When I came to research the JW view of the Holy Spirit I first went to their official website http://www.jw.org. After scrolling through various “bible” topics I was quite amazed that the Holy Spirit as a subject was nowhere to be seen. I thus resorted to their publication “Insight on the Scriptures Volume 1” and searched under “Holy Spirit” however the heading for Holy Spirit said “See Spirit” (Page 1134).

Here begins the sanitization of the Holy Spirit. First the Watchtower severs the descriptive and restrictive Greek word hagios translated “Holy” from the “Spirit”. By emphasizing, “Spirit” and deemphasizing “Holy” a theological dislocation is achieved in the way you perceive the spirit. This lays a foundation upon which the Watchtower builds its doctrine of an impersonal force. As directed, I located the article on “Spirit” viz. Insight on the scriptures Volume 2 page 1017-1027.

The article begins by emphasising that the Greek word Spirit (pneuma) and Hebrew word spirit (ruach) “basically mean breath” The article lists three lexicons to back up this statement. Incidentally I decided to go online and search out one of these lexicons: Koehler & Baumgartner’s Lexicon. Search results took me to wiki answers and an article entitled “What does the Holy Spirit mean”. I was horrified to find the answer was supplied directly from the Watchtowers insight book! Quite obviously Jehovah’s Witnesses are busy online spreading their doctrines through whatever medium allows them. (Link here if you fancy a look: What does the Holy Spirit Mean?) 

Anyway the point the Watchtower article makes is that pneuma and ruach always have the same basic meaning i.e. “they all refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion” (Insight page 1017) this interpretation is advanced by explaining that ruach is often contextually understood as “wind” (Exodus 10:13, Zec. 2:6). The article concludes, “ruach represents air in motion…the thought of an invisible force is present” (Page 1018).

Let me just deal with the semantics of ruach. Jeff Benner founder of “Ancient Hebrew Research Centre” makes some interesting points. Firstly the root word of ruach (RHh) is used in many Hebrew words such as wind, Moon, traveler and millstone. These words in English seem somewhat disconnected however in Hebrew all contain the same root (RHh). Benner notes

“these words all have one think in common, they all follow a prescribed path. The winds follows specific paths each season, the moon follows a prescribed path in the nigh sky, a traveler follows a prescribed path to his destination and a millstone follows a continual path with each revolution.”[1]

Benner goes on to explain that rather than just a force the Spirit of God (ruach) at its root offers insight into the very character of God. Just as the wind follows a prescribed path likewise the Spirit of God follows a prescribed path; he is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) thus the character of God in the Holy Spirit is revealed not as a force but as a divine person who coming from within the Godhead reveals the character of God. In turn the Holy Spirit gives new life so we can walk the correct path (Ezekiel 36:26-27).

So the root meaning of ruach describes the character and essence of the Holy Spirit as unchanging, eternal and sovereign. Does that sound like an impersonal force? We acknowledge the Holy Spirit is invisible but then so is the Father yet as we cast our eye over creation we acknowledge that design requires intelligence not just blind force. Similarly the Holy Spirit can be heard and experienced His invisibility makes Him no less of a person. We will confirm this biblical truth as we go through the article,

The Watchtowers next three sub-headings “Spirit persons” “God’s Son” and “other spirit creatures” establish the use of “Spirit” (pneuma/ruach) in terms of sentiment beings. “The apostle writes: “Now Jehovah is the Spirit” (John 4:24, 2 Corinthians 3:17, 18)…this does not refer to God as an impersonal bodiless force like the wind. The scriptures unmistakably testify to his personality” Likewise they say of angels “though capable of materializing human form [they]…are not by nature material…hence are invisible. They are actively alive and able to exert great force, and the terms ruach and pneuma therefore aptly apply to them.” (Page 1018).

Let us just review what the Watchtower is suggesting:

1)            That ruach and pneuma in their basic root meaning refer to an invisible force in motion like the wind.

2)            That the exact same words can also apply to God, the Son and other invisible spirit creatures.

Whether the Watchtower knows it or not they have made two rather contradictory statements. On the one hand they say “Spirit” (ruach/pneuma) is simply a force but on the other hand they claim sentient beings can be rightly called “A Spirit”.  Now I must be careful not to get bogged down here. We really want to just explore the Holy Spirit in scripture. However If I understand this reasoning correctly the Watchtower views God as “A Spirit” while at the same time acknowledges “The Spirit of God” or “the Holy Spirit” as a different spirit viz. an active force which proceeds from God (Genesis 6:3).

