John 3:6

18 Pages·2015·0.14 MB·English

by  Andrew Ansell

THE DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN JOHN 3:6

Andrew Ansell

The words spoken by Jesus Christ to Nicodemus, who was a ruler of the Jews, in
John’s Gospel, chapter 3, urging every sinner that they must be born-again by the
Holy Spirit, if they ever wanted to get to heaven. During this conversation, Jesus
makes one of the clearest assertions to the Deity of the Holy Spirit.

It is of no surprise that this Gospel, of the Four, comes under the greatest of attacks
for those who oppose the Truth, as taught in the Holy Bible, on the Holy Trinity,
and the Deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. This is by no means the only
passage in Scripture where “workers of Satan” have managed to corrupt the Truth,
and sown seeds of his lies. It is a great wonder that our Great God, has preserved
many of these Truths, that have been tampered with, and provided the evidence for
those who will open their minds, and accept Biblical Truth.

The reader will do well to take note of the Words of God Incarnate, the Lord Jesus
Christ, especially on what He very clearly says about the Third Person (but by no
means the least Person), in the Most Holy Trinity. In verse 6 in this chapter we read
the Words of Jesus Christ, as spoken to Nicodemus:

"that which is born in the flesh, is flesh; because of flesh he is born. And that
which born of the Spirit, is spirit; because the Spirit is God, and he is born of
God" (the Words in italics are not in our English Versions)

These, no doubt formed part of the original Gospel as written by the Apostle John,
and by far this is the most unambiguous and direct reference to the Deity of the
Holy Spirit. Here, we have the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is speaking of the
regeneration of the believer, which is the work of the Holy Spirit. After stating that
the believer is born-again by the Holy Spirit, our Lord then goes on to say that,
"the Spirit is God". Now, since "the Spirit is God", the person who is born-again of
Him, he is said to be "born of God"!

It is obvious that a testimony as clear as this, to the Deity of the Holy Spirit, is not
good reading to the heretic, who regards the Holy Spirit as a mere influence or
active power of Almighty God. With a text as clear as this, there can be no place
for the various cults, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Mormons, who deny
that the Holy Spirit is God, as this single text destroys their doctrine on the Spirit.
It is like John 1:1, which very clearly teaches that, "the Word (Jesus Christ) was
God". Now, the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is God, but here is a text that
teaches that He is. In this case, they could not say that "God" is not in the Greek
Manuscripts, or ancient versions, so they had to find another way to corrupt what
this text teaches. Following the teaching of the early heretic, Origen of Alexander
(A.D.185-254), they rendered the clause: "and the Word was a god". This they
have done, not, as they claim in accordance with the grammar of the text, but for
purely theological reasons. Now, the problem with John 3:6 is far greater, as it
could not be rendered as, "because the Spirit is a god", so it was removed from the
passage. But God in His providence ensured that it was not altogether removed, by
making sure that there is a strong witness to its existence.

The words given in italics in Latin and English, are not found in any (to my
knowledge) English version, though it is in a foot note in the Greek New
Testament by Dr Alexander Souter. The reason for my giving the text in Latin, is,
that Tertullian is the first Church father to have these words, and he wrote in Latin,
even though he had the text in Greek.

