The Gospel of John

By virtually unanimous tradition the book we are now to consider was written by the Apostle John, son of Zebedee and brother of James, yet we look in vain for mention of his name anywhere in the gospel.  The John we do find referred to several times in the early chapters is not the writer, but Jesus' forerunner and herald, John the Baptist, son of Zacharias and Elizabeth.

Only in the last chapter does our author give a clue to his identity; he is 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (John 21.20,24).  A description which occurs several times in this gospel - the one who was next to Jesus at the Last Supper and to whom Jesus, as he hung on the cross, committed the care of his mother Mary (John 13.23; 19.26).

John makes only the gentlest hint of his presence on other occasions, yet the very absence of his name (in contrast with the other accounts) supports our identification.  With James and Peter, John was one of the 'inner three' whom Jesus chose from among the Twelve to accompany him on certain special occasions.  For example John was on the Mount of Transfiguration and with him in Christ's great mental conflict in Gethsemane (Luke 9.28; Mark 14.33).  Perhaps more than any other disciple therefore, John was closer to Jesus and heard his Master's most intimate thoughts.  This would help to account for the very distinctive and personal style that characterises this gospel.

Just as an oil painting differs markedly in approach from a watercolour or a photograph of the same subject, so John's gospel supplies a special dimension to the recorded life of Jesus.  It is not a contradictory account however, but rather a confirmatory record.  It has a great deal in common with the other gospels and it often strikingly complements what the other three evangelists have to say.  For example only John records Jesus' words (John 2.19) which were used in evidence against him at his trial (Mark 14.58).

The vocabulary of this writer is remarkably simple - at first glance!  Yet the more we think about it, the deeper and fuller it appears.  Simple words like light and darkness, life, world, abide, follow, believe and many others and phrases such as 'lift up,' 'glorify God' become charged with a very profound meaning in this gospel.  For example, two of John the Baptist's disciples 'followed' Jesus and 'abode' with him that day.  Perhaps the unnamed of the two was our reticent author (John 1.39,40).

A pattern is established here which Jesus uses frequently in his later discourses.  For example look at the use of the word 'follow' in John 8.12; 10.4,5,27 etc. and 'abide' in John 5.38; 6.56; 12.46 etc.  Or consider the change of verbs: 'the law was given by Moses: grace and truth came by Jesus Christ' (John 1.17).  Moses was the great prophet by whose agency God's compassion was revealed to Israel in Jesus, however, the Father's character was embodied in full manifestation.  As he said to Philip: 'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father' - a stupendous statement, by any standard (John 14.9).

It is left to John to spell out what, in fact, is true of all the gospels.  Each evangelist has of necessity selected and set in order, (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), just some of the many discourses, events and miracles in Jesus' life.  If all these had been recorded, they would have filled the world's libraries to overflowing (John 21.25).  John states that his selection has been especially made:

'that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have (everlasting) life through his name' (John 20.30,31).

To emphasise his choice, the apostle has repeatedly used two special terms.  The word 'witness,' (in the sense of actively bearing witness) is used for the various discourses he records, and the word 'signs' rather than miracles or wonders (the Revised Version is more helpful here).  Both words endorse Jesus' claim to be God's Son and Anointed King (the kingship of Jesus has greater emphasis in this gospel than in the others).  With these points in mind, we can readily see that John's gospel pursues a very clear line of development.

To see an outline plan of the book click here.

John records three Passovers and mentions two other Jewish festivals, proving that Jesus' ministry lasted at least three years.  The latter half of the account concerns the last Passover and the week preceding it - just a fortnight in all!  John has also much more to say than the other evangelists about the Jerusalem phases of Christ's work, the Galilean preaching (marked 'G' on the plan) takes up a relatively small proportion of the whole. 

The prologue or introduction makes the awesome claim that Jesus is the perfect revealer of his God and Father.  All that follows is there to establish the absolute truth of this claim.  The final portion is a corresponding epilogue.  Jesus appears once again to his disciples after his resurrection, and this is accompanied by an eighth sign - the miraculous catch of large fish, none of which was lost.  This was a guarantee of the success of the appointed 'fishers of men' in the work that lay ahead, with Jesus to oversee their labours.

