Babel And Babylon Refer To The Same Place

Babel and Babylon Refer to the Same Place

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🔎

Definition & Location

Babel is a transliteration of the Hebrew word בָּבֶל (Ba-bel), while Babylon is derived from the Greek Βαβυλῶνος (Babylonos). In the Old Testament, the word “Babel” is most often translated as “Babylon” in Greek! But besides the linguistic connection, there’s further evidence that both Babel & Babylon are located in the exact same place. For example, Genesis 10.10 & 11.2 locate Babel in the land of Shinar (שִׁנְעָֽר׃). Astoundingly, Daniel 1.2 tells us that Babylon is also located in the land of Shinar (שִׁנְעָ֖ר)! This means that Babel and Babylon are synonymous or interchangeable terms!

The Septuagint & Most English Bibles Translate Babel As Babylon

The Hebrew term “Babel” is most often translated as “Babylon” (Βαβυλὼν) in the Septuagint (aka LXX; L.C.L. Brenton translation), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Below are the English Bible versions that *also* translate Babel as Babylon:

Gen. 10.10 (LXX, NIV); Gen. 11.9 (CSB,

HCSB, ISV); Ps. 87.4 (LXX & Most Versions);

Ps. 137.1 (LXX & Most Versions); Ps. 137.8

(LXX & Most Versions); Ezek. 12.13 (LXX &

Most Versions); Ezek. 19.9 (LXX & Most

Versions).

Even the JPS Tanakh 1917—-the Jewish Publication Society of America——often translates Babel as Babylon!

In the Greek, Babel is called Βαβυλῶνος, a term that is derived from the word Βαβυλών (Babylon). The Greek New Testament follows the Septuagint translation of rendering Babel as Babylon (see e.g. Mt 1.11-12, 17; cf. 2 Kings 24.8-10 LXX)!

Conclusion

So, if Babel & Babylon are one and the same, and if Babylon the Great——with its high towers & powerful economy——is said to be destroyed in the end-times (Rev. 18), then Babel’s apparent destruction (in Genesis 11) must also be prophetic rather than historical!

—

What Are the Biblical Grounds for Divorce?

The inspiration for this paper came from a Facebook “Eli_of_Kittim_Bible_Exegesis_Group” member.

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🔎

——-

Marriage: When One Spouse is an Unbeliever

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul discusses some cases about marriage. He explains that marriage is a remedy against fornication; that it is better to marry than to burn with lust (vv. 1-9). If we focus specifically on 1 Cor. 7.15, Paul is talking about married partners, where one is a believer and the other is not, and is giving biblical instructions as to how to handle that particular situation. Notice that verses 10-11 (NRSV) represent a *direct command* from God “that the wife should not separate from her husband … and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” Here, Paul makes it absolutely clear that the mere notion that one’s partner is an unbeliever (a heathen) is not yet ground for divorce!

By contrast, verses 12-13, which apply to verse 15, are offered “by way of concession, not of command” (cf. v. 6):

if any believer has a wife who is an

unbeliever, and she consents to live with

him, he should not divorce her. And if any

woman has a husband who is an unbeliever,

and he consents to live with her, she should

not divorce him.

In other words, this is not based on a command from God but rather on Paul’s advice for a suitable compromise. Paul asserts that if the unbelieving partner agrees to stay married, the believing partner has no legitimate right to divorce them. Why? Because the believer edifies and influences the unbeliever towards holiness (v. 14).

However, in 1 Cor. 7.15 there’s an exception. If the unbeliever doesn’t wish to stay married, the believing partner (the Christian) is under no obligation. He/she may get a divorce. For God called us to peace, not quarrels & fights. The “brother” (ἀδελφὸς) or “sister” (ἀδελφὴ) in verse 15 are obvious references to a “brother” or “sister” in the faith. It’s also clear from verse 12 that the so-called “brother” refers to the Christian *believer,* not to the unbeliever. So when Paul says, “in such a case the brother or sister is not bound” (οὐ δεδούλωται), he’s referring to the Christian husband or wife who is under no obligation to continue in this marriage (SBLGNT):

εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται, χωριζέσθω · οὐ

δεδούλωται ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφὴ ἐν τοῖς

τοιούτοις, ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ

θεός.

Translation (v. 15):

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let

it be so; in such a case the brother or sister

is not bound. It is to peace that God has

called you.