Those who have seen this reading in John 3:6, in the English translations of the
father's writings, would have read: "for God is spirit" (quia Deus Spiritus est).
Grammatically in Latin this reading is possible. The word order in the Latin for
John 3:6 is literally, "because God is spirit". Likewise, in John 1:1c, the Latin (et
Deus erat Verbum), is literally, "and God was the Word". But, to have this reading,
would be to identify "the Word" as being the same Person as the "God", Who is
mentioned in the previous sentence, "and the Word was with God"! How can the
Word be the same as the God (the Father), Who is said to be "with"? it would be a
contradiction. Both, grammatically, and in accordance with the context, John could
only have meant: "and the Word was God"! So, in John 3:6 we have a similar case.
It ought to be noted, that, the reason Deus is placed first in both John 1:1, and 3:6,
is because it is the predicate of the sentence (done for emphasis); "the Word" (1:1),
and "the Spirit" (3:6), are the subject in each case. In John 3:6 Jesus is speaking
about the spiritual rebirth of a person, which is effected by the Holy Spirit (that
which is born of the Spirit, is spirit), where none will doubt that "the Spirit" refers
to the Holy Spirit. He begins the next sentence by using the conjunction "quia"
(because), which is used to connect these words to what has just been spoken, as
the reason for what has preceded. Quia Deus Spiritus est, is wrongly rendered in
the English translations of the Church fathers, as: "for God is Spirit". This reading
introduces another subject into the context, as "God" here would no doubt (as in
4:24) be taken to mean "the Father", Who is not mentioned in the entire passage. It
would be inconsistent for Jesus to have mentioned the Father in this place, seeing
that the work of regeneration is ascribed to the Holy Spirit, which He has already
mentioned in this text. We also have another problem with the reading, "for God is
Spirit". Jesus has just said, "that which is born of the Spirit is spirit", which, as I
have already said, refers to the Holy Spirit. Now, to go on to say, "because God is
Spirit", would be to identify the Holy Spirit with God the Father, thereby making
both Persons one and the same! Something quite impossible. This is exactly the
same as in John 1:1. Had John used the article with "God" in the Greek (ὀ Θεοϛ),
he would have identified the Word with the God in the previous sentence, Who is
the Father, and making them one ant the same Person! The strict use of the
grammar avoids this.

That the order of the words in Latin can be different, and yet mean the same, when
taken in its context, is evident from the following examples.

For our text (John 3:6), as we have seen above the common reading in the textual
evidence that we have, is, Quia Deus Spiritus est. However, Augustine, as we
shall see, in one place quotes text text with the word order: "quoniam Spiritus
Deus est", where God and Spirit are inverted. Another example can be found in
John 4:24, which reads in the common reading: "Spiritus est Deus" (God is Spirit).
But, Hilary of Poitiers, once quotes it: "Spiritus enim Deus est" (where we have
the conjunction enim [for], and the position of est [is] has changed), and twice he
quotes the text as: "quia Deus Spiritus est", which is the same as in John 3:6.
Eusebius, the Church historian, quotes this text as: "Deus etenim Spiritus est"
(with the addition of etenim [namely]). And, the Latin codex Regius (8th cent), has
it: "Spiritus Deus est" (change of word order). I am sure that all these variant
readings, intend to say the same thing, even though they are not all as we have it in
the text. I feel that the reader will benefit from this, as it shows that the Latin
language is not as precise as the Greek. It is always very important to keep the
readings in its context, and then interpret them.

It ought to be said here, that the final clause in John 3:6, et de Deo natus est, has
got nothing to do with the doctrine of the "procession of the Holy Spirit", from the
Father, as some have sought to explain it. Rather, the words, "and he is born of
God", are used of the believer who is born-again of the Holy Spirit, Who is God,
and is therefore said to be born of God. Had Jesus wished to speak of the Holy
Spirit, as being begotten of God, then He would not have used the masculine
"natus" (he is born), but would have used the neuter, "natum". This is not because
the Holy Spirit is not a Person (which is also expressed by the neuter), but, because
the noun "Spiritus" (Spirit) is neuter, and therefore agrees in gender. It would still
be rendered in English as "he is born". The neuter is used to describe the believers
(natum), which conveys a universal truth (H Alford; Greek Testament, vol. I,
p.709). Whereas in verse eight the masculine (natus) is used for these same
believers, to describe them on a personal level (see, B F Westcott; Commentary on
John's Epistles, p.179).
On the external textual evidence for the reading: "quia Deus Spiritus est, et de
Deo natus est", Dr Plummer in his Commentary writes:

"There is an interesting interpolation here. The old Latin and old Syriac Versions
insert quia Deus Spiritus est et de Deo natus est. No Greek MS. contains the
words, which are obviously a gloss. But S. Ambrose (De Spir. iii. 59) charges the
Arians with effacing quia Deus spiritus est from their MSS." (page 102)

Here Dr Plummer calls the words an "interpolation...which are obviously a gloss".
By this statement, Dr Plummer, apart from any evidence, proposes that the words
did not form part of the original Gospel, but are a later addition, on the basis that
no Greek manuscript contains the words.