Within this outer framework we have four 'books' or sections in which the first and last parallel one another, as do the middle two.  In a very real sense books two and three are the pivot of the whole gospel.  They document on the one hand the Jewish nation's final rejection of their Messiah in spite of all the 'signs' he had performed in their midst (John 12.37).

Conversely, Jesus' private witness to the disciples culminated in their acceptance of his claims (John 16.30).  Exactly the same challenge, to believe Christ's claims, not credulously but because of their unique and irrefutable evidence, is still the touchstone for us today.  It is no exaggeration to say that our whole future and well-being will be decided by our individual response to this challenge.

Worked into this series of witnessing discourses, and sometimes forming their basis, are the seven major 'signs'.  These are mostly healing miracles, which confirm Jesus' claim to all except the spiritually blind.  One of these great signs was the healing of a man blind from birth.  After Jesus had restored his sight the former blind man told the sceptical religious leaders:

'If this man were not of God, he could do nothing' (John 9.33).

For this 'insight' he was thrown out of the temple, because the leaders themselves were blinded by their own prejudice and fearful of losing their leadership status (John 11.45-48).  The greatest sign of all was Jesus' own resurrection, foreshadowed as it was by the raising of Lazarus.  Nevertheless even that accomplished fact was powerless to convince his implacable enemies, as he himself had foreseen (Luke 16.31).  However, for those who accept the eye-witness of the twelve Apostles the fact of Jesus' resurrection establishes the genuineness of his claims.  It also establishes that the Father has given him authority to raise the dead, judge them, and give everlasting life to all who have submitted to his discipline (John 5.21-23).

A feature peculiar to this gospel is Jesus' use of seven allegories to describe some of his special roles; each is introduced by the statement 'I am ...' (see italic quotations in the outline plan).  The first two ('I am the Bread of Life' and 'I am the Light of the World') are intended to direct the reader's mind back to God's great work with His people Israel, when He redeemed them from Egyptian slavery and led them through the desert to Canaan, the Promised Land.

For forty years they were sustained by manna - 'bread from heaven' and were guided in their journeys by the miraculous pillar of cloud and fire (Cp. Nehemiah 9.19,20).  Jesus in this gospel reveals himself as the greater 'bread from heaven' which enables the eater of it to live for ever (John 6.48-51).  He is also 'the Light of the World' by whose light we must 'walk' (i.e. conduct our lives) so that we may be accounted by him as 'sons of light' in the Day of Judgement (John 9.5; 12.35,36).

These Exodus themes appear frequently in John's gospel, notably when we read that 'the Word was made flesh and dwelt (NIV 'tabernacled') among us', just as God had dwelt amongst His people in the Tabernacle of Witness (John 1.14; Exodus 25.8).  Even the allegories of the Vine and the Good Shepherd can be traced back to this source (Psalm 80.1,8).  The 'Door' (of the Sheepfold) is closely related to the latter.  Likewise crucifixion itself was prefigured when Moses 'lifted up the serpent in the wilderness' (John 3.14).  If however we do not accept the writings of Moses, we will not be disposed to accept Christ's words either (John 5.46,47).

The two remaining allegories are concerned with the authority given to Jesus as Son of God, to raise the dead and give them everlasting life.  By virtue of this unique power he is 'the resurrection and the life', and 'the way, the truth and the life' (i.e. 'the true and living way' - John 11.25, 14.6) on behalf of all who wholeheartedly believe that he is the Messiah.  The raising of Lazarus from the dead demonstrated beyond argument the reality of his power, which will soon be exercised again when:

'all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out; those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned' (John 5.28,29 NIV).

