the spirit, and the water, and the blood - small "s" - earthly witnesses.

Steven Avery

Administrator

A capital "S" there is the largest mistake that you will find in many AV editions, since this is not meant by the apostle John as a Holy Spirit reference. (In the mangled versions, without the heavenly witnesses, anything goes.)

=====================================

1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.


======

King James Bible Debate (modified a bit)
Steven Avery - Oct 14, 2014
https://www.facebook.com/groups/212...=10152452179586693&offset=0&total_comments=12


....the capital S in some editions is a real concern, since it forces the spirit of the earthly witnesses to be the Holy Spirit (awkwardly duplicating verse 7).

Good interpretations of verse 8 can have a couple of ideas, including a reference to the crucifixion and these witnesses.

Luke 23:46
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said,
Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit:
and having said thus,
he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar,
he said, It is finished:
and he bowed his head,
and gave up the ghost.

John 19:34
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side,
and forthwith came there out blood and water.


These last two verses covering the three component earthly witnesses and being written by John is a strong indication of interpretation strength.

Notice that the Johannine 1 John theme of bearing record comes forth in the very next verse.

John 19:35
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true:
and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.


========

Even if your interpretation is different, e.g. sacramental, the Holy Spirit is not the proper understanding there.

And if I have an AV with the capital "S", I change it either mentally or by pen.
Generally, I am pro-PCE as a type of "Received Text" edition of the AV. However, beyond 1 John 5:8, differences tend toward microscopic, and I recommend first and foremost going to any good, solid AV.

=====================================

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS BLUNDER

Cambridge University Press 1985 Blunder
Jerry L. Hooper
http://www.localchurchbiblepublishers.com/wp-content/uploads/CambridgeLetter.pdf



LCBP - Local Church Bible Publishes - joins in error
http://www.bibleprotector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=48

Matthew Verschuur on Cambridge Blunderama Letter
http://www.bibleprotector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=97


Gail Riplinger gets this wrong:
http://www.ourkjv.com/KJB.pdf


=====================================

2015 - more Brent Riggs Absurdity (village idiot special) .. on this topic

"You could print the Scriptures upside down in all block capital letters with no spaces between letters and words and would not effect the inerrancy, purity, perfectness, completeness, exactness, etc. etc. etc. of the Scriptures one iota."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ModeratedKingJamesBibleDebate/permalink/885965581486487/?comment_id=885972361485809&offset=0&total_comments=17&comment_tracking={%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22}


"When you mess with the book.."
To the charlatan, it does not matter whether the Bible refers to the spirit of the Lord Jesus given up at the crucifixion or the Holy Spirit given to men for regeneration. "It's all good".

=====================================

AV 1611 had Spirit, Water and Blood all capitalized, equivalent to none being capitalized
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...27527435.1073741833.1671391851&type=1&theater





This has been on Univ of Penn page, which has been down
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1483


=====================================

BibleProtector, Matthew Verschuur, is for the proper small "s", however in a quirky manner.
This is one example I found.

"Also, I might add that 1 John 5:8 talks about the born again spirit, related to the conscience, which KNOWS it is born again, see 1 John 5:9. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6). Clearly, I do not deny the Holy Ghost's active, important, paramount role in this."

======

The info in Guide to The Matthew's PCE is mixed, right result, reasoning is far too unnecessarily complicated:

Guide to the Pure Cambridge Edition
http://www.bibleprotector.com/GUIDE_TO_PCE.pdf


The same basic ideas from Matthew you can find here:

The spirit case: an overview
https://web.archive.org/web/20120321132823/http://www.bibleprotector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=428


=====================================

Henry Thomas Armfield gives the strong explanation, that only works with the pure Bible text. (many Reformation scholars as well.)
If you have the capital "S", you have to fish around for an interpretation, because your text is wrong.

