Personification & the Early Church Fathers

Reasoning from the Scriptures states:

Jesus also referred to the holy spirit as a “helper” (Greek, pa·ra-kle·tos), and he said that this helper would “teach,” “bear witness,” “speak,” and ‘hear.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13) It is not unusual in the Scriptures for something to be personified. For example, wisdom is said to have “children.” (Luke 7:35) Sin and death are spoken of as being kings. (Rom. 5:14, 21) While some texts say that the spirit “spoke,” other passages make clear that this was done through angels or humans. (Acts 4:24, 25; 28:25; Matt. 10:19, 20; compare Acts 20:23 with 21:10, 11.) At 1 John 5:6-8, not only the spirit but also “the water and the blood” are said to ‘bear witness.’ So, none of the expressions found in these texts in themselves prove that the holy spirit is a person.[1]

Later, Reasoning from the Scriptures, continues by saying:

Some individual texts that refer to the holy spirit (“Holy Ghost,” KJ) might seem to indicate personality. For example, the holy spirit is referred to as a helper (Greek, pa·ra’kle·tos; “Comforter,” KJ; “Advocate,” JB, NE) that ‘teaches,’ ‘bears witness,’ ‘speaks’ and ‘hears.’ (John 14:16, 17, 26; 15:26; 16:13)... texts cited here employ a figure of speech personifying wisdom, sin, death, water, and blood.[2]

What is personification?

E.W. Bullinger defines it as:

A figure by which things are represented or spoken of as persons; or, by which we attribute intelligence, by words or actions, to inanimate objects or abstract ideas.

The figure is employed...when anything (e.g., a country) is addressed as a person.[3]

As indicated by the WTBTS, personifications are used in the Bible of wisdom, sin, death, water and blood. None are personal beings, yet all of the aforementioned are given human attributes or behaviors. Do these personifications indicate that verses that identify the personality of the Holy Spirit are personifications as well? A deeper study of the personifications listed by the WTBTS sheds light on the question.

A careful examination of each occurrence of wisdom, sin, death, water, blood and Jerusalem[4] reveals a pattern of literal versus figurative usage in the Bible that differs significantly from that which would be demanded of the Holy Spirit should those verses that indicate his personality denote personification only.[5] For instance, death is spoken of figuratively (inclusive of all general figures of speech, see preceding footnote) once out of every five references (approximately) in the Old and New Testaments. Sin is spoken of figuratively once out of every four references (approximately). The literal usages obviously and overwhelmingly dominate the figurative language in each of the cited examples. One finds a far larger pool of references to blood, water, sin, death, wisdom and Jerusalem spoken of literally rather than the minority of figurative references. This far greater preponderance of literal usage bears out with all instances of personification. All.

How does this bear on our consideration of the WTBTS claim of personification of the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is spoken of figuratively in the New Testament as noted in previous sections. He fills, anoints. We are baptized with him, etc. Generally speaking, figurative language is used in a ratio of approximately one to every four or five references (if not more) when referring to water, sin, death, etc. The figurative language used to describe the Holy Spirit as filling, etc., also occurs once to every four literal references (approximately) and therefore adheres to the general pattern established above. The pattern, however, becomes distorted beyond all reasonable proportions when one adds instances of alleged personification of the Holy Spirit to the figurative language pool. Instead of an overwhelming preponderance of literal usage – as seen in EVERY personification in the Bible – the figurative usage of the Holy Spirit becomes (approximately) a one to one pattern, meaning the Scriptures would speak of the Holy Spirit equally in both figurative and literal terms.

Crunching the numbers, the WTBTS position of a personified Holy Spirit simply does not bear out.

Furthermore, if we limit our focus to the distribution of figurative language alone, unsurprisingly, we find the bulk of figurative references in divisions of the Bible in which one can reasonably expect to find a concentration of figurative language: the poetic books (Job – Song of Songs) and the prophetic books (Isaiah – Malachi).[6] Of all figurative references in our pool of examples, nearly half occur in those two divisions of books. Does figurative language carry over into the New Testament? Yes. Taking all figurative uses of our examples as an aggregate, roughly 10% are found in the Gospels + Acts and roughly 13% are found in the Pauline Epistles. However, breaking figurative language distribution down by Bible division, one finds a general pattern of the majority of figurative language within the poetic and prophetic books. Figurative language, of course, is found in the New Testament. These references, however, are lightly salted throughout the New Testament books.