The term δεδούλωται (dedoulōtai) means “enslaved” or “under bondage.” It’s a verb. Specifically, it’s a perfect indicative middle or passive 3rd person singular. Strong's 1402: it comes from doulos; to enslave (douloó).

Returning to 1 Cor. 7.15, remember that the Pauline recommendation that’s offered with regard to marriage is “by way of concession, not of command” (cf. v. 6, 12). In other words, the believing partner can legally divorce if the unbelieving partner doesn’t want to stay married, but this is not based on the Lord’s command but rather on Paul’s advice! That is to say, you can still try to salvage your marriage, seek reconciliation, and try to work things out, provided both parties agree. But if they don’t, and the unbelieving partner doesn’t want to remain married, the Christian partner is allowed to divorce them. That’s essentially what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 7.15!

We can speculate as to what this divorce entails, but Paul doesn’t actually spell it out for us. It can involve a number of issues. Some commentators think that the verse implies that the unbelieving party seeks a divorce on account of religion, and in hatred to it, and that they will not live with the believer unless Christ is denied. In that case, Paul exhorts us to let them depart.

Although that can certainly be one of the reasons for the divorce, there can be many others. The married life can be made intolerable if the unbeliever, for example, urges the believer to join in such acts as conscience cannot approve. Then there can be grounds for divorce.

Paul doesn’t tell us but leaves the question open because it applies to so many different situations and circumstances. One thing is certain. If one’s spouse is not a believer and wants a divorce, you are not under any obligation to remain married. But if the unbelieving partner wants to remain married, you are not allowed to divorce them. According to God, there’s only one ground for divorce, namely, infidelity. That’s the basic New Testament message concerning marriage!

——-

Remarriage

Later on in the chapter, another advice (v. 25) is given regarding remarriage, specifically the widow’s right to remarry (v. 39). Let’s take a closer look at the Greek text.

In 1 Cor. 7.39, the verb δέδεται is used, which comes from the verb δέω, meaning “to bind” or “to tie.” There’s also an alternative form of δέω derived from Ancient Greek, namely, δέννω ‎(dénnō)! And, of course, from this verb comes the verb δέδεται (1 Cor 7:39). Thus, *δέδεται* essentially means that someone or something “is bound” or “is chained.” The term δέδεται is a verb, perfect indicative middle or passive - 3rd person plural, with a ται ending! 1 Cor. 7.39 reads:

Γυνὴ δέδεται ἐφ’ ὅσον χρόνον ζῇ ὁ ἀνὴρ

αὐτῆς· ἐὰν δὲ κοιμηθῇ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐλευθέρα

ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει γαμηθῆναι, μόνον ἐν κυρίῳ ·

Translation:

A wife is bound as long as her husband

lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to

marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord.

So, a wife is allowed to remarry (a Christian) if her husband passes away.

——-

Conclusion

This is simply a brief study of 1 Cor. 7. Rather than drawing conclusions from a few verses, a further study is needed to see how the entire New Testament (in canonical context) deals with the issue of marriage. In other words, the exegesis might be correct, but there may be additional elements that are mentioned elsewhere that change the overall meaning of the text. We should never build a theology based on one or two verses. That’s why we need a wider study (in canonical context) in order to verify the exegesis!

——-

If the Bible Warns Against Future False Christs, then How Is the End-Times Earthly Messiah Not a Deception?

By Author Eli Kittim 🔎

—

False Christs & False Prophets

The New Testament warns that the end of days will be characterized by great deception. Matthew 24 tells us that many false christs will appear, saying “I am the Christ” (v. 5), and will deceive many. And many false prophets will also appear (v. 11). If they tell you “here is the Christ,” don’t believe them, for many false Christs & false prophets will perform great signs so as to deceive even the elect (vv. 23-24). In the text, Christ says (Mt 24.25-26 NRSV):

Take note, I have told you beforehand. So, if

they say to you, ‘Look! He is in the

wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, ‘Look!

He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.

But one may raise the question, “if the Bible warns against future false Christs, then how is the end-times earthly messiah not a deception?”

