:26,27 where the Spirit is shown to have a mind, and to intercede on our behalf. Let us revisit this to see if the trinitarian framework is warranted.
Before we get to verses 26 and 27, we see
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” (vs. 9)
Paul here equates the Spirit of God with the Spirit of Christ. What he is in effect showing, is that it is through Christ that one gets to possess the Spirit of God.
“And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.” (vs. 10)
From this it becomes evident that having the Spirit of Christ, is the same as having Christ in you.
With these points in mind, is it possible to read verses 26 and 27 as follows?
“Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself (Christ) maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he (the Father) that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit (Christ), because he (Christ) maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God” (vs. 26-27)
Surely this reading must be acknowledged as plausible. But it becomes even more convincing when we factor in verse 34:
“Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us” (vs. 34. NIV).
This states explicitly that it is Christ who is interceding for us. So this supports the conclusion that the person of the Spirit in verses 26 and 27 who makes intercession on our behalf is Jesus. There is no need to introduce a third person into the picture.
The Spirit Speaks
Based on the foregoing analysis, when we see instances where the Spirit spoke, one does not have to conclude that the Spirit is a third person. All such texts can be explained by the understanding that the person in view, the one who is speaking, is either Jesus or the Father. For example, Mark 13:11 says:
“But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost”
This tells of the Holy spirit speaking in a specific context. Compare this with its parallel passage in Matt 10:20:
“For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you”
So what we see is that it is the Father who is in view, as the person who is speaking.
Consider too Hebrews 10:15-16:
“And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying, ‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds'” (NRSV)
This is actually a citation from Jeremiah 31:33. Clearly the one who is speaking is the Lord (Yahweh) Himself. The writer to the Hebrews equates this to the Spirit speaking.
The book of Revelation helps to further the point. Seven messages are given to the seven churches. What we see in each case, is Jesus Himself speaking to the churches. For eg.
“And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive; I know thy works…” (Rev 2:8-9)
This is clearly Jesus speaking. But at the end of the message to the church in Smyrna, it says,
“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches” (Rev. 2:11)
We actually find this at the end of each message to the churches. The person speaking is identified as Jesus, so there really is no need to try to make the Spirit another person.
There are other places where the Spirit can be found to be speaking (such as Acts 10:19 and Acts 13:2). But there is no reason why they cannot be understood to be either Jesus or the Father (or both) speaking. However, one may wonder why such texts specify the Spirit as speaking, and not simply Jesus or the Father. For instance, why not say, “Jesus said” instead of “the Spirit said”? That is a reasonable question. But to say “the Spirit said” actually communicates something more than just saying, “Jesus said”. For what it shows, is the means by which the message came. The Spirit speaking implies an internal communication that takes place in the mind and heart. It is distinct from having an audible voice that others could listen to were they in the vicinity.
Blasphemy of the Spirit
In Matthew 12, Jesus says that all manner of blasphemy would be forgiven, even against the Son, with one exception. Blasphemy against the Spirit is unpardonable.
“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come” (Matt. 12:31-32)
Trinitarians have sometimes used this to support the view that the Spirit is a third person. For not only can the Spirit be blasphemed, but a distinction is made with Jesus, since Jesus says that even blasphemy against the Son will be forgiven. This argument however, begs the question as to why would blaspheming the Spirit be worse than blaspheming Jesus or even the Father, if they are 3 distinct persons (supposedly co-equal)?
Of course, if the Spirit is not a person distinct from the Father and Son, as purported here, then how is it possible to be forgiven for blasphemy against Jesus, but not against the Spirit? The explanation to this is actually found in what was earlier said in the discussion on the Spirit speaking. The Spirit speaking indicates a communication from God within the heart and mind. Blasphemy against the Spirit indicates that one is speaking or acting against what has been revealed internally. It means renouncing the conviction that God gives from within. This is not necessarily the same as simply blaspheming Jesus. For one can speak against Jesus in ignorance. For whatever reason, one’s mind might not be ready to grasp who Jesus really is, and as such, one may say all manner of evil against Him. However, when one rejects Him, having the internal conviction of who He really is, one is willfully choosing to go against the truth. If one chooses to do this, one is blaspheming the Spirit. Jesus said there is no forgiveness for that, and it is not hard to see why. For if one disregards the inner conviction that comes from God, then what can bring such a person to repentance?