But does not Jesus say somewhere that the believer 'has everlasting life' already?  Yes, he does (John 6.47,54), but he also says repeatedly in the same context that he will raise believers up 'at the last day' (John 6.39,40,44,54).  So, 'having everlasting life' is a matter of promise - as John expressly says elsewhere (1 John 2.25; cp. Colossians 3.3,4) - but it is regarded as an established fact because when God promises something it is as good as done!  (God's promise to Abraham while he was still childless: 'a father of many nations I have made thee', is another illustration of this principle - Romans 4.17).

The raising of Lazarus, together with other raisings from the dead recorded in Scripture, poses a knotty problem to those who believe in the immortality of the soul and immediate reward (or punishment) at death.  Where was Lazarus during those four days?  He was unquestionably a good man and Jesus loved him (John 11.5).  According to orthodox church teaching he would have gone straight to heaven.

Do we find then that he waxed enthusiastic afterwards about the marvels he had experienced - or perhaps very upset to find himself returned to a previous mortal existence?  Neither here, nor after any other recorded raisings, is there the slightest hint of conscious survival in the intervening period.  Is it not far wiser to accept the Lord's own statement:

'Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up.' (John 11.11 NIV)

The disciples misunderstood and Jesus told them plainly: 'Lazarus is dead' (John 11.14).  Thus, in harmony with many other Biblical passages, Jesus affirms that the death state is a sleep, a time of complete unconsciousness, from which people responsible to his judgement seat will be awakened 'at the last day', i.e. at his second coming (e.g. Daniel 12.1,2; 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18; 2 Timothy 4.8; Revelation 11.15-18).

Tradition dies hard, not only in the belief in immortal souls but also in the belief in heaven-going as the Christian's reward.  Yet does not Jesus speak somewhere of the Father's 'house of many mansions', in which he promises a place for each of his friends?  Yes, he does (John 14.2).  Is not heaven the Father's house and therefore the place of reward?  No, it is not!

Heaven is the Father's dwelling place (1 Kings 8.30; Matthew 6.9) but it is not, scripturally speaking, His 'house'.  This is a term which the Bible consistently applies to the temple in Jerusalem, Jesus himself being witness early in this gospel (John 2.13-17; Luke 2.49 and often in the Old Testament).

In the New Testament the concept is extended to include the whole body of believers, who are being built up into a 'spiritual house' as a dwelling place for God (Ephesians 2.21,22; Hebrews 3.5).  Just as the original temple had many rooms for the use of the priests, and treasure chambers, so in the spiritual house each believer is regarded as a single room and dwelling for the Almighty (1 Corinthians 6.19).

Jesus confirms this when he promises that each believer who loves him and obeys his teaching will become a 'home' (literally, 'an abiding place' - the same word as 'mansion' earlier in the chapter) in whom both he and his Father will dwell (John 14.23).  As the faithful High Priest and Advocate over God's 'house', Jesus is now 'preparing a place' for them; soon, as he says, he will come again and take them to himself, that where he is, they may be also (John 14.3).

Where will he be then?  His appointed place is on David's throne in Jerusalem (Luke 1.32,33; Psalm 2.4-9).  It is there that all his faithful servants will share in his rulership (Revelation 2.26,27; 3.21).  His kingdom, as he said, 'is not of this world' (order - John 18.36).  It is a new order, based on righteousness and incorruptibility (both moral and physical) in its rulership, which in turn will promote the same characteristics in the nations of the earth over which Christ's friends will bear rule (Psalm 45.16; Isaiah 32.1; 65.17-19; 2 Peter 3.13).

John's gospel raises many other highly important doctrinal issues, not least the position of Jesus in relation to his Father - how are we to reconcile the phrase 'I and my Father are one' with 'my Father is greater than I? (John 10.30; 14.28).

Is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter (or Advocate) 'the third person of the Godhead', as taught by virtually all churches in Christendom today?  If so, how are we to understand John's statement in his first letter that Jesus himself is the Advocate with the Father?  (1 John 2.1).  Later in this chapter we examine more closely just what John and the other inspired writers say on these extremely important topics.