I will try to answer this question using an excerpt from my book, “The Little Book of Revelation,” chapter 11, the section entitled “THE CORPSE: A MISSING LINK IN BIBLICAL EXEGESIS,” pp. 237-238:

// However, we must challenge the reader to go further. Because if you do not understand the specific timeline of these end-time events, the biblical script will become very confusing. For example, Matthew 24:23 reads, “if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him.” Some argue that this verse exhorts us to distrust any earthly Messiah that might appear in the last days. But this is simply not true. For one thing, Christ himself appears for the first time in the last days! (Heb. 1:2, 9:26; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:9-10; Acts 3:20-21; Rev. 12:5). Not to mention that the Jews themselves are still awaiting the Messiah. Furthermore, Matthew’s gospel sets up the context of this exhortation in its proper chronological order. For instance, notice that Matthew first introduces Daniel’s prophecy of “the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION . . . standing in the holy place” (Matt. 24:15) as the backdrop for this exhortation. This event is set to take place when the antichrist will take “his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thess. 2:4).

Next, we are warned that when this event transpires, we should “flee to the mountains; . . . for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall” (Matt. 24:16-21). But we must remember that Christ will most certainly die before the antichrist could reveal himself to the world (Matt. 24:28). Paul writes, “He [Christ] who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. And then that lawless one will be revealed” (2 Thess. 2:7-8). That Christ’s arrival precedes that of the antichrist is further demonstrated in John’s gospel, Jesus says, “I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me” (14:30, cf. Dan. 9:26). Hence, “the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION” serves as the context in which the previous exhortation was made. So during this particular time period, we are rightly urged to distrust any physical being that claims to be the Messiah.\\

—

The Day of Christ

Here’s another excerpt from “The Little Book of Revelation,” ch. 3, the section entitled “FIRST COMES CHRIST; THEN COMES THE ANTICHRIST,” p. 101:

// Christ, then, must be the first horseman of “Revelation,” whose “robe” (body) was “dipped in blood” (Rev. 19:11-13, cf. Rev. 6:2). This episode marks the first of several incidents that lead up to the cosmic apocalypse. We already know that the anticipated child born during the end-times is clearly the Messiah (Rev. 12:1-5). And more than that, we are now in a better position to understand the preceding events leading up to his foretold ascension: being “caught up” into heaven (Rev. 12:5). These include his incarnation, death and resurrection, when he “will arise” from the dead (Dan. 12:1) “to make the earth tremble” (Isa. 2:19). We are also told that the antichrist “will be revealed” during the interim in which Christ will be “taken out of the way” (2 Thess. 2:7-8). Hence, it was very much the scriptural intention to instill insight in its advocates so that they might firmly distrust those who claim “that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thess. 2:2).\\

—

What is Textual Criticism?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Definition of Textual Criticism

Textual criticism is a branch of textual studies, which comprise various disciplines whose aims are to transcribe, edit, or annotate texts and documents. Textual criticism is a branch of philology (the study of language in oral and written historical sources) and literary criticism, which is interested in the identification of textual variants or different versions of books or manuscripts. Simply put, textual criticism is a method by which scholars try to determine what an original text actually said. Whereas *higher criticism* is concerned with the origins of the original text (e.g. its authorship, date & place of composition), *lower criticism* (i.e. “textual criticism”) seeks to determine the original linguistic-grammatical structure of the text.

The Process of Textual Criticism

In ancient times, prior to the 15th century invention of the printing press, scribes were usually employed to copy documents by hand. During the copying process, however, intentional and unintentional alterations were made, the former sometimes due to political or religious reasons, the latter out of sheer misunderstanding or negligence. Thus, the aim of the textual critic is to understand the historical composition and transmission of a text and its variants. In so doing, the textual critic may be able to produce a so-called “critical edition,” which is a scholarly edition of a corrected text in conjunction with a critical apparatus that records editorial changes, names of manuscripts, and the like.

As already noted, prior to the printing press, literary works were copied by hand and, as expected, copyists produced different variations at certain places in the text. Given that different scribes introduced various errors, the task of textual reconstruction usually requires a selection of readings gathered from multiple sources. Such an edited text is called “eclectic.” In contrast to the multiple-sources approach, however, a number of textual critics will only seek to identify the best extant text with regard to textual reconstruction. When considering various documents (i.e. “witnesses”) of an original text, the linguistic or grammatical differences or variations are called “variants” or “variant readings.” So, through various comparative methods, textual criticism tries to ascertain how the variants were introduced into the text——whether accidentally (via duplication or omission) or intentionally (by way of censorship or harmonization)——as scribes copied from the original autograph and then transmitted these writings across the then-known world.