John 14 – 16
In this section of scripture, there are a number of instances where Jesus refers to the Spirit in such a way that makes it understandable why one would conclude that it is actually another person. But these must now be considered in light of the explanation of the Spirit that is being espoused here.
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:16-17)
The Comforter is equated with the Holy Spirit. A superficial reading leaves one with the impression that Jesus is referring to the Spirit as a distinct person from Himself. However, the verse which follows gives us reason to question this.
“I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you” (vs. 18)
This statement reveals that Jesus acts as comforter, and although He will be going away, He will come as a comforter. With this in mind, the reference to the comforter in verse 16 must be seen as a distinct possibility to be a reference to Jesus Himself. When we consider that in verse 17, Jesus says the Spirit dwells with them (the disciples), and shall be in them, then it really does appear that the Comforter is Jesus. For Jesus, who had the Spirit of the Father in Him, was there dwelling with them, and He is indicating that He will thereafter dwell in them. This is why Jesus speaks of Himself and the Father coming to us:
“At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. ” (vs. 20)
“Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (vs. 23)
So if Jesus is the Comforter, why does He speak of “another” comforter? Bear in mind that when Jesus said these things, He was there in the flesh. What Jesus was speaking of, was His spiritual presence. So the Spirit is another comforter, in that it is another way that Jesus was going to be present.
But what about the following verses?
“But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:” (John 15:26)
“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you” (John 16:12-15)
These verses make it seem that the Spirit is a person distinct from Jesus, since Jesus says He is sending the Spirit, and the fact that the Spirit will be testifying of Jesus, and glorifying Him. So if the person of the Spirit is really Jesus, then it means Jesus would be speaking of Himself in the third person. Also, one might think it a bit self-indulgent for Jesus to be testifying of Himself or glorifying Himself. These are reasonable observations that could lead one to conclude that the Spirit must be a third Person.
Before we jump to conclusions however, we must not forget what we saw earlier where the Comforter is essentially equated with Jesus’ spiritual presence in the disciples. Also, it is not unusual for Jesus to speak of Himself in the third person. For eg. His many references to the Son of man, which is Jesus Himself. Also in John 17:3, He says, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent ”.
Furthermore, a little later Jesus says that He has been speaking to them in proverbs or figurative language.
“These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father” (John 16:25)
This means that He has not been speaking in a straightforward manner, and a superficial reading of the text could result in an erroneous conclusion1. As we consider these words of Jesus, let us look at a text that appears to illustrate to some extent what Jesus was talking about.
“Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” (1 Pet. 1:10-11 KJV)
This is speaking of the time before Christ’s first coming, and Jesus (in John 15 and 16) was speaking about the Spirit after His physical departure. But this is still an example of the Spirit testifying of Christ, and glorifying Him by means of showing the prophets the glories of Christ to come. Yet notice that it says specifically it was the Spirit of Christ. We saw earlier that the Spirit of Christ is the spiritual presence of Christ. Recall that the Spirit of Christ crying “Abba, Father”, is not another sibling of Jesus, but is Jesus Himself in the believers crying out, and sharing His sonship with us. So the Spirit of Christ that testified beforehand the sufferings of Jesus and the glory that should follow, was Christ’s spiritual presence in the prophets revealing things to them about Himself.
The possible perception that Jesus is being self-indulgent for glorifying Himself cannot be sustained since Jesus simply reveals what the Father gives Him to communicate (“he will not speak of His own, but what He hears that He will speak”). The assertion therefore that Jesus in John 15 and 16 was referring to His indwelling of the disciples, His spiritual presence, is not a twisting of the scriptures, but makes good sense.
