THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT!!

By Derrick Gillespie

IS THE SPIRIT A "IT" OR "HE"?

100 A.D.
“I…entreat you to use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a
different kind; I mean heresy... For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not
Christians…some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit are but the same person…”
-Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter 6

“Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all
nations, commanded them to ‘baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost,’ not unto one [one person, as in Sabellian ‘modalism’] having
three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three [persons]
possessed of *EQUAL HONOR”.
- Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 2

As early as 100 A.D., as seen in the above quotes, Christian writers and
‘defenders of the faith’ accepted the distinct person-hood of the Spirit, and
considered him one of “three persons” of “three holiest beings of heaven” (to
borrow the phrases used by a modern writer). This was no fourth century
invention that came some three centuries after (as some argue). But, be that as it
may, is this view a Biblical one? The Bible is plain that the Spirit is one of
"three persons" or "beings" of divinity in heaven. My saying this is easy to do
(some may say), but let me hereafter prove that straight from the Bible
itself.

The word for "Spirit" is neuter (i.e. it is neither masculine nor feminine in
Greek) even when it refers to the Father being “a spirit” (John 4:24), and
should, in strict Greek grammar, be referred to as "It". It is NOT
grammatically incorrect (by Greek rules) to refer to the Holy Spirit as “it”
(just like demon/unholy spirits, i.e. personal beings, are called “it” ; Luke
9:38-42; Luke 8:29-31), but *ONLY if one recognizes that this “it” is
Biblically seen (both in the Old and New Testament) as a person, who has a
personality, and is person enough to call Himself “I” and “Me” (Acts 13:2-
4). Thus Jesus refers repeatedly to "the Spirit of truth" as "HE" for precisely
that reason. That is unbeatable!! Some say the “he” spoken by Jesus means he
was either equating the Spirit with the literal person of the Father, and or the
“he” references to the Spirit has to do with the grammatical “he” that must go
along with the masculine form of the expression “Comforter”, and hence is just
about the rules of Greek grammar. But both these arguments are absolutely
false because, first, even when the masculine expression “Comforter” is absent
and is not the subject in a sentence (note that the expression "Comforter" was
only used a total of four times by Jesus), yet the masculine “he” is ALSO used
along with the word “Spirit” very many times by Jesus!!

Secondly, Jesus Himself makes clear distinction that "the Comforter" is

“ANOTHER”, His representative, whom He works through, operating AS if
it were Himself and the Father present, but is *NOT Himself, nor is the Spirit
literally the Father, since both Jesus and the Father sends the Spirit to us. The
words of Jesus words settle the matter! This is easily seen in the following
Biblical evidence:

"The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name,*He
will teach you all things” (John 14:26).

“When the Comforter comes, *whom I will send to you from the Father, the
Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, *HE WILL TESTIFY OF ME"
(John 15:26), while not speaking of Himself (John 16:13) or by his own
authority.

In John 14-16 Christ referred to the Holy Spirit 24 times (!!!!!) with personal
pronouns, “HE”, and “HIM”, even when the subject of the sentence, “Spirit”,
by Greek rules of grammar, should have been be accompanied by “it”. He
REPEATEDLY addresses the Holy Spirit as a “he”, a person, and treats Him
(i.e. speaks of Him) as a person. In addition He calls Him “the Comforter” or
“Paraclete” (in Greek), which is a title, which could only be held by a person.
EVER KEEP IN MIND THE SIMPLE FACT THAT FOR A PERSON TO
SEND “ANOTHER” INDICATES SEPARATENESS OF THE “SENT” AND
THE “SENDER” AS DISTINCT INDIVIDUALS…UNLESS ONE
RIDICULOUSLY BELIEVES (LIKE SABELLIANS) THAT SOMEONE
(GOD THE FATHER) CAN “SEND” HIMSELF AS SON AND SPIRIT.

But the Spirit as the “Paraclete”, is "ANOTHER Counselor" or “Comforter”

(John 14:16), thus similar to Jesus, and one who was “SENT” by both Father
and Son to come and instruct us on their behalf. The Holy Spirit’s presence is
just like saying Christ Himself is here, just like the presence of Jesus was seen
as if God the Father was present! Notice again:

"The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He
will teach you all things” (14:26). THE FATHER CANNOT SEND
HIMSELF; NEITHER CAN THE SON SEND HIMSELF IN HIS OWN
NAME!! Yet the Spirit is "SENT" in both the Father and Son's name!! This was
quite similar to Jesus coming in His Father’s name, but was not actually the
Father Himself in personality, despite Jesus is so similar to Him to be
called “the Everlasting Father”! Is. 9:6. "When the Counselor comes, whom
I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who comes forth
from the Father, He will bear witness to me (15:26-27). "When the Spirit of
truth comes, HE will guide you into all truth, for HE will... glorify ME, for
HE will take what is mine and declare it to you (16:13-14). That is so clear
where distinction ism concerned.