Guidelines of Textual Criticism

We have hundreds of extant copies of ancient works, thousands as far as the Bible is concerned, but their relationship to the original text is often unclear. Thus, in order to ascertain which readings are faithful (most closely related to the autograph), textual scholars typically debate which sources appear to be derived from the original text. Typically, when there’s no known original manuscript but only several extant copies or versions, certain guidelines/methods of textual criticism are employed in an attempt to *reconstruct* the original text (i.e. the autograph) as faithfully as possible. In order to determine the most accurate readings of a text, scholars have devised certain guidelines (i.e. “canons”) of textual criticism. Without going into great detail, one of the most prominent rules was established by Koine-Greek scholar Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687–1752), who also produced an edition of the Greek New Testament. In his commentaries, Bengel (aka Bengelius) established the rule that “the harder reading is to be preferred.” That’s because the most difficult reading is probably the one that is less tampered with. A number of these guidelines, which were initially designed for Biblical textual criticism, are now applied to all literary texts that have been exposed to errors of textual transmission!

Conclusion

Textual Criticism is important in determining the original words of texts. But it’s especially important in Bible studies with regard to establishing “the word of God” (Hebrews 4:12), that is, the things that God originally said and revealed in holy writ, since it is said therein that “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16)!

—

What Is Original Sin?

By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim

Most of us think that we are good people. We haven’t harmed anyone. We’re not that bad. So, what kind of sins do we have to confess? In fact, sometimes we can’t even think of any. Yet 1 John 1.8-10 (KJV) reads:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive

ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we

confess our sins, he is faithful and just to

forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from

all unrighteousness. If we say that we have

not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word

is not in us.

——-

Original Sin

Original sin is the Christian doctrine that human beings inherit a sin nature at birth, with some Protestant theologians even arguing for total depravity, namely, that we’re in such a state of rebellion against God that we’re not even able to follow him, by ourselves, without his effectual grace. Other Christian theologians, such as Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215 AD), totally dismissed the thought of original sin by giving it a more allegorical interpretation.

Unlike Christianity, both Judaism and Islam hold a more positive view of human nature. They assert that human beings have an equal capacity for both good and evil, and that they don’t inherit another person’s sin at birth. They also claim that although humans might be culturally conditioned to sin by decadent societies, nevertheless they’re not born that way. To back that up, the Jews often quote the Torah (Deut. 24.16), which states:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the

children, neither shall the children be put to

death for the fathers: every man shall be

put to death for his own sin.

To drive the point home, they usually cite Ezekiel 18.20:

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the

father, neither shall the father bear the

iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the

righteous shall be upon him, and the

wickedness of the wicked shall be upon

him.

But these passages are only referring to actual sins, namely, to behavioral sins that each individual is personally responsible for. These verses, however, are not addressing *collective sin* that resides in human nature.

——-

The Collective Unconscious

Carl Jung (1875 - 1961), the famous Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, defined the concept we now know as the “collective unconscious.” This phrase refers to the deepest layer of the unconscious mind which, according to Jung, is genetically inherited and is therefore not part of individual history or personal experience. In other words, it’s not part of the personal unconscious.

Jung held that each person retains these innate unconscious impressions of humanity as a collective knowledge of our species. They’re in our genes, so to speak. But, here, also lurk all the dark, animal instincts of man, as well as the archetypes. One such archetype is called the “shadow,” an unconscious aspect of the personality that the conscious self doesn’t recognize or identify with. It represents a large portion of the *dark side* that is completely foreign and unknown to the ego. These collectively-inherited unconscious archetypes are universally present in every human being.

Over the years, many artistic works, like Star Wars, have addressed themselves to the dark side of human nature, from Pink Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon, to horror movies like American Psycho and Hannibal Lecter, to the constant violence that no current Action film seems to be without. Life imitating art would be when we witness the exact same things happening in real life while turning on the 6 o’clock news. We customarily disassociate ourselves from this aspect of human nature. We can never imagine that this state of mind resides within all of us. We always point fingers at someone else. In our eyes, we are saints. We’re like the Pharisee in Luke 18.11:

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with

himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as

other men are, extortioners, unjust,

adulterers, or even as this publican.

