The Greek New Testament does not call the Holy Spirit an it!

Grammatical gender is rather ordinary in most languages but completely absent from English.  In English, men are he/him, women are she/her, and everything else is an it.  Because English follows a sort of “natural gender,” English speakers often believe gender in other languages also denotes the sex or personhood of what is being discussed.  If a noun in another language is masculine, for example, English speakers assume it denotes a human male.  

Grammatical gender is merely a type of grammatical designation.  In Spanish, for example, the word for a lady’s dress is el vestido, which is masculine, while the word for a man’s necktie is la corbata, which is feminine.  This seems totally absurd to English speakers because a lady’s dress should obviously be feminine and the necktie, masculine!  

In my opinion, it’s unfortunate we even use the word gender to describe it.  It might help native-English speakers if we imagine the word class when talking about gender.  For example, instead of saying masculine nouns, we could say class-M nouns.  Since this blog is written in English, I’m assuming the people who read it also speak English so grouping nouns into classes instead of gender might help you as you think about this post.  

Spanish only has two genders: masculine and feminine.  There is no neuter gender in Spanish.  However, Greek has three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter.  Since the New Testament was written in Greek and since English uses he, she, and it, the tendency to project our English understanding of gender onto the text becomes almost irresistible.  Therefore, problems sometimes arise when people try to use the gender of a Greek word to make a doctrinal point.  

A blog that calls itself Examining the Trinity has pointed out that the Holy Spirit in the original Greek is neuter.  They went on to say this:

But "Holy Spirit" in the original Greek is neuter and therefore the neuter pronouns "it," "itself" are used with it in the original NT Greek! Any strictly literal Bible translation would have to use "it" for the holy spirit (since it is really not a person, but God's active force, a literal translation would be helpful in this case).

This is an extremely amateurish argument. It demonstrates how a little knowledge can be dangerous. Most people who use this argument really can't read Greek. Instead, they have heard once that the Greek word for “Spirit” is neuter so, because of their understanding of English, they buy into the argument that the Spirit is an “it.” Of course, there are some people who indeed understand Greek's grammatical use of gender but still repeat the argument with the intention of preying on the audience's ignorance of the subject.

First, this is a blatant example of special pleading because the same people who raise this argument don't apply this same standard everywhere. In Matthew 2:11, for example,  the Bible says the wise men, “saw the young child with Mary his mother.” The Greek word for child here (paidion, παιδίον, Strong’s word 3813) is neuter so, to be consistent, they should translate this verse as “they saw the young child with Mary its mother.” Of course they don't do that. Neither do they refer to the church as her or the book as him or “correctly” render the hundred other instances where Greek gender does not agree with English ideas of gender.

There's another subtle flaw in the above quote that might escape notice. The author seems unaware of the flaw and cites a source that commits the same mistake. See if you can spot it in this quote:

The Greek word for 'spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek manuscripts employ 'it.' [bold in original]

Did you catch it? If not, don't feel bad because it's sort of a technicality and some might accuse me of splitting hairs. However, I feel it's an important consideration. This quote says, “most Greek manuscripts employ 'it.'” The reality is that NO Greek manuscript contains the word, it! The word it is an English word which conveys a certain meaning in English. It is more precise to say that the Greek manuscripts use the neuter pronoun (auton) whenever the antecedent is a neuter noun. The original authors were not thinking “it” whenever they wrote "auton." Again, think, “class” instead of gender and it might help.  Class-N nouns use class-N pronouns.  

A language is more than its vocabulary; each language also has its own grammar as well as its own idioms. The goal of any translation is to express the same meaning in the target language that is conveyed in the original language. A good translation should obey the rules of the target language – not slavishly render a hyper-literal, word for word exchange of the original language. The pronouns used in our translations should follow the rules of English, not Greek! If the antecedent is an object, the English pronoun should be it. If the antecedent is a person, the English pronoun should be he or she.

If anyone wants to deny the Personhood of the Holy Spirit, he must make his case using Scripture. A weak appeal to the gender of a Greek word – especially an appeal made by someone who can't even read Greek – isn't even close.

These aren’t just expressions

Have you ever heard the adage, “Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead” or “By failing to prepare you are preparing to fail”?  Witticisms like these are invented to encourage best practices or to describe some obvious truth.  These particular quotes are attributed to Ben Franklin but many other American characters have quipped equally memorable expressions.  Statements like these are ingrained in our culture - they are our lore, if you will.

Some idioms we use are very short: barking up the wrong tree, shooting fish in a barrel, taking candy from a baby, pleading the fifth, and etc. I don’t know how many of these I could cite - certainly dozens, maybe hundreds.  In every case, when we hear phrases like this, we usually know what the speaker means to say.  

Often, though, we don’t have any idea how a phrase came into use in the first place.  For example, why does “put up with” mean “to tolerate”?  If a non-English speaking person tries to translate the words put, up, and with, individually, he will still not be able to understand what the English phrase means.  It’s just one of those things we say without knowing why we say it.