What we have here is not only a contradiction in terms, but a logical fallacy. Surely if “God IS Spirit” and he sends forth HIS Spirit then the Spirit that comes from God must BE God not just a force? Yet the Watchtower insists that the Holy Spirit must be categorised as a force rather than a person even though they use the same words ruach/pneuma to describe Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

This leads us onto the question concerning the title “Holy Spirit” which is a combination of kodesh/hagios with ruach/pneuma. Is the “Holy Spirit” a force from God as the Watchtower insists or is the “Holy Spirit” the third person of the triune YHWH? Under the heading “Gods Active force; Holy Spirit” the Watchtower dogmatically claims:

“Not until the forth century C.E. did the teaching that the Holy Spirit was a person and part of the “Godhead” become official church dogma. Early Church Fathers did not so teach” They then quote two early Church Fathers; Justin Martyr whom they say said the Holy Spirit was a “influence or mode of operation of the deity” and then they say “Hippolytus ascribed no personality to the Holy Spirit” both quotes have no references (Page 1019).[2]

It is always wise when the Watchtower makes authoritative quotes from orthodox sources to double check the source material. I could not find any reference to either quote in the Ante Nicene material or online (only from similar anti Trinitarian sites). However I can happily quote Justin Martyr.

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judæa, in the times of Tiberius Cæsar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.”[3]  (Links to more quotes [4])

Not only does Justin Martyr acknowledge the Holy Spirit as God he makes clear his understanding of the tri-unity of God. Furthermore he acknowledges that those who do not discern this mystery call those that do “mad”. Is this not exactly the same situation with the Jehovah’s’ Witness’s?

“and the apostles receive from God, through Jesus Christ, one and the same Holy Spirit, who is good, and sovereign, and true, and the Author of [saving] knowledge.” (Ignatius of Antioch.)  [5]

“And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them, ‘The Lord of hosts, He is this King of glory.” (Justin Martyr) [6]

Notice that Ignatius speaks of the “Holy Spirit” as a person who converses.

“the three spies, who were spying out all the land, and hid them at her home; [which three were] doubtless [a type of] the Father and the Son, together with the Holy Spirit. [7]

Here Irenaeus mentor to Hippolytus explains the typology of the three spies as relating to the triune Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  A quick perusal of the writings of the early Church Fathers reveals very early evidence that the Church understood the Holy Spirit in terms of personal deity.

So miss quoting the early Church Fathers does not hold water. Such miss-information creates smoke screens to cover a much deeper theological error.  This really boils down to a fundamental error viz. the Watchtower does not understand the divine nature of God. You see error begets error. Once the Watchtower asserted that the Father alone is Jehovah (singular) and that Jesus is a created angel then naturally the Holy Spirit could never fit into this doctrine as a person and thus He had to be stripped of personality and deity and reduced to a powerful yet benign force.

Once the presupposition is made that the Holy Spirit cannot be anything more than Gods active force you are at liberty to interpret Holy writ through that prism and that is exactly what the Watchtower article goes on to do. We will go through each of the six main arguments in the Insight book.

Argument 1) The Majority Text form of 1 John 5:7 is spurious suggesting  “Trinitarians” have tampered with the Bible.

Let us first take 1 John 5:7. This is what you might call a smoking gun, a smoke screen to confuse and disguise the real issues. It is true that with progress in textual criticism and the discovery of ancient manuscripts have come refinements to the Biblical text.[8]  Various N.T. verses have been found to be spurious. However many scholars believe the text which was likely added are from oral traditions or simply reflect orthodox theology. Thus far from defending the witness position, 1 John 5:7 helps us understand that a faithful yet misguided scribe added the text not to support heretical doctrine but to clarify contemporary orthodox theology. So like I say to suggest 1 John 5:7 somehow proves the Holy Spirit is not God does stand scrutiny.

Argument 2) Wisdom is personified (proverbs 1:20-33) thus the “Spirit” of God can also be personified. 

The “Insight on the Scriptures” likens the “Spirit of God” to electricity. Jehovah they say is the power source and his impersonal spirit or power does his will. Once the “Holy Spirit” is framed in this way it is easy to interpret personal attributes as personifications. So the JW’s would say the “Holy Spirit” as an active force has modes of operation and can be rightly personified as “Judge” “Helper” “giver of life” “breath of life” etc….