The lasting impression made on us by this gospel as we read it, is the love that Jesus showed to the lame and the blind, to the hungry and the bereaved and above all to his disciples.  In the upper room at the Last Supper he, their Teacher and Lord, ministered humbly to their physical needs and then in various ways urged them to love one another just as he had loved them and to obey his commands (John 13.12-14,34,35).

In spite of the crushing ordeal just ahead of him, Jesus devoted his whole attention to the welfare of his 'little flock', and in his closing prayer makes an earnest plea for their unity with him and his Father (John 17.20-23).  Having committed them to God's care he goes out to meet those who had plotted his destruction and to submit himself to the death of the cross.  This love is summed up in these words:

'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you' (John 15.13,14).

With all due respect to those who hold it, we come now to examine the doctrine of the Trinity in the light of Bible teaching.  We do so in the context of John's gospel because churchgoers usually reckon this evangelist to be the most explicit in support of Trinitarian teaching.  Therefore in studying what he was guided to write we are evaluating the strongest evidence which orthodox Christians can offer.

What then is Trinitarian teaching?  Very briefly, it is that there are three distinct persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each co-equal and co-eternal in one Godhead.  This teaching forms the basis of the church's interpretation of 'the incarnation'.  It is contended that when Jesus was conceived it was no beginning of life for him, but instead a change of status.

'God, the Eternal Son' had stepped down', as it were, from his eternal glory and entered Mary's womb in order to be born a member of our fallen race.  By such means he offered himself as the supreme sacrifice on the cross as a substitute for us, then rose and ascended to heaven, there to resume the glory he had previously enjoyed.  Certain verses in this gospel are read as lending support to this thesis, but do they really teach what so many suppose they do?

We have noted earlier how much the Apostle John was divinely influenced to use the Old Testament as the basis for his choice of themes from the life of Jesus.  In type and allegory 'Moses and the prophets' foreshadowed the whole of God's purpose, afterwards revealed in all its fullness in the New Testament record.  Each Testament expounds and complements the other, and there is perfect harmony between the two, for God is not the author of confusion but of orderly and consistent design (1 Corinthians 14.33).

What this means in practice is that the teaching we find in the writings of John and the other apostles is squarely based on Old Testament revelation, and must be understood in harmony with that earlier inspired volume.  Let us take one example, which will show as well as any the necessity of interpreting key words in their scriptural context.  We must not come to them with preconceived ideas based on Gentile traditions.

This is a fundamental point.  The word 'God' (Hebrew: 'Elohim') is used in the Bible not only for our Creator, but also for the angels (Genesis 31.11,13; 48.15,16), for Israel (Psalm 82.1,6; John 10.3,35) and for Jesus (Psalm 45.6; Hebrews 1.8).  The word therefore includes any individual or group in whom the Father chooses to manifest His power and authority.

This concept of delegated authority is very clearly seen in the case of the angel whom God appointed as Israel's guide to lead them through the desert.  The people were told:

'Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him.  If you listen carefully to what he says and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies ...' (Exodus 23.21,22 NIV).

Here is the Father's authority vested in His angel; whatever the angel says, is in fact, what God Himself says.  This is true whenever angels speak, for by definition they are God's messengers and as we have just noted, have the power to forgive or retain sins.  In the New Testament we find a perfectly consistent extension of this usage, where Jesus too has been given power to speak God's words and to forgive sins (John 7.16,17; 8.28; Mark 2.10).

Indeed his is a greater authority than that of the angels because his divine begettal has placed him above them (Hebrews 1.1-4).  But his being called 'God' does not make him equal to his Father, any more than we would regard the angels as equal to God, although called 'God' in this context.

There can be no question that the angels are God's obedient servants, sent out by Him to fulfil His will (Psalm 103.20,21; Hebrews 1.13,14).  Similarly, the language of both the Old and New Testaments is specific that Jesus also was God's servant, sent by the Father to do His will (Isaiah 42.1-4; 52.13; 53.12; John 6.38).  God as supreme, was pleased to vest in the Son authority not only to forgive sins but also to raise the dead and at the appointed time to be their judge (John 5.25-27).