The Bible speaks of the Spirit as: the Spirit of God (Romans 8:9; 8:14), and the
Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9). Why? Because both sends Him to us, and He
REPRESENTS both! If they both send Him, the Spirit must be an
individual separate from them both (in order to be sent by both), but is so
akin to each of them in nature that it is as if they are both present.

In addition, the Spirit intercedes in prayer (not in priestly function as Jesus the
human Mediator does, BUT ONLY IN INFLUENCING OUR PRAYERS
FROM OUR MINDS); Rom. 8:26. Remember, *only personal beings
“intercede”. And the Father cannot intercede to and with Himself!!
Thus the Spirit must be separate. The Spirit is not personally the Father Himself
since the Spirit "hears" from "Another" and speaks what he receives from the
authority of "Another" (just as Jesus did); *John 16:13. THAT SPIRIT COULD
NOT BE LITERALLY THE PERSON OF THE FATHER AS THE HEAD OF
DIVINITY, AND WHO HAS NO AUTHORITY ABOVE HIM AMONG
THE DIVINE SPECIE - *thus this is the greatest evidence of Spirit's
distinction!! Compare at the same time the Spirit interceding--the Father cannot
intercede to Himself, and compare Jesus “sending” the Spirit—Jesus cannot
send himself!! What then is the inescapable conclusion? Father, Son and Spirit
are three separate persons!!

Inescapable too is the logic that the Spirit is called by Jesus "Another
Comforter" (“another” or "allos" in Greek; not "heteros" in Greek which
would have meant Jesus himself, but just in a different mode, i.e. if “heteros”
was the word used); thus a personal designation indicating a distinct personal
entity is clearly meant, just as Jesus referred to his Father as "another" - John
14:16 with John 5:32.
It is hypocrisy to say "another" ("allos") means one thing to prove Jesus is
personally distinct or numerically separate from His Father, but the
language rules change when the same principle applies to the Holy Spirit.

*Who could ever effectively defend the view that the Spirit is God the Father
Himself in person literally and yet that Spirit when “sent” (like Jesus was
“sent” to speak on earth) has no authority to speak on His own (?), or who
could adequately defend the view that the Father and Son send themselves?
That argumentation falls flat on its face rather quickly. Thus *the Spirit is not
the Father and, or Jesus in person, or in actual personality, but is
“another”!!! Jesus cannot send Himself, neither can the Father. Even a
child understands that basic logic!!!

IS THE SPIRIT DISTINCT AS A PERSON, OR JUST A VEILED

EXTENSION OF THE FATHER'S PERSON

In Proverbs 8:1, 22-31 and 1 Cor. 1:24 the Son of God is SYMBOLICALLY
made eternally inseparable from the Father as His eternal Wisdom (also called
God's "Logos" or "Reason" and "Expressed "Word" in John 1), in just the same
way a man’s mind and reason is inseparable from him, and co-exists ALWAYS
with him. Can you imagine God ever existing without wisdom or reason? And
yet Jesus (the Father’s Wisdom/Reason in symbol) is literally separate from the
Father as a person, depicted as one “set up” “from everlasting” (or “from all
eternity”). That is why Jesus is truly co-eternal with His Father, since Micah
5:2 makes it plain that he, like the Father, exists "from everlasting" [i.e. all
eternity] past. Likewise in 1Cor. 2:11, 12 the eternal Spirit (Heb 9:14) is made
inseparable from the Father and Son (thus is co-eternal with God), as a man’s
spirit in him is inseparable from him. But notice VERY CAREFULLY that the
Spirit is always said to be “OF” God (verse 12), never said to be “in” God,
because “God is spirit”; not a material body and a spirit within Him. That is
why the Spirit could be separately “before His Throne” (Rev. 1:4), as the
"sevenfold Spirit" (IN SYMBOL of course) or why the Spirit could be sent (yes
"sent") to create on their behalf (Psalm 104:30) while Jesus separately and
symbolically sits on the one throne in Heaven with His Father (Rev. 3:21). And
that is why the Spirit could assume human form in Ezekiel 8:1-5, and using a
"hand" bring Ezekiel (IN VISION) into the presence of God on His throne in
another location. That is personal distinction plain and simple. A man’s spirit
in him could never exist separately like God’s Holy Spirit. There is a big
difference. The Bible truth is plain and simple.