That all sounds rather good until you explore the evidence for personification; you see “wisdom” literature reflects a specific genre of writings. By that I mean a proverb is wholly different from say prophetic literature or legal literature. Thus we must understand the personification of wisdom in proverbs within its genre. The Watchtower feels free to use proverbs as a proof text to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit. However the use of ruach/pneuma in both Old and New testaments must be understood within the context of each of its occurrences. We cannot export a personification of wisdom from proverbs and make it stick to the Holy Spirit. Rather the Spirit must be understood contextually and theologically.

While we have to concede that the words ruach/pneuma are used in many different ways throughout the scriptures we must not make one glove fit all hands. When it comes to the Spirit of God/Holy Spirit we have ample evidence that we are dealing with a unique person not a force, here are some O.T. examples.

Job 33:4  “The Spirit (ruach) of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.”

Psalm 139:7-9  “Where shall I go from your Spirit (ruach)? Or where shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!”

We have here reference of the “Spirit’s” creative power, omnipotence and omnipresence.

King David on his deathbed said:

2 Samuel 23:2  The Spirit (ruach) of the LORD speaks by me; his word is on my tongue.”

This is a fascinating statement; David says the “Spirit” spoke by him ascribing intelligence and personality to the “Spirit”.

Numbers 11:17  “And I will come down and talk with you there. And I will take some of the Spirit (ruach) that is on you and put it on them, and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you may not bear it yourself alone.”

This statement indicates the “Spirit” is distinct from YHWH that he is personal (giving judicial advice) and that he is divine (guiding Israel).[9]

Psalm143:10  “Teach me to do your will, for you are my God! Let your good Spirit (ruach) lead me on level ground!”

Here David asks for the “Spirit” to lead him in righteousness as the “Spirit” indwells and guides him.

Isaiah 48:16  “Draw near to me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time it came to be I have been there.” And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit (ruach).”

Just as God sends the Messiah into the world, a real person, so he dispatches his “Spirit” as his ambassador a real person.

1Ki 22:23-24  “Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit (ruach) in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.” Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek and said, “How did the Spirit (ruach) of the LORD go from me to speak to you?”

On this occasion YHWH sends a lying spirit to deceive but he also sends his own Spirit as a separate entity.  So what are we learning? The O.T. gives hints and illusions of the unique personality of the Spirit of God. Now let us look at the N.T. revelation of the Holy Spirit and see if it confirms these illusions or dismisses them as personifications.

In the Markan account (read Mark 3:20-30) where the Pharisees are accusing Jesus of doing miracles by means of Beelzebub Jesus candidly explains that humans submit to either evil spirits or the Holy Spirit.

Mark 3:29-30  “but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Notice the Pharisees surmised an evil spirit had possessed Jesus but Jesus explained that to deny his miracles was to deny and blaspheme the Holy Spirit. How can you blaspheme an active force or impersonal power? To blaspheme the Holy Spirit the Spirit must be a person and must be God. This is a good example of the Holy Spirits deity.

John 14:16  “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever”

Here we have three persons the Father, the Son (speaking) and the Helper (Holy Spirit). How can an active impersonal force take the place of the divine Jesus and dwell in every believer, unless that Helper is personal and divine? To exist in all believers at once the Spirit must be omnipresent.

Furthermore Jesus does not say he will send “it” the “active force” to be the helper he actually addresses the Holy Spirit as “He” or “that one” (Greek pronoun ἐκεῖνος). Check out the following pericope and notice the 3rd person masculine pronouns and third person verbs all indicating personality.

John 16:13-14  “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide (Greek verb ὁδηγήσει 3rd person singular) you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears (Greek pronoun ἑαυτοῦ 3rd person singular masculine)  he will speak, (Greek verb ἀκούσει 3rd person singular) and he will declare (Greek verb λαλήσει 3rd person singular) to you the things that are to come. He (pronoun ἐκεῖνος) will glorify me, for he will take (Greek verb λήμψεται 3rd person singular) what is mine and declare it to you.”

What does all this mean? Simply this Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit as a divine person from God the Father who would act on his behalf until his return. Here are more examples.

Rev 22:17  “The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.”

Christians understand the bride to represent real people; likewise the Spirit is here portrayed as offering an invitation to come! Is that not evidence of personality?