But, according to Jesus, we are all a bunch of hypocrites. In Matthew 15.18-19, Jesus implies that the dark side is hidden in the unconscious. It’s not simply a conscious thought, a spoken word, or an action that is the cause of one’s sinful behavior but rather a deep state of being (aka “the heart”) out of which proceeds all manner of evil:

But those things which proceed out of the

mouth come forth from the heart; and they

defile the man. For out of the heart proceed

evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,

fornications, thefts, false witness,

blasphemies.

That’s why Jeremiah 17.9 declares:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and

desperately wicked: who can know it?

No wonder Paul says that the unregenerate are still carnal (Rom. 8.8):

they that are in the flesh cannot

please God.

As theologian Timothy Keller asserts:

The church is not a museum for pristine

saints, but a hospital ward for broken

sinners.

If one fails to understand Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious,” or the dark side of human nature, one will ultimately misunderstand the Biblical doctrine of original sin.

——-

Why Does Jesus Have to Die for Humanity?

Jesus doesn’t have to suffer greatly and die on a tree simply on account of sins that were committed in the past, or to justify repentant sinners because of their current or future sins. No! Jesus dies to redeem *human nature* from original sin. He dies for humanity’s collective sin (past, present, and future). And he also redeems humanity, in himself, by dying to sin. In other words, Jesus dies to the sinful state of being, if you will, in order to free human nature from the bondage of death and decay. Not only does Jesus justify sinners by dying to sin, but because he is God, he also transforms human nature itself. In the resurrection, Christ’s human nature that rises from the grave is no longer sin-tainted, but glorious!

Otherwise, if everyone sinned voluntarily, and human beings were not tainted by original sin, then there wouldn’t be any reason for God’s Son to die for mankind. In that case, sin would be an individual or personal responsibility, not a collective one. And humanity would not need a savior because there would be neither a collective cause nor a cure for crime, violence, and murder. These people would simply be classified as criminal offenders who, unlike others, consciously “chose” to behave that way.

However, that’s not what Paul says in Romans 5.18–19:

Therefore as by the offence of one [Adam]

judgment came upon all men to

condemnation; even so by the

righteousness of one [Christ] the free gift

came upon all men unto justification of life.

For as by one man's disobedience many

were made sinners, so by the obedience of

one shall many be made righteous.

In fact, Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 15.21-22:

For since by man came death, by man

came also the resurrection of the dead. For

as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all

be made alive.

Conclusion

Because the concept of the unconscious had not yet been discovered in Antiquity or the Dark Ages, the existence of the collective unconscious was not known, let alone addressed by either Judaism or Islam. Their criticism of original sin is quite unsophisticated and is presented exclusively from the point of view of the conscious mind. They neither comprehend the totality of the personality nor do they consider unconscious motivation. Therefore, to deny or ignore the overwhelming influence of the dark side of man (aka sin nature) is equivalent to a naïveté: a lack of experience, sophistication, and wisdom! This lack of skillful treatment is either due to innocence or deep repression.

That’s precisely why many people don’t know what sin is. And, consequently, they keep sinning. They can’t even understand why Jesus has to die for them. They often ask, what’s the big fuss about “original sin”? Read Jonathan Edwards’ sermon, “The heart of man is exceedingly deceitful.”

What do you think is the meaning behind Robert Louis Stevenson’s book, “The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”? It presents the duality within man. This work is emphasizing the dark side of human nature that is hidden underneath our socially-acceptable “Dr. Jekyll” persona. But in the unconscious lurks another personality, Mr. Hyde, who represents evil that’s waiting in the wings. The depth of human cruelty is also represented in “Heart of darkness,” by Joseph Conrad. It’s the same idea in Bram Stoker's “Dracula.” All these classic works of art act like mirrors in trying to show us blind spots that we don’t usually see in ourselves and end up projecting onto others. And this darkness that proceeds from man’s collective unconscious is what Christian theologians have coined “original sin.” Louis Berkhof, in his “Systematic Theology,” pt. 2, ch. 4, writes:

actual sin in the life of man is generally

admitted. This does not mean, however,

that people have always had an equally

profound consciousness of sin. We hear a

great deal nowadays about the ‘loss of the

sense of sin.’