However, it is abundantly clear from the language used that it was the Father who issued the commands the Son who obeyed.  This order is maintained consistently throughout John's writings and indeed Trinitarians concede that there was a temporary 'stepping down' by the Son from his supposed earlier position of equality.  But the Apostolic writings and Jesus himself continue in this vein after his resurrection.

For example, Paul refers to 'the God of our Lord Jesus Christ' (Ephesians 1.17) and writes elsewhere: 'the head of Christ is God' (1 Corinthians 11.3).  Four times in a verse Jesus calls his Father 'My God' (Revelation 3.12), as he also does in this gospel (John 20.17).  So when Thomas addresses Jesus as 'My God', acknowledging the exalted status of the resurrected Christ, he is recognising a superior being (John 20.28).  By the same yardstick, Jesus exalts his Father and bows to His superiority - and this too after his resurrection and ascension.

Irrefutable confirmation comes from Paul's 'thumbnail summary' of the Millennium, at the end of which:

'...the Son himself will also be subject to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.' (1 Corinthians 15.28 RSV)

There can be no doubt that Jesus did on occasions, make statements difficult to understand (John 6.60; 16.18), but the verses selected to oppose the above conclusions hardly warrant this description.  For example, the Jews tried to kill Jesus after alleging that:

'Not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God' (John 5.18 NIV).

This was, however, their own biased inference on both counts and not supported by the facts of the case.  The law to rest on the Sabbath was not broken by performing an act of healing on that day.  Similarly, when Jesus called God his Father, it was no claim to equality with Him.

The other much-used passage in this connection is: 'I and the Father are one' (John 10.30 RV).  But 'unity' does not necessarily imply 'equality', as must be obvious in the reference to believers being united with Christ (John 17.20-23; Romans 6.5 RV).

In another place where the underlying grammatical structure is identical, a modern pro-Trinitarian version has in fact rendered it: 'have one purpose' (1 Corinthians 3.8 NIV) and this would suit the present context admirably.  The Father and Son are wholly 'at one' in their concern for the welfare of 'the sheep'.

We conclude that neither in John's gospel, nor elsewhere, is there any real support for the Trinitarian doctrine of 'co-equality' - and without this vital component the basic teaching of orthodox Christianity is proved fallacious, a serious perversion of the truth.

We must now look at the associated teaching of the later creeds (the 'Apostles Creed' is not Trinitarian): that Jesus is 'God, the Eternal Son'.  There is a marked doctrinal shift between Justin Martyr's simple belief (about AD 150-155) that:

'... we honour him who ... is the Son of the true God and holding him in the second rank, and the prophetic Spirit third in order...'

and the statement of Irenaeus (second half of the second century):

'... Christ Jesus the Son of God, who because of his outstanding love towards his creation endured the birth from the virgin...'

In the latter quotation the idea of Christ's pre-existence is clearly in view.  But we note at the outset that we have here an inbuilt contradiction of terms.  By any meaningful interpretation of 'Father' and 'Son', the former must have preceded the latter.  It is no argument to say this is 'a great mystery', for Scripture was given to reveal, not to conceal, and Bible 'mysteries' are strictly 'revealed secrets.'

Nevertheless there are passages which seem to imply a more limited pre-existence of the Lord, in particular those in which he refers to the glory he had with his Father, 'who loved him before the foundation of the world' (John 17.5,24).  However, before we jump to hasty conclusions, two facts should be borne in mind: the complete foreknowledge of God (Isaiah 45.21; Acts 15.18), and the way events are often recorded in anticipation of their fulfilment.

A striking example of the latter is contained in John chapter 17, where Jesus says before his crucifixion: 'I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do' (John 17.4).  The same mode of speaking appears frequently in Scripture (Joshua 8.1; 10.8; Jeremiah 1.5; Romans 8.30; Hebrews 10.14).