1 John 1:3  “that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.”

John says that Christians are to have fellowship with the Father and the Son. Jehovah’s witnesses would agree that the Father and Son are real persons. They may argue over what fellowship is but in the Greek koinōnia according to Strong’s G2844 is “partnership, that is, (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction: – (to) communicate (-ation), communion”

Now read what Paul had to say about the Holy Spirit:

2Co 13:14  “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”

Wow! Paul uses the same Greek word as koinōnia . So what do the scriptures progressively reveal? Simply this; that born again Christian’s can fellowship not only with the Father and Son but also the Holy Spirit! Amazing! How could that be possible with an active force?  How could we have a relationship with an active force? How could electricity speak or think ? The implications are obvious the Holy Spirit must be a person.

1Co 2:10-11  “these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.

We must not miss the implications of these pericope. First only a person can communicate and only a divine person can comprehend the thoughts of God. As Paul explains NO ONE only the Spirit can comprehend and communicate Gods thoughts. This is the Holy Spirit. Therefore just as God is infinite so the Spirit is likewise infinite, He is fully divine very God of very God.

In Acts 5:3-4 the Holy Spirit is clearly referred to as God.

Act 5:3-4  “But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land?  While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”

Here we have Ananias lying to the Holy Spirit. How can you lie to an active force? You can’t, but you can lie to God which Peter states Ananias has done. Thus the evidence shows the Holy Spirit is indeed God and revealed in scripture as coequal consubstantial and coeternal with the Father and Son. Together they express the eternal YHWH a plural unity of three persons.

Argument 3 and 4) The Holy Spirit lack’s identification and has no name and Baptism in the name of “the Holy Spirit”…“implies recognition of the spirit as having its source in God and functioning according to the divine will” (1019-1020)

O.K. I think we have identified the Holy Spirit, but let us just tackle this accusation that the Holy Spirit has no name and that the Baptismal formula does not prove the Holy Spirits deity. Let us take a closer look at Matthew 28:19.

πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…” Matthew 28:19.

Notice the command to baptize in “THE NAME”. The Greek here is in the accusative case, which means “THE NAME” is the object of the sentence not only that but “THE NAME” in Greek is singular not plural.  What follows the accusative singular are the words “of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” Is Matthew suggesting that the Father and Son are individuals while the Holy Spirit is just a force? NO! The construction of the sentence makes clear we have three persons! In the Greek the definitive article used for all three persons is in the genitive case which means they are each OF or find their source IN THE NAME.

So we could paraphrase the verse “baptizing them INTO THE NAME (Singular) OF FATHER, OF SON and OF HOLY SPIRIT. Three persons bound together in ONE Name. Three persons in one! The added use of the prenominal adjective hagios (Holy) is descriptive of the Spirit. We have no choice but to accept the implications namely the Holy Spirit was understood by the Apostles and early Church as a fully divine entity within the Godhead. [10]

So does the Holy Spirit have a name? Yes! What is it? “Holy Spirit”! While He is identified as YHWH (Isaiah 6:8-10, Acts 28:25-29, 2 Samuel 32:2-3) just as Jesus is rightly identified as “Christ” the Spirit of God/Holy Spirit is identified by his work as sanctifier. It is the Holy Spirit who takes up abode in the hearts of believers it is his work within a person that changes lives and cleanses us of sin. It is the Holy Spirit who comforts believers in juxtaposition with Christ (1 John 2:1, John 14:26).

How can a force speak, or testify or be grieved?  To test this truth that the Holy Spirit is indeed the third person of the triune God, go through the scriptures and try substituting the name Holy Spirit with active force and you will see that passage after passage becomes meaningless and absurd making active force a redundant option.  As Berkhof majestically explains;

“The Holy Spirit inspirited the Bible, He testifies to Christ and leads the Church in all the truth. By doing this He manifests the glory of God and of Christ, increases the knowledge of the Savior, keeps the Church from error, and prepares her for her eternal destiny” [11]

I’m not sure we need to spend much more time on the Watchtowers last two arguments but lets just dispatch them quickly but thoroughly.

Argument 5) “The Greek text lacks the definite article, which would naturally identify “Spirit” as a person.”

