Spirit Christology

According to the general ancient usage that we are concerned with, a Spirit is a personal and incorporeal being who exists beyond the physical realm but has the power to interact with it. To an ancient Jew, examples of such spirits would be angels, cherubim, seraphim, dominions, demons, gods, and so on. In the first century onward the concept of a preexistent and heavenly Messiah was already standard among the Jewish commentators. 

A common feature of early Christian Christologies is the belief that the Son has a kind of twofold existence since the incarnation. When the Messiah becomes human he does not cease being a spirit, but takes on flesh. He is at once human and divine, flesh and spirit, thereby he retains his heavenly identity as a man. Hence the Son is properly a spirit who becomes fully human. I wish to prove that this sort of Christology is not a later development that was present in the earliest centuries of the church and the passages in the New Testament which directly refer to Jesus unequivocally as a Spirit are best explained in these terms.

It has often been recognized by commentators that the repeated statements that Christ has “has come in the flesh” imply he had a real existence before his arrival in flesh.  (1 Joh. 4:3; 2 Joh. 1:7; 1 Tim. 3:16, et al) If someone has come to one place, it is implied that he was somewhere else before his arrival. God, “sent his son, born of a woman,” (Gal. 4:4) “God sent his son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” (Rom. 8:3) The confession that Christ “was manifest (ἐφανερώθη) in the flesh” or “revealed in the flesh,” implies a prior existence before his manifestation. (1 Tim. 3:16) The Son existed prior to being revealed or manifested in the flesh. This language from the New Testament was understood also by early Christian authors to signify the pre-existence of Christ. In the second century, Ignatius recognized the Son as “both flesh and spirit,” having a twofold existence since the incarnation. 

“There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it—Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Ephesians 7:2)

Especially noteworthy is his distinction between the divine and human sonship of Christ, he is “from Mary and from God.” This distinction was explained in greater detail in his epistle to the Symernaeans,

“Firmly established in love by the blood of Christ, totally convinced with regard to our Lord that he is truly of the family of David with regard to human descent, Son of God, with respect to divine will and power, truly born of a virgin.” (Smyrnaeans 1:1) 

To Ignatius, Christ is the son of David with regard to his human descent and at the same time Son of God by divine will and power. He has both a human and a divine sonship. 

“For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary, in God’s plan being sprung both from the seed of David and from the Holy Spirit.” (Ephesians 18:2)

This same sort of distinction between the human and divine sonship of Christ is also made in Romans 1:2-4 which Ignatius seems to have in mind,

“He promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by resurrection from the dead.” (Rom. 1:2-4) 

The fleshly descent of Christ proves his lineage from David while his resurrection proves his divine Sonship. Paul describes Jesus as the son of God, and also “of the seed of David according to the flesh.” His twofold sonship, human and divine, implies a twofold existence, spirit and flesh. Ignatius wrote, “Jesus Christ, who before the ages was with the Father and was manifest (εφάνη) at the end of time.” (Magn. 6:1) The preexistence of Christ is taught in the second century epistle of Barnabas, which says,

“He is Lord of the entire world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness.” How, therefore, could he submit to suffer at the hand of men?… For the scripture speaks about us when he says to the Son, “Let us make man according to our image and likeness.”” (Barn. 5:5; 6:13) 

Therefore, Barnabas certainly intends to communicate the incarnation when he says, “the Son of God came in flesh,”  “was manifested (φανερωθήναι) in the flesh,” “has come (ήλθεν) in the flesh.” (Barn. 5:6; 5:10, 11; 12:10; 7:37) Such expressions echoing the words of 1 John 4:2, “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” and 1 Tim. 3:16, “He was manifest in the flesh.” Barnabas further describes the incarnation as a voluntary action on the part of the Son, “it behooved Him to appear in flesh, that He might abolish death.” (Barn. 5:6) In the second century Shepherd of Hermas, Jesus is not named but is referred to only as “the Shepherd.” Origen suggests that the author of the Shepherd was authored by the same Hermas mentioned in Romans 16:14. The incarnation appears to be implied when Hermas says,  

“The holy pre-existent Spirit (το πνεύμα το άγιον το προόν), that created every creature, God caused to dwell in the flesh which He chose. This flesh, therefore, in which the holy Spirit dwelt, nobly served that Spirit, walking in holiness and purity, in no respect defiling the Spirit.” (5.6.5.)

To this we may add the testimony found in the Second Epistle of Clement, which is neither an epistle nor was it authored by Clement of Rome, but it is a second century homily likely preached in Alexandria in opposition to early gnostic schools. The anonymous presbyter preached to his Church,

“Christ the Lord who saved us, though He was first a Spirit became flesh, and thus called us, so shall we also receive the reward in this flesh.” (2 Clement 9:4) 

The Son began his existence as a spirit and later became flesh—contrary to the docetae who denied that the Lord Jesus was truly incarnate as a man. In his exposition of the resurrection Paul refers to the Son as a “life giving spirit.”  