Henry Armfield Capital S Johannine Comma.jpg


=====================================

From the earlier BibleProtector forum back in 2011:

1 John 5:8 - "spirit..water..blood" - lower case s
http://web.archive.org/web/20120326212822/http://www.bibleprotector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=531

========

The true church of the Bible (1895)
Part II, Instruction for Jews and Unitarians
Chapter II, The Incarnation of God the Son

William Fleming
http://books.google.com/books?id=VgqKNTzACNgC&pg=PA90

The Spirit or Holy Ghost in verse 7 must not be taken as identical with the spirit in verse 8. SS. Athanasius and Augustine teach that the spirit in the latter verse refers to the last dying breath of our Lord when He 'gave up the ghost' (John, xix. 30); and ' the water and blood' to that which issued from His side, opened by the soldier's lance (John, xix. 34), both of which prove that Jesus is truly man. On the other hand, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit in verse 7 testified at Christ's baptism that He is truly God. That testimony is given by

St. Matthew (iii. 16-17): 'And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go. (John, viii. 14).

Hence the Father, the Holy Ghost, and our Lord Himself testify to His divinity; and the water and blood, together with our Lord's last breath, bear witness to His sacred humanity
=========================

Matthew Verschuur shows 1637 Cambridge:

"1 John 5:8 correctly has lowercase “s” on the word “spirit”, as was published in 1638, 1769 and in the Pure Cambridge Edition. Most historical editions of the KJB have lower case “s” on “spirit” at 1 John 5:8, this is a scan from the 1637 Cambridge. "
https://web.archive.org/web/20120322061752/http://www.bibleprotector.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=487

1637 Cambridge Johannine Comma small S.jpg


=====================================

Will Kinney brought up some counterpoint in defense of the capital "S". Will's post is here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/860080037417220/?comment_id=860147360743821&offset=0&total_comments=9&comment_tracking={%22tn%22%3A%22R4%22}

And leads to this article.

“Spirit” or “spirit”?
http://brandplucked.webs.com/spiritorspirit.htm


And I have four posts after that, that I will plan on placing in here. For now, here is a key pic,
from the 1612 Confession of Faith of the English Baptists in Amsterdam! One year after the publication of the AV.

Amsertam Confession.jpg


Please note that this works ONLY with the spirit (small "s") as the context of the earthly witnesses.

===============================

Baptist Confessions of Faith
William Joseph McGlothlin
https://books.google.com/books?id=-jMXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA72


Confession of Faith of Certain English People Living in Amsterdam (1612)

6. That there are three which bear witness in the earth, the spirit, water and blood, and these three are one in testimony,
witnessing that Christ truly died (1 John v. 8) for He gave up the ghost (John xix. 30);
and out of His side pierced with a spear came water and blood (verse 34. 35),
the cover of the heart being pierced, where there is water contained.
========================

John Smith the se-Baptist, Thomas Helwys, and the first Baptist church in England :
with fresh light upon the Pilgrim Fathers' church (1911)
Walter Herbert Burgess
https://archive.org/stream/johnsmithsebapti00burgrich...


=========================

One of the greatest defenders of the heavenly witnesses authenticity was Thomas Burgess (1756-1837). And Burgess was familiar with the exegesis in Greek, Latin, English and more and had a real heart for the meaning within the Bible text. Please read Thomas Burgess on this question of the sense of the earthly witnesses, and how important is the majestic Bible symmetry. (These two books have the same material.)