Again, crunching the numbers, the WTBTS demand of personification of the Holy Spirit does not bear out.

There are, of course, many other arguments against the personification of the Holy Spirit.

1. Personification has a purpose. Abstract concepts are personified to stir the emotions, to create empathy, to illustrate a greater truth.[7] Why is Jerusalem personified as an adulterous woman? Jerusalem (or rather, its inhabitants) betrayed Yahweh God in idolatry. Adultery stirs immediate emotion in us: hurt and revulsion, outrage, perhaps fury. The personification helps us understand God’s righteous and just anger at the faithlessness of Israel, his bride. The personification helps us grasp the greater concept.

Since personification has a purpose...What purpose does the alleged personifications of the Holy Spirit serve? What greater truth is being illustrated? For instance, the Holy Spirit is said to teach us (John 14:26). Human teachers are people who have a greater breadth of knowledge about a particular subject and instruct us on that subject. So...God’s active force has a great breadth of knowledge? The Holy Spirit is also called our Comforter/Helper (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7). A human being who would comfort us offers support, empathy and understanding, compassion. A human helper guides, teaches, and mentors us. How can these roles reflect on the Holy Spirit as a personification? God’s active force is compassionate? An active force, described as radio waves by the WTBTS, mentors us? The Holy Spirit is also said to intercede for us (Romans 8:26). What can the greater truth to this alleged personification possibly be? God’s active force, likened to electricity by the WTBTS, is from God and intercedes for us with God without a shred of personality attributed to the purported force? So God is sending this impersonal force out of himself...To himself?

Makes no sense.

Thus far, the WTBTS and the JW I study with have failed to answer what purpose any of these alleged instances of personification serve.

2. The subjects of personification are easily discernible as impersonal. No one, to my knowledge, has ever confused sin or death with an actual person. No one has ever thought Jerusalem was a literal woman. The subjects personified are obviously and explicitly impersonal. Not so the Holy Spirit. One must first presume impersonality.

3. In the examples listed by the WTBTS, none of the subjects of personification is said to possess all of the necessary attributes of personality and certainly not with the frequency of which all of those attributes of personality are ascribed to the Holy Spirit. Sin is said to reign, but does the Bible say sin has an independent will, intelligence, emotion? Does sin speak? Is sin quoted? Does sin speak of itself using personal pronouns like “I” and “me” (see The Holy Spirit Speaks...Or Does He? section for more information)? What about blood? Blood is said to bear witness, but does Scripture show that blood has intelligence, too? Is blood quoted as speaking? Is blood shown to have its own will? The answers to these questions are a resounding no. The subjects listed by the WTBTS are personified, true, but they are not given all of the essential attributes of personality, certainly not with the same frequency those attributes are evident in the Holy Spirit.

4. According to the WTBTS both wisdom and the Holy Spirit are personified and lack personality. This subject will be covered in much greater depth in later chapters elsewhere on this site, but the WTBTS also insists that wisdom personified in Proverbs 8:22-31 is none other than our Lord, Jesus Christ. According to the WTBTS personification demands a lack of personality, yet Jesus (who IS a person) is personified wisdom in Proverbs 8. Again, makes no sense.

5. What is the theme to the alleged personification of the Holy Spirit? Personifications, in my experience, can be concisely defined. Jerusalem is an adulterous woman. Wisdom is a woman. Sin and death are kings.[8] Of course, sin is said to reign and elsewhere is described as crouching at the door (Genesis 4:7), but even then, in the same verse, God cautions Cain to not let sin be his master so the basic theme remains. If the Holy Spirit is being personified, what is the theme? He is a teacher, a comforter, he guides us, he intercedes for us...The list could go on and on. But is there a concise theme? No.

6. If the Holy Spirit isn’t a person and the many, many references to his personality merely a figure of speech, the early church fathers must’ve been in on it because they spoke of him in personal terms and as a personal being without once indicating the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. Ignatius lived 30 – 107 A.D. Justin Martyr lived 110 – 165 A.D. Irenaeus lived 120 – 202 A.D. They, among the other Ante-Nicene fathers, give us the best approximation of the beliefs of the Post-Apostolic church, of what had been passed down to them from the disciples of Jesus. If Jesus had taught that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force rather than a person, we would expect to see that in the early church writings. We do not.