“So also it is written: “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam was a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.” (1 Cor. 15:45-47) 

The apostle contrasts the origins of Adam with the origins of Christ. The first Adam began his existence on earth, but “the second man is from heaven.” The first Adam was created from the dust but the second Adam, Christ, had origins in another location, he is “from heaven.” Christ began his existence as “a life-giving spirit.” If literal origins are not in view here then there is no contrast between these statements. Again, elsewhere the apostle says,

“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. But we all, with unveiled faces, looking as in a mirror at the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” (2 Cor. 3:17, 18) 

The particular “Lord” mentioned here is Jesus himself, not the Father, as is clear from an examination of the surrounding context. There is a spiritual veil which remains upon the hearts of the Jews, due to their vain observance and repetitions of Torah. (2 Cor. 3:13) This veil is “removed in Christ.” (2 Cor. 3:14) Therefore, “whenever someone turns to the Lord [i.e. Christ] the veil is taken away.” (2 Cor. 3:15, 16) To turn to the Lord is equivalent with turning to Christ which results in the removal of the veil. Christ is “the Spirit” who takes away the veil of the old covenant. The apostle does not merely say that the Lord Jesus is like a Spirit, or that he may be considered to have a spiritual influence, but that “the Lord is the Spirit.” The Son just is the Spirit. But this does not undermine his humanity, for he is both Son of God and Son of David, flesh and spirit, divine and man. (Rom. 1:3, 4) 

A similar thought is expressed by Peter, who says that it was the “Spirit of Christ” who guided the prophets, “the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.” (1Pet. 1:10, 11)  This implies that Christ had a real existence during the time of the prophets. How could “the Spirit of Christ” be upon the prophets if Christ did not yet exist? Equivalently, the expression “the Spirit of Elijah” would have no meaning if Elijah did not yet exist. (2 Kgs. 2:15) To say that the “Spirit of Christ” was upon the prophets demonstrates that Christ's presence and influence were not limited to his earthly ministry but extended back thousands of years into the time of the prophets.

Early Christians had a tendency to search for types, or symbols of their Lord in the Old Testament, these included identifying persons, objects, and events in narrative situations with Christ himself. The book of Numbers tells the story of how Moses struck a rock with his staff and caused fresh water to flow from it, sustaining the hosts of Israel on their journey through the Canaanite desert. (20:1-13) In Pharisaic tradition, it is said that the rock struck by Moses no longer remained stationary, but miraculously followed the people during this journey giving each “a drink of water at the door of his tent.” (Targum Jonathan, Num. 21:19) The tradition of the mobile fountain of water seems to be known to Paul, 

“And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:4)

Many might suggest that Paul had only a typological meaning in mind. But notice that Paul uses the past tense “that rock was Christ” rather than saying “that rock is Christ.” It is the custom of Paul to use the present tense when he speaks allegorically, he says, “Hagar is Mount Sinai” not “Hagar was Mount Sinai.” (Gal. 4:24-25) Robertson argues,

“Of much more importance is the unquestionable evidence of the apostle’s belief in the pre-existence of Christ. He does not say, ‘And the rock is Christ,’ which might mean no more than, ‘And the rock is a type of Christ,’ but, ‘And the rock was Christ.’ In Gal. 4:24, 25 he uses the present tense, Hagar and Sarah ‘are two covenants,’ i.e. represent them, are typical of them. Similarly, in the interpretation of parables (Matt. 13:19–23, 37–38) we have ‘is’ throughout. The (ἦν) implies that Christ was the source of the water which saved the Israelites from perishing of thirst; there was a real Presence of Christ in the element which revived their bodies and strengthened their faith.” [1]

In the Wisdom of Solomon, divine Wisdom personified, a “kindly spirit,” who was the source of the water from the Rock. (Wis. 1:6; 11:4) Wisdom is said to have delivered Israel from Egypt, and afterwards punished the rebellious Israelites among the camp as a “stern king.” (Wis. 11:10) Philo teaches “the abrupt rock is the wisdom of God, which being both sublime and the first of things he quarried out of his own powers, and of it he gives drink to the souls that love God.” (Leg. All. 2:86) Jude may intend a similar implication when he says, 

“Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all duly informed, that Jesus who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5) 

The reading which mentions “Jesus” is the best supported textually and is adopted in the NA27 and by the SBLGNT. Metzger wrote the following regarding it, 

“Despite the weighty attestation supporting Ἰησοῦς (Α, Β, 33, 81, 322, 323, 424c, 665, 1241, 1739, 1881, 2298, 2344, vg, copsa, boeth, Origen, Jerome, Bede; ὁ Ἰησοῦς 88, 915), a majority of the [United Bible Societies] Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight [...] Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ἰησοῦς, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek versional witnesses (see above). Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul’s reference to Χριστὸς in 1 Cor 10.4).”[2]

Even if one were to prefer the reading κύριος, it is still likely that Jesus is intended, the title κύριος is applied far more to Jesus than to God in the New Testament. [3] It would be far more plausible for the “Lord” in verse five to refer to the same figure mentioned previously in verse four, “our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” 

---

[1] Archibald T. Robertson, and Alfred Plummer, wrote in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, published in New York, and Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1961, pp. 201; Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume IV., The Epistles of Paul (New York: Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1931), pp. 151, 152.