Before we leave this section of scripture, it is noteworthy that only John uses the word for Comforter (Greek is parakletos) in the New Testament. Four times it is used in reference to the Spirit, and one other place outside of this gospel, he uses it in explicit reference to Jesus.
“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1)
The word translated “advocate” here is the same parakletos that was rendered Comforter in the gospel of John. This of course does not by itself prove the point, but it certainly reinforces the understanding that the comforter is not another person distinct from Jesus.
2 Corinthians 13:14
“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.”
This is one of the main staples of Trinitarian proof texts to show that the Spirit is a third person of the Godhead. For as is clearly seen, Jesus, God (the Father), and the Holy Spirit are mentioned together. So if Jesus and the Father are distinct persons, then how could the Spirit not be a distinct person? And if the person of the Spirit is either Jesus or the Father, then why mention the Spirit distinctly?
While these are reasonable questions to ask, the text does not warrant the conclusion that the Spirit is a third distinct person. This text only shows that the three can be distinctly spoken of, which is not a problem to the view being advanced in this study. For recall that the position taken here is not simply that the Spirit is the person of Jesus or the Father. But the Spirit is the essence of God which is used to communicate the mind, the presence, and the power of God and Jesus.
The communion of the Holy Spirit mentioned in the verse, is simply speaking of the fellowship believers share with one another, and God, being united together with the same Spirit. Notice what John says about our fellowship:
“That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3)
John never felt the need to mention the Holy Spirit among the persons he says we truly have fellowship with. That does appear odd if the Spirit really is a third person, and which Paul makes specific reference regarding fellowship. But what John says here, fits perfectly with the explanation given for Paul’s mention of the fellowship of the Holy Spirit in 2 Corinthians. 13:14 above.
Matthew 28:19
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”
This is another prominent text that is used to establish the Trinity. Jesus tells his disciples to baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. So if the Father and Son are two distinct persons, then why should we treat the mention of the Spirit differently? But not only are the three mentioned distinctly, but Jesus says, “in the name of”! It would seem that the implication really is that there are three distinct persons.
So troubling has this text been to non-Trinitarians2, that some have even suggested that this text was not in the original manuscript. That assertion is not entirely without merit, for there are church fathers such as Eusebius who on various occasions cited the passage, but never with a mention of “the Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. Since Eusebius and others would have had access to manuscripts earlier than any extant, it is argued that what we currently have access to, was corrupted. But this is far from conclusive.
There is not enough evidence to warrant dismissing elements of this verse as a late addition. So if we accept that this is a legitimate transmission of what Matthew communicated, must one then concede that three persons are necessarily in view? The answer is no, as we shall now see.
Similar to 2 Corinthians 13:14,the mention of the three only demonstrates that there is a distinction among the three, which as explained before, is not a challenge to the position taken here. Consider for example a website that belongs to John and Joe. John is the one who creates the content, the message, of the site, and Joe does the actual work of putting it on the web. One could speak of the message of John, Joe and the website in the same breath, and clearly one is not speaking of 3 persons. The message originates from John, is sent out by Joe, and is transmitted or broadcast through the website. To further demonstrate, with the explanation of the Spirit given in this study, one could see how it is possible to refer to the power of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, without having to conclude that 3 distinct persons are being referenced. For in this case, one could simply be referring to the power which originates from the Father, that is administered by the Son, and is transmitted by the Spirit (ie. the essence of God).
Even with such illustrations, one may point out that since the text under consideration says “name of”, one could reasonably argue that three distinct persons are in view. It should be noted though, that one can use the phrase “in the name of” without having to refer to a person. For example, one could say, “stop in the name of the law”. So the wording here does not necessarily imply that three persons are being spoken of. Someone could however argue that the weight of evidence suggests 3 persons, since the other two mentioned (Father and Son) are persons. But a little deeper probing reveals that there is more to the matter.