=================

An introduction to the controversy on the disputed verse of st. John, as revived by mr. Gibbon. To which is added, Christian theocracy, or, A second letter to mrs. Joanna Baillie, on the doctrine of the Trinity (1835)
Thomas Burgess
https://books.google.com/books?id=GyTD51w2lnMC&pg=PA71

... the disputed Verse has the same internal evidence of its authenticity, as that which authenticates the whole of the Epistle of St. John ; namely, the coincidence of its diction and doctrine with the language and reasoning of St. John in his Gospel, with this additional proof in its favour, that the threefold testimony of the Heavenly Witnesses, in the seventh verse, and the name by which the second Person of the Trinity is there distinguished, are peculiar to the Gospel and the Epistle of St. John. The eighth verse is also remarkable as an evidence of the Epistle by its coincidence with the three signs of Christ's death on the Cross, contained in the 19th ch. of the Gospel, ver. 30, 34 : "And he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost,"—yielded up his spirit,—" And one of the soldiers, with a spear, "pierced his side ; and forthwith came thereout "blood and water." The seventh and eighth verses, therefore, are summary confirmations of the two great doctrines of the Epistle.
Please read through p. 73. Beautiful. Amazing.

4. "The sense of the Apostle is very complete without it." [Samuel Clarke]

If the object of the Apostle in this Epistle be

(1.) to assert the Divinity and Incarnation of Christ, and
(2.) to condemn the two heresies, which were opposed to that doctrine; and
(3.) if the seventh Verse contains the threefold testimony of the Heavenly Witnesses to the Divinity of Christ, as recorded in St. John's Gospel; and
(4.) the eighth has the three evidences of the death of Christ on the Cross, recorded in the same Gospel (if these several
positions be evident, as I have endeavoured to prove), then the sense of the Apostle is not complete without both Verses. p.87
==

** the sense of the Apostle is not complete without both Verses.**

=================

Christian theocracy, or, The doctrine of the Trinity, and the ministration of the Holy Spirit, the leading and pervading doctrine of the New Testament, a letter (1834)
Thomas Burgess
https://books.google.com/books?id=il7f7QSBnl8C&pg=PA15

.... To this threefold testimony of the heavenly witnesses, St John refers in his First General Epistle, v. 7:

"There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one."

The three evidences of Christ's death on the Cross, are, his expiration, and the blood and water which issued from his side. " And " he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost" (John xix. 30); that is, "yielded up" his spirit, according to our Saviour's own words:

"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit " (Luke xxiii. 46.) And one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith " true, that ye might believe" (John xix. 34,35).

The evidences of Christ's death, and. therefore of his human nature, St. John has so emphatically confirmed by the assurance of his own personal knowledge of what he saw, as to leave no doubt that he had in view the heresy that denied that the Son of God was come in the flesh; the heresy which he has twice reprobated in his Epistles as the work of " deceivers and antichrists *' (1 Ep. iv. 2, and 2 Ep. ver. 7). The Gospel and the Epistle, by their numerous correspondences in doctrine and diction, mutually prove that they were written by the same person. And of the many coincidences and references which contain the evidence of such identity, none are more decisive than the coincidence of the diction and doctrine of the threefold testimony in both verses with the Gospel of St. John.

Of the external and internal evidences of the disputed Verse of St. John (as far as they can be brought within the view of an unlearned reader), more will be said in a subsequent part of these pages.
=================

These internal evidences and consistency elements are truly amazing and beautiful.
They are helpful in understanding heavenly witnesses authenticity.And some of them (there are many) really impel us to understand the proper small "spirit" in verse 8.

=================

There are two posts that are less salient that can stay over on Facebook. One is some comments on Will's post, the other is a quick look at the Plummer commentary.

Steven Avery
Sept 10, 2015
 
Last edited:

Oseas

New member
Hi Steven

I have long participated in various discussion forums, and countless times I have quoted 1 John 5:v.7 and always do it with an observation/correction, as follows:

1 John 5:v.7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word (Word made flesh-JESUS), and the Holy Spirit (who is a Person and not a Ghost as is written in English language): and these three are One.

In my understanding, Holy Spirit seems more apropriate than Holy Ghost, because Scripture is referring to the Person of the Comfort, the Counselor, the Paraclete, as One with GOD the Father and JESUS, according John 16:v.7 to 15.