A definite article in Greek normally comes before a name, for example we would say in Greek “The Jesus” or “The Thomas” while we only translate the name not the definite article. However this is not necessarily a rule. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words notes:

“Sometimes the absence [of the definite article] is to be accounted for by the fact that Pneuma (like Theos) is substantially a proper name, e.g., in John 7:39. [12]

Had the Watchtowers writing teams took the trouble to check Vines Dictionary they would have seen the reason why Holy Spirit lacks the article is the term Holy Spirit IS a proper name! So the definite article isn’t required when a noun is used as a proper name, much as Theos (“God”) is used as a proper name for YHWH. Such ignorance of the Greek language riddles Watchtower interpretations.  James White observes:

“The argument is heard that the Holy Spirit in Greek is in the neuter gender, and it is. But Greek genders do not necessarily indicate personality. Inanimate things can have masculine and feminine genders, and personal things can have the neuter gender. We cannot automatically insert the pronoun “it” when referring to every neuter noun any more than we should always insert the pronoun “she” for “love”, since in Greek love is feminine. Instead we determine whether the Holy Spirit is a person the same way we would demonstrate that the Father or the Son is a person”[13]

What White makes clear is that gender in Greek words does not necessarily translate into reality. Instead we look at the word within its context. For example is the Holy Spirit referred to as an “it” or does the Holy Spirit speak of himself using personal pronouns such as “I” and “me”?

Acts 13:2  “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Acts 10:19 “And while Peter was pondering the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Behold, three men are looking for you.”

Notice the Holy Spirit spoke (Greek epō) how can inanimate objects or an impersonal force speak? To speak we must be alive with a mind and personality.

Argument  8) The Holy Spirit is associated with impersonal objects such as water and fire.

As we have seen above there is ample textual evidence to show that while the Spirit is at times seen manifesting as fire the Spirit of God/Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force but a divine person sharing the very nature of God.  So why are Jehovah’s Witnesses unable to see this truth? Justin Martyr’s words aptly describe our agony over the JW condition and the underlying problem.

“I am striving to the utmost that you may understand these matters which to you are paradoxical; but if not, that I myself may be innocent in the day of judgment. For you shall hear other words which appear still more paradoxical; but be not confounded, nay, rather remain still more zealous hearers and investigators, despising the tradition of your teachers, since they are convicted by the Holy Spirit of inability to perceive the truths taught by God, and of preferring to teach their own doctrines.” [14]


Several years ago I vowed to always look at the other side of the coin, always look at all angles, weigh what people claim and seek truth. As Christians it should be our desire to be equipped and able to defend our faith but even more importantly to share the love of Jesus. JW’s are lost in a theological morass. On the theological surface their logic seems sound but the cesspit has only a thin crusty surface. You may think its safe to walk on but put any stress upon the surface, press too hard, or dare to dig and you sink into the filth.

“Know thou that every man is either empty or full. For if he has not the Holy Spirit, he has no knowledge of the Creator; he has not received Jesus Christ the Life; he knows not the Father who is in heaven” [15]

We brothers and Sisters have been set free from that filth; we have been washed clean in the blood of the lamb. The Holy Spirit, HE has illuminated our minds and hearts and revealed the wonders of our Lord Jesus. The divine gift of Grace comes from the divine Jesus, divine loves comes from the Father and the divine Holy Spirit brings us into fellowship with all three. Let us carefully, methodically and prayerfully help these sincere yet misguided people – to the Glory of God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Shalom until he comes

Jason Wright

[1] Benner Jeff A. “His Name is One – An Ancient Hebrew Perspective of the Names of God” Virtual bookworm 2003, pages 28-31.

[2] Ironically the Watchtower asserts the trinity is a fourth century invention yet their very own doctrines are the reworked formulations of Arius of Alexandria (256-336 AD).

[3] Justin Martyr. (1885). The First Apology of Justin. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (166–167). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

[4] For more excellent Trinitarian quotes from the early Church Fathers check go to http://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

[5] Ignatius of Antioch. (1885). The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (82). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

[6] Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (213). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

[7] Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Irenæus against Heresies. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (492). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

[8] Metzger Bruce M. “The canon of the New Testament – It’s Origin, Development and Significance” Oxford University Press 1987 and “The Text of the New Testament – It’s transmission, Corruption and Restoration” Oxford University Press 2005.

[9] Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament, 173.

[10] For those Greek grammar buffs I found an interesting article discussing the use of agios alongside pneuma and the Trinitarian implications of the syntax. http://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/greeksyntaxandthetrinity_aubrey.pdf

[11] Berkhof Louis “Systematic Theology” Banner of Truth Trust Reprint 1981. Page 98.

[12] Vine, W.E. “Entry for ‘Spirit.’” Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Revell 1966.

[13] White James R. “The Forgotten Trinity” Bethany House 1998 page140.

[14] Justin Martyr. (1885). Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (213). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

[15] Irenaeus of Lyons. (1885). Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (572). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

Source: WatchTower Investigated