IT is the Holy Ghost!

There seems to be some controversy over the use of the third person neuter pronoun 'it' in regard to the Holy Spirit. Some folks feel that it is wrong to speak of the Spirit of God as 'it'.

But please do notice the following:

Isa 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Here, Isaiah delivers a message from God, who speaks of his spirit as 'it'.

Jhn 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

Here John the Baptist speaks of the Spirit as 'it'.

1Pe 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Here the apostle Peter speaks of the Spirit of Christ as 'it' and uses the term 'which' (instead of the religiously correct term 'who'.


Now let's look at one verse, which is actually merely a sample of numerous other similarly constructed verses:

1Jo 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

Notice the phrase 'it is the Spirit'. This is similar in construction to numerous other phrases which say 'it is ...X' where X is a person (male or female). For example, howmany times have you said 'it's God' or 'it's Jesus'? We see no problem whatsoever in saying 'it is [insert male or female person's name here]'.

Why is this possible? Why do we not say 'he is the Spirit' or 'He is God' in such situations? Technically and grammatically, the phrase 'it is the Spirit' is simply saying that 'the Spirit is it' where 'it' is the subject of the sentence or phrase.

Why is this not considered incorrect grammar? Because that is simply how language works.

To say 'it is ...X' is simply saying that 'it', an unidentified subject, is then identified as 'the Spirit' or 'God' or 'Fred' or 'Mary' or whatever you supply. There is no grammatical difficulty even though the pronoun is neuter and the noun which it refers to is masculine or feminine or whatever the case may be.

So, in short, there is both Biblical and grammatical precedent for using 'it' in reference to the Holy Spirit.

Does this mean the Spirit is 'an it' and not a 'He'? No, of course not. The pronoun does not determine the reality of the underlying noun. That would be contrary to all logic and language, not to mention common sense.

But, to put it simply, if the Bible itself occasionally refers to the Spirit of God as 'it' then it is not wrong for us to do so as well.

[SDG]

I don't want to burst your it bubble ...

1. but in the 4 verses you mentioned the word Spirit is always included in context of its usage. Some today use an impersonal "it" to refer to the Spirit of God ... like "Did you receive it?' ... never once acknowledging it is the Spirit of the living God ... but simply the experience.

2. I also see a freedom, or creative license, used by KJV translators in using the Greek work "to", "o","ho" ... as it ... when those words are properly translated as "this"

Greek [3588]: ho .... this, that, these, etc.

Examples:

John 1:32

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ;not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness , because the Spirit is truth.

Outov estin (5748) o elqwn (5631) di' udatov kai aimatov, Ihsouv Xristov;ouk en tw udati monon all' en tw udati kai en tw aimati; kai to pneuma estin (5748) to marturoun, (5723) oti to pneuma estin (5748) h alhqeia.

1:11
what *, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify , when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ,and the glory that should follow

eraunwntev eiv tina h poion kairon edhlou to en autoivpneuma Xristou promarturomenon (5740) ta eiv Xriston paqhmata kai tav meta tauta docav;

The NAS ... does not use it in this reference in 1 Peter....

seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow

Clearly the Apostles in their original intent did not refer the the Spirit of God as an it ... but you can if you like.

[SDG]

As the lone OT reference ... perhaps a Hebrew specialist can help us to see if the Spirit is linked to an impersonal it.

KJV Isaiah 34:16 ...

Seek from the book of the LORD, and read: Not one of these will be missing; None * will lack its mate. For His mouth has commanded, And His Spirit has gathered them.

Dr$W m)l-spr yhwh Wqr(W (xt mhNh l( n)Drh (%h r)WtH l( pqdW Ky-py hW( cWh wrWxO hW( qBca

Once again the NAS omits the word it ...

Seek from the book of the LORD, and read: Not one of these will be missing; None * will lack its mate. For His mouth has commanded, And His Spirit has gathered them.

[Felicity]

Wow! Eliseus and Daniel are really doing their homework.

This is great guys!

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I don't want to burst your it bubble ...

I don't blow bubbles, bubba.

1. but in the 4 verses you mentioned the word Spirit is always included in context of its usage. Some today use an impersonal "it" to refer to the Spirit of God ... like "Did you receive it?' ... never once acknowledging it is the Spirit of the living God ... but simply the experience.

Nice avoidance of the actual facts. The Scripture clearly uses the word 'it' in reference to the Spirit of God in the passages I cited. Case closed. (Unless of course, you believe the Holy Word of God is wrong....)

2. I also see a freedom, or creative license, used by KJV translators in using the Greek work "to", "o","ho" ... as it ... when those words are properly translated as "this"

Of course you do. When the Bible plainly contradicts your premise, you 'see creative license' in the Scripture rather than where it belongs - your interpretation.

Clearly the Apostles in their original intent did not refer the the Spirit of God as an it ... but you can if you like.

I am simply quoting the Bible, which uses 'it' to refer to the Spirit of God. Obviously, you did not bother with much of my post, which clearly explained how and why this is not only possible, but normal.

I am always somewhat amused at how some people take their personal grievances with some abstract 'movement' and apply it to such things as grammar and the plain text of Scripture.

Funny.

Jn 14:17, 15:26 and 16:13 clearly speaks of the Holy Ghost as "HE," as well as other places too.

The PERSON of the Holy Ghost is nothing less than Christ IN you, your hope of glory.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

As the lone OT reference ... perhaps a Hebrew specialist can help us to see if the Spirit is linked to an impersonal it.

And herein lies the root of your error. 'An impersonal it'. It is not 'impersonal', it is neuter gender.

If I ask 'Who was it?' does this mean I have conflated and commingled pronouns, mixing genders and confusing the issue? Of course not. Any child can see that asking 'Who is it?' involves the use of a neuter pronoun, it, to refer to a PERSON, but without referring to or indicating the GENDER thereof.

Simple grammar, Daniel. But unfortunately, our various vendettas sometimes blind us to such simple things.

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Jn 14:17, 15:26 and 16:13 clearly speaks of the Holy Ghost as "HE," as well as other places too.

The PERSON of the Holy Ghost is nothing less than Christ IN you, your hope of glory.

Amen! Absolutely! There is no argument with this.

However, my point is that the Bible does OCCASIONALLY refer to the Spirit as 'it' as well as 'he', and the Word is God is certainly not confused in it's (!) grammar.

By the way, how are you and the Mrs?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Eliseus

And herein lies the root of your error. 'An impersonal it'. It is not 'impersonal', it is neuter gender.

If I ask 'Who was it?' does this mean I have conflated and commingled pronouns, mixing genders and confusing the issue? Of course not. Any child can see that asking 'Who is it?' involves the use of a neuter pronoun, it, to refer to a PERSON, but without referring to or indicating the GENDER thereof.

Simple grammar, Daniel. But unfortunately, our various vendettas sometimes blind us to such simple things.

Wrong again .... you are assuming that every language has 3rd person neuter pronoun equivalent to the English "it" ... which refers almost always to an inanimate object or animal

... As I sit and reflect about the Spanish language there is no direct translation for the word it as we use it in English ...

I could be talking to a baby or a dog ... and say Pasamelo ... which can be translated to "Pass me him" or "Pass me it"

Or the eso can be used in Spanish ... but it is not best translated as "it" but rather "that".

Once again the writers did not use the word as we see it in the KJV ... the only source you are utilizing... Plain and simple. The OP contingent that is KJV only should be livid.

[SDG]

Nothing personal here, Eliseus ... I am deconstructing a flawed argument w/ the original intent of the writers you quote ... who consequently did use the English word it.. Let's rightly divide the Word and stop trying to defend a poor practice among some in our movement.