I would like to know what your opinion is about

Thanks
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
his leads Hincmar to some thoughts on the number three in 1 John 5:8 which is where he records a song of Ambrose. In this song it is evident that the first several ”three's”are coming straight from Scripture. The first is a reference to 1 John 5:7. The second is a reference to 1 John 5:8, referring to the three types (Latin species) of material that were at the cross Spirit, water and blood yet being one redemption (Ambrose like many others compared 1 John 5:6-8 with John 19:30, 34).

===============================

" [Burgess] Eucherius states three opinions respecting the interpretation of the eighth verse; his own, referring to the crucifixion, (which was also the opinion of Cassiodorus and the Glossa Ordinaria ; )

This may be true of the Glossa, but I see Burgess only mentioning Cassiodorus.
https://books.google.com/books?id=SVD46KoswYsC&pg=PA45

================================

Contra Maximinum, Lib. II. C. 22 §3

[Augustine] Three things then we know to have issued from the Body of the Lord when He hung upon the tree: first, the spirit: of which it is written,”And He bowed the head and gave up the spirit:”(John 19:30) then, as His side was pierced by the spear, ”blood and water.”(cf. John 19:34) Which three things if we look at as they are in themselves, they are in substance several and distinct, and therefore they are not one

=================================

Burgess
https://books.google.com/books?id=DI1QNrUdMpAC&pg=PA25

Such a oneness with God would not have subjected him to the death of the Cross. His Incarnation is proved by his death, and by those evidences of it which are recorded in St. John's Gospel (John 19:30, 34) namely, his expiration on the Cross, and the blood and water
which issued from his side.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Last edited:

Oseas

New member
Greetings in Christ Steve

Reading the above comments about 1John 5:v.8, it is clear that the interpretation was made based on the letter of Scripture, that is, literally, and not by the Spirit who revealed such a great mystery implicit in the person of our Lord JESUS Christ. No doubt that the material things are figures of spiritual things, the parables of our Lord are good examples. But what was commented above has nothing to do with what the Holy Spirit said and revealed in 1 John 5:v.8. .

Revelation 11:v.3-4 :-
3 I will give power unto my TWO witnesses, and they shall PROPHESY a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 4 These are the TWO olive trees, and the TWO Candlesticks standing before the GOD of the earth. The GOD of the earth is the person of the Holy Spirit. In fact, JESUS is still in heaven, but the Holy Spirit is on the earth.

The "TWO Candlesticks standing before the GOD of the earth" are TWO churches - the church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven-Hebrews 12:v.22, and Revelation 7:1-4 and 14:v.1-4, and in the other hand the Church of the Gentiles as said JESUS-John 10:v.16. The TWO olive trees are the TWO SOURCES OF OIL for the TWO candlesticks-two churches- the TWO olive trees are the messages of the TWO TESTAMENTS: the Old Testament and the New Testament.

1John 5:v.8 - There are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in One.

The verse 9 explains:
9 If we receive the WITNESS of men, the WITNESS of GOD is greater: for this is the WITNESS of GOD which He hath testified of His Son. - The OT and the NT -
10 He that believeth on the Son of GOD hath the witness in himself. Why? Because JESUS is the Word made flesh - the Word is GOD. In the beginning -in JESUS - was the Word, without JESUS was not any thing made that was made. GOD-the Word- is Spirit, and He is the FIRST who bear witness in earth.

The WATER is the Word -the Word is GOD, GOD is Spirit- in the person of JESUS. JESUS said: I and my Father are One. JESUS is a source of living water: He said: "whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." - John 4:v.14
JESUS said more : John 7:v.38-39 - 38 He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that JESUS was not yet glorified.)

With regard the blood, what prevails is the Word of GOD. What does the Word of GOD, the source of Truth, say? Hebrews 9:v.11to 22:

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the BLOOD of goats and calves, but by his own BLOOD He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the BLOOD of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the BLOOD of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to GOD, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living GOD?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without BLOOD.