Therefore, the psychological and spiritual goal is to give up one's naivete and to expand one's consciousness so as to embrace and integrate all aspects of one’s personality and human nature. That’s what psychoanalysts mean when they say, “making the unconscious conscious.” It is here that rebirth in Christ becomes possible. That’s why wisdom teachers typically say that we need to see existence as it really is. What you need to do, in the words of the Dalai Lama (which represent the title of his book), is to figure out “How to see yourself as you really are.” It is then, and only then, when you will finally realize that sin is not simply an isolated behavior, but rather a state of being——deeply rooted in the “carnal mind” (cf. Rom. 6.6)——that needs to be transformed by the Holy Spirit. And that *existential experience* in and of itself constitutes not only a prelude to “rebirth,” but also the hope of salvation in Jesus Christ!

——-

For more info on this topic, see my essay, “BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION”: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/184880965717/i-think-the-greek-phrase-%CF%87%CF%89%CF%81%E1%BD%B6%CF%82-%E1%BC%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%84%CE%AF%CE%B1%CF%82-ie

Eli of Kittim

BIBLICAL SIN: NOT AS BEHAVIOR BUT AS ULTIMATE TRANSGRESSION

I think the Greek phrase χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας (i.e. “without sin”) in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 4.15 has been greatly misunderstood. If in thi

The Heresy of the “Grace Road Church” of Korea

By Author Eli Kittim 🎓

A Cult Movement

According to Wiki,

The Grace Road Church is a South Korean

quasi-Christian new religious movement

and cult (although its members call it a

Church) founded in 2002.

This so-called “church” is currently based in Fiji. It moved there because its pastor Shin Okjoo predicted a famine in Korea. This is a shrewd and calculating woman who demanded strict obedience as she seized the passports of about 400 followers so that they wouldn’t leave. Many nearby churches have hurled accusations that this is a cult movement.

The church has diversified and raised funds by opening businesses across Fiji that range from the hospitality industry to construction to agriculture. Footage has emerged of physical abuse and violence, including slave labor. In 2019, its leader Shin Okjoo was found guilty and sentenced to six years in jail.

The Grace Road Church Claims that the Holy Spirit Is a Woman & that Jesus Is Not God the Son

The Deity of the Holy Spirit

The personhood of the Holy Spirit is multiply-attested in the New Testament. There are many verses which hint at the deity of the Holy Spirit, calling Him, for example, a “person” (ἐκεῖνος, meaning “He” Jn. 16:13-14; ὁ Παράκλητος, which depicts “a person”; & ἐκεῖνος, meaning “he” Jn. 15:26). Note that the Biblical references to the Holy Spirit don’t use the feminine but rather the masculine, third-person pronoun “he.”

The Holy Spirit is also called the “eternal Spirit” (Heb. 9:14), a term that is often used interchangeably with the concept of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Acts 5:3-4; Rom. 8:9; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21). For example, the Holy Spirit is called “Lord” in 2 Corinthians 3:17:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the

Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Moreover, the Holy Spirit is said to have insight into “the depths of God” (1 Corinthians 2:10-11). He also possesses knowledge (Romans 8:27). The Spirit is also said to have a personal will (1 Corinthians 12:11). He is capable of convicting the world of sin (John 16:8), and performs signs and miracles (Acts 8:39). He also guides (John 16:13) and intercedes between people (Romans 8:26). He utters commands and is also obeyed (Acts 10:19-20; 16:6). The Spirit talks (Revelation 2:7; 14:13; 22:17). He warns and prophesies of things to come (John 16:13; Acts 20:23). And the New Testament certainly depicts Him as a member of the Trinity (John 16:14; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14).

The Deity of Jesus Christ

We also have multiple texts which refer to the deity of Jesus Christ, depicting him as the Son of God, such as in Jn 1 (“the word was God”), Col. 2:9 (“in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”), Jn 8:58 (“before Abraham was, I am”), Heb. 1.2 (God’s “Son, … through whom he also created the worlds”), Heb. 1:3 (“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact imprint of his being”), Tit. 2:13 (“our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”), as well as the explicit worship Christ willingly received from his followers (Luke 24:52; John 20:28) and the accusations of blasphemy leveled against him for equating himself with God (Mark 2:7).

Hence, the Grace Road Church’s Biblical claims that the Holy Spirit is a woman and that Jesus is not God the Son are completely bogus and misinformed!

—