I came to this realization many years ago, while I was still a teenager.  When I was coming out of Ahrens Vocational School in downtown Louisville, KY, there were some Gideons (I didn’t know they were Gideons at the time because I’d never heard of them) on the sidewalk handing out New Testaments to students.  I took one.  

Even though it was only a NT, this was the first Bible I’d ever owned.  My family did have a big Bible but it was more like a table decoration.  You know the kind: 5 inches thick, gilded pages, and embossed with “Holy Bible” on the front in Old English font.  I remember flipping through that tome but I never actually read it.  But now that I had a Bible of my own - one which was pocket sized and more convenient to carry with me - I decided for the first time to start reading it.

The NT starts with Matthew, of course, and as I read it, a strange familiarity began to creep over me.  I kind of knew about Jesus -the Savior, He died on a cross, rose from the dead, and all that so that wasn’t new.  What struck me the most, though, were the familiar sayings that I’d heard and even used all my life!

I thought it would be interesting to take a minute and consider just a handful of expressions, used in our everyday lives, that are taken straight from the Bible.  For the sake of this post, I’m limiting this to examples found in the Gospel of Matthew.  Are we ready?  Let’s begin:

“Man can’t live on bread alone,” Matthew 4:4

“He’s the salt of the earth,” Matthew 5:13

“He’d give you the shirt off his back,” Matthew 5:40

“He always goes the extra mile,” Matthew 5:41

As weird as it might sound, I had heard all of these expressions before; I just had no idea they were based on Bible verses.  Seriously.  Looking back now, I laugh at how ignorant I was of Scripture.  To me, “going the extra mile” was just another adage similar to, “early to bed and early to rise….”  I guess I just assumed someone like Ben Franklin or Mark Twain made it up.  

There are many more examples, still.  Ronald Reagan called the US a shining “city on a hill”; he took this from Matthew 5:14. Some people believe Abraham Lincoln coined the phrase, “A nation divided against itself cannot stand” but he was actually quoting Jesus in Matthew 12:25.

I’ve seen Bible verses being used (knowingly or unknowingly) in the workplace.  When a manager doesn’t seem to know what he’s doing, we might say it’s a case of, “the blind leading the blind” (Matthew 15:14). In a large corporation, sometimes conflicting directives are given to employees and they say, “the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing” (Matthew 6:3).

If we become especially angry with someone, we might say, “I’ll have his head on a platter” (Matthew 14:10-11).  If a child says something funny or clever, we might quip, “Out of the mouth of babes….” (Matthew 21:16).  When a loved one isn’t living up to his potential, we might tell him, “You’re hiding your light under a bushel” (Matthew 5:15).  When someone quits after a long struggle, it might be said, “he gave up the ghost” (Matthew 27:50).

If you’ve been a Christian for a while, you’re probably familiar with all of these verses.  However, I’m telling you that, when I was an unbeliever, I was completely oblivious to the source of these common turns of phrase.  It was only as I began to read them for myself, that I began to understand how much Christianity had already shaped my understanding of the world.

It wasn’t until a few years later that I became a Christian.  Once I became born again, I believe God instilled in me a hunger for His word.  It’s like I can never read it, think about it, or talk about it enough.  Yet in spite of how much I’ve learned from the Bible, I’m embarrassed by how little I think I know it.  Those first few nuggets that caught my eye as an unbeliever, weren’t just expressions.  They were a testimony to how rich the Bible is in wisdom and how enduring its advice can be.

Mark 2:1-5, Jesus forgives the paralyzed man

Mark 2:1-5, And again he entered into Capernaum after some days; and it was noised that he was in the house. And straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door: and he preached the word unto them. And they come unto him, bringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. And when they could not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.

This passage from Mark (also seen in Luke 5) has been loved by millions of Christians.  You’ve probably heard more than one sermon preached about this event.  Yet even though this passage has been read and preached countless times, I think the most important lesson we can learn from it is often overlooked.

Some Bibles have little headings inserted above each section that describe that section.  This passage is usually described as “Jesus heals the paralyzed man” or something very similar.  Am I right?  In every list of miracles, in various Bible commentaries, or any time this event is being discussed, it is nearly always described as Jesus heals the paralyzed man.  I admit I’ve described it that way too so I have done my part in adding to the confusion.  Lord, forgive me!

I have included the passage above without commentary.  Read it again and ask yourself, “What is the first thing that Jesus says to paralyzed man?”  Is it, “Rise up and walk?”  Is it, “Be healed?”  No it isn’t.  The first thing Jesus says is, “Your sins are forgiven!”