19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the BLOOD of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

20 Saying, This is the BLOOD of the Testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21 Moreover he sprinkled with BLOOD both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with BLOOD; and without shedding of BLOOD is no remission.

In Christ JESUS
Oseas
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Witness of God is Greater

Lamy
https://books.google.com/books?id=EAPOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA468

Comment:
[Lamy] Tischendorf acknowledges that Cassiodorus, a man deeply versed in Holy Scripture, knew the text of the three
heavenly witnesses. In his [Cassiodorus’] work entitled Complexiones in Epistolis Apostolorum, which Scipio Maffei edited
from an almost contemporaneous manuscript, Cassiodorus thus expresses himself on I. Joan., v. [Latin] Cassiodorus, like
St Eucherius, mystically interprets water, blood and spirit, as three symbols concerning the Passion of Christ. To those
three earthly symbols in terra, he opposes the three heavenly witnesses in coelo, the Father, the Son and the
Holy Ghost, and these three are one God. Evidently we have here verse 7. Cassiodorus does not cite it textually, but he
gives the sense of it. He puts it in opposition to verse 8, for he contrasts in coelo with in terra. The last words:”And these
three are one”(Latin: Et hi tres unus est Deus) can be referred only to verse 7, since Cassiodorus refers”the three are
one”(Latin: tria unum sunt) of verse 8, to the Passion of Our Saviour.
It is also to be remarked that Cassiodorus uses the
pre-hieronymian Vulgate and not the version of St. Jerome. Maffei's conclusion is therefore justified when he says: Verse
7 was read not only in Africa, but in the most ancient and the most accurate Codices of the Roman Church, since
Cassiodorus recommended to the monks to seek, above all else, the correct copies and to compare them with the Greek.
(Lamy,”The Decision of the Holy Office on the Comma Johanneum”in American Ecclesiastical Review 1897, p. 468)
 

Oseas

New member

Greetings in Christ JESUS

The interpretation and and theory of S. Ambrose, and Euthymius, and Theophylact saying "the flow of blood and water from the body of JESUS was miraculous", it has nothing to do with Truth. GOD does not make miracle, He makes to happen. Let there be light, and there was light.

By the way, their idolater theory and of those that think like them, it is used until today by the followers of the idolater Roman Catholic Church, which rides upon the Beast of sea-the Papacy-a Gentile Beast, regarding idols or image of Mary, among others, made of clay or of another material, flowing blood or tears. In fact, that idolater interpretation and theory is satanic, and has nothing to do with miracle, it has nothing to do with the body of JESUS. and it happened because GOD made it happens. GOD said: Let there be light, and there was light.

Also the theory of Calvin was more one of someone that was/is blind in this matter.

In fact, no MAN knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any MAN the Father, save the Son, and he TO WHOMSOEVER the Son will reveal Him-Matthew 11:v.27. It's it.
 

Oseas

New member
Witness of God is Greater

Lamy
https://books.google.com/books?id=EAPOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA468

Comment:
[Lamy] Tischendorf acknowledges that Cassiodorus, a man deeply versed in Holy Scripture, knew the text of the three
heavenly witnesses. In his [Cassiodorus’] work entitled Complexiones in Epistolis Apostolorum, which Scipio Maffei edited
from an almost contemporaneous manuscript, Cassiodorus thus expresses himself on I. Joan., v. [Latin] Cassiodorus, like
St Eucherius, mystically interprets water, blood and spirit, as three symbols concerning the Passion of Christ. To those
three earthly symbols in terra, he opposes the three heavenly witnesses in coelo, the Father, the Son and the
Holy Ghost, and these three are one God. Evidently we have here verse 7. Cassiodorus does not cite it textually, but he
gives the sense of it. He puts it in opposition to verse 8, for he contrasts in coelo with in terra. The last words:”And these
three are one”(Latin: Et hi tres unus est Deus) can be referred only to verse 7, since Cassiodorus refers”the three are
one”(Latin: tria unum sunt) of verse 8, to the Passion of Our Saviour.
It is also to be remarked that Cassiodorus uses the
pre-hieronymian Vulgate and not the version of St. Jerome. Maffei's conclusion is therefore justified when he says: Verse
7 was read not only in Africa, but in the most ancient and the most accurate Codices of the Roman Church, since
Cassiodorus recommended to the monks to seek, above all else, the correct copies and to compare them with the Greek.
(Lamy,”The Decision of the Holy Office on the Comma Johanneum”in American Ecclesiastical Review 1897, p. 468)
The above interpretations and theories are irrelevant because are based in the letter of Scriptures, the authors have not the Spirit, the letter kills, furthermore they were familiar with idolatries. In fact they were killers of souls. What prevails is the Word of GOD. The Word is GOD. It is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is Truth.