[2] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament (Federal Republic of Germany: Biblia-Druck GmbH Stuttgart, 1975), pp. 723, 724. Emphasis added. 

[3] Watson E. Mills, Roger A. Bullard, Mercer dictionary of the Bible (Macon Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1998), pp. 520-525.

The Personhood of the Spirit

0. Introduction

In this article I discuss a primary exegetical argument for the personhood of the Holy Spirit. This doctrine is a feature of Christian orthodoxy, which is not shared by unitarians, Jews or Muslims. It is argued primarily from the data of the New Testament. 

1. General Data

The phrase The Nicene Creed of 325 mentions the Holy Spirit only once in the phrase, “And in the Holy Spirit.” Professing belief in the Spirit but not describing his nature. This is to be explained by several factors, primarily, the emphasis of the council was upon christology and generally the bishops present had hazy views concerning the Holy Spirit. The Creed was amended at the Council of Constantinople in 381 to include a definition of the Spirit. 

"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who in unity with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets." 

Likewise, the Arian leaders affirmed the personhood of the Spirit, Arius says in his Thalia, “There is indeed a triad, though of different glories.” And Eunomius in his Apology described the Holy Ghost as the second greatest creation of God, who guides the saints and sanctifies them. There are many varied meanings for the word "spirit" (πνεύμα) in the Scriptures depending upon the surrounding context. It may signify wind, breath, angels, demons, wind, breathing, life itself, a state of mind, a disposition, a personality, the immaterial part of man which survives the death of the body, the power of God, or the Holy Spirit himself.[1] The phrase "holy spirit" as such only three times in the Old Testament yet appears nearly a hundred times in the New Testament.[2] We should not be surprised then to discover that the meaning of this phrase may have taken on new significance between the two testaments, as Moule commented,

"In the Old Testament, 'spirit' is used chiefly to denote God's powerful action on and within persons, and especially members of his own people; or occasionally it means simply the breath of life."[3]

In the New Testament, when the definite article is used, "the Holy Ghost" or "the Spirit" often refers to a person, the Paraclete or Comforter sent by Christ to guide his Church. A very familiar distinction is made when the word "spirit" appears. At times "spirit" can refer to a mindset, wind, or force, and at other times with the article "the Spirit" refers to a particular angel or demon, Turner explains,

"This, I suggest is his practice: as a general rule, and subject to contradictions, whenever Holy Spirit has the definite article the reference is to the third person of the Trinity (expressed either as τό πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον or as τό ἅγιον πνεῦμα), but when the article is absent the reference is to a holy spirit, a divine influence possessing men. [...] That is true of Scripture too, for in Acts 4:25 the Psalms are said to have been spoken by God through David's lips by means of a holy inspiration (literally "holy spirit")."[4]

There is no passage in the Old Testament which strongly personifies the Spirit in the same way as the New Testament.  The Spirit is described as a "he (εκείνος)" in the masculine throughout the fourth Gospel, which is often done with persons. To give several examples will suffice, "But he (εκείνος) was speaking," (Joh. 2:21) "he (εκείνος) will declare all things to us," (Joh. 4:24) "he (εκείνος) who made me well," (Joh. 5:11) "he (εκείνος) was the lamp that was burning." (Joh. 5:35) Some falsely claim that the masculine αύτος, "him" is never used of the Holy Spirit but this is simply mistaken. We find it used at Joh. 16:7 where Christ promises, "I will send him to you," πέμψω αυτόν προς υμάς, here the masculine singular accusative αυτόν is used. This kind of language requires explanation. 

2. An Argument

Some may say that it is entirely unnecessary to posit the distinct personhood of the Holy Spirit. Would it not be sufficient to say that it is always the power or presence of God or Christ? If we are to consistently accept all of the biblical statements about the Holy Spirit then we must conclude that it is a third person. The argument might be phrased this way,

1. If the Holy Spirit has will, intelligence, and volition it is a person.

2. The Holy Spirit has will, intelligence, and volition

3. Hence, the Holy Spirit is a person.

4. If the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son then it is a third person.

5. The Holy Spirit is not the Father, or the Son.

C. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a third person.

This kind of argument is often put forth in systematic theologies in some form, notably by Robert Letham, Gordon Clark, and Francis Turretin. In order to deny this kind of argument, one must deny that the Holy Spirit has will, intelligence and volition, or he must say that the Holy Ghost is identical with the Father or the Son. It is evident from even a basic examination of the New Testament writings that the Holy Spirit is not the Father nor is he the Son, most memorably in the baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19, 

"Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." 