Now, of course I know that Jesus later healed the man.  I’ve included the rest of the event here.  As you read it, pay close attention to why Jesus heals the man:

Mark 2:6-12, But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

You can’t look at someone and see their sins.  Anyone can say to another, “your sins are forgiven,” but how can we know if their sins are truly forgiven?  Jesus understood the doubt of the Pharisees.  In order to show that He had the authority to forgive sins, He gave them a physical sign that they could see.  So the healing was done to demonstrate that Jesus does not speak these words in vain.  

When Jesus forgives our sins, they are forgiven!  There is no, “wait and see.”  There is no, “I hope He’s right.”  It’s a certainty.  The One who can make lame men walk and blind men see is the same one who can forgive my sins!  Praise God!!

The Bible says that at the house, Jesus preached the word and people came to Him.  It almost sounds like an invitation.  Those listening were pricked in their hearts at His teaching and came forward, repenting.  We know that Jesus preached the message of repentance (Matthew 4:17, et al) so I assume people often came forward in response to His message.  So, when this man came to Jesus, being carried by his friends, was it to ask for healing?  Maybe it was to ask for forgiveness!

We often define ourselves and others by our circumstances.  We have needs and struggles and sometimes they overwhelm us.  I am unemployed.  I am poor. I am divorced.  I am sick.  I am an addict. I am crippled.  I am… whatever.  It’s as though we become the thing we struggle with.  When this man was brought to Jesus, we might have looked at him and said, “He needs healing because he’s crippled.”  But Jesus looked at him and knew his greatest need; the man needed to be forgiven!

Our hearts should be Jesus’ heart.  Certainly we should help people in their struggles.  Jesus commanded the church to help the poor, take care of the widowed, visit the sick, and be the salt of the earth.  In every circumstance, though, we should not let the person’s temporary condition blind us to their spiritual condition.  Our first priority should always be to share the good news - Jesus forgives sins!!

What is the will of the Father? Matthew 7:21-23

Matthew 7:21-23:  Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Some have described this passage as the scariest passage in the Bible.  It tells of a time when people who thought they were Christians will stand before Christ in judgment and realize they will not enter into the Kingdom.  I agree.  That would be a frightening realization - especially knowing that they found out too late!

So, who are these people?  Who are the ones that thought they were saved but weren’t?  Jesus explains that only the one who does the Father’s will enter heaven so the question hangs on the correct understanding of that phrase.  What is the Father’s will?  Many people interpret the passage in the light of their preconceived notions of salvation and so they usually get the meaning wrong.

In this post I wanted to examine what the Bible says is the Father’s will.

SALVATION IS BY WORKS

A few people cite this passage as evidence that salvation is earned by doing good works.  They will say that a simple profession of faith isn’t enough to be saved but, rather, it is by both faith and bearing fruit (works) that we are saved. They are claiming that the people who are condemned in this passage are people who have prayed for mercy but did not live out the Father's will by doing good works.

This idea is contradicted but the very passage that is being examined.  The people being discussed had done many works: they had prophesied, cast out demons, and had done “many wonderful works” in Jesus name.  Yet it is clear that they had still not done the will of the Father.  Indeed, Jesus calls them workers of iniquity.  

Besides this passage, other Scriptures argue against salvation being earned by works.  Consider Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”  

All of this considered, this passage from Matthew cannot be used to justify salvation by works.

SALVATION IS KEPT BY WORKS

There are still other people who will agree that salvation is by grace through faith but we could still lose our salvation if we do not bear fruit.  From this perspective, these people have made a profession of faith - that is, they said to Jesus, “Lord, Lord” - but did not continue in their faith by doing the will of the Father.  Again, this idea is rebutted by a clear reading of the text.  Jesus tells them He never knew them.  

The word translated as never in v. 23 is the Greek word oudepote (οὐδέποτε, Strong’s Word 3763).  It is a compound word made up of 2 Greek words: oude (οὐδέ, Strong’s Word 3761), meaning “not even,” plus pote (ποτε, Strong’s Word 4218), meaning “at some point, at any time, once, or ever.”  The use of this word in this verse creates an unambiguous denial that Jesus ever knew them - “not even once” or “not at any time.” In other words, Jesus is saying that these are people who had never put their faith in Him.

The idea that we could lose our salvation is contrary to many other passages in the Scriptures.  For one example, I direct your attention to Romans 8:38-39, “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

To say that there is something we can do (or something we don’t do) that would cost us our salvation is to deny the clear words of Paul to the Romans and believe that God’s love isn’t sufficient to keep us!

To believe that salvation is somehow kept by works cannot be the correct understanding of this passage from Matthew.

WHAT JESUS TOLD US

Fortunately, we do not have to grope about for the correct meaning of the Father’s will in this passage.  Jesus Himself has already made clear what the will of the Father is.

John 6:38-40, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Wow, it’s so simple!  No mental gymnastics are necessary.  There is no need to read between the lines.  There is no mention of works.  There is no mention of conditions.  It is the will of the Father that everyone who believes in the Son would have eternal life and that Jesus would raise him on the last day.  The Bible cannot be any more clear than that!