What does the Word of GOD say? 1 John 5v. 5-6;
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that JESUS is the Son of God?
6 JESUS 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.

Why did JESUS come not by water only? The Water is the Word of GOD, by the way, the Word-I mean GOD- is the Water of Life. JESUS is not only Word -the Water- as GOD the Father is. (John 3:v.5 - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of WATER (the Word) and of the Spirit (GOD is Spirit), he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The Word is GOD. The Word was made flesh - human body - here is the BLOOD. As said John-v.6- JESUS is He that came by water(the Faather) and blood-because the Word-GOD the Father- was made flesh. JESUS said: I and my Father are One-John 10:v.30: (two distincts Persons. The person of the Holy Spirit is linked with the Father and JESUS, as said JESUS -John 16:v.7 to 15. Check it.)
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Placed on:

CARM - Nov 12, 2021
heavenly and earthly witnesses - two different usages of pneuma/spirit
https://forums.carm.org/threads/hea...s-two-different-usages-of-pneuma-spirit.7244/

================

Joseph John Gurney on the two different usages of spirit, which affects the capitalization, when Porson mistakenly claimed Holy Spirit in both verses. This error is also in CARM by TNC.

Remarks on the general tenour of the New Testament, regarding the nature and dignity of Jesus Christ, addressed to mrs. Joanna Baillie [in reply to A view of the general tenour of the New Testament regarding the nature and dignity of Jesus Christ.]. Appendix on sir Isaac Newton's suppression of his dissertation on 1 John v. 7. and 1 Tim. iii. 16
https://books.google.com/books?id=m6sGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR9

Joseph John Gurney, Esq. Author of Biblical Notes and Dissertations

A difficulty has also been objected as to the right acceptation of the word spirit, in the eighth and the seventh verses. Mr. Porson
asks,

“If the spirit, in the eighth verse, refers to the Holy Spirit, what is the sense of the same Spirit witnessing both in heaven andon earth ?”

I see no difficulty in an omnipresent Spirit's witnessing both in heaven and on earth, if the same Spirit were meant in both verses ; but if Augustine, Eucherius, Cassiodorus, and others of the ancient commentators have rightly interpreted (as I conceive they have) the literal sense of the eighth verse, the Holy Spirit is not there meant, but the human Spirit (SA: this should be spirit) of Christ, expiring on the cross.

Again, Mr. Porson asks, “ Why is the epithet [holy,] ” after being twice omitted, added [to Spirit] in the seventh verse ? Beza
says,

“ In order to distinguish one Spirit from the other, ut ab eo distinguatur cujus fit mentio in sequenti versu."

Perhaps, too, because when the Three Divine Persons are connumerated in the same passage, as in Matth. xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, the epithet was usually added. It may also be asked, why, in the original, the expression of unity in the two verses differs, one from the other, both doctrinally and grammatically? The reason appears to be, because in one the unity is essential and real; in the other, adventitious and apparent only; and because the eighth verse is dependent on the seventh, as a relative is on its antecedent.*


* On the grammatical ground of the dependence of the eighth verse on the seventh, see Wolfii Curae Philol. ad locum; the
Archbishop of Cherson’s Letter to Matthaei; and Bishop Middleton’s Doctrine of the Greek Article.