We have also a clear example 2 Cor. 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." 

And again in 1 Pet. 1:2, 

"The foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, into obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." 

There are many other triadic passages in the New Testament distinguishing the three. If the Holy Ghost has intelligence, will, volition, feeling, and speaks—yet is not the Father or the Son, then it follows that the Spirit is a third person.[5] The Spirit is economically subordinate tothe Father (Joh. 15:26; Matt. 10:20; Rom. 8:9, 10) and economically subordinate to Christ. (Gal. 4:6; Phil. 1:19; 1 Pet. 1:11; Acts 16:17) 

3. The Paraclete

Christ promised his apostles that when he ascended to heaven, he would send them a Paraclete, παράκλητος who would lead them into all truth. The term Paraclete signifies an advocate, helper, or comforter. Using the same term, the Lord Jesus himself is said to be a Paraclete or comforter, "if any man should sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." (1 Joh. 2:1) But the Son and the Spirit are not the same Paraclete, he says at John 14:16, "I will pray to the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever." The Holy Spirit is distinguished from the Jesus who sends it as "another Paraclete," άλλον παράκλητον, the term άλλος signifies another of the same sort. The Spirit is not the Son or the Father but he is another Paraclete who is sent by and therefore subordinate to them. He continued,

"But the Paraclete, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you." (Joh. 14:26)

In this passage the Holy Spirit is again distinguished from the Father and the Son as a third person. The Spirit will be a teacher, therefore, he must know something. To have knowledge and the ability to teach it is to possess intellect, personhood. These kinds of passages sparked the subsequent pneumatological debates about the status of the Spirit. 

"But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, he shall bear witness of me." (John 15:26)

This passage is the central proof text for the filioque, often cited by Catholic theologians. But it is unlikely the evangelist had this mind. Even Letham, who argues that the passage does refer to an eternal procession admits. 

"In the locus classicus, John 15:26, Jesus says he will send the Paraclete at Pentecost, who proceeds from (εκπορεύεται) the Father. Much New Testament scholarship argues that the procession here refers to economic activity only."[6]

The processions seem to conflate the economic and the ontological trinity. Eastern and Western answers to this problem vary. In his defense of the filioque Ratramnus admitted,

"Therefore, if the Son proceeds from God the Father and the Holy Spirit also proceeds, what will keep the Arians silent, not blaspheming that the Holy Spirit is also the Son of the Father?"[7]

The accusation being, that if the procession of the Logos from the Father causes him to be a Son, then equivalently, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father would also cause the Holy Spirit to be another Son. Christ promised, "I will send him unto you. And he, when he comes, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." (Joh. 16:7, 8, 13) The strongest proof text for the personhood of the Spirit is from Paul, 

"Now in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know what to pray for as we should, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God." (Rom. 8:26, 27)

The Holy Spirit is also depicted as an intercessor and prays to the Father on behalf of the saints. It seems difficult to apply these descriptions to a mere divine power or force. (cf. Jer. 7:16; 27:19) Alford endeavored to avoid this conclusion at all costs,

"The Holy Spirit of God dwelling in us, knowing our wants better than we, Himself pleads in our Prayers... Macedonius gathered from this verse that the Holy Spirit is a creature, and inferior to God, because He prays to God for us. But as Aug. Tract. vi. in Joan. 2, vol. iii. p. 1425, remarks, 'non Spiritus Sanctus in semetipso apud semetipsum in illa Trinitate gemit, sed in nobis gemit, quia gemere nos facit.' No intercession in heaven is here spoken of, but a pleading in us by the indwelling Spirit, of a nature above our comprehension and utterance."[8]

The verses in question do not say the Spirit pleads 'in our prayers,' whatever that is supposed to mean, rather, the text says that the "Spirit himself intercedes." The Spirit is the one praying in these verses. Alford mentions first Macedonius, who was bishop of Constantinople and a native Greek speaker, a man who spoke ancient Greek from infancy. Macedonius understood Rom. 8:26, 27 as a description of a heavenly intercession made by the Spirit to the Father and this is the plain reading of the text. But should we favor the opinions of Augustine, who was not a native Greek speaker, and who had difficulty reading the language even after professional schooling?[9] Augustine never mastered either Greek or Hebrew. He primarily relied upon Latin translations of Scripture when exegeting this text. Saint Paul directly says that "the Spirit himself intercedes for us," το πνεύμα υπερεντυγχάνει υπέρ ημών, and as you see here, the Spirit is the direct object of the verb. You will not find any modern translation which makes believers the subject of this statement. Even Gregory Nazianzen was forced to concede that the Arians were correct in saying that the Holy Spirit prayed to the Father in this passage.[10] The Spirit (το πνεύμα) is the direct object of the verb υπερεντυγχάνει which has the third person ending and means to intercede. The intercessory prayers of the Spirit prove his personhood and subordination to the Father beyond doubt. Persons pray not intimate forces.