The early church fathers spoke of the Holy Spirit in personal terms and as a personal being. In the Ante-Nicene writings, the Holy Spirit proclaims/preaches (Ignatius, Epistle to the Philadelphians, VII), reproaches (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, CXXIV), designates both Father and Son as God (Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book III, VI, paragraph 1), answers men (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, VII, paragraph 2) and foreknew the doctrine of evil teachers (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, XXI, paragraph 9).[9] These statements, of course, all indicate personality.

Justin, in Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter XXXVI), further states:

“...And the Holy Spirit, either from the person of His Father, or from His own person, answers them...”[10] (emphasis mine)

Justin Martyr very obviously believed the Holy Spirit is a person.

Tertullian, who lived 145 – 220 A.D., was even more precise in speaking of the Holy Spirit’s personality:

“...Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete[11], produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another.”[12]

The above examples are only a few among many statements in the early church writings that indicate the personality of the Holy Spirit. One cannot realistically expect a figure of speech to consistently, without fail, carry over such a wide variety of writers in such wildly different circumstances and diverse times – from Old Testament times into the end of the third century. Yet, that is precisely what the WTBTS insists: every writer who spoke of the Holy Spirit in personal terms or as a personal being, from the Old Testament through the end of the third century used the same exact figure of speech (personification) without ever even once making a single declarative statement that the Holy Spirit is not a person at all. Yet, dozens of writers over many centuries did write of the Holy Spirit in personal terms, as a personal being, and directly stated that the Holy Spirit is a person.

Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2 states:

Not until the fourth century C.E. did the teaching that the holy spirit was a person and part of the “Godhead” become official church dogma. Early church “fathers” did not so teach; Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’; Hippolytus likewise ascribed no personality to the holy spirit.[13]

One wonders if the WTBTS has read or studied the writings of the Ante-Nicene fathers at all. Having read – and studied – the writings of Justin Martyr, I can unequivocally state that the partial quotation attributed to Justin in Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2 above does not exist in the body of his work.[14]

The WTBTS summation of Hippolytus’ writings remains a complete mystery to me as well. I’ve certainly never found any hint or indication of the WTBTS assertion in Hippolytus. Hippolytus speaks of heretical beliefs in regards to the Holy Spirit, to be sure (see Refutation, Book 7, Ch X for an example of Hippolytus’ description of heretical beliefs that include the Holy Spirit), but I’ve found no assertion of such beliefs by Hippolytus himself. Hippolytus frequently speaks of the Holy Spirit in personal terms and as a personal being. In his writings, the Holy Spirit refutes (Refutation, Book 1, The Prooemium, paragraph 2); can be insulted (Refutation, Book 7, IV); Hippolytus proposes that Rachel is a type of the Holy Spirit (Fragments from Commentaries, On Genesis, Chapter III) which makes no sense if the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force (Rachel, very much a person, prefigured a force?); indicated the Holy Spirit should be worshipped (Fragments – Dogmatic and Historical, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, paragraph 12); speaks of the Holy Spirit with masculine pronouns...[15]

Another example:

For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. (Fragments – Dogmatic and Historical, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, paragraph 14)[16] (emphasis mine)

The Father and the Son are “two Persons” according to Hippolytus and he indicates the Holy Spirit is the third. The third what? The third person.

How the WTBTS can claim that Hippolytus ascribed no personality to the Holy Spirit boggles the mind since it completely contradicts what Hippolytus wrote. Nor can one begin to fathom why the WTBTS reached its baffling conclusion because the WTBTS fails to cite so much as a single reference (or even an unreferenced fragment of a quote as seen in the alleged Justin Martry quotation above) as supporting evidence to its claim.

Whatever the case may be, the Ante-Nicene fathers definitely spoke of the Holy Spirit in personal terms, as a personal being and spoke directly of his personhood. The WTBTS claim that the personhood of the Holy Spirit was not taught by the early church fathers is absolutely without merit. Demanding consistent personification by writers who spoke of the Holy Spirit in personal terms as a personal being from Old Testament times through the time of the Ante-Nicene fathers is also without foundation and patently ridiculous.