Since Jesus gave His disciples this command, why is it that no instance of any baptism recorded in the New Testament uses the formula “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit”? For example, in the book of Acts, we find:
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38)
“(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)” (Acts 8:16)
“When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5)
It is at least a little curious that these simply say in the name of Jesus. Was Jesus really giving a baptismal formula in Matt. 28?
Jesus Only adherents argue that the name of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, is Jesus. So that is why the examples of baptism cited, specifies “in the name of Jesus”. It was shown in the previous two parts of this study problems with the Jesus Only view, and why it should be rejected, so we have reason to dismiss this interpretation. What we need to consider, is just what is meant by the phrase “in the name of”?
A popular perception is that “in the name of” means, to say “in the name of”. But that is a rather simplistic view which would make certain biblical texts absurd. Take the following scripture for instance.
“And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Col 3:17 NIV)
Without even understanding precisely what “in the name of” means, clearly Paul is not telling us to say “in the name of Jesus” whenever we do something. Whatever the apostle had in mind, it must be possible to actually do something in the name of Jesus without actually saying, “in the name of Jesus”. What we need to ascertain is, the sense in which “name” is being used.
The scriptures use “name” in various ways. It can signify, power or authority, representation, nature, character or life. What Paul is in effect saying, is to do all things in the life of Christ. In other words, allow Christ to live His life in you without reservation. The use of “name” in Matt 28, is actually in a similar sense to its usage here.
To fully understand what Jesus is commissioning His disciples with in Matt. 28, we need to note that the word “in” is more literally rendered, “into”. In other words, the more accurate reading is, “baptizing them into the name of”. Now to baptise means to immerse. So putting it all together, what Jesus is essentially saying, is to immerse those becoming disciples into the life of the Father, the Son and the Spirit, teaching them to observe all that He has commanded.
Now there is no need to conclude that 3 persons are in view. For just as how the message of John, Joe and the website in the illustration earlier, does not indicate that the website is a third person, so it does not mean that the Spirit is either. Jesus is simply using a shorthand way of saying we need to be immersed into the life that originates from the Father, is administered by the Son, and is transmitted by their Spirit (the essence of God).
Summary and Conclusion
We started our study by looking at two opposing views. One which contends that the Spirit is a third person of the Godhead, just like Jesus and the Father, and the other which argues that it is simply the power of God. We saw a number of shortcomings with each perspective, which led to seeking another. The view advanced here, that the Spirit is the essence of God through which His mind, His presence and power are manifested, is consistent with the scriptures, and is able to resolve the difficulties faced by the other views. With this understanding, we see that the Spirit is not a third person. Rather, whenever it is portrayed as a person, it is really the person of the Father and/or Son who are being projected.
This understanding of the Holy Spirit completes the beautiful picture of God and His purpose for man. In part 2 of this study, we saw that God is in the process of reproducing Himself. Now equipped with the Biblical understanding of the Spirit, we can see that it is by partaking of the Spirit, that we come to share in God’s uncreated essence and nature, and are able to become just like our heavenly Father and our brother Jesus Christ.
1. One may be tempted to argue that the figurative language is restricted to the few verses preceding this, where He talks about a little while and the disciples would not see Him, and again, a little while and they would, that He goes to the Father, and then He goes on to make the comparison of a woman in labour who has sorrow first then joy. Or maybe it is even more restricted to His statement that whatever they ask the Father in his name will be granted. However, when one compares these verses with the earlier verses of this discourse with His disciples (found in this chapter and the previous two), similar elements are seen. For instance, in verses 5 and 6, Jesus indicates He is going away, and that sorrow has filled the hearts of the disciples. Even earlier still, He speaks about His going away and yet coming again (John 14:18). He spoke of His going to the Father before too (John 14:28). Also, in John 14:12-14 Jesus tells them about being given what they ask in His name. So there is really no reason to limit the applicability of the figurative language to the few preceding verses.
2. There are some who doubt the authenticity of this verse because it’s not the formula they believe should be used in conducting baptisms.