The Spirit not only is a teacher of wisdom and supernatural gifts he decides who will receive which gifts. "The same Spirit works all things, dividing to each one individually even as he wills." (1 Cor. 12:11) One must possess intellect and will to make such a choice. The Holy Spirit decides which men to give such gifts to according to his own will, "the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit." (1 Cor. 12:8-10) The same may be said regarding Acts 15:28 "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials." Are we to say that the doctrine of the apostles "seemed good" to an impersonal force or power? The verb translated "seemed good" is the aorist form of δοκέω, a word which means to think, suppose, presume, or regard.[11] Such examples are more than sufficient to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is a person, not a mere force or power. Nor can it be claimed that the Holy Spirit is another name for Jesus or his Father because it is clearly distinguished from both.[12] The Holy Spirit often spoke and issued commands to prophets and apostles. It is sufficient to list these passages for the benefit of the reader because their meaning is clear.[13] The phrase "the spirit speaks" or "the Spirit says" occurs repeatedly.[14] Altogether there is good support for the Nicene doctrine of the Holy Ghost in the scriptures.

[1] Gen. 8:1; Job 9:18; Matt. 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:31, 32; 28:19; Mk. 1:8; 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; Lk. 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25; 26; 3:16, 22; 4:1; 11:13; 12:10, 12; Joh. 1:33; 7:39; 14:26; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33, 38; 4:8, 31; 5:3, 32; 6:3, 5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17, 18, 19; 9:17, 31; 10:38, 44, 45, 47; 11:15, 16, 24; 13:2, 4, 9, 52; 15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25; Rom. 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1 Cor. 2:13; 6:19; 12:3; 2 Cor. 6:6; 13:14; Eph. 1:13; 4:30; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; 4:8; 2 Tim. 1:14; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 2:4; 3:7; 6:4; 9:8; 10:15; 1 Pet. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:21; Jude 20,

[2] Psa. 51:11; Isa. 63:10, 11; Matt. 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:31, 32; 28:19; Mk. 1:8; 3:29; 12:36; 13:11; Lk. 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:25, 26; 3:16, 22; 4:1; 11:13; 12:10, 12; Joh. 1:33; 7:39; 14:26; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33, 38; 4:8, 31; 5:3, 32; 6:3, 5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17, 18, 19; 9:17, 31; 10:38, 44, 45, 47; 11:15, 16, 24; 13:2, 4, 9, 52; 15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25; Rom. 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1 Cor. 2:13; 6:19; 12:3; 2 Cor. 6:6; 13:14; Eph. 1:13; 4:30; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; 4:8; 2 Tim. 1:14; Tit. 3:5; Heb. 2:4; 3:7; 6:4; 9:8; 10:15; 1 Pet. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:21; Jude 20.

[3] Charles F. D. Moule, The Holy Spirit (New York: Continuum International Publishing, 2000), pp. 19.

[4] Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (T&T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1965, pp. 19, 20.

[5] Compare Matt. 28:19; Lk. 11:13; Joh. 14:26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13; Acts 5:3; 13:2-4; 15:28; 20:28; Rom. 8:16, 26, 27; 1 Cor. 12:8-11; 13:14. [6] Robert Letham, Systematic Theology, 4.4.1.

[7] Ratramnus of Corbie, Contra Graecorum Opposita Romanam Ecclesiam Inflamantium, PL 121, 247.

[8] Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co. 1865) Vol. II., pp. 396, 397.

[9] Confessions 1.13, 14. [10] Orations 31.12.

[11] Thayer, pp. 154.

[12] Matt. 3:16, 17; 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2.

[13] Acts 10:19; 11:12; 13:2-4; 21:11.

[14] 1 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22.

Notes on John 8:58

 Another explicit statement of Christ’s preexistence is found in John 8:58, The Living Bible, published 1971 translates Christ’s answer, “I was in existence before Abraham was ever born,” and the Simple English Bible published 1981 similarly reads “I was alive before Abraham was born.” In Jn. 8:58, the present tense verb eimi includes a reference to a past time, namely before the birth of Abraham. Therefore, Christ is claiming to have existed uninterrupted, before Abraham was born, down to the time when he uttered these words, as Robertson explained,

The verb εἰμί, especially ἐστί and ἐστίν, may be merely a “form-word” like a preposition and not be the predicate. Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in ἐγὼ εἰμί (Jo. 8:58 and ἡ θάλασσα οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι (Rev. 21:1). [A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (1914), pp. 394.]