Consider this final argument too. Many fail to appreciate the role of the Holy
Spirit being the Representative INVISIBLE presence of the Father and Son
away from their enthroned location (just as Jesus was the representative
VISIBLE presence of the Father on earth). Notice very carefully that when in
the book of Revelation the Spirit's personal distinction needed to be shown
SEPARATELY from the Father and Christ the Lamb (with Christ being
depicted as the "seven-horned" Lamb in symbol) the Spirit was so depicted in
Rev. 1:4,5 as the "sevenfold Spirit" in symbol sending greetings before God's
throne; not sitting on it, or inside the Father's Person!
We know it must have been the Spirit sending greetings equally, but separately
to the Church in Rev. 1:4, since heavenly greetings to the Church in the New
Testament have consistently only come from members of divinity; never
created beings in heaven such as angelic spirits. This many scholars agree
on, such as the reputable Albert Barnes, Jameison Fausset and Brown, and
Matthew Henry Commentaries on the Bible (among others); all of which
concur on who the ”seven Spirits before His [God's] throne" designated.
The Spirit appeared *IN FRONT of God's throne as the "sevenfold Spirit";
NOT on the throne inside God, the Father's person- Rev. 1:4, 5!! See again Ez.
8:1-5). Think seriously about this for a moment!!

If the Holy Spirit was just a veiled "extension" of the literal Personage of the
Father, this so-called “extension” would only be logically necessary *AWAY
FROM HIS DIRECT ENTHRONED PRESENCE IN HEAVEN, and so Isaiah
48:16, having the Spirit designated separately *IN Heaven itself and Him
separately sending the Redeemer/Messiah is unexplainable and redundant if He
was just an extension of the Father. This would be redundant language too of
the Spirit, who is distinctly seen as being separate in God's very throne room, as
the "sevenfold Spirit" "BEFORE His throne", and sending greetings to the
Church both equally and separately. Rev. 1:4, 5. It would be unexplainable
redundancy if the Spirit was literally the Father’s person sending greetings
twice along with Jesus’ greetings. The passage makes plain sense to see three
personal greetings in Rev. 1:4, 5 as coming from separate personages.
Remember, only divinity has consistently sent heavenly greetings to the Church
along with the Father; never created beings, such as angels!! Thus Rev. 1:4, 5 is
easily understood to be the sevenfold Spirit in symbol separately designated as
a divine being, and sending greetings as Jesus oftentimes did--- alongside the
Father.

If the Holy Spirit was just a veiled "extention" of the Father's literal
Person, then the Spirit would come with the Father's full authority *AT
ALL TIMES, since the Father Himself has no "Head", or Leader to hear
from as Jesus did, and so John 16:13, 14 would also be unexplainable if the
Spirit was just the Father's Person extended, since the Holy Spirit comes in
the authority of another, and hears from another; not in his own authority.
Would the Father be hearing from Himself (like a mad man, with a split
personality) or be led by another in higher authority? Certainly not!!

It is true the Holy Spirit is equal with the Father in nature, just as Jesus is, but
only the Father is "Head" of divinity, and thus that is precisely why we
know the Spirit is a separate personality, since he is led by another, he
hears from another, he is sent by both Father and Son, as he comes to
glorify Jesus who sends Him. And remember, Jesus cannot "send"
Himself, and does not glorify himself, but always allows another to do that,
and thus could not be the Holy Spirit in actual personage. Both Jesus and
the Spirit are led by another; the Father Himself.

That is exactly how the unity of operation of the Godhead is patterned in human
families of separate beings all equal in nature, and are one as a family, but
answering to one head of the family, that is, the father. That is why God made
Man (generic) in His image as a family or group from the very beginning. Gen
1:26,27. Clear pattern.