In Malachi we read that because of His foreknowledge, God loved Jacob and hated Esau before these twins had done anything good or evil, and indeed before they were born (Malachi 1.2,3; Romans 9.10-13).  Similarly, God loved His Son from the beginning, foreseeing his absolute obedience to the Father's will (Isaiah 42.1).

It is equally true that God has loved from before the creation all who would eventually be born and render to Him the obedience and trust He requires.  Paul wrote to the Ephesians that God 'Chose us in him (Christ) before the foundation of the world.'  To Timothy he wrote that God's grace 'was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began' (Ephesians 1.4 RV; 2 Timothy 1.9).  Did believers exist 'before the world began'?

Cannot we see that God knew their response to the gospel call at the outset and loved and chose them in view of their forthcoming obedience? (2 Thessalonians 2.13)  A proper understanding of this anticipatory mode of Bible revelation will save us from the impossible concept of an immortal and incorruptible God (who cannot be tempted with evil - James 1.13) somehow surrendering these intrinsic characteristics in order to suffer temptation and die as a sacrifice.  Rather with Peter we gladly accept the teaching that Christ:

'…was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world but was manifested at the end of the times for your sake, who through him are believers in God, which raised him from the dead and gave him glory' (1 Peter 1.20,21 RV).

Note once again how in this passage also, it is the Father who raised His Son and glorified him.

Two passages at the beginning of John's gospel are often cited by Trinitarians:

'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.

'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.' (John 1.1-3,14)

The assumption is made that 'the Word' in the earlier passage is Jesus in person, hence he is God and all things were made by him.  But there are problems here both of translation and interpretation.  William Tyndale, the 'father' of the 'Authorised Version', translated verse 3: 'All thynges were made by it, and with out it was made noo thinge, that made was'.

On the question of interpretation, the 'Translator's New Testament', issued by the British and Foreign Bible Society, points out that the Greek word 'logos' (translated 'Word') represents the Hebrew word 'davar', the creative Word of God as found in Genesis 1: 'God said ... and it was' (Cp. Psalm 33.6,9).

The idea of the Word of God as active, powerful and effective is a feature of the Hebrew religion (Cp. Isaiah 55.8-11).  To the Greeks the word referred to the fashioning and controlling of the world in an orderly way by Mind or Reason.  Jewish thinkers associated the term 'logos' with their own idea of Wisdom (See Proverbs 8.22-31 where the word is feminine!).

'All these ideas are probably present when John uses the word 'logos' in these opening verses ... the translator must be on his guard against identifying the Word with Jesus Christ at too early a stage' (p.451 - some condensation has been made to save space).

This is in agreement with G B Caird who, in his 'Language and Imagery of the Bible' offers the following interpretative translation:

'In the beginning was a purpose, a purpose in the mind of God, a purpose which was God's own being.' (p.102)

John Marsh too, in the Penguin commentary on this gospel says:

'The Word may thus be likened to the eternal purpose of God, giving meaning to the whole of existence.' (p.97)

In the fullness of time 'the Word was made flesh', i.e. the purpose was realised in the conception and birth of Jesus, 'made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law...' (Galatians 4.4,5).

Trinitarians see in the above words Jesus' claim to the Divine name revealed in Exodus 3.14, rendered 'I am' in the Authorised Version (John 8.58).  There appears to be no valid connection here, for the Hebrew word 'ehyeh' should rather be translated 'I will be' (Exodus 3.14 RV margin) and John does not follow the Greek (Septuagint) wording.

The blind man healed by Jesus also says 'I am (he)' but we can hardly suppose he was claiming the Divine title! (John 9.9)  The other four references in John's gospel where Jesus uses the same expression all add the word 'he' (Not expressed in the Greek - John 4.26; 8.24,28; 13.19).  From these it would appear that Jesus is referring to his Messiahship i.e. that he was truly 'the Lord's Anointed' to be Israel's saviour and king.

