In John the Spirit is presented not only as an impersonal power or the manifestation of God or of Jesus, but as a personal Being distinct from both the Father and the Son. Since the time of the Reformation, one of the most recurrent arguments for the personality of the Spirit is based on the fact that eight times in the Farewell Discourses the Greek word pneuma (“spirit”), which is neuter, is followed by masculine pronouns when used in reference to the Holy Spirit. This happens in the following passages: 14:26 (ekeinos); 15:26 (hos, ekeinos); 16:7-8 (autos, ekeinos); 13-14 (ekeinos [2x], heautou). In some of the same passages, as would be expected, there are four instances in which neuter pronouns are used: 14:27 (ho, auto), 26 (ho); 15:26 (ho). The same thing happens in 7:39 (ho). The typical argument is exemplified by Ladd: when John correctly uses neuter pronouns in connection with pneuma, there is no implication “either for or against the personality of the Holy Spirit. But, where pronouns that have pneuma for their immediate antecedent are found in the masculine, we can only conclude that the personality of the Spirit is meant to be suggested.”1
The question is relatively simple, which only increases the astonishment at the enormous popularity of the argument. In the end, what is most impressive is the ease with which interesting ideas may be spread without diligent assessment. The argument is that where the masculine pronoun ekeinos is used, the nearest noun is pneuma, which functions then as its antecedent. The antecedent of a pronoun, however, must be determined by grammar, not by proximity, and in all instances in which masculine pronouns are used, the grammatical antecedent is paraklētos, never pneuma, which is present in the text only in apposition with paraklētos.2 In addition, it is important to mention that several times in those same verses, John uses neuter pronouns to refer to the Spirit, and he always does so when the grammatical antecedent is pneuma. That is, there is absolutely nothing unusual or meaningful in the way the apostle uses pronouns in those contexts where he refers to the Spirit. The fact that paraklētos is masculine also has no implication at all concerning the personality (much less the masculinity) of the Spirit. The gender of the term paraklētos, as well as of pneuma, is nothing more than a linguistic accident, and no theological conclusion can be drawn from this.3
Somewhat similar is the argument that tries to infer not the personality but the divinity of the Spirit from the adjective allos (“another”) used in John 14:16 (“another Paraclete”). Spiros Zodhiates, for example, says: “Christ designates the Holy Spirit as ‘Paraclete,’ … and He calls Him allos, another, which means another of equal quality (and not heteros, another of a different quality). Therefore, the Holy Spirit is designated by Jesus Christ as equal with Himself, God.”4 Also traditional, though less common an argument than the one about the personality (the masculine pronouns), this is even more precarious to the extent that it confuses activity or, at most, individuality with divinity.5 By referring to the Spirit as “another Paraclete,” Jesus no doubt highlights the fact that the Spirit would continue the work that He Himself had initiated and be “forever” with the disciples. The expression may also enclose an allusion to the personality (i.e., individuality) of the Spirit, as He was distinct from Jesus and would come to replace Him. There are, therefore, elements of comparison between Jesus and the Paraclete, but to take allos ontologically as a reference to the consubstantiality, or the equality of nature, between both is to go way beyond the evidence and impose on the term a meaning that it definitely does not possess.
The argument makes an elementary linguistic mistake: to think that, because heteros usually involves qualitative distinction (e.g., Acts 4:12 [also mentions allos]; Rom 7:23; 1 Cor 14:21; 2 Cor 11:4 [also mentions allos]; Heb 7:11, 13, 15; Jude 1:7), allos also does. The fundamental nuance of allos, however, is quantitative; that is, allos is meant to add or to distinguish entities (e.g., “another parable” in Matt 13:24, 31, 33),6 unless it is used in opposition to heteros, which is the term that actually establishes the qualitative distinction anyway. This is what happens, for example, in Gal 1:6-7, where Paul says that the false gospel preached to the Galatian believers in his absence was not allos, but heteros.7 Joseph H. Thayer so conveys the matter: “Allos as compared with heteros denotes numerical in distinction from qualitative difference; allos adds (‘one besides’), heteros distinguishes (‘one of two’); every heteros is an allos, but not every allos is a heteros; allos generally denotes simply distinction of individuals, heteros involves the secondary idea of difference of kind.”8
Although the personality as well as the divinity of the Spirit can be demonstrated on the basis of other textual and interpretative connections,9 both arguments above are a constant reminder of how easy it is to be misguided, even when repeating traditional concepts of wide acceptance. The popularity of an argument has no bearing on its validity, which means that the majority is not always right. Christian theology has little, if anything, to gain from the use of strained arguments or the attempt to dogmatically read texts that do not necessarily allow for such a reading. From a hermeneutical standpoint, to force the meaning of Scripture to justify right doctrines is no different from the attempt to promote false doctrines. As popular wisdom has it, the end must not justify the means. If truth cannot be clearly and correctly articulated, then it is no better than the error it tries to overcome.10