Never forget that an "extension" of God's person would not be needed in God's
very enthroned presence, but this separateness of the "sevenfold Spirit" “before
His throne” is easily explainable if we accept that the Spirit is a separate being.
This is unbeatable, and any reasonable unbiased thinker would see the clear
logic in this!!
This many reputable scholars agree on, such as the reputable Albert Barnes,
Jameison Fausset and Brown,and Matthew Henry Commentaries on the Bible
(among others); all of which concur on who the "seven Spirits before His
[God's] throne" is designated to be. And I must add that their interpretation
makes perfect sense, since sound rules of hermeneutics and exegesis were
followed in Rev. 1:4, 5. It is only a biased mind which rejects the sound method
of interpretation presented there on this passage.

SUMMARY:
THE HOLY SPIRIT COULD *NOT BE THE FATHER AND SON’S LITERAL PERSONAGE AT THE
SAME TIME, OR EVEN BE AN "EXTENSION" OF THE FATHER'S AND THE SON'S PERSONAGE
AT THE SAME TIME! IF THAT WERE THE CASE IT WOULD MEAN THAT THE FATHER AND SON
WOULD NOT BE SEPARATE BEINGS, OR THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE LIKE CONJOINED
SIAMESE TWINS IN ORDER FOR BOTH TO OWN THE SAME *EXTENDED ESSENCE *AT THE
SAME TIME!! WHY? REMEMBER “ESSENCE” MEANS ‘WHAT SOMETHING OR SOMEONE
LITERALLY IS’, AND SOMEONE CANNOT “SEND” HIMSELF OR HIS ESSENCE EXCEPT BY
WAY OF A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE BEARING IN HIMSELF THAT “ESSENCE” ON
BEHALF OF THE ‘SENDER’. IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE AN ABSURDITY TO BELIEVE
OTHERWISE! SINCE THERE IS JUST ONE (1) HOLY SPIRIT THAT IS LISTED SEPARATELY
FROM FATHER AND SON IN VERY MNAY SCRIPTURES (EPH. 4:4-6; MATTHEW 28:19) THEN
THE SPIRIT COULD NOT BE BOTH THE PERSON OF THE FATHER AND SON AT THE SAME
TIME. YET THIS IS THE ABSURDITY SOME BLINDLY HOLD ONTO SINCE THEY REJECT THE
TRUTH THAT THE SPIRIT MUST BE ACCEPTED AS A SEPARATE OR THIRD DIVINE
INDIVIDUAL WHO *BEARS IN HIMSELF THE FULL AND SIMILAR ESSENCE OF THE OTHER
TWO IN ORDER TO BE SENT BY AND REPRESENT THEM FULLY!!

Logical reasoning suggests compellingly that, BASED ON SCRIPTURE:

a] If the Holy Spirit is owned by both the Father and the Son *at the
same time, and Scripture is replete with the Holy Spirit being depicted
as personal, and is listed separately from Father and Son in very many
Scriptures, and

b] If both Jesus and the Father equally sends the Spirit to us, and

c] If a "sent" and a "sender" must logically be personally separate (it

would be absurd otherwise, *unless one is a "Jesus only" or "Sabellian"
believer), and

d] If both Father and Son could not send themselves (that too would be
absurd), and

e] If the Father is *never sent by Jesus, since the Father is *not subject
to or led ("Headed") by Jesus, but both Jesus and the Spirit are owned
by the Father, and both speak/act in response to the Father who leads
them both, and sends them both, and

f] If the Holy Spirit intercedes to the Father for us in our praying (not in
human priestly function as the Jesus the Lamb, or the one Mediator
does, but the Spirit influences our prayers from his place of residence
in our minds, and God, reading the mind of the Spirit in us, knows what
is meant when we pray), and