It must be noted, that, when it is said that the words are not in any Greek Ms, it can
only refer to manuscripts that have come down to us, and cannot be taken to mean
that no Greek MSS ever contained the words. Let me give a very good example.
The famous story in John's Gospel, of the woman who committed adultery
(7:53-8:11), has no Greek manuscript authority before the codex Bezae, which is of
the sixth century. However, Jerome, about a hundred years earlier said that the
passage was found "in many Greek and Latin codices (manuscripts)" (Dr F
Scrivener; A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vol.II,
p.368). Where, then, are these many manuscripts? Jerome, it must be remembered,
had access to many Greek and Latin manuscripts, as he was responsible for the
production of the Latin Vulgate.

It cannot be argued that the words, quia Deus Spiritus est, et de Deo natus est,
were not known to any Greek father, as Athanasius, in the fourth century, has the
words in his work on the Trinity and the Holy Spirit. Nor can it be said, that it is
absent from all the ancient versions, as the Old Latin, Old Syriac, and manuscripts
of the Latin Vulgate, do contain the words. On the evidence of the Versions and
Greek fathers, it might be said here, the reading "God Christ" (or similar) in
Colossians 2:2, which is found is most modern translations, does not have the
support of any Greek father, or Ancient Version. It has only the support of two
Greek manuscripts (3rd/4th century), and three Latin fathers (4th/5th century), and
is yet accepted as being the original reading! As, it no doubt will be argued (like it
is for 1 John 5:7), that, had the Greek Church known of the words quia Deus
Spiritus est, et de Deo natus est, they would have used this text to defend the
Deity of the Holy Spirit. Which, it is further argued, proves that the words never
existed in any Greek manuscript. But, Colossians 2:2, which makes a very strong
case for the Deity of Jesus Christ, was never used by the Greek Church for this
purpose, St Hilary (4th century) does use it for the Deity of Jesus, but he was of the
Latin Church!

It is a very sad fact, that at a very early time the autographs of the New Testament
writers were destroyed. In the second half of the second century, Dionysius, Bishop
of Corinth (c.170), complains to Soter Bishop of Rome, that some of his writings
were tampered with. He goes on to say that wilful alterations were also made to
Holy Scriptures (Scrivener, vol.II, p.259). Dr Tischendorf, in his English New
Testament (Tauchnitz Edition), says, "I have no doubt that very shortly after the
books of the New Testament were written, and before they were protected by the
authority of the Church, many arbitrary alterations and additions were made to
them." (page xv). We also know from history, that the works of some of the Church
fathers were corrupted, or destroyed, by the heretics, as we have in the case of
Diodore, Bishop of Tarus (died 390), where is works were destroyed by the Arian
heretics (F L Cross; The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p.401). A very
good example to the corruption of Scripture, can be found in 1 Timothy 3:16, "God
was manifested in the flesh...", where "God" (which clearly teaches the Deity of
Jesus) has been replaced by the difficult reading "Who". It is interesting to note,
that the "champion" of orthodoxy during the Arian heresy in the fourth century,
Athanasius, never once quoted this text (as far as his surviving works show), which
would have been perfect for the Deity of Christ. Yet, the very person Athanasius
made head of the Catechetical School, Didymus the Blind (A.D.313-398), actually
quotes this text with the reading "God", as does Athanasius' friend, Gregory of
Nyssa (22 time!). This reading was also known to Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch
(A.D.37-107), where in his Epistle to the Ephesians he wrote, "for God was
manifest as man" (XIX). We also know that Hippolytus, a theologian (170-236),
also read "God" ("God in flesh was manifested"; Noet.17). These were Greek
fathers, and date from the time of the Apostles! Yet the earliest Greek manuscript
that reads "God", is the codex Alexandrinus, which is of the fifth century
(Scrivener; Vol.II, p.392).