What is the relevance of the discussion above to SDA theology? Despite the many unsettled questions, contemporary SDA belief in the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit does not seem to be in disagreement with the evidence available in John’s Gospel, particularly in the Farewell Discourses. Though mediating the spiritual presence of Jesus in the world, the Paraclete is not Jesus, much less a mere impersonal power or influence, but a person—in fact, an agent of God sent by the Father at the Son’s request (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). Thus, “both the Son and the Paraclete have the same source, the Father, but the Son has a role in the historical sending of the Paraclete,”11 who is then invested with prerogatives and authority comparable to the Son’s (16:13-15; cf. 12:49; 14:31), as He comes to replace Him. Instead of speaking on His own behalf, God speaks through prophets and His own Son (1:18; 8:18, 26, 28, 38; cf. Heb 1:1-2); so also, unable to speak by Himself in the context of a worldwide mission (John 17:18-21; 20:21-23), the Son does it through the Paraclete (16:14-15).12
In the Gospel of John, therefore, Pneumatology is tied to Christology and is deeply influenced by it. It is exactly because the Logos has entered history as flesh (1:14) that the Paraclete can come as Spirit (14:26; 17:2; 20:21).13 Between one and the other lie Jesus’ death and resurrection, crowning His mission with success and granting the Spirit the right to come and finish Jesus’ work (12:31-33; 17:4-5; cf. 7:39), a work that belongs neither to Jesus nor to the Spirit, nor even to the Father only, but to the three of them, because the three work together for the salvation of humanity (5:17, 19-21; 16:8-11). Hence, to reject the Spirit as presented by John is to reject the Jesus who promised Him, commissioned Him, and secured His coming. On the other hand, as already mentioned, the Fourth Gospel’s Christology is also tied to Pneumatology and is deeply influenced by it. It is exactly because the Paraclete has come as Spirit that the One who entered history as flesh can be known as He really is, that is, as God (1:1, 14; 20:28). In John there is no question that it is the Paraclete, not the evangelist himself, who is truly responsible for the high Christology found there. It is only through the Paraclete that the full meaning of Jesus’ teaching about Himself can be apprehended (14:26; 15:26; 16:13), and it is because of this that John writes from a post-resurrection and post-Pentecost perspective. Without this, his Christological claims would make little or no sense at all (2:22; 7:39). The Paraclete is the guide, the instructor, and the witness behind John’s Christology. Thus, it is not possible to reject the Christ who is God (1:1), equal to God (5:18), and one with God (10:30), without rejecting the testimony of the Paraclete (15:26) and, in the final analysis, the testimony of God Himself (3:31-34; 5:36-38; 8:16-18; cf. 1 John 5:9-10), who sent both (14:26; 17:8; cf. 6:29).
On the other hand, since the Paraclete’s instructional mission is centered on Christ and not on Himself, perhaps we should content ourselves with a Pneumatology not so well defined as our Christology. After all, it was the Logos, not the Paraclete, who was made flesh, and the Christological knowledge we have derives mainly from the revelations brought by the incarnate Logos Himself (20:30-31; I John 1:1-4), whose relevance is now made clear by the Paraclete (John 14:26). In a well-known quotation, but perhaps not always fully taken into account, Ellen G. White says: “It is not essential for us to be able to define just what the Holy Spirit is. … The nature of the Holy Spirit is a mystery. Men cannot explain it, because the Lord has not revealed it to them. … Regarding such mysteries, which are too deep for human understanding, silence is golden.”14 The Gospel of John certainly helps a lot, perhaps more than any other book in the Bible, but we should be careful not to make a dogmatic reading of the text, forcing it to say what it does not say because of doctrinal convenience. The supposed masculine pronouns, the ontological reading of allos, and an arbitrary interpretation of specific biblical expressions are enough to illustrate the point.15 The cumulative evidence of Scripture, particularly the Paraclete passages, seems to leave no doubt that the Spirit is a person. John’s emphasis, however, is not on the person, but on the work of the Spirit, and it is there that we should also put our emphasis, especially because God was pleased to make us participants in this work (20:21-23). In fact, contrary to the incarnate Logos, the historical realization of the Spirit’s work depends to some extent on us. That is, it is through the believers that the Spirit manifests His presence in the world. In His promise of the Paraclete, Jesus referred to Him as “the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him.” Then He added, “but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you” (14:17).16 More than a privilege, this is a sacred calling—to be the instruments through which the Spirit accomplishes His mission on earth (cf. 15:26-27; Acts 1:8).
__________
1 Ladd, 331. Additional references are abundant and include: J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1929), 2:500; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), 96; Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John, 482; John Painter, Reading John’s Gospel Today, 3a. ed. (Mitcham: Beacon Hill, 1986), 67; Morris, 583 n. 73; Guthrie, 531; Donald G. Bloesch, The Holy Spirit: Works and Gifts (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 67; Michael Green, I Believe in The Holy Spirit, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 52; D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 265. Among SDA authors, see Arnold V. Wallenkampf, New by the Spirit (Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1978), 9; Fernando L. Canale, “Doctrine of God,” in Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, CRS 12 (Hagerstown: Review & Herald, 2000), 134; Woodrow Whidden, Jerry Moon, and John W. Reeve, The Trinity: Understanding God’s Love, His Plan of Salvation, and Christian Relationships (Hagerstown: Review & Herald, 2002), 72.