g] If the Father could not intercede to himself (that would be equally

absurd), then
*THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION WHICH SATISFIES *ALL THE RULES OF LOGIC *AT THE
SAME TIME IS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS A "REPRESENTATIVE" OWNED BY BOTH FATHER
AND SON, AS A THIRD AND SEPARATE PERSON! IN THAT ROLE HE CAN BE SENT BY BOTH
AS THEIR OMNI-PRESENT 'EMISSARY', AND NONE BE SEEN AS RIDUCLOUSLY SENDING
THEMSELVES (AS SABELLIANS OR 'JESUS ONLY' PRPOPONENTS BELIEVE)!! AND THUS WE
CAN SEE WHY BOTH FATHER AND SON WHO SAID, "WE WILL COME TO YOU AND MAKE
OUR ABODE WITH YOU", "COMES" *REPRESENTATIONALLY THROUGH THE AGENCY OF THE
SPIRIT! THE SPIRIT CAN ALSO INTERCEDE TO THE FATHER FOR US, BUT *ONLY IN OUR
PRAYING, AS HE RESIDES IN OUR HEARTS/MINDS, AND IT WOULD MAKE PERFECT SENSE
ALL AROUND, SINCE THE FATHER WOULD NOT BE RIDICULOUSLY SEEN AS INTERCEDING
TO HIMSELF. THESE CRUCIAL FACTS IRREFUTABLY PROVE THE *NECESSITY OF THE
DISTINCTLY LISTED HOLY SPIRIT BEING A "THIRD" OR SEPARATE PERSONAL BEING IN
THE GODHEAD; A GODHEAD OF FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT-- ALL WORKING IN
UNISON AS IF THEY ARE ONE BODY OR PERSON, AS 1 COR. 12:4-6, 11 CLEARLY SHOWS,
BUT WHO ARE IN FACT DISTINCT PERSONS, AND THUS INDICATING WHY MATTHEW 28:19
LISTS THEM SEPARATELY IN JESUS' OWN WORDS!! WHO KNOWS THE TRUTH BETTER
THAN JESUS HIMSELF, WHO WAS HIMSELF SENT TO REVEAL IT TO US, AND LATER
HIMSELF SENDING THE SPIRIT AS HIS REPRESENTATIVE TO BRING BACK THAT TRUTH TO
OUR MINDS?

Appendix:

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE HEAVENLY GREETINGS IN

REV. 1:4, 5
* (Taken From a Bible Commentry and Compiled by Derrick
Gillespie)

Choice quote: “It would be unnatural and improper, in such an

invocation, to unite angels with God as imparting blessings, or as
participating with God and with Christ in communicating blessings to
man… in entire accordance with the usage in Scripture… it is not in accordance
with such usage to invoke such blessings from angels… It cannot be denied that
an invocation of grace from “him who is, and was, and is to come,” is of
the nature of worship. The address to him is as God, and the attitude of
the mind in such an address is that of one who is engaged in an act of
devotion. The effect of uniting any other being with him in such a case,
would be to lead to the worship of one thus associated with him.”

– Albert Barnes’ Commentary

*Rev. 1:4 “And [greetings] from the seven

Spirits which are before his throne” –
The principal opinions which have been held in regard to it are the
following:

I. That it refers to God, as such. This opinion is held by Eichhorn,

and is favored by Ewald. No arguments derived from any parallel
passages are urged for this opinion, nor can any such be found, where
God is himself spoken of under the representation of a sevenfold
Spirit. But the objections to this view are so obvious as to be
insuperable:

If it refers to God as such, then it would be mere tautology

[redundancy], for the writer had just referred to him in the phrase
“from him who was,” etc… How could it be said of God himself that he
was “before the throne?” He is everywhere represented as sitting on
the throne, not as before it…

It is easy to conceive of angels as standing before the throne; and of

the Holy Spirit it is more easy to conceive as being represented thus
as ready to go forth and convey a heavenly influence from that throne,
but it is impossible to conceive in what sense this could be applied to
God as such.

II. The opinion held by Grotius, and by John Henry Heinrichs, that
it refers to “the multiform providence of God,” or to God considered
as operating in seven or many different ways. In support of this
Grotius appeals to Rev_5:12; Rev_7:12. But this opinion is so far-
fetched, and it is so destitute of support, as to have found, it is
believed, no other advocates, and to need no further notice. It cannot
be supposed that John meant to personify the attributes of the Deity,
and then to unite them with God himself, and with the Lord Jesus
Christ, and to represent them as real subsistences [beings] from
which important blessings descend to people. It is clear that as by the
phrase, “who is, and who was, and who is to come,” and by “Jesus
Christ, the faithful and true witness,” he refers to real subsistences
[beings], so he must here. Besides, if the attributes of God, or the
modes of divine operation, are denoted why is the number seven
chosen? And why are they represented as standing before the throne?