This study would be incomplete, without a word said on the Greek Manuscripts
that we have in our possession today. Our two oldest complete Manuscripts on the
books of the New Testament, are the codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (almost
complete) which date from the middle of the fourth century. These two
Manuscripts are the "standard" for many Greek texts, and translations of today, and
are regarded by many scholars to be the nearest to the original writings. However,
before the time of the copying of these two Mss., the New Testament text was
revised by Lucian of Antioch, who was put to death in A.D.312. The use of
Lucian's recension, we are told, spread from Antioch to Constantinople, and is
probably the parent of the great bulk of our Greek MSS." (A Souter; Text and
Canon, p.185). Likewise, Dr Metzger informs us that, "Lucian influenced the form
of the New Testament, and parts of the Old Testament which were used, and are
still used, by millions who never heard of his name" (Chapters in the History of
New Testament textual criticism, p.27). Dr Souter, in his book has classified
manuscripts into groups for textual study, which he follows on from Professor Von
Soden. Under the "K" Text, we find the four principal Greek Manuscripts, the
codices, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Epharemi (5th century). We are
also told that, "'K' was produced at Antioch by Lucian" (see, Souter, p.120). We are
further told that Lucian "introduced useless corrections into the (Greek) Gospels,
and the copies which he had 'falsified' were pronounced Apocryphal in later times"
(Dr B F Westcott; On the Canon of the New Testament, p.392).

Now that we know what Lucian was responsible for, we shall see what his
theology was. "Lucian taught that the Word that dwelt in Jesus was a semi-divine
and non-eternal creature" ((L Pullan; The Church of the Fathers, p.153). We are
also told that, "he did not regard the Christ as essentially one with the eternal God,
clinging to the conception of a perfect human development, as the means by which
he reached divinity" (J F Bethune-Baker; Early History of Christian Doctrine,
p.111). One of the people who studied under Lucian at his School, was a Presbyter
of a Church in Alexandria, Arius, who adopted Lucian's teaching on the Person of
Jesus Christ (F J Foakes jackson; The History of the Christian Church, pp.298-299).
Now, if this Lucian is responsible for the bulk of our present day Greek
Manuscripts, it is no wonder that important texts that refer to the Deity of Jesus
Christ, and the Holy Spirit are corrupted. This is a very important fact, and must be
borne in mind by all who undertake the science of Textual Criticism.

Now that we have see evidence for the reason why the words are omitted from
John 3:6, it is important to see the evidence for it. The following is the testimony to
the reading quia Deus Spiritus est, et de Deo natus est, in John 3:6.

1. TERTULLIAN (160-225) Greek and Latin New Testament

"quod in carne natum est, caro est; quia ex carne natum est. et quod de
Spiritu natum est, spirits est; quia Deus Spiritus est, et de Deo natus est"

(J Migne; Pat Lat.tom. 1-2, Tert. De carne Christi, ch xviii, fol 783)
= "that which is born in the flesh, is flesh; because of flesh he is born. And that
which born of the Spirit, is spirit; because the Spirit is God, and he is born of
God"

This treatise, entitled "The Flesh of Christ", was written by Tertullian between
A.D.210-213, in which he defends the reality of the flesh of Jesus Christ, against
the heresy of docetism, which taught that His body only appeared to be human!