The same syntax is found elsewhere in the New Testament with the same meaning, confirming the validity of this sort of translation. [Lk. 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Jn. 5:6; 14:9; 15:27; Ac. 15:21; 2Cor. 12:19; 1Jn. 3:8.]  Many respected New Testament scholars, such as Georg Winer, [G. B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament (Andover: Warren F. Draper 1897), pp. 267.]  James Moulton, [J. H. Moulton, N. Turner, A Grammar of the New Testament Greek, (London, New York: T & T Clark International, 1960), pp. 62.]  Joseph Sanders, [J. N. Sanders, A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, Edited and Completed by B.A. Mastin (London: A. & Black, 1968), pp. 158.]  and Kenneth McKay [K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, An Aspectual Approach (New York: Peter Lang publishing, Inc., 1994), pp. 42.]  have recognized that the grammar of Jn. 8:58 signifies a claim to uninterrupted existence from before the time of Abraham.

This sort of translation also makes contextual sense, preexistence is a motif throughout this dialogue, Christ claims that he is “from above,” (Jn. 8:23) and to have been taught directly by God himself. [Using the preposition παρὰ (para) which means to be ‘alongside,’ or ‘near’ someone or something. (W. Arndt, F. Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, published by The University of Chicago Press in Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 615.) Christ learned his doctrine while he was “with” or “alongside” God himself, while his opponents were taught indirectly “from” the Devil. (Jn. 8:38)]  (8:38) He then speaks of Abraham’s rejoicing at “his day” as though he himself were present to see Abraham. (8:56) In 8:57 the Jews respond by asking Christ how he could have seen Abraham if he was not yet fifty? Christ directly answers by claiming to have existed before Abraham was born. [The Jews might have believed Christ to have been demon possessed when he claimed to have existed before Abraham. They made this accusation earlier in the dialogue, (8:48) and might have found a claim of existence before Abraham a confirmation of this. They may have reasoned that only angelic and demonic spirits could claim such a long existence.] 

The grammar of St. Joh. 8:58 is just what we would expect for a claim to have existed continuously from before Abraham to the present moment, therefore, the fifth century Syriac version renders it this way. (Francis C. Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, p. 476, 477.)

"Amen, amen, I say to you that before Abraham came to be, I was."

ܐܡܪ ܠܗܘܢ ܐܡܝܢ ܐܡܝܢ ܐܡܪܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܕܥܕܠܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܒܪܗܡ ܐܢܐ ܐܝܬ ܗܘܝܬ

The present tense ειμί here includes a past tense to express an uninterrupted state of existence. Winer, a Unitarian grammarian who denied the pre-existence of Christ nonetheless admitted that the phrase πριν 'Αβραάμ γενέσθαι εγώ ειμί is best understood as describing temporal duration. The question posed to Christ in 8:57 was about his age and he responded directly to this.

 "Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. When the verb expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, — a state in its duration; as Jno. xv. 27 απ' αρχής μετ' εμού εστέ, viii. 58 πριν 'Αβραάμ γενέσθαι εγώ ειμί." (Georg B. Winer, A Grammar of the Idiom, p. 267.)

The first two examples cited by Winer are St. Joh. 15:27 "you have been with me from the beginning," and St. Joh. 8:58 "before Abraham was I am." In St. Joh. 15:27 the present tense εστέ is used in reference to an earlier period of time and signifies the continuous presence of the disciples with Christ from the start of his ministry. This same sort of construction is found elsewhere in the Johannine corpus as well. (St. Joh. 5:6; 14:9; 15:29; Rev. 21:1) This would provide a direct answer to the query of the Pharisees, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Their objection is specifically about the age of Jesus. His response, naturally, would have been along the same lines, "Before Abraham was born, I am."

Regarding the Granville Sharp Rule

0. Introduction

The New Testament already applies θεὸς to the Jesus of Nazareth in four unambiguous places, both with and without the definite article. (Joh. 1:1, 18; 20:28; Heb. 1:8) There are other more disputed occurrences at Matt. 1:23; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Eph. 5:5; Col. 2:2; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 4. Some of these passages have textual variants, and others are grammatically ambiguous. Granville Sharp proposed a grammatical rule to assist in sorting which of these passages actually refer to Jesus as God in an influential booklet entitled, Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive article in the Greek Text of the New Testament. Sharp claimed that his rule can be applied to seven of these texts Eph. 5:5; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 4 in support of the deity of Christ. 

1. Defined and Illustrated

While the rule may be named after Sharp, Theodore Beza had applied the same rule or something very similar in the past. (Ibid. p. vii, viii.) Sharp defined his first rule this way. 

“When the copulative καὶ connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,] if the article ὁ, or any of its cases precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person; ​— as, καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν αὐτόν, ὥστε ΤΟΝ τυφλὸν ΚΑΙ κωφὸν καὶ λαλεῖν καὶ βλέπειν. Matt. xii. 22. And, again, Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς ΚΑΙ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν ΚΑΙ θεὸς πάσης παρακλήσεως. 2 Cor. i. 3. This last sentence contains two examples of the first rule.” (Ibid., p. 3, 4.)

There is a shorter version of the rule provided in the table of contents.

“When two personal nouns of the same case are connected by the copulative καὶ, if the former has the definitive article, and the latter has not, they both relate to the same person.” (Ibid., p. xxxix.)