III. A third opinion is, that the reference is to seven attending and
ministering presence-angels - angels represented as standing before
the throne of God, or in his presence. This opinion was adopted
among the ancients by Clemens of Alexandria Andreas of Cesarea,
and others; among the moderns by Beza, Drusius, Hammond,
Wetstein, Rosenmuller, Clarke, Prof. Stuart, and others. This opinion,
however, has been held in somewhat different forms; some
maintaining that the seven angels are referred to because it was a
received opinion among the Hebrews that there were seven angels
standing in the presence of God as seven princes stood in the Persian
court before the king; others, that the angels of the seven churches are
particularly referred to, represented now as standing in the presence
of God; others, that seven angels, represented as the principal angels
employed in the government of the world, are referred to; and others,
that seven archangels are particularly designated. Compare Poole,
Synoptists in loco. The arguments which are relied on by those who
suppose that seven angels are here referred to are briefly these:

(1) The nature of the expression used here. The expression, it is

said, is such as would naturally denote beings who were before his
throne - beings who were different from him who was on the throne -
and beings more than one in number. That it could not refer to one on
the throne, but must mean those distinct and separate from one on
the throne, is argued from the use of the phrases “before the throne,”
and “before God,” in Rev_4:5; Rev_7:9, Rev_7:15; Rev_8:2;
Rev_11:4, Rev_11:16; Rev_12:10; Rev_14:3; Rev_20:12; in all which
places the representation denotes those who were in the presence of
God, and standing before him.

(2) It is argued from other passages in the Book of Revelation

which, it is said (Prof. Stuart), go directly to confirm this opinion.
Thus, in Rev_8:2; “And I saw the seven angels which stood before
God.” So Rev_4:5; the seven lamps of fire burning before the throne,
are said to be “the seven Spirits of God.” In these passages, it is
alleged that the article “the” designates the well-known angels; or
those which had been before specified, and that this is the first
mention of any such angels after the designation in the passage before
us.

(3) It is said that this is in accordance with what was usual among
the Hebrews, who were accustomed to speak of seven presence-
angels, or angels standing in the presence of Yahweh. Thus, in the
Book of Tobit (12:15), Raphael is introduced as using this language: “I
am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers
of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy
One.” The apocryphal Book of Enoch (chapter 20) gives the names of
the seven angels who watch; that is, of the watchers (compare the
notes on Dan_4:13, Dan_4:17) who stand in the presence of God
waiting for the divine commands, or who watch over the affairs of
people. So in the Zendavesta of Zoroaster, seven amshaspends, or
archangels, are mentioned. See Prof. Stuart, in loco.

To these views, however, there are objections of great weight, if they

are not in fact quite insuperable. They are such as the following:

(1) That the same rank should be given to them as to God, as the
source of blessings. According to the view which represents this
expression as referring to angels, they are placed on the same level, so
far as the matter before us is concerned, with “him who was, and is,
and is to come,” and with the Lord Jesus Christ - a doctrine which
does not elsewhere occur in the Scriptures, and which we cannot
suppose the writer designed to teach.

(2) That blessings should be invoked from angels - as if they could

impart “grace and peace.” It is evident that, whoever is referred to
here by the phrase “the seven Spirits,” he is placed on the same level
with the others mentioned as the source of “grace and peace.” But it
cannot be supposed that an inspired writer would invoke that grace
and peace from any but a divine being.

(3) That as two persons of the Trinity are mentioned here, it is to be

presumed that the third would not be omitted; or to put this
argument in a stronger form, it cannot be supposed that an inspired
writer would mention two of the persons of the Trinity in this
connection, and then not only not mention the third, but refer to
angels - to creatures - as bestowing what would be appropriately
sought from the Holy Spirit. The incongruity would be not merely in
omitting all reference to the Spirit - which might indeed occur, as it
often does in the Scriptures - but in putting in the place which that
Spirit would naturally occupy an allusion to angels as conferring
blessings.

(4) If this refer to angels, it is impossible to avoid the inference that

angel-worship, or invocation of angels, is proper. To all intents and
purposes, this is an act of worship; for it is an act of solemn
invocation. It is an acknowledgment of the “seven Spirits,” as the
source of “grace and peace.” It would be impossible to resist this
impression on the popular mind; it would not be possible to meet it if
urged as an argument in favor of the propriety of angel-invocation, or
angel-worship. And yet, if there is anything clear in the Scriptures, it
is that God alone is to he worshipped. For these reasons, it seems to
me that this interpretation cannot be well founded.