In the immediate context Jesus had just said that Abraham rejoiced to see his day.  Reference to the Genesis account shows that God had promised on oath to Abraham a 'seed' or descendant in whom all nations would be blessed and the patriarch was joyful over this divine promise.  But two thousand years before Abraham, in the garden of Eden, the same 'seed' had been promised to Eve who would bruise the serpent's head - the earliest direct reference to Christ's work of taking away sin by his own sacrifice (Genesis 3.15).  Jesus was long before Abraham both in time and precedence.

Doctrinal teaching on this most important subject is, like all other Bible 'first principles', founded squarely on Old Testament teaching.  The Hebrew word for 'spirit' (ruach) is also used for 'wind', 'breath', 'life', 'feeling', 'emotion' and notably 'mind' (Genesis 26.35; Ezekiel 11.5; 20.32; Habakkuk 1.11; Daniel 5.20).  The underlying idea apparently is that of an invisible power capable of producing visible movement or reaction.

'The Spirit of God' is testified as being God's all-pervading power, animating all living things (Job 33.4; Psalm 104.29,30).  It was hovering over the waters before Creation, ready to be called into action (Genesis 1.2).  But was this mighty power a being apart from God Himself?  Through the prophet Isaiah God says, referring to the great work of Creation:

'Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
Or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens
Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,
Or weighed the mountains on the scales
And the hills in a balance?'

The only possible answer is God Himself.  The prophecy continues:

'Who has understood the Spirit of the Lord,
Or instructed him as his counsellor?
Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him
And who taught him the right way...?'(Isaiah 40.12-14 NIV)

The answer to these latter questions is clearly 'Nobody'.  God needed no one to teach or advise Him, for He was His own counsellor.  The Greek version of the Old Testament translates 'Who has understood the Spirit of the Lord...?' as 'Who has known the mind of the Lord?'

The Apostle Paul quotes the passage in this latter form and in the same context affirms that just as on the human level a man's own spirit within him alone knows his thoughts, so the thoughts of God are known only to His Spirit, i.e. to His own mind (1 Corinthians 2.10-16).  We would disallow any idea that made a man and his mind into two separate persons.  Similarly, God and His mind or Spirit are one and the same person.

We are now equipped scripturally to understand Jesus' promise to his disciples that he would, after his resurrection, send 'another Counsellor' (AV 'Comforter') to be with them for ever - 'the Spirit of truth' (John 14. 16,17).  While on earth Jesus himself had been their guide and counsellor, but with his ascension to heaven they were going to need God's wisdom as a special gift, in order to be witnesses of Christ's resurrection in a hostile world.

Jesus' promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when the apostles were 'clothed with power from on high' (Luke 24.49 RV), God's Spirit being poured out on them (Acts 2.17,18,33).  Can a person be 'poured out?'  The apostles were, in fact, anointed with the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus himself had been earlier (2 Corinthians 1.21; 1 John 2.27; Acts 10.28).

Many religious people have stumbled over the use of the personal pronouns 'he' and 'him' in reference to the 'Counsellor', unaware that the Greek original merely follows the rule of agreement in gender, and this noun happens to be masculine.  'Spirit' is neuter and therefore takes the pronoun 'which'.  One cannot legitimately infer 'personality' or otherwise on the grounds of this purely grammatical device.

There is undoubtedly in John's gospel a personification of God's Spirit, as there is elsewhere of wisdom, riches, sin and other abstract ideas (Proverbs 8.1 ff.; Luke 16.13; Romans 6.23).  However, John tells us in his first letter that 'the Spirit is the Truth' (1 John 5.7 RV), which is God's Word or testimony implanted in faithful men and women, directing their lives along the path God desires (James 1.18).  Jesus said:

'…the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.' (John 6.63 NIV)

...'these words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.' (John 14.24 NIV)

Thus we have as much of the Spirit of God in us as we have of the words of Christ.  It is essential, therefore, that we accept God's truth through Christ and his Apostles with willing and open hearts, studying the written word with all care and diligence, that our lives may be moulded by it into the divine pattern so perfectly exemplified in Jesus himself.