There are initially twenty-three scriptural examples cited in support of the rule. (Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 9:31; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 5:20; 6:21; Phil. 4:20; Col. 2:2; 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:11, 13; 2 Thess. 2:16; Heb. 3:1; Jas. 1:27; 3:9; 2 Pet. 2:20; 3:2, 18; Rev. 1:6; 16:15) To conform to the rule, a construction must meet five criterion; (1) two substantives must be the same grammatical case, (2) connected by the conjunction καὶ, (3) singular, (4) not names but ‘personal descriptions,’ (5) and only the first substantive is preceded by the definite article. 

To illustrate the rule, the doxology at Phil. 4:20 τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων· ἀμήν. The two titles θεῷ and πατρὶ are in the dative and are not names but personal descriptions. The first title is preceded by the article and both are connected by καὶ and only a single subject is in mind. The longer reading of Jude 4 corresponds to the rule τὸν μόνον δεσπότην θεόν καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν χριστὸν, which referring to a single person, would translate to something like “the only Owner, God and Lord, Jesus Christ.”[1] 

The LXX of Prov. 24:21 is a clear exception to the rule fear God and the King, φοβοῦ τὸν θεόν υἱέ καὶ βασιλέα.  The two substantives θεόν and βασιλέα are in the accusative case, connected by the conjunction καὶ, singular, not names but ‘personal descriptions,’  and only the first substantive is preceded by the definite article. This passage meets all of the criterion of the Granville Sharp rule, and yet there are two distinct persons under consideration in Prov. 24:21, the Israelite King and God. This is confirmed by the final exhortation “do not disobey either of them.” Wallace explains this exception by saying it is the result of translating Hebrew literally because it is not good Greek.[2] The syntax of Hebrew often bleeds over into New Testament Greek, as Moulton explained. 

“The LXX was in “translation Greek,” its syntax determined perpetually by that of the original Hebrew. Much the same was true of large parts of the NT, where translation had taken place from an original Aramaic. But even where this was not the case, it was argued, the writers used Greek as foreigners, Aramaic thought underlying Greek expression. Moreover, they were so familiar with the LXX that its idiosyncrasies passed largely into their own style.”[3]

Winstanley long ago documented numerous Classical as well as Patristic authors who frequently contradict the rule in their writings showing this rule was unknown to ancient authors.[4] However the rule was meant to apply strictly to the New Testament. 

2. Personal Names

The rule considers substantives which are “of personal description respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill,” and it does not apply to phrases with personal names. (Sharp, p. 3, 6.) It ought to be seen as suspicious that a rule which was created for the purpose of personal identification excludes personal names from its considerations. The texts that Sharp used in support of his rule contain the personal name “Jesus” or they contain the title “Christ.” But “Christ” is not used merely as a title of Jesus in the New Testament, it is often treated as a personal name throughout the epistles.[5] The reputed grammarian Robert Funk, stated that the title “Christ” eventually “comes to be a personal name," by the time of the apostles. [6] Friberg also states, 

“Χριστός, οῦ, ὁ strictly one who has been anointed, symbolizing appointment to a task; as a title for Jesus, designating him as the Messiah sent from God (see JN 1.41), Christ, (the) Anointed One (MT 1.16); as a personal name for Jesus, Christ (RO 6.4)”[7]

The examples given by Sharp either use the title “Christ,” or compound personal names such as “Jesus Christ” in the key phrases, therefore, it is suspect whether they meet the criterion of his own rule. (Eph. 5:5; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; Jude 1:4) Wallace explained this same point. 

“Granville Sharp believed that several christologically significant passages involved the TSKS construction. [Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:5; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 5:21; 2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 4] However, several of these involved dubious textual variants (e.g., Acts 20:28; Jude 4), and others had proper names (Eph 5:5; 2 Thess 1:12; 1 Tim 5:21; 2 Tim 4:1). This leaves two passages, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1.”[8]

Modern translations seem rather evenly divided on whether “God” and “Christ” have a single subject in Titus 2:13. Winer’s consideration of Titus 2:13 is lengthy, and his conclusion is worth quoting here,

“In Tit. ii. 13, ἐπιφάνειαν τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, considerations derived from Paul's system of doctrine lead me to believe that σωτῆρος is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with θεοῦ, — Christ being first called ὁ μεγάς θεος, and then σωτῆρ. The article is omitted before σωτῆρος, because this word is defined by the genitive ἡμῶν, and because the apposition precedes the proper name of: of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”# 

Quite apart from the rule, 2 Peter 1:1 probably addresses Jesus as “God and Savior.” This can be argued on the basis of comparing similar language used in the epistle. Second Peter never uses the name “Jesus (Ἰησοῦς)” without attaching honorific titles to the name, seven times it uses κυρίος (1:2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 2:20; 3:18) and four times σωτῆρος. (1:1, 4; 2:20; 3:18)

1:1  τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. 

1:11  τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

2:20  τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. 