IV. There remains a fourth opinion, that it refers to the Holy Spirit,
and in favor of that opinion it may be urged:

THE TRUTH ABOUT HOLY SPIRIT AS

THE “SEVENFOLD SPIRIT” IN SYMBOL

(1) That it is most natural to suppose that the Holy Spirit would be
invoked on such an occasion, in connection with him “who was, and
is, and is to come,” and with “Jesus Christ.” If two of the persons of
the Trinity were addressed on such an occasion, it would be properly
supposed that the Holy Spirit would not be omitted, as one of the
persons from whom the blessing was to descend. Compare
2Co_13:14; “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”
 (2) It would be unnatural and improper, in such an invocation, to
unite angels with God as imparting blessings, or as participating with
God and with Christ in communicating blessings to man. An
invocation to God to send his angels, or to impart grace and favor
through angelic help, would be in entire accordance with the usage in
Scripture, but it is not in accordance with such usage to invoke such
blessings from angels.

(3) It cannot be denied that an invocation of grace from “him who

is, and was, and is to come,” is of the nature of worship. The address
to him is as God, and the attitude of the mind in such an address is
that of one who is engaged in an act of devotion. The effect of uniting
any other being with him in such a case, would be to lead to the
worship of one thus associated with him. In regard to the Lord Jesus,
“the faithful and true witness,” it is from such expressions as these
that we are led to the belief that he is divine, and that it is proper to
worship him as such. The same effect must be produced in reference
to what is here called “the seven Spirits before the throne.” We cannot
well resist the impression that someone with divine attributes is
intended; or, if it refer to angels, we cannot easily show that it is not
proper to render divine worship to them. If they were thus invoked by
an apostle, can it be improper to worship them now?

(4) The word used here is not “angels,” but “spirits”; and though it is
true that angels are spirits, and that the word “spirit” is applied to
them Heb_1:7, yet it is also true that that is not a word which would
be understood to refer to them without designating that angels were
meant. If angels had been intended here, that word would naturally
have been used, as is the case elsewhere in this book.

(5) In Rev_4:5, where there is a reference to “the seven lamps

before the throne,” it is said of them that they “are,” that is, they
represent “the seven Spirits of God.” This passage may be understood
as referring to the same thing as that before us, but it cannot he well
understood of angels; because:

(a) If it did, it would have been natural to use that language for the
reason above mentioned;

(b) The angels are nowhere called “the spirits of God,” nor would such
language be proper.

The phrase, “Spirit of God” naturally implies divinity, and could not
be applied to a creature. For these reasons it seems to me that the
interpretation which applies the phrase to the Holy Spirit is to be
preferred; and though that interpretation is not free from difficulties,
yet there are fewer difficulties in that than in either of the others
proposed. Though it may not be possible wholly to remove the
difficulties involved in that interpretation, yet perhaps something
may be done to diminish their force:

(1) First, as to the reason why the number seven should be applied
to the Holy Spirit:

(a) There would be as much propriety certainly in applying it to the

Holy Spirit as to God as such. And yet Grotius, Eichhorn, Ewald, and
others saw no difficulty in such an application considered as
representing a sevenfold mode of operation of God, or a manifold
divine agency.

(b) The word “seven” often denotes a full or complete number, and
may be used to denote what is full, complete, or manifold; and might
thus be used in reference to an all-perfect Spirit, or to a spirit which
was manifold in its operations.

(c) The number seven is evidently a favorite number in the Book of

Revelation, and it might be used by the author in places, and in a
sense, such as it would not be likely to be used by another writer.
Thus, there are seven epistles to the seven churches; there are seven
seals, seven trumpets, seven vials of the wrath of God, seven last
plagues; there are seven lamps, and seven Spirits of God; the Lamb
has seven horns and seven eyes. In Rev_1:16, seven stars are
mentioned; in Rev_5:12, seven attributes of God; Rev_12:3, the
dragon has seven heads; Rev_13:1, the beast has seven heads.

(d) The number seven, therefore, may have been given to the Holy
Spirit with reference to the diversity or the fulness of his operations
on the souls of people, and to his manifold agency on the affairs of the
world, as further developed in this book.

(2) As to his being represented as “before the throne,” this may be

intended to designate the fact that the Divine Spirit was, as it were,
prepared to go forth, or to be sent forth, in accordance with a
common representation in the Scriptures, to accomplish important
purposes on human affairs. The posture does not necessarily imply
inferiority of nature, anymore than the language does respecting the
Son of God, when he is represented as being sent into the world to
execute an important commission from the Father.

[*ALL TAKEN FROM ALBERT BARNES’

COMMENTARY]
 *See also Robertson’s Word Pictures, Matthew Henry’s Commentary,
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown’s Commentary, Geneva Bible Translation
Notes, John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes, etc, on Rev. 1:4,5.

“In the multitude of counsel there is

safety”!!