====================

Porson's nonsense can be seen here in the
1790 edition
http://books.google.com/books?id=_X5AAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA397
1828 edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=wX0_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA76

Search for Beza's
ut ab eo distinguatur cujus sit mentio in sequenti versu
leads to his two pages on:

Travis
https://books.google.com/books?id=QwcrAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA9
 
Last edited:

Oseas

New member
Joseph John Gurney on the two different usages of spirit, which affects the capitalization, when Porson mistakenly claimed Holy Spirit in both verses. This error is also in CARM by TNC.

Remarks on the general tenour of the New Testament, regarding the nature and dignity of Jesus Christ, addressed to mrs. Joanna Baillie [in reply to A view of the general tenour of the New Testament regarding the nature and dignity of Jesus Christ.]. Appendix on sir Isaac Newton's suppression of his dissertation on 1 John v. 7. and 1 Tim. iii. 16
https://books.google.com/books?id=m6sGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR9

Joseph John Gurney, Esq. Author of Biblical Notes and Dissertations

A difficulty has also been objected as to the right acceptation of the word spirit, in the eighth and the seventh verses. Mr. Porson
asks,

“If the spirit, in the eighth verse, refers to the Holy Spirit, what is the sense of the same Spirit witnessing both in heaven andon earth ?”

I see no difficulty in an omnipresent Spirit's witnessing both in heaven and on earth, if the same Spirit were meant in both verses ; but if Augustine, Eucherius, Cassiodorus, and others of the ancient commentators have rightly interpreted (as I conceive they have) the literal sense of the eighth verse, the Holy Spirit is not there meant, but the human Spirit (SA: this should be spirit) of Christ, expiring on the cross.

Again, Mr. Porson asks, “ Why is the epithet [holy,] ” after being twice omitted, added [to Spirit] in the seventh verse ? Beza
says,

“ In order to distinguish one Spirit from the other, ut ab eo distinguatur cujus fit mentio in sequenti versu."

Perhaps, too, because when the Three Divine Persons are connumerated in the same passage, as in Matth. xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, the epithet was usually added. It may also be asked, why, in the original, the expression of unity in the two verses differs, one from the other, both doctrinally and grammatically? The reason appears to be, because in one the unity is essential and real; in the other, adventitious and apparent only; and because the eighth verse is dependent on the seventh, as a relative is on its antecedent.*


* On the grammatical ground of the dependence of the eighth verse on the seventh, see Wolfii Curae Philol. ad locum; the
Archbishop of Cherson’s Letter to Matthaei; and Bishop Middleton’s Doctrine of the Greek Article.

====================

Porson's nonsense can be seen here in the
1790 edition
http://books.google.com/books?id=_X5AAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA397
1828 edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=wX0_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA76

Search for Beza
ut ab eo distinguatur cujus sit mentio in sequenti versu
https://books.google.com/books?id=QwcrAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA9

The above comment is very interesting, writers try, among the doubts, to understand the deep mysteries of Three Divine Persons, and even they progress to a certain point in their vision, without however reaching the main goal: Identify who is the character to which it was added the epithet [holy,] In fact, this is very profound and is not easy to penetrate in this wonderful heavenly environment although our privilege to be "living or dwelling" spiritually even in heaven through / by the Word of GOD -the Word is GOD - or in heavenly place in Christ as is revealed in Ephesians 1:v.3-7(among others):
3 Blessed be the GOD and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself (Hallelujaaah), according to the good pleasure of His will,
6 To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved.-JESUS-. Songs of Solomon chap. 2;5;6;8.