Tertullians quotation of this text is very important. Firstly, because of the age of his
New Testament (middle second century), which we know to have been taken
directly from the Greek, which clearly proves that the reference to the Deity of the
Holy Spirit was in the Greek before his time. Thus we are told that:

"An African type of text - possibly in more than one form - was known to and
quoted by Tertullain and Cyprian, both residents at Carthage; it was marked by
rudeness (rough form) and simplicity, and by a close and even slavish adherence to
the Greek original"

(W E Plater, and H J White; A Grammar of the Vulgate, p.3. Words in brackets, and
emphasis are mine)

We are also told about the use of the New testament by Tertullian, that:

"It is perfectly clear from references in Tertullian, who wrote in Carthage (mainly
in Latin, but also in Greek) between A.D. 195-218, that Latin translations of at
least some parts of Scripture existed in his time. Tertullian's regular practice was
to use the Greek original and to translate for himself"

(Dr A Souter; The Text and Canon of the New Testament, p.33. Italics mine)

This clearly tells us that the additional words were part of the Greek text, as early
as the middle of the second century. We also know that the Text of the New
Testament was revised at the beginning of the fourth century, by the heretic Lucian
of Antioch, who died in A D 312. "His recension of the New Testament spread
from Antioch to Constantinople, and is probably the parent of the great bulk of our
Greek MSS." (Souter, p.170). The Old Latin, would have been based on Greek
manuscripts that are far earlier that those used by, and after Lucian. He is generally
known as the real "father" of the heresy called "Arianism", as it was his heretical
doctrines that Arius adopted, which brought about the famous council at Nicaea in
A D 325.

Secondly, even though in Origen (185-254) we come across the teaching of the
Holy Spirit being a creature, yet, it was not until the fourth century (till when the
Deity of the Son was the main issue), that the Church began to defend the Deity of
the Holy Spirit. So, the appearance of reference to the Deity of the Spirit in John
3;6, as early as Tertullian, cannot be because the Church inserted it to defend the
Deity of the Spirit. This statement as found in John 3;6, would have been far too
bold for the Church, who were not too sure of the nature of the Holy Spirit. Thus,
we read, that even some of the Orthodox were uncertain of the doctrine of the
Spirit. "Gregory of Nazianzen, who for his own part believed and taught the
consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son, so late as 380
made the remarkable concession: 'of the wise among us, some consider the Holy
Ghost an influence, others a creature, others God Himself...Basil, in 370, still
carefully avoided calling the Holy Ghost God,...Hilary of Poietiers believed that
the Spirit, who searches the deep things of God, must be divine, but could find not
Scripture passage in which he is called God" (Dr P Schaff; History of the Christian
Church, vol.II, p.664). It is interesting that Hilary knows of the clause in John 3:6.
That the Holy Spirit is elsewhere called "God", can be seen from Acts 5:3-4.

Thirdly, it cannot be said that Tertullian was merely adding his comments to the
words of John 3:6, as all the evidence which follows, clearly shows that the
reference to the Deity of the Holy Spirit, actually did form part of the main text.

2. CYPRIAN (200-258) Greek and Latin New Testament

"et itrum in evangelio dicit Dominus, 'quod natum est de carne caro est; et
qoud natum est de Spiritu, spiritus est; quia Deus Spiritus est, et ex Deo natus
est"

(G Hartel; C.S.E.L; vol III, par.1, Cyprian, fols 439.15)

= "And again, in the Gospel the Lord says: 'that which is born of the flesh is flesh;
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit; because the Spirit is God, and he is
born of God"

This epistle was written concerning the baptism of heretics, and has to do with the
seventh council of Carthage, which was held September 1 A.D.256, and was
attended by eighty-seven Bishops (see, W Smith and H Wace; A Dictionary of
Christian Biography, vol. I, p.750). So, there can be no doubt that this clause was
well known in North Africa during this age; or else it would not have been used in
correspondence on a council.

The evidence of Cyprian is important, as he, like Tertullian, though of the Latin
Church, no doubt used the New Testament in Greek. In which case the text as he
quotes it, would have formed part of the Gospel. Again, because of the nature of
the quotation, it would seem that it was commonly accepted as the work of the
Apostle John. It was not quoted by either Tertullian or Cyprian, to support the
doctrine of the Deity of the Holy Spirit, so they cannot be accused of "inventing"
the words for this purpose!