3:18  τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ.

1:1 our God and Savior Jesus Christ

1:11 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

2:20 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

3:19 our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

The wording of these statements are identical, with the significant difference that θεοῦ is substituted for κυρίου in the introduction of the epistle.[9] Robertson comments on 2 Pet. 1:1. 

“Curiously enough Winer endeavours to draw a distinction between this passage, “where there is not even a pronoun with σωτῆρος” and the identical construction in 2 Pet. 1:11 τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ, which he cites as an example of “merely predicates of the same person.” Stranger still he bases his objection on doctrinal grounds, a matter that does not per se concern the grammarian. The matter is handled in Winer-Schiedel, where it is frankly admitted that the construction in 2 Pet. 1:1 is the same as that in 1:11 and also in 2:20; 3:2, 18. Schmiedel says also that “grammar demands that one person be meant.”[10]

However, Turner says that the “distinction between God and Christ in the next verse [2 Pet. 1:2] may be against this.” [11] BDF adds that the usage of the definite article varies in epistolary introductions, and therefore it is misled to compare usage of the article in an epistolary introduction with constructions found in the body of the epistle.[12] Furthermore, there is also a convertible proposition which identifies the Father as “God (θεοῦ)” later in the epistle.

λαβὼν γὰρ παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶσδε ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης· (2 Pet. 1:17) 

Wallace defines the convertible proposition as a grammatical construction with two substantives which “indicates an identical exchange. That is to say, both nouns have an identical referent. The mathematical formulas of A=B, B=A are applicable in such instances. A statement such as "Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player in NBA history" means the same thing as "the greatest player in NBA history is Michael Jordan." There is complete interchange between the two.”[13] God just is the Father for the usual language of the author but of course, that does not rule out a broader application. 

[1]  Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament (Federal Republic of Germany: Biblia-Druck GmbH Stuttgart, 1975), p. 723.

[2]  Daniel B. Wallace, The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by καὶ in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance (Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995), p. 126. 

[3] James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. I, Prolegomena (Scotland: Morrison and Gibb Limited for T. & T. Clark LTD. 36 George Street. 1908), p. 2-3.

[4]  Calvin Winstanley, A Vindication of certain passages in the common English version of the New Testament (Cambridge: University Press, Hilliard and Metcalf, 1819), p. 8-11.

[5]   Rom. 5:6; 6:4, 8, 9; 7:4; 8:9,10, 11, 17, 34, 35; 9:1, 3, 5; 10:4, 12:5; 14:9, 10, 15, 18; 15:7, 8, 20; 16:5. 7, 16; 1 Cor. 1:6, 12, 17, 23, 24; 2:16; 3:1, 23; 4:1, 10, 15, 17; 5:7; 6:15; 7:22; 8:11, 12; 9:1, 12, 18, 22; 10:4, 9, 16; 11:1, 3; 12:12, 27; 15:1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18. 19, 20, 22, 23; 2 Cor. 1:5, 21; 2:10, 12, 14, 15, 17; 3:3, 4, 14; 4:4, 5:10, 14, 17, 17, 19, 20; 6:15; 8:23, 9:13; 10:1, 5, 7, 14; 11:2, 3, 10, 13, 23; 12:2, 9, 10, 19; 13:3; Gal. 1:7; 22, 2:4, 16; 20; 21; 3:13, 16, 17, 24, 27, 29; 4:7, 19; 5:1, 2, 4, 24; 6:2, 12; Eph. 1:1, 3, 20; 2:5; 12; 3:4, 6, 8, 17, 19, 21; 4:7, 12, 13, 15, 20, 32; 5:2, 5, 14, 23, 24, 25, 32; 6:5, 6; Phil. 1:10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 29; 2:1, 16, 30; 3:7, 8, 9, 18; Col. 1:2, 3, 7, 24, 27; 2:2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 17, 20; 3:1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 16; 4:3, 12; 1 Thess. 2:5; 3:2; 4:16; 2 Thess. 2:2; 3:5; 1 Tim. 2:7; 5:11; 2 Tim. 2:19; Phile. 1:8, 23; Heb. 3:6, 14; 5:5; 6:1; 9:11, 14, 24, 28; 11:26; 1 Pet. 1:11, 19; 21; 3:16, 18; 4:1, 13, 14; 5:1.

[6]   Robert W. Funk, The Syntax of the Greek Article: Its Importance for Critical Pauline Problems (Vanderbilt University, 1953), p. 192.

[7]   Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, Neva F. Mille, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Canada: Trafford Publishing, 2005), p. 410. 

[8]   Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 276. 

[9]   Archibald T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume VI., The General Epistles and The Apocalypse (New York and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1933), p. 147, 148.

[10]  Archibald T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 785, 786.

[11] Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, p. 16.

[12] F. Blass, A. Debrunner, R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. 1961), p. 140.

[13]  (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of New Testament Greek., Published by Zondervan, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1996., p.  41.)