THREE DIVINE PERSONS

THE PERSON OF GOD, THE FATHER - THE WORD

Although GOD -the Word- be invisible, the true believers know many things about HIM because JESUS revealed Him (Matt.11:v.27 among others). By the way, in His pray Lord JESUS said: John 17:v.4-10 :
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

THE PERSON OF GOD, THE SON -JESUS- THE WORD MADE FLESH

No need to comment. The Person of JESUS is known from two thousand years ago-Hebrews 1:v.1-3. In fact, the person of JESUS was known many time before His birth by the prophets, the Spirit of Christ was in them-1 Peter 1:v.10-12.
In fact, the Person of JESUS (Behold the man!) is known of men, and is also known of the angels, and He is known of the demons too.

THE HOLY SPIRIT - AN UNKNOWN PERSON


The person of the Holy Spirit is not a ghost as is written in English language, but a Person, and as a Person, as was JESUS in flesh and bones, he is unknown completely. As a Person he has several missions; JESUS said: John 16:v.12-15 and v.8-11:
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of Judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of Judgment, because the prince of this world is Judged.


- The Person of he Holy Spirit has not genealogy as JESUS has; why? Because he is not a Jew.

- As I said above, JESUS, or the NAME of JESUS, is known of men, and is also known of the angels, and He is known of the demons too. But the person of the Holy Spirit has a NAME written (in the Holy Scriptures, course) that no MAN knows, but he himself. I repit: He has not genealogy as JESUS has, he is not a Jew.

- JESUS came from heaven and He was born in Israel. John 6:38 - I came down from heaven(Behold the man!John 19:5)not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me. In the other hand, the prophetic birth of the person of Holy Spirit is not in Israel, but in a Gentile nation. His birth is within the body of Christ-the Church-and as JESUS said, he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, for he shall receive of mine, he shall take of mine. This exposed picture or figure is like the Sun and Moon. The Moon receives light from the Sun and reflets the light over the Earth; Regardings the light of JESUS reflected by the Holy Spirit over the Earth, I can see by analogy in Genesis 1:v.16:-And GOD made two great lights; the Greater Light to rule the day, and the Lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Revelation 12:1-2 & 5.
12 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman(the Church of the Lord JESUS) clothed with the Sun (JESUS and His Light, the Greater Light), and the moon (the Lesser light - the person of the Holy Spirit) under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: (The twelve Apostles of the Lord JESUS)
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 5-And she brought forth a man child - the person of the Holy Spirit- , who was to rule all nations (EXCEPT ISRAEL) with a rod of iron: and her child was CAUGHT UP unto GOD, and to His throne. By the way, about GOD's Throne-Psalm 97:v.1-2CJB say: Adonai is king, let the earth rejoice, let the many coasts and islands be glad.
2 Clouds and thick darkness surround him; Righteousness and Justice are the foundation of His throne.

That said, what was asked by Mr. Porson and answered by Beza has sense, as was exposed above and I transcribe below:

>>>>>
Again, Mr. Porson asks, “ Why is the epithet [holy,] ” after being twice omitted, added [to Spirit] in the seventh verse ? Beza
says,
“ In order to distinguish one Spirit from the other, ut ab eo distinguatur cujus fit mentio in sequenti versu." <<<<<

I highlight also the explanation below mainly where the commenter tries to understand and asks "why, in the original, the expression of unity in the two verses differs, one from the other, both doctrinally and grammatically?" But his conclusion is much much more interesting and impressive when he says: The reason appears to be, because in one the unity is essential and real; in the other, adventitious and APPARENT ONLY(highlight mine); and because the eighth verse is dependent on the seventh, as a RELATIVE is on its antecedent.*

(quoted from above)
Perhaps, too, because when the Three Divine Persons are connumerated in the same passage, as in Matth. xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xiii. 14, the epithet was usually added. It may also be asked, why, in the original, the expression of unity in the two verses differs, one from the other, both doctrinally and grammatically? The reason appears to be, because in one the unity is essential and real; in the other, adventitious and apparent only; and because the eighth verse is dependent on the seventh, as a relative is on its antecedent.*


 
Top