3 ATHANASIUS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D.296-373) Greek New
Testament

"in Evangelio vero: quod natum est de carne, caro est; et quod natum est de
Spiritu, spiritus est; quia Dominus Spiritus est"

(S Athanasii; De Trin. et Spiritu Sancto pars 1; Migne Pat Gr, tom 26, fol 1201)

= "truly in the Gospel (we read): 'that which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that
which is born of the Spirit, is spirit; because the Spirit is Lord"

Athanasius, as far as I am aware, is the only father of the Greek church who shows
any knowledge to the clause, concerning the Deity of the Holy Spirit. There is only
one difference between this reading, and all the others. Instead of "Deus",
Athanasius , or at least the copyist of his work, had the reading "Dominus".
Otherwhise the word order remains the same. I believe that this can be put down to
an error by a copyist, and not the work of the father, as this reading is not found
elsewhere. With the reading "Dominus", one would only translate it as above:
"because the Spirit is Lord"; the reading, "the Lord is Spirit" will not do here, as it
would be completely foreign to the context, as this reading would naturally refer to
Jesus Christ, Who is not the same Person as the Holy Spirit! Now, if "quia
Dominus Spiritus est" is translated, "because the Spirit is Lord", then, by reading
"Deus" instead of "Dominus", should translate: "because the Spirit is God"! Why
should it be rendered "because God is spirit", just because of the change of noun?
Only those who oppose the Deity of the Holy Spirit, would render the clause:
"because God is spirit", a reading, as we have seen, is inconsistent with the tenor
of the context.

About the time of writing this treatise, many of the Orthodox teachers were unsure
of the doctrine on the Holy Spirit. Some thought that the Spirit was a mere
influence, while others, that He is a created being, while still others, that He was
one of the ministering spirits, mentioned in Hebrews 2:14. It was because of this
ignorance, that Athanasius, in A.D.362, wrote a series of letters to his friend,
Bishop Sarapion. In his fourth (and last) letter, he deals at lenght on the Deity of
the Holy Spirit. Closely following this letter, Athanasius wrote a treatise in
A.D.365, entitled: "The Trinity and the Holy Spirit", in which he further
demonstrates the Deity of the Spirit. It is in this treatise, which has come down to
us in a good Latin translation (Otto Bardenhewer; Patrology, p.255), that he quotes
John 3:6 in defence of the Spirit's Deity!

Now, because the words: '"quia Dominus Spiritus est" are simliar to 2
Corinthians 3:17, it is assumed by some (like J Migne who edited the works of
Athanasius), that this father had merely attached this text to John 3:6. But, two
facts will dispose of this theory. Firstly, nowhere in the entire writings of
Athanasius, does he ever refer 2 Corinthians 3:17 to the Holy Spirit, to him the
reference is to Jesus Christ. And, secondly, the construction of the Latin in 2
Corinthians (Dominus autem Spiritus est)is different to that used by Athanasius in
John 3:6, which shows that he was not referring to this text. By beginning the
phrase with the conjunction "quia", it would be for the purpose of connecting the
words to that which precedes in John 3:6, thus referring the whiole text to the Holy
Spirit!

The testimony of Athanasius is important, as he was of the Greek Church, which
clearly shows that this clause was present in some Greek manuscripts at this time,
or else he could not have quoted it. Because this particular work of Athanasius has
come down to us in a latin translation, its importance for textual purposes is not
diminished in any way, as quite a few of the Greek fathers works have come down
to us in Latin, or other languages (eg. Origen, Tatian, etc).

4. HILARY (315-368) Latin New Testament

"...quod autem de Spiritu, spiritus est; quia Deus Spiritus est"

( J Migne; Pat. Lat., vol. xix-xx; S Hilarii, De Trinitate, fol.225)

= "now that which (is born) of the Spirit, is spirit; because the Spirit is God"

5. AMBROSE (340-397) Greek and Latin New Testament