2 As Daniel B. Wallace declares: “The use of ekeinos here [chaps. 14-16] is frequently regarded by students of the NT to be an affirmation of the personality of the Spirit. … But this is erroneous. In all these Johannine passages, pneuma is appositional to a masculine noun. The gender of ekeinos thus has nothing to do with the natural gender of pneuma. The antecedent of ekeinos, in each case, is paraklētos, not pneuma” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 331-332). For a more detailed discussion, which includes other NT passages where pneuma is supposedly followed by masculine grammatical elements (Eph 1:14; 2 Thess 2:6-7; 1 John 5:7), see Daniel B. Wallace, “Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” BBR 13 (2003): 97-125.
3 Note that in Hebrew “spirit” (rûaḥ) is feminine, while in German and most Romance languages, it is masculine.
4 Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study New Testament: Bringing the Original Text to Life, WSS (Chattanooga: AMG, 1991), 944. So also Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 4 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1887-1900), 2:244; Archibald T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 vols. (Nashville: Broadman, 1930-1933), 5:252; Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 876; Francis D. Nichol, ed., SDA Bible Commentary, rev. ed., 7 vols. (Hagerstown: Review & Herald, 1980), 5:1037; Wallenkampf, 14; Canale, 133.
5 The argument seems to go back to Gregory of Nazianzus, one of the main supporters of the doctrine of the Trinity in the fourth century, who used to say that allos in John 14:16 points to the co-equality and consubstantiality between the Spirit and Jesus Christ (Or. Bas. 41.12).
6 See BDAG, 46-47 (“that which is other than some other entity”); LSJ, 70 (“another, i.e., one besides what has been mentioned”); BAA, 77 (“another—different from the formal or logical subject”).
7 “Allos and heteros are here [Gal 1:6-7], as in Acts 4:12, not interchangeable; allos bears an additive connotation, while heteros has an adversative nuance” (K. Haacker, “Heteros,” EDNT, 2:66).
8 Joseph H. Thayer, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 4th ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1896; reimp., Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 29. See also Hermann Cremer: “Allos, ‘the other,’ denotes numerical difference, while heteros denotes ‘the other’ qualitatively, difference of kind” (Lexicon of New Testament Greek, 4th Eng. ed., trans. William Urwick [Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895], 89); Richard C. Trench: “Allos indicates that which is numerically distinct. … Heteros, however, adds the notion of a qualitative difference. Allos is ‘divers,’ heteros is ‘diverse’ (Synonyms of the New Testament, ed. Robert G. Hoerber [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989; reprint, Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000], 375. Trench also refers, apparently with approval, to the traditional dogmatic use of allos according to which the paraklētos is considered “truly the same and comparable in dignity and in substance” with Jesus (ibid.).
9 On the personality of the Spirit, Wallace says: “The view must be based on the nature of a paraklētos and the things said about the Comforter [sic], not on any supposed grammatical subtleties” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 332).
10 Wallace adds: “Grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit’s personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of that doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit’s personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment. I am not denying the doctrine of the Trinity, of course,” Wallace is quick to stress, “but I am arguing that we need to ground our beliefs on a more solid foundation” (“Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” 125).
11 Rodney A. Whitacre, John, IVPNTCS (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 357 (see also 359).
12 See John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 423.
13 See Stephen S. Smalley, “‘The Paraclete’: Pneumatology in the Johannine Gospel and Apocalypse,” in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black (Louisville: WJK, 1996), 292.
14 Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages (Mountain View: Pacific Press, 1940 [1898 ed.]), 51-52.
15 Even our Sabbath School Bible Study Guides have contributed to disseminate the idea that allos paraklētos in John 14:16 points to the divinity of the Spirit, and that the masculine pronouns in the Farewell Discourses manifest His personality (see The Holy Spirit, SSSG, April-June, 2006, Teachers’ Edition, 10, 14). Interestingly, when commenting on John 14:26, the traditional SDA Bible Commentary reads: “The antecedent is ‘Comforter’ [sic], which in the Greek is masculine and hence calls for the personal pronoun ‘he’ (5:1039). The note on Rom 8:16 is even more emphatic: “When the Holy Spirit is referred to by the masculine name paraklētos, ‘Comforter’ [sic], the masculine pronoun is used (see John 15:26; 16:7, 13). It is obvious that the personality of the Holy Spirit cannot be argued by the gender of the pronouns that may be used” (6:568). An example of a questionable interpretation is found in Canale, who states about the so-called Trinitarian formula of Matt 28:19: “The direct reference to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit clearly sets forth the threefold plurality of Divine Persons, while the designations of them all as the ‘name’ of God (in singular) clearly sets forth the oneness of the Divine Being” (138). Though Canale is not alone in drawing such a conclusion from this text, specifically in relation to the second point, as John Nolland explains, “Matthew’s language is equivalent to ‘in the name of the Father and the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Spirit” (The Gospel of Matthew, NIGTC [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 1269). In other words, it is unlikely that the use of “name” in the singular followed by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit should be taken ontologically, as if the three shared in the same divine name.
16 On the textual problem of this passage, see Keener, The Gospel of John, 2:972-973.